West Coast – November 2011 Policy Update · Web viewLisa Mascaro, staff writer, 10-11-2011, “Democrats plan next step for Obama's jobs package,” LA Times, ... Lawrence O'Donnell,

West Coast 2011November Update

West Coast – November 2011 Policy Update


Table Of Contents

West Coast – November 2011 Policy Update..........................................................................................1Table Of Contents................................................................................................................................2

Environmental Satellites Neg...................................................................................................................4Current Landsats are effective.............................................................................................................5Satellite Data is Strong Now................................................................................................................6Earth Monitoring is Increasing Now....................................................................................................7The Plan Doesn’t Solve Leadership......................................................................................................8The Plan Doesn’t Solve Science Diplomacy..........................................................................................9Increasing Data Doesn’t Solve Global Warming.................................................................................10Environmental Regulations Fail.........................................................................................................11Environmental Regulations Lead to Pollution Havens.......................................................................12No Impact to Global Warming...........................................................................................................13The World is Cooling not Warming....................................................................................................14The Plan is Worse for the Ozone.......................................................................................................15The Plan Leads to Debris....................................................................................................................161nc GEO Overcrowding DA................................................................................................................17The Plan Leads to GEO Overcrowding...............................................................................................181nc EU Counterplan...........................................................................................................................19The European Union Solves Better....................................................................................................201nc Stratosphere Satellites Counterplan...........................................................................................21Stratosats Solve Climate Monitoring.................................................................................................221nc Gender Kritik...............................................................................................................................23The Plan is Masculine and Harmful....................................................................................................24

Payroll Tax Cuts DA................................................................................................................................25Payroll Tax Cut DA 1NC 1/2...............................................................................................................26Payroll Tax Cut DA 1NC 2/2...............................................................................................................27Payroll Tax Cut Will Pass....................................................................................................................28Payroll Tax Cut Will Pass....................................................................................................................29Payroll Tax Cut is Top of the Docket..................................................................................................30Obama Pushing Payroll Tax Cut.........................................................................................................31Political Capital Key Payroll Tax Cut...................................................................................................32Political Capital Key Payroll Tax Cut...................................................................................................33Yes Political Capital............................................................................................................................34Yes Political Capital............................................................................................................................35AT: Jobs Bills Failure Hurt PC.............................................................................................................36AT: Solyndra Scandal Hurt PC...........................................................................................................37AT: Infrastructure Will Hurt PC.........................................................................................................38AT: China Currency Hurt PC..............................................................................................................39Payroll Tax Cut Good – Economy.......................................................................................................40Payroll Tax Cut Good – Economy.......................................................................................................41PTC Good – Obama 2012...................................................................................................................42PTC Good – Canada...........................................................................................................................43Econ Collapse Bad – Laundry List.......................................................................................................44Econ Collapse Bad – China War.........................................................................................................45


Payroll Tax Cuts DA Answers.................................................................................................................46No Payroll Tax Cut.............................................................................................................................47No Jobs Legislation............................................................................................................................48No Political Capital.............................................................................................................................49Solyndra Will Hurt Obama’s PC..........................................................................................................50Infrastructure Will Hurt Obama’s PC.................................................................................................51AT: Jobs = Top Of Docket..................................................................................................................52Jobs Bills Don’t Solve Economy..........................................................................................................53Payroll Tax Cut Doesn’t Solve Economy.............................................................................................54Economy Is Resilient..........................................................................................................................55Payroll Tax Cut Bad – Economy..........................................................................................................56


Environmental Satellites Neg


Current Landsats are effective

Status quo landsats are more than sufficientThomas Loveland, Researcher @ the US Geological Survey Center for Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS), et. al., 4-2008, “Landsat still contributing to environmental research,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Volume 23, Issue 4, pg. 182 Loarie and colleagues present important information about current problems in Earth observation. However, in our opinion, the environmental community has not been left ‘blind’. The Landsat archive is the longest-running and most comprehensive global land record ever created. Loarie et al. incorrectly conclude that the Landsat era ended when the Landsat 7 Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM+) Scan-Line Corrector (SLC) failed in 2003. Although it is true that the reduction in data quality has had an impact on the environmental remote sensing community, it has not been the deadly blow implied in the article. Seventy-eight percent of the data within each Landsat 7 scene are unaffected and continue to be valuable for many environmental applications. Approximately 300 scenes continue to be added to the US Geological Survey (USGS) Landsat data archive each day.

These trends are improvingThomas Loveland, Researcher @ the US Geological Survey Center for Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS), et. al., 4-2008, “Landsat still contributing to environmental research,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Volume 23, Issue 4, pg. 182 The long-term future of Landsat data continuity is improving. NASA and the USGS are currently developing the Landsat Data Continuity Mission, which should result in the launch of Landsat 8 in mid-2011. The administration has recommended formation of the National Land Imaging Program to make global Earth observation at Landsat scales operational far beyond Landsat 8. If this program functions as envisioned, stability of data collection, as called for by Loarie et al., will be achieved and the environmental community will not be left ‘blind to the ongoing changes in land-use patterns across key ecosystems.’

The data gap is decreasing by the dayMichael A. Wulder, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, et. al., 2-15-2011, "Continuity of Landsat observations: Short term considerations," Remote Sensing of Environment, Volume 115, Issue 2, pg. 747Although the potential risk of a component failure increases the longer the sensor's design life is exceeded, the possible gap in Landsat data acquisition is reduced with each passing day and the risk of Landsat imagery being unavailable diminishes for all except a handful of applications that are particularly data demanding. Advances in Landsat data compositing and fusion are providing opportunities to address issues associated with Landsat-7 SLC-off imagery and to mitigate a potential acquisition gap through the integration of imagery from different sensors. The latter will likely also provide short-term, regional solutions to application-specific needs for the continuity of Landsat-like observations.


Satellite Data is Strong Now

Satellite data is strong nowRichard Alley, Professor of Geoscience @ Penn State, authored over 200 refereed scientific papers, which are "highly cited" according to a prominent indexing service, 11-17-2010, “Climate Change Science,” CQ Congressional Testimony, pg. 7Scientific assessments such as those of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (e.g., National Research Council, 1975; 1979; 2001; 2006; 2008; 2010a; 2010b), the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have for decades consistently found with increasingly high scientific confidence that human activities are raising the concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, that this has a warming effect on the climate, that the climate is warming as expected, and that the changes so far are small compared to those projected if humans burn much of the fossil fuel on the planet. The basis for expecting and understanding warming from CO2 is the fundamental physics of how energy interacts with gases in the atmosphere. This knowledge has been available for over a century, was greatly refined by military research after World War II, and is directly confirmed by satellite measurements and other data (e.g., American Institute of Physics, 2008; Harries et al., 2001; Griggs and Harries, 2007).

Satellite data has already confirmed global warmingRichard Rahmstorf, Professor of Physics of the Oceans at Potsdam University, 2008, “Global Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto,” pg. 42In addition to the surface measurements, the more recent portion of the global warming trend (since 1979) is also documented by satellite data. It is not straightforward to derive a reliable surface temperature trend from satellites, as they measure radiation coming from throughout the atmosphere (not just near the surface), including the stratosphere, which has strongly cooled, and the records are not homogeneous' due to the short life span of individual satellites, the problem of orbital decay, observations at different times of day, and drifts in instrument calibration.' Current analyses of these satellite data show trends that are fully consistent with surface measurements and model simulations." If no reliable temperature measurements existed, could we be sure that the climate is warming? The "canaries in the coal mine" of climate change (as glaciologist Lonnie Thompson puts it) are mountain glaciers. We know, both from old photographs and from the position of the terminal moraines heaped up by the flowing ice, that mountain glaciers have been in retreat all over the world during the past century.

Satellite observations prove the glaciers are meltingRichard Rahmstorf, Professor of Physics of the Oceans at Potsdam University, 2008, “Global Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto,” pg. 42I have inspected examples of shrinking glaciers myself in field trips to Switzerland, Norway, and New Zealand. As glaciers respond sensitively to temperature changes, data on the extent of glaciers have been used to reconstruct a history of Northern Hemisphere temperature over the past four centuries (see figure 3-4). Cores drilled in tropical glaciers show signs of recent melting that is unprecedented at least throughout the Holocene-the past 10,000 years. Another powerful sign of warming, visible clearly from satellites, is the shrinking Arctic sea ice cover (figure 3-5), which has declined 20 percent since satellite observations began in 1979.


Earth Monitoring is Increasing Now

NASA is increasing earth monitoring nowSpace.com, “NASA to Launch New Satellite to Track Earth's Weather, Climate,” 10-12-2011, http://www.space.com/13267-nasa-satellite-monitor-weather-climate.htmlA new NASA satellite that will be the first geared at observing key aspects of both Earth's climate and its weather is slated for launch on Oct. 27, the space agency announced today. The National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System Preparatory Project (NPP) is the first mission designed to collect critical data to improve weather forecasts in the short-term and increase our understanding of long-term climate change. NPP's five science instruments, including four new state-of-the-art sensors, will provide scientists with data to extend more than 30 key data records that have been kept for decades by a cadre of Earth-observing satellites. These records, which range from the ozone layer and land cover to atmospheric temperatures and ice cover, are critical for understanding and predicting changes in global climate. "NPP's observations of a wide range of interconnected Earth properties and processes will give us the big picture of how our planet changes," said Jim Gleason, NPP project scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "That will help us improve our computer models that predict future environmental conditions," Gleason added.

The NPP launch provides effective dataSpace.com, “NASA to Launch New Satellite to Track Earth's Weather, Climate,” 10-12-2011, http://www.space.com/13267-nasa-satellite-monitor-weather-climate.html"The timing of the NPP launch could hardly be more appropriate," said Louis W. Uccellini, director of NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Prediction in Camp Springs, Md. "With the many billion dollar weather disasters in 2011, NPP data is critical for accurate weather forecasts into the future." A Delta II rocket will carry NPP into an orbit 512 miles (824 kilometers) above Earth's surface. Roughly the size of a minivan, the spacecraft will orbit Earth's poles about 14 times a day. It will transmit data once each orbit to a ground station in Svalbard, Norway, and to direct broadcast receivers around the world.

New satellites provide sufficient monitoring capabilitiesKathryn Sullivan, PhD and Secretary of Commerce for Environmental Observation, “Testimony by Kathryn Sullivan: Hearing on Polar Weather Satellite Program,” 9-2011, Space Ref, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=38535These NPP instruments will provide more advanced data and capabilities than are currently available on the NOAA POES satellites. In some instances, NPP will provide new capabilities not currently available from NOAA POES. NOAA will continue to use the environmental data from NASA's research and development Earth Observing System (EOS) Aqua and Terra satellites in its operational weather forecasting capabilities as long as these systems remain viable.


The Plan Doesn’t Solve Leadership

Failure to support international environmental policy terminally dooms US leadershipMaria Ivanova, Professor of Environmental Policy and Daniel Esty, Professor of Environmental Law, 2008, “Reclaiming U.S. Leadership in Global Environmental Governance,” SAIS Review of International Affairs, 28.2, pg. 82Recent U.S. involvement in global environmental governance is characterized by a fundamental ambivalence about multilateralism and the international institutions that support it. As Edward Luck explains, “Persistent strains of idealism and cynicism, multilateralism and unilateralism, internationalism and isolationism have long coexisted across the spectrum of American thinking. The resulting ambivalence . . . about the soul and shape of America’s place in the world . . . has yet to be resolved either intellectually or politically, leaving Washington unable to abandon the world organization or to give it full support.” This dual-edged attitude toward international organizations has clearly diminished the U.S. leadership position and its ability to exert influence in the global environmental domain.

Rejection of international protocols tanks US leadershipMaria Ivanova, Professor of Environmental Policy and Daniel Esty, Professor of Environmental Law, 2008, “Reclaiming U.S. Leadership in Global Environmental Governance,” SAIS Review of International Affairs, Volume 28, Issue 2, pg. 82However, the United States has since retreated from its global environmental leadership role. The George W. Bush Administration has obstructed progress on a number of international environmental initiatives: protecting biodiversity, regulating the trade in genetically modified products, and instituting a legally binding treaty banning mercury. The high watermark—or perhaps the low tide—of U.S. obstructionism, however, came with the U.S. “unsigning” of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change in 2001 and once more at the 2007 international climate negotiations in Bali, Indonesia. The only developed nation not having ratified the Kyoto Protocol, the United States was the main opponent in Bali to a proposal for greenhouse gas reductions by 25 to 40 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels. As the United States balked at the emerging Bali consensus, an extraordinary diplomatic breech occurred: the U.S. delegation was booed.

US environmentalism is not key to leadershipRobert Falkner, Professor of International Relations, 2005, "American Hegemony and the Global Environment," International Studies Review, Volume 7, Issue 4, pg. 585Second, there is no simple and straightforward correlation between America's hegemonic position and the type of environmental diplomacy it is likely to pursue. The fact of hegemony as such does not determine whether the United States will promote or oppose the creation of international environmental governance. To some extent, a link can be established between US predominance in the international political economy and the rise of global environmentalism since the late 1960s, analogous to the way in which it promoted global economic cooperation after 1945. But unlike trade and monetary policy, environmental policy has never been central to the US effort to create international order. At times, the US government has used its economic strength and political influence to promote global environmental objectives.


The Plan Doesn’t Solve Science Diplomacy

Science diplomacy doesn’t causally produce cooperationDavid Dickson, Director of SciDev., 2009, “The limits of science diplomacy,” Science Development, http://web.scidev.net/en/editorials/the-limits-of-science-diplomacy.htmlOnly so much science can do Recently, the Obama administration has given this field a new push, in its desire to pursue "soft diplomacy" in regions such as the Middle East. Scientific agreements have been at the forefront of the administration's activities in countries such as Iraq and Pakistan. But — as emerged from a meeting entitled New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy, held in London this week (1–2 June) — using science for diplomatic purposes is not as straightforward as it seems. Some scientific collaboration clearly demonstrates what countries can achieve by working together. For example, a new synchrotron under construction in Jordan is rapidly becoming a symbol of the potential for teamwork in the Middle East. But whether scientific cooperation can become a precursor for political collaboration is less evident.

Science diplomacy ignores politics – results in worse policiesDavid Dickson, Director of SciDev., 2009, “The limits of science diplomacy,” Science Development, http://web.scidev.net/en/editorials/the-limits-of-science-diplomacy.htmlThe truth is that science and politics make an uneasy alliance. Both need the other. Politicians need science to achieve their goals, whether social, economic or — unfortunately — military; scientists need political support to fund their research. But they also occupy different universes. Politics is, at root, about exercising power by one means or another. Science is — or should be — about pursuing robust knowledge that can be put to useful purposes. A strategy for promoting science diplomacy that respects these differences deserves support. Particularly so if it focuses on ways to leverage political and financial backing for science's more humanitarian goals, such as tackling climate change or reducing world poverty. But a commitment to science diplomacy that ignores the differences — acting for example as if science can substitute politics (or perhaps more worryingly, vice versa), is dangerous. The Obama administration's commitment to "soft power" is already faltering. It faces challenges ranging from North Korea's nuclear weapons test to domestic opposition to limits on oil consumption. A taste of reality may be no bad thing.

The US can’t influence other states, laundry list of empirics prove Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, 2008, “ The Age of Nonpolarity,” Foreign Affairs, pg. 1Power and influence are less and less linked in an era of nonpolarity. U.S. calls for others to reform will tend to fall on deaf ears, U.S. assistance programs will buy less, and U.S.-led sanctions will accomplish less. After all, China proved to be the country best able to influence North Koreas nuclear program. Washington's ability to pressure Tehran has been strengthened by the participation of several western European countries--and weakened by the reluctance of China and Russia to sanction Iran. Both Beijing and Moscow have diluted international efforts to pressure the government in Sudan to end its war in Darfur. Pakistan, meanwhile, has repeatedly demonstrated an ability to resist U.S. entreaties, as have Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe.


Increasing Data Doesn’t Solve Global Warming

Satellite observations are inaccurateDaniel B. Kirk-Davidoff, Professor in the Department of Meteorology@ University of Maryland, et. al., 2005, “Analysis of Sampling Errors for Climate Monitoring Satellites,” Journal of Climate, Volume 18, Issue 6, pg. 810Satellite climate observations offer broad and consistent spatial sampling, complementing surface-based observations, which may be compromised by correlations with anthropogenic or natural changes in surface conditions near observation sites, and which may be spatially biased by ease or difficulty of access to a given location on the surface . However, imperfect temporal sampling introduces random errors (due to aperiodic weather noise) and biases that can substantially reduce the accuracy of satellite observations of the state of the atmosphere . Selection of the number of satellites, their orbital configuration, and their scanning pattern all contribute to satellite sampling errors for climate studies.

There are insufficient resources to model climate globallyKuang Song, Ph.D. at the Department of Geography, University of Maryland, 2010, “Tackling uncertainties and errors in the satellite monitoring of forest cover change,” Journal of Climate, http://drum.lib.umd.edu//handle/1903/10523This discussion showed us two important issues: 1. Global forest change has a high spatial heterogeneity that can only be reliably estimated with a census instead of limited sampling. 2. The very high cost and the need for big staff cited necessary to achieve that purpose only imply that automated algorithms are not fully-fledged. Apart from these two issues, there are controversies around another vital theme: the accuracy of remote sensing analysis. In the same paper by Tucker and Townshend, they gave an optimistic evaluation to this topic. They were pleased with the approximately 85% accuracy achievable by combining unsupervised classification, human interpretation, and expert inputs. However, this approach is too labor-intensive that it is not suitable for global studies.

More information won’t lead to cooperative action to prevent warmingSimon Dalby, Department of Geography & Environmental Studies, Carleton University, 2009, "Geopolitics, the revolution in military affairs and the Bush doctrine," International Politics, http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ip/journal/v46/n2/full/ip200840a.htmlBuilding forces to deal with emergencies is not what the recent military revolution has been about, but military operations other than war are clearly part of what armed forces do currently. If climate change sets migration in motion on a large scale, then all sorts of serious problems may require military attention (Smith, 2007), but preventing climate disaster and preparing societies for the coming changes is not something that the current revolution in military affairs equips contemporary states to do. Numerous space-based technologies may have some uses in monitoring environmental changes or facilitating communications in dealing with disasters, but they are not much use in reducing the human disruptions of ecosystems. The overtly military response to the war on terror, and the geopolitical formulation of security primarily in terms of regimes judged unfriendly to the American world order, diverts attention from these other pressing policy necessities for the future, not least by precluding more cooperative ventures in many places.


Environmental Regulations Fail

The only way that they actually influence the environment is through regulations, those failTerry Anderson, Senior Fellow @ Hoover and Robert McCormick, Professor of Economics, 2007, Hoover Digest, pg. 2At least two factors contribute to constant gross emissions per capita. The first is that the United States has shifted the emissions from our local nest to foreign ones--a global example of the NIMBY (not in my backyard) phenomenon. For example, environmental regulations in the United States have pushed cement production to places such as China or Mexico. The result of converting limestone to cement in those places means that carbon is being released there rather than here. In the case of greenhouse gases, however, everyone's backyard is the same.

US action is irrelevant because of international consumption patternsTerry Anderson, Senior Fellow @ Hoover and Robert McCormick, Professor of Economics, 2007, Hoover Digest, pg. 2Moreover, even if the United States continues increasing its sequestration and even if we were to approach net-zero emissions, greenhouse gas emissions in the rest of the world will most certainly exceed sequestration for a long time, because most of the world is a long way from achieving the efficiency and wealth of the U S. economy.

It is structurally impossible for China to regulate emissionsEric Downs, Fellow @ Brookings, China Energy Fellow, 2008, “China’s Energy Policies and Their Environmental Impacts,” Brookings, http://www.brookings.edu/testimony/2008/0813_china_downs.aspxChina’s new energy administration is unlikely to substantially improve energy governance. The organizational changes are tantamount to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Although the energy bureaucracy looks a bit different, its limited capacities remain largely unchanged. Consequently, we can expect to see a continuation of business as usual: conflicts of interest will impede decision-making; the energy companies will remain important drivers of projects and policies; state-set energy prices will continue to contribute to periodic domestic energy supply shortfalls; and the NEA, with no authority to adjust energy prices, probably will resort to “second best” administrative measures to try to eradicate those shortages.


Environmental Regulations Lead to Pollution Havens

Environmental regulations lead to global pollutionArik Levinson, Professor of Economics, “Pollution Haven Hypothesis,” 2005, Personal Publications, http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/aml6/pdfs&zips/pollutionhavens.pdfA second concern related indirectly to the pollution haven hypothesis is that governments will engage in inefficient competition to attract polluting industries by weakening their environmental standards. A welfare-maximizing government should set standards so that the benefits justify the costs at the margin. This does not mean that environmental standards will be equal everywhere. Jurisdictions have different assimilative capacities, costs of abatement, and values regarding the environment. So heterogeneity in pollution standards is to be expected, and by extension industry migration to less stringent jurisdictions does not necessarily raise efficiency concerns. There might be cause for concern, however, if jurisdictions compete for investment from polluting industries by setting environmental regulations below Pareto-efficient levels.

Environmental regulations lead to a race to the bottomArik Levinson, Professor of Economics, “Pollution Haven Hypothesis,” 2005, Personal Publications, http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/aml6/pdfs&zips/pollutionhavens.pdfIn these types of case, countries may lower their regulations below the Pareto-optimal levels in a ‘race to the bottom’ in environmental standards. Depending on the costs and benefits of hosting a polluting industry, they may also raise their standards above the Pareto-optimal levels in what has been called the ‘not-in-my-backyard’ (NIMBY) phenomenon. Levinson (2003) summarizes the theoretical and empirical literature on inter-jurisdictional environmental competition. These questions of trade liberalization and inter-jurisdictional competition, however, extend the central issue of the pollution haven hypothesis. Most empirical studies of the pollution haven hypothesis ask the straightforward, descriptive question: have pollution-intensive industries become concentrated in jurisdictions with less stringent regulations? Early analyses based on cross sections of data typically found that environmental regulations had small or statistically insignificant effects on industry location. However, recent studies using panel data to control for unobserved heterogeneity or instrumental variables to control for the simultaneity of regulations have found statistically significant, reasonably sized pollution haven effects.

Enactment of new regulations leads to a pollution shiftEric Neumayer, Professor of Environment and Development, 2001, “Pollution Havens: An Analysis of Policy Options for Dealing With an Elusive Phenomenon,” Journal of Environment & Development, Vol. 10, No. 2, pg. 78Second, if environmental compliance costs in high-standard countries rise further in the future, then things could dramatically change from what they were before. Markusen, Morey, and Olewiler (1995) show that in industries with increasing returns to scale, costs can rise up to a certain threshold without causing any major relocation. However, because increasing-returns industries tend to make discrete rather than marginal location decisions, if costs rise beyond this threshold, industries might shut down and transfer their operations to lower-standard countries.


No Impact to Global Warming

There is no impact to global warmingJ. Scott Armstrong, Professor of Marketing specializing in forecasting technology, 3-31-2011, “Climate Change Policy Issues,” CQ Congressional Testimony, pg. 7Global warming alarmists have used improper procedures and, most importantly, have violated the general scientific principles of objectivity and full disclosure. They also fail to correct errors or to cite relevant literature that reaches conclusion that are unfavorable. They also have been deleting information from Wikipedia that is unfavorable to the alarmists' viewpoint (e.g., my entry has been frequently revised by them). These departures from the scientific method are apparently intentional. Some alarmists claim that there is no need for them to follow scientific principles. For example, the late Stanford University biology professor Stephen Schneider said, "each of us has to decide what is the right balance between being effective and being honest." He also said "we have to offer up scary scenarios" (October 1989, Discover Magazine interview). Interestingly, Schneider had been a leader in the 1970s movement to get the government to take action to prevent global cooling.

Climategate proves there is insufficient evidence for warmingJ. Scott Armstrong, Professor of Marketing specializing in forecasting technology, 3-31-2011, “Climate Change Policy Issues,” CQ Congressional Testimony, pg. 7ClimateGate also documented many violations of objectivity and full disclosure committed by some of the climate experts that were in one way or another associated with the IPCC. The alarmists' lack of interest in scientific forecasting procedures and the evidence from opinion polls (Pew Research Center 2008) have led us to conclude that global warming is a political movement in the U.S. and elsewhere (Klaus 2009). It is a product of advocacy, rather than of the scientific testing of multiple hypotheses.

Warming doesn’t lead to extinctionScott Barrett, Professor and Director of International Policy, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, 2006, “CATASTROPHE: The Problem of Averting Global Catastrophe,” Chicago Journal of International Law, pg. 72Less dramatic changes are more likely. Abrupt transformations in climate would probably cause few deaths. Many scientists have remarked that climate change would increase the spread of disease, and seasonal weather changes are associated with outbreaks of many diseases, including meningococcal meningitis in sub-Saharan Africa and rotavirus in the US. Moreover, stronger El Nino events have been linked to the prevalence of cholera in Bangladesh, the spread of Rift Valley fever in East Africa, and malaria incidences on the Indian subcontinent. However, while the spread of disease is influenced by the weather, the connection between global climate change and the spread of disease has not yet been established. One point is clear: as Rees notes, "Not even the most drastic conceivable climate shifts could directly destroy all humanity."


The World is Cooling not Warming

The world is cooling quicklyAlan Carlin, PhD in Economics, former Director @ EPA and fellow @ RAND, 3-2011, “ A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 8, pg. 2On the contrary, the evidence is that during interglacial periods over the last 3 million years the risks are on the temperature downside, not the upside. As we approach the point where the Holocene has reached the historical age when a new ice age has repeatedly started in past glacial cycles, this appears likely to be the only CAGW effect that mankind should currently reasonably be concerned about. Earth is currently in an interglacial period quite similar to others before and after each of the glacial periods that Earth has experienced over the last 3 million years. During these interglacial periods there is currently no known case where global temperatures suddenly and dramatically warmed above interglacial temperatures, such as we are now experiencing, to very much warmer temperatures.

Temperatures are moving down nowAlan Carlin, PhD in Economics, former Director @ EPA and fellow @ RAND, 3-2011, “ A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 8, pg. 2There is rather instability towards much colder temperatures, particularly during the later stages of interglacial periods. In fact, Earth has repeatedly entered new ice ages about every 100,000 years during recent cycles, and interglacial periods have lasted about 10,000 years. We are currently very close to the 10,000 year mark for the current interglacial period. So if history is any guide, the main worry should be that of entering a new ice age, with its growing ice sheets, that would probably wipe out civilization in the temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere—not global warming. The economic damages from a new ice age would indeed be large, and almost certainly catastrophic. Unfortunately, it is very likely to occur sooner or later.

Solar variations outweigh human-induced warmingNils-Axel Mörne Morner, former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, 2011, “Arctic Environment by the Middle of This Century,” Energy & Environment, Vol 22, No. 3, pg. 7This is in sharp contrast to the scenarios of IPCC (2001) and ACIA (2004), which predict a unidirectional continued warming leading to the opening of the Arctic basin within this century. Their prediction is based on modelling excluding the effects of the Sun, however. Personally, I am convinced that we need to have “the Sun in the centre” (Mörner, 2006a, 2006b), and doing so, we are indeed facing a new Solar Minimum in the middle of this century. Whether this minimum will be as the past three once were (Figure 6), or it will be affected by anthropogenic factors, is another question. The date of the New Solar Minimum has been assigned at around 2040 by Mörner et al. (2003), at 2030-2040 by Harrara (2010), at 2042 ±11 by Abdassamatov (2010) and at 2030-2040 by Scafetta (2010), implying a fairly congruent picture despite somewhat different ways of transferring past signals into future predictions.


The Plan is Worse for the Ozone

Increased space launches devastate the ozone layerLewis Page, Register Space Staff, 4-1-2009, “Space launches could be capped to save ozone layer,” The Register, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/01/space_rockets_kill_ozone/Currently, global rocket launches deplete the ozone layer [approximately] 0.03%, an insignificant fraction of the depletion caused by other ozone depletion substances (ODSs). As the space industry grows and ODSs fade from the stratosphere, ozone depletion from rockets could become significant ... Large uncertainties in our understanding of ozone loss caused by rocket engines leave open the possibility that launch systems might be limited to as little as several tens of kilotons per year ... limitations on launch systems due to idiosyncratic regulation to protect the ozone layer present a risk to space industrial development. The risk is particularly acute with regard to the economic rationale to develop low-cost, high flight rate launch systems.

The risk posed by space launches outweighs other causes of ozone destructionLewis Page, Register Space Staff, 4-1-2009, “Space launches could be capped to save ozone layer,” The Register, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/01/space_rockets_kill_ozone/American researchers have warned that space rockets could do more damage to the ozone layer than old-school spray-cans and fridges. "As the rocket launch market grows, so will ozone-destroying rocket emissions," said Professor Darin Toohey, atmosphere and ocean scientist at Colorado Uni. "If left unregulated, rocket launches by the year 2050 could result in more ozone destruction than was ever realized by CFCs." Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were banned from use in aerosol cans, freezer refrigerants and air conditioners by the Montreal Protocol in 1987. Some scientists believe that the upper-atmosphere ozone layer - which protects the Earth's surface from harmful solar ultraviolet - will return to normal by 2040 as a result. But Toohey and his collaborators say the potential damage caused by rocket exhaust has been ignored. "The Montreal Protocol has left out the space industry, which could have been included," says the prof.

Launch emissions deplete the ozone – the impact is greater than CFCsNancy Atkinson, Solar System Ambassador for NASA, 4-2-2009, “Will Rocket Launches Deplete the Ozone?,” Universe Today, http://www.universetoday.com/28412/will-rocket-launches-deplete-the-ozone/A new study predicts that Earth’s stratospheric ozone layer will suffer significant damage from future unregulated rocket launches. The study provides a market analysis for estimating future ozone layer depletion based on the expected growth of the space industry and known impacts of rocket launches. The increase in launches could cause ozone depletion that eventually could exceed ozone losses from CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) which were banned in the 1980 s. “′ As the rocket launch market grows, so will ozone-destroying rocket emissions,” said Professor Darin Toohey of CU-Boulder’s atmospheric and oceanic sciences department, a member of the study. “If left unregulated, rocket launches by the year 2050 could result in more ozone destruction than was ever realized by CFCs.”


The Plan Leads to Debris

Debris is approaching critical massCory Doctrorow, former European Affairs Coordinator for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, 5-2011, “Space debris to go critical, reduce all satellites to junk?,” Boingo News, http://boingboing.net/2011/05/11/space-debris-to-go-c.htmlThe amount of debris in the orbits used by our communications and weather satellites is building toward critical mass, a point of no return in which debris starts to smash into active satellites, turning them into more debris that smashes more sats, and so on. There's no cost-effective solution to the space-junk problem and none are on the horizon.

Each new launch leads to space debrisVictoria Jaggard, National Geographic News Writer, 3-28-2010, “Tiny Solar Sail Pitched to Clean Up Space Junk,” National Geographic, http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2010/03/28/tiny_solar_sail_pitched_to_cle/Collisions with even a small speck can damage working satellites or harm spacewalkers. And larger pieces left up there will eventually come down, creating potential hazards if they do not completely disintegrate during reentry. Not to mention that space junk is only increasing with each new launch—some experts say at a rate of 5 percent a year. That much clutter invariably blocks communications signals, making it harder to get reliable data streams from satellites surrounded by junk.

Debris turns the caseJerome Pearson, president of STAR, Inc., a small business in Mount Pleasant, SC, that has developed aircraft, spacecraft, and space-tether concepts for DOD and NASA, 2010, “Removing Debris in Space,” The Bent, http://www.tbp.org/pages/publications/Bent/Features/SP10Pearson.pdfSpace is littered with debris far more dangerous than the litter on our highways, and it’s getting worse. Figure 1 is an artist’s concept of the junk in low Earth orbit (LEO). These thousands of pieces of space junk pose risks to our space assets such as communication and navigation satellites, environmental monitoring satellites, the Hubble Space Telescope, and the International Space Station (ISS)


1nc GEO Overcrowding DA

The plan places more satellites in GEOStevens Water, Private Environmental Monitoring Firm, 2011, “Geosynchronous Orbit (GEO) Satellites,” Stevens Water, http://www.stevenswater.com/telemetry_com/geo_info.aspxA satellite in geosynchronous (or geostationary) are positioned a fixed point at approximately 35,786 kilometers (19,323 nautical miles or 22,241 statute miles) above the earth's surface. At this fixed height, the satellite matches the Earth’s rotation speed and allows the satellites a full-disc view at a stationary position. To stay over the same spot on earth, a geostationary satellite also has to be directly above the equator. Otherwise, from the earth the satellite would appear to move in a north-south line every day. GEO satellites primary purpose is weather imagery to optimize forecasting. In addition to weather imagery, these satellites include instrumentation used in environmental monitoring communications via a relay system.

That leads to conflicts over orbital slotsFrank G. Klotz, Commander, Air Force Global Strike Command, 1-1999, Space, “Commerce, and National Security,” Council on Foreign Relations, pg. 23-4The scramble for geosynchronous slots and frequency allocations may in fact intensify as even more telecommunications satellites are launched and space becomes even more "crowded." For the most part, the ITU has resolved most conflicts. Nevertheless, the occasional breakdowns in the process for managing and regulating this competition give pause for concern. Interference--inadvertent or deliberate--could in fact pose a more immediate threat to U.S. military and commercial interests than any nascent capability on the part of potential adversaries to deliberately attack American space systems in crisis or conflict. The possible interruption of the GPS signal by commercial communications satellites-with all its implications for military operations and the global information infrastructure-is a case in point.

Space conflict leads to extinctionGordon Mitchell, PhD in Communication Studies, 2001, “Missile Defence: Trans-Atlantic Diplomacy at a Crossroads,” ISIS Briefing on Ballistic Missile Defence, http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6.htmlIt is chilling to contemplate the possible effects of a space war. According to retired Lt. Col. Robert M. Bowman, 'even a tiny projectile reentering from space strikes the earth with such high velocity that it can do enormous damage — even more than would be done by a nuclear weapon of the same size!'. In the same Star Wars technology touted as a quintessential tool of peace, defence analyst David Langford sees one of the most destabilizing offensive weapons ever conceived: 'One imagines dead cities of microwave-grilled people'. Given this unique potential for destruction, it is not hard to imagine that any nation subjected to space weapon attack would retaliate with maximum force, including use of nuclear, biological, and/or chemical weapons. An accidental war sparked by a computer glitch in space could plunge the world into the most destructive military conflict ever seen.


The Plan Leads to GEO Overcrowding

Orbital slots are already allocatedJerrad Pierce, Space Analyst, 2004, “Extraplanetary Solar Power,” PTHBB, http://pthbb.org/natural/11_371-XPS.pdfThere are numerous political, particularly international, concerns about XPS systems not the least of which is weaponization. It is facile to imagine the use of “high power” beams from space to military ends, and to dissuade others of the impracticality of XPS as a weapons platform is difficult. There also aesthetic concerns about the deployment of large satellites in orbit or on the moon. Other areas requiring diplomatic efforts are orbit and spectrum allocations. GEO slots are valuable and in competition with other satellite functions. Many of the proposed bands for laser and microwave transmission have been previously allocated (Logsdon, 1981. Diederiks, 1981). Finally, while the matter of investment in power infrastructure is a national policy issue related to security and trade-offs the sheer scale of XPS may require collaboration and joint venture (Logsdon, 1981). Complicating the matter of investment, particularly commercial, are traditions and treaties classifying space as shared global heritage (Diederiks, 1981).

Deployment of new weather satellites is zero-sumPolitical Calculations, Website devoted towards political negotiation calculus, 6-29-2005, “Power from Space,” PC, http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2005/06/power-from-space.htmlSecond, the opportunity cost of the needed orbital real estate is substantial. To consistently provide power for a given area on Earth, the satellite would have to be positioned in geosynchronous orbit, some 22,300 miles above sea level, in order to remain in the same position in the sky above a ground station at all times. The number of geosynchronous orbit slots available for positioning a solar power satellite is limited, which means that a lot of satellites with other uses (communications being the primary one) would have to be potentially denied the use of the orbital slot designated to support generating power from space.

There’s only room for 180 – weather monitoring leads to slot shortageParliamentary Office of Science and Technology, Website devoted to space regulations, 2006, “MILITARY USES OF SPACE,” http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn273.pdfSatellites orbit the earth at anything from a few hundreds of kilometres (km) to tens of thousands. For a given orbit, a satellite must travel at a specific orbital velocity to maintain its altitude. At ~36000 km (geo-synchronous orbit or GEO) this velocity is such that satellites orbit the earth once in 24 hours. The equatorial GEO orbit (geostationary orbit) is popular, particularly for telecoms and weather, as satellites remain stationary over the same point on the Earth’s surface. Because of possible signal interference, there is room in GEO for only ~180 active satellites, so demand for orbital ‘slots’ is high as well as for the frequencies at which they may communicate.


1nc EU Counterplan

The European Union should substantially increase satellite climate monitoring.

The EU solves and creates data uniformityEnvironment and Climate Programme, Space Techniques Research Center, 9-30-2000, “EOPOLE: Earth Observation and Data Policy and Europe,” Environmental Politics, www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/environment/satellites/docs/EOPOLEreport.docAs the Earth observation industry matures it needs a greater uniformity of data policies to help users gain more confidence in accessing Earth observation data and products. Data policies should be more oriented towards specific uses rather than towards users and user groups. The European Association of Remote Sensing Companies (EARSC) and similar organisations can assist by promoting dialogue and agreement between data providers and the value adding industry on, for example, descriptions of data levels, data documentation and processing steps.

The EU solves better because they have a legitimate shot at climate leadershipJohn Volger, Professor @ Keele University and Charlotte Bretherton, Professor @ Liverpool, 2-9-2006, “The European Union as a Protagonist to the United States on Climate Change,” International Studies Perspectives, Volume 7, Issue 1, pg. 1Whatever the continuing influence of U.S. policy innovations, during the past decade, the idea of U.S. environmental leadership has, to put it politely, ceased to be credible. In the words of one Commission official, referring to a range of environmental negotiations in the mid-1990s, “the U.S. has raised sitting on its hands to the status of an art form” (Interview then DGXI Brussels 6 June 1996). U.S. obstructionism and disengagement across a range of negotiations left the EU with a leadership opportunity that it was uniquely qualified to seize:The U.S. is a strong political actor whereas the EU is a slow moving but weighty ship. The Community position has more weight in the long term. The U.S. often cannot define a credible negotiating platform - they cannot think of all the ramifications, on North-South issues for example, as the Community can. In climate, forests and biodiversity the EU is the only leader while the U.S. is absent, blocking or destructive.

The EU solves by creating a global program and strong data sharingEnvironment and Climate Programme, Space Techniques Research Center, 9-30-2000, “EOPOLE: Earth Observation and Data Policy and Europe,” Environmental Politics, www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/environment/satellites/docs/EOPOLEreport.docIt is recommended to initiate a European effort in the field of Earth observation capacity- building, awareness creation and training aimed at the users, both within and outside Europe, especially in less-developed countries. Such an effort is deemed essential to energise the Earth observation market and to ensure that each country and end-user can have independent access to Earth observation data and enjoy the benefits thereof. Additionally, such an effort can improve the much-needed awareness amongst the providers on the specific requirements of the users.


The European Union Solves Better

The EU leads to global cultural exchange of data which solves the advantageEnvironment and Climate Programme, Space Techniques Research Center, 9-30-2000, “EOPOLE: Earth Observation and Data Policy and Europe,” Environmental Politics, www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/environment/satellites/docs/EOPOLEreport.docIt is recommended to initiate European research into the possible development of a compatible data policy for Earth observation and non-Earth observation environmental data. This data policy should include aspects such as metadata, data documentation and (long term) archival. As a first step, such a development could be focused on the marine and coastal environment, in view of the important progress made in this field by organisations such as ICES, IOC and Euro-GOOS. The choice in favour of the marine and coastal environment of Europe could further be motivated pointing to its strong economic relevance, as well as to its unique position in the context of global change and world climate.

EU leadership on climate is key to global solvencyMiranda A. Schreurs, Professor of Comparative Politics @ Free University of Berlin, and Yves Tiberghien, Assistant Professor of Political Science @ British Columbia, 2007, “Multi-Level Reinforcement: Explaining European Union Leadership in Climate Change Mitigation,” MIT Press, http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/glep.2007.7.4.19 The European Union has positioned itself as the international agenda setter in relationship to climate change mitigation. At several critical junctures, the EU and its members have adopted policies and programs that have put it at the forefront of international efforts to address climate change. In January 2007, with an eye towards the post-Kyoto First Commitment period, the European Commission under a German presidency published a communiqué calling for limiting mean temperature increases to 2 degrees above pre-industrial times. In March 2007, the European Council confirmed Europe’s commitment to this approach announcing that the EU would cut its CO2 emissions by 20 percent of 1990 levels by 2020, increasing this to 30 percent should other developed countries agree to take action within the framework of an international agreement.

Several factors make the EU preferable to the United StatesMiranda A. Schreurs, Professor of Comparative Politics @ Free University of Berlin, and Yves Tiberghien, Assistant Professor of Political Science @ British Columbia, 2007, “Multi-Level Reinforcement: Explaining European Union Leadership in Climate Change Mitigation,” MIT Press, http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/glep.2007.7.4.19 The EU’s ability to wield leadership is in part structural; that is, it derives from Europe’s substantial political strength in the global order and international respect in the area of environmental protection. It is also partly instrumental. The EU has effectively used its negotiation skills and the instrumental design of regimes to accommodate the different needs of its Member States and other country actors. Finally, it has exhibited directional leadership, changing the perceptions of others on climate change mitigation.


1nc Stratosphere Satellites Counterplan

The United States federal government should substantially increase earth monitoring from the stratosphere.

The counterplan solves earth monitoring but avoids the high cost of the planAlexey Pankine, Professor of Meteorology, et. al., 2009, “Stratospheric Satellites for Earth Observations,” American Meteorological Society, http://denali.gsfc.nasa.gov/research/purucker/pankine_stratsats_bams_2009.pdfAt present, no investment is being made in developing very long-life stratospheric balloon technology primarily for Earth science applications. The current investments are focused on multiton astrophysical payloads that look upward into space and that usually care little about their geographic location except when they desire a view of either the northern or southern celestial sky. Earth science balloon technology requires a different development path because trajectory guidance is essential and, because payloads are lighter, balloons can be made much smaller. Nevertheless, most technology could be adapted from the astrophysical balloon technology path and thus comes heavily leveraged. The existing balloon launch facilities in Texas, New Mexico, Alaska, Sweden, Australia, and Antarctica could also be used. If the necessary steps to realize the promise of very long-life stratospheric platforms for Earth science are taken, constellations of StratoSats could work in collaboration with other elements of the Earth observation “sensor web” like UAVs and satellites to transform our understanding of the Earth and its atmosphere.

The counterplan solves and creates economies of scaleAlexey Pankine, Professor of Meteorology, et. al., 2009, “Stratospheric Satellites for Earth Observations,” American Meteorological Society, http://denali.gsfc.nasa.gov/research/purucker/pankine_stratsats_bams_2009.pdf The cost of a constellation of 100 StratoSats is less than a cost of a single satellite because they are inherently much less costly and because, unlike with satellites, economies of scale further drive down the price. In addition, StratoSats could allow a more rapid and flexible iteration cycle in instrumentation and observing strategy than is possible with satellites. Once their potential in this regard begins to be realized, we expect that students and professors will find them to be very attractive platforms for their own measurements as well as for educational purposes. Indeed, in the astrophysical community the balloon program is a training ground for students who eventually go on to propose and win satellite investigations. StratoSats could make important contributions in four scientific areas today.

Stratosats dramatically increase earth monitoring capabilitiesAlexey Pankine, Professor of Meteorology, et. al., 2009, “Stratospheric Satellites for Earth Observations,” American Meteorological Society, http://denali.gsfc.nasa.gov/research/purucker/pankine_stratsats_bams_2009.pdfIn summary, the development of StratoSat constellations will enable new science and new observational techniques that will help us to advance Earth science in many ways that can be foreseen today, and, as is common with new platforms, other ways that are as yet only dimly perceived are certain to emerge.


Stratosats Solve Climate Monitoring

Stratosats solve all of the advantages associated with in-space monitoringAlexey Pankine, Professor of Meteorology, et. al., 2009, “Stratospheric Satellites for Earth Observations,” American Meteorological Society, http://denali.gsfc.nasa.gov/research/purucker/pankine_stratsats_bams_2009.pdfFirst, they could validate climatically crucial Earth radiation energy budget retrievals made using satellites and help to eliminate the current diurnal and sun-angle biases; constellations could help reveal the dynamic quality of radiative fluxes in short-term events such as dust outbreaks. Second, StratoSats could study stratospheric and upper-tropospheric chemistry, especially water vapor, which exerts a profound feedback effect on climate, and measure trace gas profiles for unprecedented durations and for regions above 20 km rarely sampled in situ. Third, they could map the Earth’s crustal magnetic field at never-before-achieved spatial scales, producing a revolutionary map of the magnetic Earth that could lead to new understandings of the Earth’s crust. Finally, they could patrol the tropical and midlatitude atmosphere to provide measurements that could improve the predictions of the paths and intensities of storms and, by dropping dropsondes on command, provide adaptive measurements to improve the predictability of weather.

Each new space launch drastically increases the risk of space debrisAustralian Space Academy, 2007, “Briefing on Space Law,” ASA, http://www.spaceacademy.net.au/spacelaw/spacelaw.htmEach space launch usually leaves considerably more than the desired satellite in orbit. Expended rocket boosters, attachment bolts, shields, solid rocket motor slag, and innumerable other items are placed into Earth orbit. Some of these decay (lose altitude) and burn up in the atmosphere - some are large enough to escape complete destruction by ablation and then may pose a potential hazard to life and property on the Earth's surface. In space, materials degrade and detach from satellites; stored energy in the form of unspent fuel and battery vapours may cause explosive rupture and fragmentation of space objects. Collisions between space objects at hypervelocity not only causes damage, but also creates thousands of other space objects (ie fragments of the original objects) which themselves then pose collision hazards to active spacecraft.

We are at critical mass – new launches create a pollution cloud that limits any economic benefit from spaceThierry Sénéchal, PhD from Columbia University, 2007, “Space Debris Pollution: A Convention Proposal,” Protocol for a Space Debris Risk and Liability Convention, http://www.pon.org/downloads/ien16.2.Senechal.pdfWe have reached a critical threshold at which the density of debris at certain altitudes is high enough to guarantee collisions, thus resulting in increased fragments. In a scenario in which space launches are more frequent , it is likely that we will create a self-sustaining, semi-permanent cloud of orbital ―pollution that threatens all future commercial and exploration activities within certain altitude ranges. The debris and the liability it may cause may also poison relations between major powers.


1nc Gender Kritik

Earth space science privileges masculine rationality which reduces people to mere objectsKaren Liftin, Ph.D. University of California, Los Angeles, 1997, “The Gendered Eye in the Sky: A Feminist Perspective on Earth Observation Satellites”, Frontiers, pg. 26Turning to the second assumption, let us consider whether science really does tend to generate rational policy. The belief that it does is a fundamental tenet of "the rationality project," a term Deborah Stone uses to describe the attempt to reduce politics and policy to rational analytic frameworks. This quintessentially masculinist orientation to social life, which interprets all social action through the lens of rational self-interest, "misses the point of politics" since "paradox is an essential feature of political life." The dichotomy between reason and emotion implicit in the rational policy model is one of the dichotomies characteristic of patriarchal modernity. The stated purpose of the global change research, with its heavy reliance on EOS data, is to generate the scientific knowledge that will enable policymakers to make rational decisions; science is assumed to lead to rational action. Scientists and policymakers alike envision a linear process that proceeds from recognizing potential problems in the earth's ecosystem, to understanding the implications, to evaluating potential remedies, to implementing remedies and monitoring them. Yet so much of the research program is devoted to pure science, with human activities included seemingly as an afterthought, that the next generation's policymakers will likely be more confused than today's.

This approach devastates human agency and doesn’t lead to political changeKaren Liftin, Ph.D. University of California, Los Angeles, 1997, “The Gendered Eye in the Sky: A Feminist Perspective on Earth Observation Satellites”, Frontiers, pg. 26But from the perspective of remote sensing, human agency vanishes and global change is reduced to physical processes. Since the "valid picture" transmitted from space omits the main element of the picture, it is a dubious impetus for "rational policy." If history serves as a guide, the mammoth scientific undertaking embodied in the USGCRP is unlikely to become a principal catalyst for policy change even when the results are in after two decades.

The impact is try or die for the negativeKaren Warren, Professor @ Macalester, and Duane Cady, Professor @ Hamline, 1996, “Bringing peace home: feminism, violence, and nature,” pg. 12And the presumption of warism, that war is a natural, righteous, and ordinary way to impose dominion on a people or nation, goes hand in hand with patriarchy and leads to dysfunctional behaviors of nations and ultimately to international unmanageability. Much of the current “unmanageability” of contemporary life in patriarchal societies, (d) is then viewed as a consequence of a patriarchal preoccupation with activities, events, and experiences that reflect historically male-gender-identified beliefs, values, attitudes, and assumptions.


The Plan is Masculine and Harmful

Science won’t drive politicsKaren Liftin, Ph.D. University of California, Los Angeles, 1997, “The Gendered Eye in the Sky: A Feminist Perspective on Earth Observation Satellites”, Frontiers, pg. 26Although environmental policy making is a more contentious process in the U.S. than it is in many other places, there is no strong evidence that science serves as the primary guide to policy elsewhere. Science does not provide the objective facts from which policy decisions are rationally deduced. Rather, scientific information tends to be framed and interpreted according to preexisting discourses. As I have argued elsewhere, this was the case even for the global ozone negotiations, where a comprehensive international assessment representing a scientific consensus was available to all parties. Often as not, the same scientific information can be used to bolster an array of policy positions. If "irrationalities" tend to supplant scientific knowledge in the policy process for other environmental issues, how much stronger will this tendency be for an issue like greenhouse warming, which goes to the heart of industrial civilization's dreams and aspirations?

Patriarchy results in a laundry-list of global problemsKaren Warren, Professor @ Macalester, and Duane Cady, Professor @ Hamline, 1996, “Bringing peace home: feminism, violence, and nature,” pg. 12Operationalized, the evidence of patriarchy as a dysfunctional system is found in the behaviors to which it gives rise, (c) the unmanageability, (d) which results. For example, in the United States, current estimates are that one out of every three or four women will be raped by someone she knows; globally, rape, sexual harassment, spouse-beating, and sado-massochistic pornography are examples of behaviors practiced, sanctioned, or tolerated within patriarchy. In the realm of environmentally destructive behaviors, strip-mining, factory farming, and pollution of the air, water, and soil are instances of behaviors maintained and sanctioned within patriarchy. They, too, rest on the faulty beliefs that it is okay to “rape the earth,” that it is “man’s God-given right” to have dominion (that is domination) over the earth, that nature has only instrumental value that environmental destruction is the acceptable price we pay for “progress.”

The only benefit of increased knowledge is the ability to rationally manage – this doesn’t result in political changeKaren Liftin, Ph.D. University of California, Los Angeles, 1997, “The Gendered Eye in the Sky: A Feminist Perspective on Earth Observation Satellites”, Frontiers, pg. 26Moreover, if certain technologies are the problem, then alternative or "appropriate" technologies might provide the solutions. Rather than succumbing to the temptation to reject science and technology altogether as enemies of the earth, perhaps we should examine the assumptions embedded in remote sensing programs to see whether they tend to reflect the first or second view of science and technology. Such an examination, however, suggests that earth remote sensing, at least in the mainstream, is most likely to fit the interrogatory model of science as power. The ultimate goal of the undertaking is to predict, which, as Francis Bacon recognized over four hundred years ago, is exactly how knowledge becomes power. Earth system science aims to uncover nature's secrets in order to enable policymakers to "manage the earth."


Payroll Tax Cuts DA


Payroll Tax Cut DA 1NC 1/2

Obama’s payroll tax cut will pass nowDavid Espo, staff writer, 10-19-2011, “Yes, parts of the jobs bill will pass,” CBS News, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/19/opinion/main20122726.shtmlPolitical debate aside, significant parts of the legislation seem on track to pass by year's end, when payroll tax cuts enacted a year ago and unemployment benefits are scheduled to expire. The proposed renewal of the payroll tax cut, at $179 billion over a decade, is the largest single item in the legislation and has drawn no significant opposition from Republicans. A proposal to give employers a break on payroll taxes, a $69 billion provision, could pass, as well. An extension of unemployment insurance, likely to pass, carries a price tag of $48.5 billion. Far less likely to become law, given Republican opposition, are the president's requests for $50 billion over a decade for transportation projects, $35 billion to help the states hire teachers and first responders, $30 billion for school modernization and $15 billion for a neighborhood stabilization fund. Nor do Republicans show any interest in accepting the millionaires' surtax that would pay the entire cost of the measure.

Plan costs political capital

< Insert Link >

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


Payroll Tax Cut DA 1NC 2/2

Payroll tax break is key to avoid a double dip recession – top of the docket and Obama is pushingLisa Mascaro and Christi Parsons, 10-12-2011, “Senate blocks Obama jobs plan,” LA Times, lnSen. Charles E. Schumer of New York, the architect of the Democratic message operation in the Senate, was to argue at a Washington forum Wednesday that the proposals are desperately needed to help the country avoid a double-dip recession. The

payroll tax break would provide workers with an average of $1,500 annually. An existing payroll tax reduction, which is worth about an

average of $1,000 a year, is set to expire in December. Obama has proposed extending and increasing that tax break for 2012. "We are struggling now to avoid a recession," said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moodys.com, who has estimated Obama's jobs

package would shave a percentage point off the unemployment rate. "If we allow that to expire ... we face a significant risk of going back into recession." Other elements of Obama's measure are expected to come before the Senate, including ones that would provide $35 billion to states to prevent layoffs of teachers, firefighters and first responders and $25 billion for school modernization. Schumer is preparing legislation that would combine Obama's proposal for a $10-billion infrastructure bank to spur road and highway improvements with a GOP-backed proposal for a tax break for companies that repatriate overseas profits. He hopes the matchup would generate bipartisan support. Advisors to the president argue that Americans are rallying around his call to pass the job-creation plan. The more he talks about it, they say, the more support swells. In a memo to campaign staff Tuesday, Obama strategist David Axelrod said "support has grown by nearly 10%" over the last three weeks as the president has barnstormed for the bill. When Obama travels to Michigan on Friday, he will slightly adjust his message. Rather than urge crowds to tell Congress to "pass this bill," as

he has done for the last month, he will talk about passing it piece by piece, according to one senior administration official who

expects that the payroll tax is likely to be the first provision to come before Congress.

Economic decline causes nuclear warCesare Merlini, nonresident senior fellow at the Center on the United States and Europe and chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Italian Institute for International Affairs, 5-30-2011, “A Post-Secular World?”, Survival, Vol. 53 Issue 2, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00396338.2011.571015Two neatly opposed scenarios for the future of the world order illustrate the range of possibilities, albeit at the risk of oversimplification. The first scenario entails the premature crumbling of the post-Westphalian system. One or more of the acute tensions apparent today evolves into an open and traditional conflict between states, perhaps even involving the use of nuclear weapons. The crisis might be triggered by a collapse of the global economic and financial system, the vulnerability of which we have just experienced, and the prospect of a second Great Depression, with consequences for peace and democracy similar to those of the first. Whatever the trigger, the unlimited exercise of national sovereignty, exclusive self-interest and rejection of outside interference would self-interest and rejection of outside interference would likely be amplified, emptying, perhaps entirely, the half-full glass of multilateralism, including the UN and the European Union. Many of the more likely conflicts, such as between Israel and Iran or India and Pakistan, have potential religious dimensions. Short of war, tensions such as those related to immigration might become unbearable. Familiar issues of creed and identity could be exacerbated. One way or another, the secular rational approach would be sidestepped by a return to theocratic absolutes, competing or converging with secular absolutes such as unbridled nationalism.


Payroll Tax Cut Will Pass

PTC will pass now – Obama pushErica Werner, staff writer, 10-26-2011, “For Obama, new focus on the piecemeal,” AP, http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jBBAuCkwwz36b0l5ZSe63veDz47Q?docId=c480f4a9b7634e9f8e0fd60ddd74c5efCongress has shown only rare signs of late of giving the president what he wants, agreeing recently to three long-

delayed free trade deals, as well as a bill overhauling the patent system. Republicans may well agree to some elements in Obama's

jobs bill, including extending payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits. But the outlook for major legislative achievements is dim for the rest of Obama's term, and so the White House intends to stay focused on highlighting congressional inaction and the steps Obama can take on his own. Announcements are planned weekly through the end of the year, sometimes on items so narrow they affect individual communities. Obama's hardly the first president to go small. Then-President Bill Clinton proposed dozens of small-bore programs such as supporting school uniforms in his successful 1996 re-election campaign, low-cost

initiatives designed to appeal to targeted voters. George W. Bush promoted volunteering and foster care, issues that allowed him to trumpet his "compassionate conservative" credentials without spending too much political capital. Executive power and the bully pulpit can be potent tools for presidents, ones that Congress and

campaign-trail opponents can never take away. For Obama, hemmed in by a rambunctious House GOP majority and a Republican Party

thirsting to take his job next year, they may be among the few strategies he has left. "I do think he's going to continue to do more of this, and I do think the voters will say at least you're trying here," said Brendan Daly, former spokesman to House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and now a public relations executive at Ogilvy Washington. "He's the president. He's got to try to do everything he can."

New strategy – can bully the congress into action. Kai Wright, staff writer, 10-14-2011, “Is President Obama’s Jobs Drumbeat Working?”ColorLines, http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/10/is_president_obamas_jobs_drumbeat_working.htmlBut what Obama’s new insistence on a jobs agenda proves is this: the presidency is, in fact, a powerful bully pulpit. No, he can’t just wave a magic wand and pass bills. No one credible has ever argued that. What he can do is use the substantial power of his office to bully Congress into action, or at least into focusing on the right problem. The first step in doing so is, as the president has said, taking the discussion to the voters. Every time a president speaks, it’s news. So he controls the news cycle every day, if he so chooses, and if he talks about jobs every day, that’s what we’ll all be talking about. The second step is negotiating from the place of strength that this rhetorical bullying creates. And we will all desperately need that strength when the

deficit-reduction process reaches its grim climax this winter. So let’s hope Marshall is onto something when he says we might be at a turning point in Washington.

Extending the payroll tax cut will pass – bipart supportGail Russell Chaddock, 10-12-2011, “Plan B on Obama jobs bill,” CSM, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/1012/Plan-B-on-Obama-jobs-bill-is-to-take-it-up-piecemeal.-What-will-flyHere’s how some of the leading elements of Mr. Obama's jobs bill are likely to fare standing on their own: • $240 billion to extend a 2 percent Social Security payroll tax cut through 2012. While supporting the concept of tax cuts, House Republicans are wary of the jolt to workers when this payroll tax reverts to its full level in 2013. They also oppose paying for it with higher taxes for the highest income-earners. Still, cutting taxes is instant common ground between the White House and a new House GOP majority. So far, the public doesn’t view this measure as sapping resources for a popular entitlement program.


Payroll Tax Cut Will Pass

Payroll tax cut will pass now – Obama’s moving it forward piecemealJoyce Jones, 10-12-2011, “The American Jobs Act: Plan B,” http://www.bet.com/news/politics/2011/10/12/the-american-jobs-act-plan-b.htmlFollowing its foreseen defeat in the Senate Tuesday night, the American Jobs Act is down, but not out, and it’s time for Plan B: breaking down the bill into pieces that are likely to pass. “The Senate’s action last night proved that the month-long

campaign that the White House has been on to promote the president’s bill failed,” Cantor said at a press conference on Wednesday. “And it demonstrated as well that the president could not even get the necessary support in his own party to pass the bill.” President Obama has for

weeks said that he expected the $447 billion package to pass in its entirety but, anticipating the inevitable, it seems, he met with Democratic leaders last Friday to discuss how to move forward the elements that will get bipartisan support, such as the payroll tax holiday, a tax credit for businesses that hire veterans and the long-term unemployed and funding to save and create jobs for teachers, police and firefighters.

GOP will support extending the payroll tax cutToledo Blade, 10-14-2011, “What now for jobs bill?” http://www.toledoblade.com/Editorials/2011/10/14/What-now-for-jobs-bill-2.htmlActing U.S. Commerce Secretary Rebecca Blank told The Blade's editorial board this week that the Obama Administration plans to split the jobs bill into four pieces and reintroduce them separately, in an effort to salvage at least parts of the measure. "This is exactly the kind of situation where government spending can make a difference," the secretary said. "Short-term investment is absolutely compatible with long-term deficit reduction." As they pick the jobs bill apart, Republican lawmakers may be most likely to favor the extended payroll tax cut. The infrastructure provision — which would permit borrowing at record-low interest rates to pay for work that must be done anyway — would have the greatest long-term effects. Both remain worth enacting, as do the other key elements of the jobs bill.

PTC is sure to passJulie Pace, staff writer, 10-17-2011, “For a jobs bill in pieces, Obama hits road in NC,” AP, http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hvb6_FBVMsEqYupvgLNPt2UcrM8A?docId=ec1881ece0f34660b63dd3bfc25865f0More broadly, some aspects of Obama's jobs agenda are expected to become law this fall. The most likely include extending tax breaks for businesses that buy new equipment, and offering a $4,800 tax credit to companies that hire veterans. There's also bipartisan support for repealing a law that requires the withholding of 3 percent of payments to government contractors. Democrats and the White House, meanwhile, are confident that Obama's call to extend cuts in Social Security payroll taxes will pass. A two percentage point payroll tax cut enacted last year expires at the end of the year; Obama has proposed cutting it by an additional percentage point and extending the cut to the first $5 million of a company's payroll.


Payroll Tax Cut is Top of the Docket

PTC coming up soonRosalind Helderman, staff writer, 10-21-2011, “Next up for Obama jobs bill votes: spending on roads, bridges,” Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/next-up-for-obama-jobs-bill-votes-spending-on-roads-bridges/2011/10/21/gIQAFi5r3L_blog.htmlObama has asked his Democratic allies in the Senate to hold a series of votes in coming weeks on other planks of his American Jobs Act, including tax credits for businesses that hire veterans and the long-term unemployed, an extension of benefits for unemployed workers and an extension of a payroll tax holiday.

Top priority for Obama – will push it firstLisa Mascaro, staff writer, 10-11-2011, “Democrats plan next step for Obama's jobs package,” LA Times, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/11/nation/la-na-senate-jobs-20111012When Obama travels to Michigan on Friday, he will slightly adjust his message. Rather than urge crowds to tell Congress to "pass this bill," as he has done for the last month, he will talk about passing it piece by piece, according to one senior administration official who expects that the payroll tax is likely to be the first provision to come before Congress.

Payroll Tax is top of the docketHotline, 10-12-2011, “Can’t Get the Job(s Bill) Done,” Hotline, lnNow that Obama's jobs bill has died, Senate Dems are moving to Plan B: disassembling the package and pushing for votes on pieces they hope GOPers will pay a political price for refusing to support. Obama and Dem leaders, who conferred last week, already discussed how to move its most popular elements. Scant on specifics, they said a one-year extension of a payroll tax-rate reduction for employees is high on the list. That cut runs through December under a deal enacted last year (Friedman, National Journal, 10/11).


Obama Pushing Payroll Tax Cut

Obama is pushing payroll tax extension hardDave Boyer and Sean Lengell, 10-13-2011, “Obama vows to fight for $447 billion jobs bill,” Washington Times, lnPresident Obama vowed Wednesday he "will not take no for an answer" from Republican senators who stood unified against his

$447 billion jobs bill, as Democratic leaders regrouped and moved forward with a Plan B. "We will keep organizing and we will keep pressuring and we will keep voting until this Congress finally meets its responsibilities and actually does something to put people back to work and improve the economy," Mr. Obama said at the American Latino Heritage Forum in Washington. "The time for games and politics is over. Too many in this country are hurting for us to stand by and do nothing." On Tuesday evening the president's measure fell short of the 60 votes it needed to keep the president's bill alive. Every Republican senator in the chamber voted against the bill, while two Democrats also opposed it. The final tally was 50-49 after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, switched his "yes" vote to "no," a technical move that will allow him to bring up the measure again. The president's job package was touted as a way to cut payroll taxes, give businesses incentives for hiring the unemployed, extend unemployment benefits and boost spending on construction projects for schools, roads and bridges.

Obama pushing piecemeal jobs approachVindy, 10-13-2011, “Defeat of Obama’s jobs bill opens door to new strategy,” http://www.vindy.com/news/2011/oct/13/defeat-of-obama8217s-jobs-bill-opens-doo/Since it was no secret going into Tuesday’s Senate session that the Republicans would put up roadblocks, President Obama said during a

visit to Pittsburgh that he would attempt to build support for the package by submitting it piecemeal. In other

words, each provision would be contained in a separate bill. There’s political advantage to this approach: It would force the Republicans to explain why they support certain provisions and oppose others, rather than letting them hide under a blanket rejection. Indeed, it would be instructive to see how Sen. McConnell and other members of the GOP caucus on Capitol Hill can justify their support of tax cuts to corporations, while opposing any funding for jobless benefits, or money for local governments so police officers, firefighters and school teachers can remain on the job. The piecemeal strategy would also force members of Congress who oppose spending on roads, bridges and other infrastructure to explain to their constituents why, in the midst of high unemployment in the building trades, such an investment is a waste of money.

Obama pushesSteve Johnson, staff writer, 10-13-2011, “Bold action on jobs needed now: Obama aide Sperling,” Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/13/us-usa-economy-sperling-idUSTRE79C3W420111013(Reuters) - The case for bold action to put Americans back to work is overwhelming, a top White House adviser said on Thursday, and opponents are turning their backs on the millions of the country's long-term unemployed. The Senate defeated President Barack Obama's $447 billion job-creation plan earlier this week but the White House says it will keep pushing Congress to do more to help boost hiring. Gene Sperling, director of the National Economic Council, said opponents of the bill were "turning a blind eye" to those who have been out of work for six months or more, roughly 45 percent of the 14 million Americans without jobs. "There is no question that the best thing for our economy right now is to get a large, bold, demand injection through the American jobs act now," Sperling said at the Financial Times' View from the Top conference in New York. The longer people go without work, the more their skills erode and the bleaker their prospects of getting hired anew, Sperling said. He noted that the average jobless American has been out of work 40.5 weeks, the highest on record going back to 1948. In 1983, the average was 21 weeks, he said. Republicans in the Senate objected to plans to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for some measures of the plan and favor relaxing business regulations instead. Some have dismissed the plan as a reheated version of Obama's 2009 stimulus, which helped ease the pain of the worst recession since the 1930s but failed to bring the jobless rate below 8 percent as the White House had promised. Sperling cited forecasts by independent economists, including at major Wall Street banks, who said the jobs initiative would add nearly 2 million additional jobs, crucial for an economy that some fear is nearing another recession. "We don't want to look back and say we took the risk of sitting on our hands and conducting politics as usual" while letting the economy fall back into a recession, he said. U.S. growth slowed sharply in the second quarter and nearly flat-lined in the first. Obama has said he may break up the bill to push it through Congress. Some elements that might be salvaged in

another form, include extensions of a payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits.


Political Capital Key Payroll Tax Cut

Capital is key – Obama is putting on the full court pressFrontrunner, 10-13-2011, “Obama Vows to Continue Fighting For His Jobs Bill,” lnLawrence O'Donnell, on MSNBC's Last Word (10/12), said the President is "obviously going to keep the political pressure on Republicans on the jobs bill and see if he can turn that political pressure into legislative pressure." Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean added, "The President really has had a total change of tactics

since the jobs speech. ... He's in fighting form ," and has "positioned himself now as a champion in the middle class, a champion of ordinary working Americans." Politico (10/13, Epstein, 25K) reported that the President yesterday "endorsed"

Senate Democrats' plan to "break up the bill and try to pass it in smaller pieces" because he is "determined to see Congress vote on the substance of his bill." The President is quoted as saying, "We'll give members of Congress a chance to vote on whether they think we should keep teachers out of work or put them back in the classroom where they belong, teaching our kids. They'll get a chance to vote on whether they think that construction workers should stay idle while our roads and bridges are falling apart or whether we should put these men and women back to work rebuilding America." The Hill (10/13, Cohn) said the White House "launched a proactive effort on Wednesday to clarify the administration's intent to 'not take "no" for an answer' in their ongoing fight for passage of President Obama's $447 billion jobs package." White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer "followed up on Obama's speech with a blog post on the bill" in which he said, "The next step now is for Congress to take up each individual piece of the American Jobs Act. Will [Republicans] oppose each of these common-sense measures that will get the American people back to work and put money in the pockets of middle class families?"

Obama push gets it through. Geneva Sands-Sadowtiz, staff writer, 10-11-2011, “Schumer predicts jobs bill won’t receive any GOP votes,” The Hill, http://thehill.com/video/senate/186775-schumer-predicts-jobs-bill-wont-receive-any-gop-votesSen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he doesn't believe President Obama's jobs bill will receive enough support to move forward today, but over the coming months Congress will be able to come to an agreement on a plan that will help create jobs. "We're not going to get their [Republican] votes today, but here's what I think is going to happen. The president is going out to the people and he's making the distinction, which is very clear that Democrats are for a jobs bill to get the country moving, Republicans are not," said Schumer on MSNBC Tuesday. The Senate is scheduled to vote on the president’s plan Tuesday evening, but it is not expected to win the 60 votes required to move forward. Schumer said he believes public pressure will force some Republicans to eventually vote in favor of at least part of Obama's jobs proposal. He predicted that the jobs bill will gain support over the next few months. The New York senator

said assuming the bill doesn't pass tonight, it will be moved though Congress piece by piece going forward. "Each of these pieces had broad support among the American people," said Schumer. He cited infrastructure investment,

the payroll tax cut and preventing teacher layoffs as potential points of agreement between Democrats and Republicans. "As we draw the line on the specific issues I think you may find the coming together that we're not going to find on the vote today," he added.

PC overcomes opposition to millionaires tax – gaining political tractionKathleen Hennessey, staff writer, 10-22-2011, “Republicans in Congress are in a quandary on jobs,” LA Times, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/22/nation/la-na-restless-gop-20111023The push comes as Congress begins a weeks-long political volley over jobs legislation. The Democratic-led Senate has said it will bring up slices of the Obama bill, rewritten to pair spending with a popular tax on people

making more than $1 million a year. Republicans, who have sworn to oppose all tax increases, know they are in for series of tough votes. "President Obama hasn't closed the sale with the public on his latest stimulus, but one theme does appear to resonate. It may be the result of larger environmental conditions, or he may be moving the needle himself, but Obama's 'tax the rich' mantra is getting traction," said Steven Law, president of the GOP advocacy group Crossroads GPS, wrote in a memo Friday.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/22/nation/la-na-restless-gop-20111023


Political Capital Key Payroll Tax Cut

Tough sell politicallyCatherine Dodge, staff writer, 10-4-2011, “Extending Payroll Tax Cut Is Hard Sell as 2011 Benefit Unproven,” Bloomberg, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-05/extending-payroll-tax-cut-is-hard-sell-as-2011-benefit-unproven.htmlIn selling an expanded payroll tax cut to lawmakers, the Obama administration faces the predicament it confronts in defending its $825 billion stimulus package: making a case that the economy would be worse without it. “Politically, it’s difficult to make that argument,” said Chris Low, chief economist at FTN Financial in New York. “It was not easy to get that tax cut through, and it will be even harder to extend it.”

PC is key – won’t be easy to get a deal with GOPDavid Jackson, staff writer, 10-14-2011, “Obama, GOP push competing jobs plans,” The Oval, http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/10/obama-gop-push-competing-jobs-plans/1Look for President Obama and congressional Republicans to spend the next several weeks arguing that they have a real jobs plan, and the other guys don't want to cooperate. For Obama, it's the American Jobs Act, which Senate Republicans have blocked, a package of tax cuts for

employers and infrastructure projects for workers that the president says he will keep pushing piece by piece. "The Republicans haven't given a good answer as to why they have not agreed to wanting to rebuild our roads and our bridges and our schools," Obama said this week in promoting his $447 billion plan. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, responded by telling Obama in a phone call that the GOP does have a jobs plan, one that includes tax reform and fewer regulations on business. "I want to make sure you have all the facts," Boehner told Obama, according to Boehner's office. Boehner and other Republicans say Obama's $447 billion plan is too expensive and relies too much on tax hikes that will slow the economy. Obama and aides said their plan will put people back to work right away -- the GOP plan won't -- and that their tax increases affect only the nation's wealthiest Americans. After Boehner disclosed his conversation with Obama yesterday, White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer tweeted: "It is a simple fact that economists that have looked at the House GOP Jobs Plan say it does not create jobs or help the economy now." The question over the next few weeks is whether the Obama White House and congressional Republicans can strike some kind of deal -- something aides on both sides would like, given the specter of the 2012 elections. And there are signs of hope -- Boehner has talked about backing a big highway bill, which seems to track Obama's proposal for infrastructure projects. Some GOP members have also talked about extending the payroll tax cut they and Obama agreed to last year.

Obama, meanwhile, says he's still willing to work with Republicans. "If Sen. (Mitch) McConnell or Speaker Boehner say to me, you know what, we want to get some infrastructure built in this country, we think that putting construction workers back to work is important -- I'll be right there,"Obama said. "We'll be ready to go. If they are willing to renew the payroll tax as we worked on together in December, I'll be ready to go." It won't be easy, as our colleague Richard Wolf pointed out in looking at the parties' competing visions on jobs: The latest war of words between the president and congressional Republicans isn't likely to be resolved soon, since they're each working from vastly different talking points.

Will pass but PC is keyKonrad Yakabuski, staff writer, 10-12-2011, “Out-of-work Americans are the real losers in jobs bill spat,” The Gloe and Mail, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/out-of-work-americans-are-the-real-losers-in-jobs-bill-spat/article2198835/The payroll tax cuts likely stand the best chance of getting a majority of votes in both houses and overcoming a Republican filibuster in the Senate. But even that is no slam dunk.


Yes Political Capital

Latest strategy proves hes building PCRichard Wolf, staff writer, 10-27-2011, “Obama uses executive powers to get past Congress,” USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-10-26/obama-executive-orders/50942170/1"It's the executive branch flexing its muscles," presidential historian and author Douglas Brinkley says.

"President Obama's showing, 'I've still got a lot of cards up my sleeve.'" The cards aren't exactly aces, however. Unlike acts of Congress, executive actions cannot appropriate money. And they can be wiped off the books by courts, Congress or the next president. Thus it was that on the day after Obama was inaugurated, he revoked one of George W. Bush's executive orders limiting access to presidential records. On the very next day, Obama signed an executive order calling for the Guantanamo Bay military detention facility in Cuba to be closed within a year. It remains open today. Harry Truman's federal seizure of steel mills was invalidated by the Supreme Court. George H.W. Bush's establishment of a limited fetal tissue bank was blocked by Congress. Bill Clinton's five-year ban on senior staff lobbying former colleagues was lifted eight years later — by Clinton. "Even presidents sometimes reverse themselves," says Paul Light, a professor of public service at New York University. "Generally speaking, it's more symbolic than substantive." Not in all cases. Executive orders have been used to make major policies since George Washington's first order in 1789. Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War. Theodore Roosevelt protected 130 million acres of land and created five national parks. Franklin Roosevelt established internment camps during World War II. Gerald Ford used a presidential proclamation to pardon Richard Nixon in 1974. They're also used in situations such as the one Obama faces today, with a contrarian Congress blocking legislation. Truman foresaw that trouble for his Republican successor, Dwight Eisenhower, who was coming to the Oval Office after having served as a five-star Army general. "He'll sit here, and he'll say, 'Do this! Do that!' And nothing will happen," Truman said. Clinton used the tactic in 1998 during the Whitewater scandal, which was crippling his chances of moving legislation through a Republican Congress. His emphasis on executive orders led White House aide Paul Begala to quip in The

New York Times: "Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kind of cool." Obama's latest strategy serves as a way to take what limited actions he can while putting pressure on Congress to go further and pass pieces of his $447 billion jobs bill. Senate

Republicans have blocked such action, and the House won't consider it. "Rarely have we had a greater temptation or need or desire to do this," says congressional scholar Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, pointing to

Republicans' efforts to stop Obama's agenda. "It shows a strong, vigorous president," says David Abshire, a former counselor to Ronald Reagan who heads the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress. "From a leadership point of view, it's a win-win." Others see the move toward executive orders as blatantly political. "If they are valuable and they are legal, why didn't he do this two years ago?" says Todd Gaziano, director of legal and judicial studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation. The White House says there's more to come. "This president is not going to sit around," says communications director Dan Pfeiffer. "You're going to see the administration pick up the pace."

Obama’s new strategy is working – polls, dems rallying and GOP on the defensiveSam Youngman, staff writer, 10-19-2011, “President Obama's strategy on jobs is working — even if Americans aren’t,” The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/obama-rerun/188343-presidents-strategy-is-working-even-if-americans-arentIt’s certainly not pretty, but darn if it doesn’t appear to be working. President Obama’s newfound message

discipline on jobs and his two-pronged attack on the GOP are providing the beleaguered president with new signs of life not long after many were wondering if he had anything left. No, it hasn’t produced a single job, and it might not for a long time, if ever, but this is what winning campaigns look like when a candidate is running against strong economic headwinds in an election likely to be defined by the economy. It seems shocking that Obama the underdog is putting Republicans on defense, but that is exactly what’s happening. In a role reversal from the beginning of the year, it is now Republicans in Congress who are clamoring for bipartisan cooperation. And if we learned anything from Obama this summer, it’s that appeals for bipartisanship are the clarion call of the party that’s back-pedaling. While

the majority of polls are still bleak for Obama, there are suddenly silver linings for the Chicago team. An ABC/Washington Post poll this month saw Obama enjoying enormous gains across the board on the question of whether voters trust the president or Republicans in Congress more to create jobs. In September, 37 percent of independents said Obama, while 42 percent said Republicans. A month later, the poll was much better for the president, with 44 percent saying they trust Obama more and only 31 percent favoring the GOP. The new discipline is working with Democrats, too. After almost three years of

begging Obama to drive home a consistent message on jobs, Democrats are starting to rally behind the president. Sixty-nine percent of Democrats in the ABC/Post poll trusted Obama on jobs in September. That number is now up to 79 percent.


Yes Political Capital

Student debt focus boosted Obamas PCStacy Kaper, staff writer, 10-26-2011, “Student-Loan Relief Is Good Politics,” The Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/student-loan-relief-is-good-politics/247432/Despite the limitations, it is hard to argue that Obama has much to lose. Indeed, he stands to gain politically for responding to a critical issue, as student loan debt is now surpassing credit card debt. Banks and other lenders remain politically unpopular. Their representatives grumbled that the action would force some to accept early payoffs that would limit their earnings, but noted the plan would not delve into the bigger, more lucrative private loan market as some had feared. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's office took a preemptive strike against Obama early on Wednesday by releasing a series of articles that said the administration's move last year to discontinue the FFEL program (which gave lenders government subsidies for offering student loans) cost the country jobs. But neither complaint is likely to be heard over the applause for a break for students. "It's just one more disdainful smack at investors and Wall Street," said Charles Gabriel, an analyst with Capital Alpha Partners. But, Gabriel added, "It is smart politics on Obama's part. It's a modest

political plus. It really responds to those who are beginning to protest about economic inequality in the Occupy Wall Street movement."

Obama has political weapons Alister Bull, staff writer, 10-26-2011, “Analysis: Obama's moves pack political rather than economic heft,” Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/26/us-obama-jobs-message-idUSTRE79P0J720111026(Reuters) - President Barack Obama is bombarding Americans with job initiatives that may lack economic heft but show him as an activist leader compared to a 'do-nothing' Congress as he campaigns for re-election in 2012. Obama will have rolled out three separate measures in three days when he wraps up a tour of electorally vital western states on Wednesday, and

more moves are coming. White House Communications Director Dan Pfieffer said the Democratic president will use executive orders and other tools to deliver initiatives "on a consistent basis for months to come." "While the policy benefits of this new proposal are at best small, this is unquestionably a useful political weapon for the president," noted Keith Hennessey, who worked in Republican former president George W Bush's White House.

New public push on housing builds PCKyle Drennen, staff writer, 10-24-2011, “NBC Admits Obama Mortgage Plan Won't Work, But Cheers it As Good Politics,” News Busters, http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2011/10/24/nbc-admits-obama-mortgage-plan-wont-work-cheers-it-good-politicsAt the top of Monday's NBC Today, co-host Matt Lauer touted a new plan to address the housing crisis: "After a series of foreign policy victories, President Obama is hitting the road to sell his plan to help turn around the struggling economy and today

the focus is on the housing market." Lauer later wondered to chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd if the plan would, "help politically?" Todd declared: "Well, it could....emphasize the fact that they can't get anything done through Congress, right? That Republicans won't do anything....Mitt Romney said of the housing crisis, 'You know what? We're not

allowing foreclosures to happen fast enough.' So this is a two-fer, as far as the White House is concerned. They feel like they can talk about housing but also make the Republicans look like they're out of touch on that."


AT: Jobs Bills Failure Hurt PC

Obama insulates himself from bills that failKathleen Hennessey, staff writer, 10-22-2011, “Republicans in Congress are in a quandary on jobs,” LA Times, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/22/nation/la-na-restless-gop-20111023Republicans have stuck to the position that government spending does not create jobs. Their plans rely largely on easing regulation on business, tax code changes and expanded energy development to create a pro-business environment that they say will spur growth over time. Democrats have advocated targeted federal spending to nurture the struggling economy, with payroll tax cuts, incentives for companies to hire more workers and money to rebuild public infrastructure such as schools, roads and bridges. They would pay for the plan with a tax on people making more than $1 million a year. Under the expectation that Congress will reject most of the bills, lawmakers in both parties are preparing to defend themselves.

Losing on jobs pieces is winningCraig Crawford, staff writer, 10-24-2011, “Can't Wait Not To Pass This Bill,” Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-crawford/cant-wait-not-to-pass-thi_b_1029350.htmlIt's President Obama's version of "Make My Day." He's moved on from "Pass This Bill" to "We Can't Wait." But in reality he's saying to Republicans, "I can't wait for you not to pass my bill." For ill or good, the Democratic strategy is all about winning by losing. The idea is to set up one failed vote after another in the Senate on the President's jobs plan and blame the Republicans for standing against jobs in favor of millionaires.

Dems are using other jobs bills to build support for payroll – boosts PCAP, 10-20-2011, “Senate rejects slimmed-down Obama jobs bill,” CBS, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-20123534/senate-rejects-slimmed-down-obama-jobs-bill/Despite the negative vote, Obama and his Democratic allies are acting like they've found a winning issue in repeatedly pressing popular ideas such as infrastructure spending and boosting hiring of police officers and firefighters. The sluggish economy and lower tax revenues have caused many teachers' jobs to be cut over the past several years.

After the failure of the jobs measure last week, Democrats vowed to try to resurrect it on a piece by piece basis, even though the strategy doesn't seem to have any better chance of success. But Democrats are trying to win a political advantage through repeated votes. They're also pressing for passage of a poll-tested financing mechanism — a surcharge on income exceeding $1 million. An AP-GfK poll taken Oct. 13-17 found 62 percent of respondents favoring the surcharge as a way to pay for jobs initiatives. Just 26 percent opposed the idea. Republicans say the president is more interested in picking political fights with them than seeking compromise. Still, they don't seem to be afraid of a politically weakened Obama. Not a single Republican backed the president in last week's vote At the same time, several Democrats opposed the underlying measure, even though they voted in favor of at least allowing debate to begin. And Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent, said the stimulus-style jobs bill spends money the country doesn't have and takes revenues away from a special "supercommittee" charged with cutting the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion over the coming decade. According to the AP-GfK poll, Obama's party has lost the faith of the public on handling the economy. In the new poll, only 38 percent said they trust Democrats to do a better job than Republicans in handling the economy, the first time Democrats have fallen below 40 percent in the poll. Some 43 percent trust the Republicans more. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, speaking the day after Obama returned from bus tour, said the president's plan has the advantage of providing an immediate kick to the economy. Republicans want to roll back government regulations that they say choke job growth. They backed free-trade pacts with South Korea, Colombia and Panama that were ratified this month. They also back extending tax breaks for businesses that buy new equipment and favor offering a $4,800 tax credit to companies that hire veterans. Democrats and the White House, meanwhile, are confident that other elements of Obama's larger jobs bill,

including extending cuts in federal Social Security payroll taxes, will pass. A 2 percentage point payroll tax cut enacted last year expires at the end of the year. Obama has proposed cutting it by an additional percentage point and extending the cut to the first $5 million of a company's payroll.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/22/nation/la-na-restless-gop-20111023


AT: Solyndra Scandal Hurt PC

Solyndra won’t hurt Obama – he’s Teflon for scandalsJonathan Alter, 10-28-2011, “The Obama Miracle, a White House Free of Scandal,” SF Chronicle, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/10/28/bloomberg_articlesLTQZU10D9L35.DTLPresident Barack Obama goes into the 2012 with a weak economy that may doom his reelection. But he has one asset that hasn't received much attention: He's honest. The sight of Texas Governor Rick Perry tumbling out of the clown car recently as a "birther" (or at least a birther- enabler) is a sign of weakness, not just for the Perry campaign but for the whole Republican effort to tarnish the president's character. Although it's possible that the Solyndra LLC story will become a classic feeding frenzy, don't bet on it . Providing $535 million in loan guarantees to a solar-panel maker that goes bankrupt was dumb, but so far not

criminal or even unethical on the part of the administration. These kinds of stories are unlikely to derail Obama in

2012. If he loses, it will be because of the economy -- period. Even so, the president's Teflon is intriguing. How did we end up in such a scandal-less state? After investigating the question for a recent Washington Monthly article, I've been developing some theories. For starters, the tone is always set at the top. Obama puts a premium on personal integrity, and with a few exceptions (Tim Geithner's tax problems in 2009) his administration tends to fire first and ask questions later. The best known example is Shirley Sherrod, the Agriculture Department official who was mistakenly fired by her boss over a miscommunication that led higher-ups to believe -- wrongly -- that she had made inappropriate racially tinged remarks. In several other cases, the decision to give staffers accused of wrongdoing the boot was made within hours, taking the air out of any possible uproar.

Independent Solyndra review clears the air – will ultimately boost ObamaScott Wilson, 10-28-2011, “White House orders review,” Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-orders-independent-review-of-energy-department-loans/2011/10/28/gIQASsrPQM_story.htmlThe White House has authorized an independent review of all loan guarantees made by the Energy Department

to foster green technology amid fallout from the bankruptcy this year of Solyndra, the California company that received a $535 million loan through the program. White House officials said Friday that Chief of Staff William M. Daley ordered the review, which will evaluate the entire $35.9 billion loan portfolio made to support the private-sector development of new technologies that could help improve the economy and create jobs. The review is a tacit acknowledgment that the loan program, defended by President Obama and his senior

advisers for weeks, has raised enough internal concern that an outside assessment is necessary to clear the air and determine its future. The announcement came as congressional Republicans threatened to subpoena White House records relating to the Solyndra case if the administration does not produce requested documents. Daley named Herbert M. Allison Jr. , a former assistant Treasury secretary, to head what will be a 60-day review. Allison is charged with assessing the health of the existing portfolio and making recommendations for how to better ensure the security of future loans, including ways to identify potential problems with recipient companies earlier than the government did in the case of Solyndra. “The president is committed to investing in clean energy because he understands that the jobs developing and manufacturing these technologies will either be created here or in other countries,” Daley said in a statement. “And while we continue to take steps to make sure the United States remains competitive in the 21st century energy economy, we must also ensure that we are strong stewards of taxpayer dollars.” The issue has become a political problem for Obama, who has been forced to defend the Solyndra investment as he pitches new plans to promote economic recovery. But the outside review holds as much promise as

peril for the administration, given that a clean bill of health for the loan portfolio, issued by Allison and his team, could help buttress Obama’s argument that the overall initiative has been a success.

No sticking power – will fade quickDarren Samuelsohn, staff writer, 10-18-2011, “Left sees Solyndra coverage and asks, ‘Where’s Keystone?’” Politico, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66300.htmlDavid Roberts, a columnist for Grist, said he expects Solyndra to go the way of Travelgate and the death of Vince Foster — two Clinton-era headline-grabbing sagas that have effectively become historical footnotes. Articles about the bankrupt solar company, he predicted, will fade as Republicans fail to find proof of illegalities or political cronyism.


AT: Infrastructure Will Hurt PC

Failure of Infrastructure is part of the plan – won’t invest PCRosalind Helderman, staff writer, 10-21-2011, “Next up for Obama jobs bill votes: spending on roads, bridges,” Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/next-up-for-obama-jobs-bill-votes-spending-on-roads-bridges/2011/10/21/gIQAFi5r3L_blog.htmlSenate Majority Leader Harry Reid speaks during a news conference to urge passage of part of President Obama’s jobs package earlier this week. (Haraz N. Ghanbari - AP) Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) announced Friday that the Senate will take up a

part of President Obama’s $447 billion jobs package that would provide new funding for road and bridge building when the chamber returns from recess next month. The Senate blocked the package last week. Since then, Congressional Democrats and the White House have pledged to break the American Jobs Act into pieces and force Senate votes on different elements of the plan. Failure is virtually

inevitable--but also part of the strategy. The goal is to show that Republicans are blocking Obama’s jobs proposals at every turn. Republicans counter that the repeated votes are a campaign strategy and not a true legislative push to find job creation tools that could pass both the Senate and the GOP-led House. Late Thursday, the Senate deadlocked 50 to 50 on a vote to proceed to debate on another piece of the president’s plan, to provide $35 billion in aid to states to hire teachers and first responders. The bill required 60 votes to move ahead. It would have been paid for with a 0.5 percent surtax on those making more than a $1 million a year, a tax increase that the GOP rejects. Reid was joined on a conference call by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) to advocate for a $50 billion of direct investment in road, bridge, rail and transit improvements, as well as the creation of a $10 billion infrastructure bank that could be used to leverage private investment for construction projects around the country. They proposed paying for the bank with a 0.7 percent surtax on those making more than $1 million a year. Democrats are convinced that levying higher taxes on the wealthy is a popular way to fund job initiatives and they have indicated they plan to attach the funding proposal to each element of the president’s plan. “We’re going to give Senate Republicans another chance to do what’s right for America,” Reid said. “They didn’t want to do the whole of the President’s bill. So we’re taking pieces of the President’s bill.” LaHood and Klobuchar said the bill would put construction workers to work improving roads and bridges. The 2009 stimulus bill included $48 billion for infrastructure building. Democrats say the measure worked--creating jobs and improving roads. But unemployment has remained above 9 percent and Republicans believe the 2009 act was unsuccessful. “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results, yet that’s exactly what Senate Democrats are proposing today,” said Brian Walsh, communications director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. They note some Democrats have joined Republicans to oppose Obama’s plan--Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) and Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), along with Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) voted with Republicans to block aid for states Thursday. And Democrats also blocked a GOP proposal Thursday to debate a bill that resembled another piece of Obama’s plan--a repeal of a 3 percent withholding tax on payments to government vendors set to go into effect in 2013. House leaders have said they will hold a vote on a similar measure dealing with the withholding tax next week. Democrats said they could not abide a

proposal to pay for a tax change with a $30 billion cut in other spending. But Republicans contended the vote showed their opponents are only interested in debating parts of Obama’s plan they know do not have bipartisan support.

It’s a political stunt – wont push – designed to failDavid Jackson, staff writer, 10-24-2011, “Senate Dems push Obama infrastructure plan,” The Oval, http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/10/senate-dems-push-obama-infrastructure-plan/1The revamped infrastructure plan includes $50 billion for roads, rails and airports, as well as $10 billion for a new National Infrastructure Bank. As with last week's job proposal by Senate Democrats, the construction plan would be financed with a surtax on millionaires. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has denounced the piece-by-piece jobs proposals as a political stunt. "These bills are designed on purpose not to pass," the Republican leader said on CNN. "I mean, the president is deliberately trying to create an issue here."

Infrastructure push is popularFawn Johnson, staff writer, 10-24-2011, “Jobs again, infrastructure-style,” National Journal, http://transportation.nationaljournal.com/2011/10/jobs-again-infrastructurestyle.php?rss=1President Obama's jobs bill may be going nowhere in Congress, but it is certainly being loud about it. Senate Democrats are refusing to let the political talking point go by scheduling floor votes on individual pieces of the measure for Republicans to shoot down. This week and next, the jobs debate will focus on infrastructure investment. Politically, it's a good move. People want potholes fixed and roads built, and polls show that they are generally willing to pay a little extra to make that happen.


AT: China Currency Hurt PC

Obama stays clear of the fightAlexander Bolton, staff writer, 9-28-2011, “Reid playing for leverage with jobs bill,” The Hill, http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/184289-china-currency-reid-playing-for-leverage-with-jobs-billAnother Senate Democratic aide predicted the administration would steer clear of the issue regardless of Reid’s political maneuver because it does not want to oppose the popular bipartisan legislation. “Whatever reservations the administration may have about this bill, they realize how popular it is, and there is very little reason to vocally oppose it, even if privately they hope it doesn’t pass,” said the source. Democratic senators, such as Brown, the lead sponsor of the legislation, have repeatedly raised the China currency bill in conversations with senior administration officials. Labor leaders such as Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, have also made the case for the measure. “At the highest levels, we have spoken to the White House and the secretary of Treasury,” said Robert Baugh, executive director of

the AFL-CIO Industrial Union Council. “They’re holding their cards pretty close to the vest.” Baugh said Trumka has pressed

Obama and Vice President Biden on the issue for years. Still, the White House has declined to take a public position on the legislation, which Democrats in Congress have interpreted as veiled opposition. Treasury Secretary Timothy

Geithner has noted the administration continues to urge Chinese officials to give the yuan more room to appreciate in value but has refused to call China out as a currency manipulator. An administration official told The Hill the White House is reviewing the legislation and has not yet taken a position.

GOP stallsDoug Palmer, staff writer, 9-21-2011, “Analysis - Jobs deficit fuels U.S. Senate action on China yuan,” Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/21/uk-usa-china-currency-idUSTRE78K4SR20110921But a House Republican at the centre of the action has shown little eagerness to jump on the Senate's fast-moving bandwagon. "Let them do their thing. I plan to have a hearing on a number of issues involving China this fall. I think that's the direction we're going to take," House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp told reporters last week. TRADE DEALS ADD TO PRESSURE After a relatively quiet start to the year, pressure for action on a currency bill has been building for months because of the White House push to win approval of free-trade pacts with South Korea, Panama and Colombia. Many Democrats are worried those free-trade deals could lead to U.S. job losses. The left-leaning Economic Policy Institute estimated in a report this week that the huge U.S. trade gap with China has cost the United States 2.8 million jobs over the past decade. The U.S.-China Business Council, which represents American companies that do business with China, said the report was based "on the faulty assumption that every product imported from China would have been made in the U.S. otherwise." But Republican Representative Tim Murphy said it showed that Congress and the White House had a responsibility to act to keep U.S. factories open. "Americans aren't losing their jobs because the Chinese are smarter or more productive. We're losing because the Chinese won't engage in fair and free competition," Murphy said. REVIVED HOUSE BILL GATHERING SUPPORT In December, the Senate killed the broadly bipartisan House bill by declining to bring it up for a vote. Senate aides said a crowded legislative schedule prevented Reid from scheduling action on the bill, but they also acknowledge the White House quietly pressed Senate leaders not to act. The House bill's chief sponsor, Representative Sander Levin, a Democrat, has reintroduced the bill and it currently has 145 Democratic and 56 Republican co-sponsors. That is just 17 short of the 218 votes needed for House passage. When House Republicans were in the minority last year, 99 voted for the legislation, 74 voted against and 5 abstained. Two weeks ago, Romney -- one of the leading Republican presidential contenders -- promised to sign an executive order on his first day in office that would threaten China with trade tariffs if it did not quickly revalue the yuan. Statements like that, the growing number of Republican co-sponsors to the Levin bill, and the looming 2012 election give proponents hope that the House will

eventually act. If the Senate passes its currency bill as expected in October, advocates will have more than a year to win approval in the House before the current Congress ends.

Won’t go to a final vote and GOP blocks in houseAFP, 9-27-2011, “US Senate to move next week on China bill,” http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iGeIjK4hk8N5-JzE-mg304ksHPzQ?docId=CNG.61fdb3c26d9af2a5d7089e64b2d243a2.451Reid said that "next week" the Democratic-led chamber will "start our work on trade matters" including the legislation on

China's currency, though it was unclear when the bill would come to a final vote. The measure aims to make it

harder for the US Treasury Department to avoid labeling Beijing a currency cheat, triggering various sanctions, while making it easier for US companies to seek retaliatory tariffs on Chinese goods. Senators unveiled the bill last week amid deep anger at stubbornly high US unemployment of over nine percent, with the sour economy the top issue on voters' minds as the race to the November 2012 elections heated up. But its fate is unclear: The White House opposes it, and Republican leaders in the House of Representatives

have no plans to bring similar measures to votes in that chamber, according to a leadership aide.


Payroll Tax Cut Good – Economy

Payroll tax cuts are key to the economy – deleverages debt and boosts consumer spendingChristian Weller, 9-12-2011, “New Republic: Why We Need Payroll Tax Cuts,” NPR, http://www.npr.org/2011/09/12/140393524/new-republic-why-we-need-payroll-tax-cutsThese criticisms miss the mark. A cut in payroll taxes is rightly at the center of the government's jobs proposal, precisely because the type of stimulus it will create is not immediate. It's true that many workers are likely to initially save at least part of the extra money in their paycheck that will appear as a result of a payroll tax cut. That will ultimately help solve the problem that has been the greatest drag on national growth: The enormous debt that burdens middle class households. Consumption is by far the largest share of the American economy, comprising 70 percent of GDP. Indeed, it's possible to track the story of our current recession in our consumption rates: It has increased by a well-below average rate of two percent in inflation-adjusted terms over the past year. It's important to realize that the real reason consumption has been increasing at only a modest rate is that many families are working hard to lower their debt loads rather than continue to spend like they used to. And with good reason. The middle class is still trying to rebuild trillions of housing and stock market wealth lost during the financial and housing crises in 2007 and 2008. Middle class wealth diminished precipitously because of the drop in house values and stock portfolios,

but families still owed the mortgages they borrowed against those houses to finance their spending during the good times. As long as those debts are at an unmanageable level, it won't be possible to increase consumption in sustainable fashion. At the current rate, however, it will be many years before private debt levels shrink sufficiently. Families owed about 90 percent of their after-tax income on average in the 1990s, the last business cycle before the mortgage boom. At the current rate of deleveraging it would take more than five years to just get back to that level — never mind the lower debt levels of the 1970s and 1980s. In the next several years, however, faster deleveraging won't be possible unless incomes grow more quickly. (Faster income growth helps deleveraging since leverage is the ratio of debt to income: As long as income is increasing, in other words, leverage falls, even if total debt stays the same.) Total after-tax income has indeed grown since the recession officially ended in June 2009, but at a very low 4.8 percent. More typical income growth of ten percent for a period of seven quarters would have brought down families' leverage below 109 percent; normal income growth, in other words, would have already naturally lowered leverage by about the same amount that it would take current American families, with their strenuous saving, to accomplish in a year's time. Raising income growth, then, is the necessary condition to getting families out from under their crushing debt burden and to getting the rest of the economy back on track: It's only private deleveraging that can speed up the return of healthy growth and steady job creation. The alternative is that household debt will continue to put a drag on consumer spending increases and job growth, regardless of what other stimulus measures we devise. Federal policy can make a difference, however. The government has tools at its disposal to lower the ratio of debt to after-tax income, thus alleviating the pressures on the middle class. That said, not all forms of government-sponsored deleveraging are created equal. The government is right to focus on middle class tax cuts as a large part of the jobs package. The debt burden is largest among moderate-income and middle-income

families, and it's difficult to design spending measures to target moderate and middle incomes. Maintaining and expanding the payroll tax holiday that expires at the end of the year seems, in many ways, the best way to foster faster deleveraging. Indeed, the

great thing about the payroll tax cut is that it allows us to have our cake and eat it, too. With the effective increase in their incomes, consumers will be able both to save more and spend at a faster rate: Faster income growth will allow families to reduce their debt burden (the ratio of debt to after-tax income) and thus facilitate spending and saving at the same time. Moreover, the extension of the payroll tax cut will give momentum to a process that is already underway. Families have already made progress on easing their debt burden. The ratio of debt to after-tax income stood at a record high of a little over 130 percent in Sept. 2007, just before the economy tanked. It had fallen to about 114 percent in March 2011. Banks that had tightened their purse strings to the middle class are beginning to ease up. The country's unprecedented wave of home foreclosures has allowed a lot of extant debt to be written off. Low interest rates have made it easier for families to shoulder their debts. (And President Obama has already proposed policies to help families refinance faster to take advantage of these historically low interest rates, though the benefits from that move, although a welcome step to further deleverage households, are limited given that interest rates are already at rock bottom.) The only way

to further speed private deleveraging, in other words, is by increasing the income growth of America's middle class. President Obama's proposed payroll tax holiday does just that. Indeed, it does more. By easing the debt burden that families feel, President Obama's tax cuts would not only not only foster immediate consumption, but sustainable and long-lasting economic growth.

Payroll tax cut boosts the economyPost Crescent, 9-17-2011, “Parts of Obama’s jobs plan can grow economy,” http://www.postcrescent.com/article/20110918/APC0602/109180525/Editorial-Parts-Obama-s-jobs-plan-can-grow-economyDouglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, has crunched the numbers on what policies would best serve the economy. He published this last year: "In brief, CBO found the following: A temporary increase in aid to the unemployed would have the largest effect on the economy per dollar of budgetary cost. A temporary reduction in payroll taxes paid by employers would also have a large bang-for-the-buck, as it would both increase demand for goods and services and provide a direct incentive for additional hiring." The economic impact of tax cuts for the wealthy doesn't even come close to what we would gain by getting more money into the hands of middle-class workers.


Payroll Tax Cut Good – Economy

Key to consumer confidence – sustains the weak economyNews Journal, 10-25-2011, “Congress should extend payroll tax cut,” http://www.news-journalonline.com/opinion/editorials/n-j-editorials/2011/10/25/congress-should-extend-payroll-tax-cut.htmlSome economists may not see the tax cut as a major force in the economy, but the temporary payroll tax cut will put between

$800 and $1,000 into the average worker's pocket by the end of 2011. That new money helped workers pay for increasing

gasoline costs and helped stimulate consumer demand. Consumer demand and consumer confidence are key to turning this economy around. Extension of the payroll tax cut is part of the Obama jobs bill. Congress should embrace an extension that would keep the payroll tax at 4.2 percent until Jan. 1, 2013. Obama would actually like to go further, dropping the rate to 3.1 percent -- and extending the same rate of 3.1 percent to the first $5 million of a company's payroll. That would double the 2011 cost of $116 billion to $245 billion in 2012. Those extra cuts come with a cost to Social Security revenues. Congress must consider the impact of the additional cuts on Social Security, and determine whether the economic benefits justify the costs. But extending the current payroll tax cut by one year will help consumers get through another year of a weak recovery following the worst recession since World War II. It's not going to unleash a full recovery, but it will help consumers deal with the lingering effects of the downturn. The larger issue here is that increased consumer spending could also spur job creation in the private sector. More consumer demand is desperately needed to sustain the faltering recovery.

Even if it doesn’t boost the econ, it prevents short term recessionBrad Plumer, staff writer, 9-8-2011, “Just how effective is the payroll tax cut?” The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/just-how-effective-is-the-payroll-tax-cut/2011/09/08/gIQAodirCK_blog.htmlThe main point advocates emphasize is that an extension is necessary to preventing further economic harm. In 2011, the cut is projected to boost workers’ take-home pay by about $120 billion. If Congress lets the tax cut expire, then the hike next year would deliver an economic shock that could tip us back into recession. Goldman Sachs estimates that failing to extend the

payroll tax cut could reduce economic growth by two-thirds of a percentage point in early 2012. Mark Zandi of

Moody’s Analytics concurs. Even if renewing the payroll tax cut won’t boost the economy further, the argument

goes, it will at least avert further degradation.

Failure to renew causes economic stallElisabeth Jacobs, Fellow, Governance Studies Brookings Institute, 09-08-2011, “President Obama's Speech Powerful, In Style and Substance,” Brookings http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/0908_obama_jobs_jacobs.aspxIn a forceful speech to Congress this evening, President Obama accomplished two key tasks. First, he unveiled an impressive stimulus proposal, which includes $450 billion worth of spending aimed at jumpstarting the stagnant recovery. Second, and perhaps more importantly, he articulated a clear vision for the role of government in American life – a much-needed alternative narrative to the go-it-alone message from Republicans. Let’s start with the substance. (The President himself requested that we focus on substance over politics, beginning his speech with a wrist-slap to the media for an obsessive focus on politics over policy.) Many of the President’s proposals are, in many ways, a commitment to doing what we should have been doing all along. A failure to extend the payroll tax cut and the unemployment benefits extension would have dragged the economy down, endangering a sputtering-out from stall-speed. Our nation’s crumbling roads and bridges, our congested airways, and our crowded schools are all testament to the underfunding of American infrastructure, and the President’s proposed investments in infrastructure (including a version of the Infrastructure Bank, a bi-partisan idea that’s been floated for ages and is long-overdue for implementation) are a long-needed down-payment on America’s future, with the added benefit of creating jobs in the process. Other proposals, however, represent real, bold policy innovation. Perhaps most notably, the President introduced the idea of a tax credit for hiring the long-term unemployed workers. While not included in his speech, the details of his proposed bill include other innovations targeted specifically at the unemployed, and a much-needed emphasis on the long-term unemployed. With a price tag of $450 billion, the policy proposals introduced here have the potential to make a real dent in the nation’s economic woes – respected economists have argued that a stimulus investment (and that’s what it is – an investment, not simply “spending”) of over $400 billion is necessary to jump-start growth and repair the American economy. The President has offered a policy package with enough oomph to get the country’s motor running.


PTC Good – Obama 2012

PTC key to Obama in 2012David Moberg, staff writer, 10-24-2011, “Will Obama’s Job Plan Save His?” In These Times, http://inthesetimes.com/article/12163/will_obamas_job_plan_save_hisEven if Obama’s new jobs bill, which was proposed in September, did not face a stone wall of Republican opposition (it died in the Senate in early October), it would not solve America’s economic problems. But the ideas in the plan, which the president is now advancing through separate, piecemeal bills, could make enough of a difference to swing a close race. The president proposed a combination of infrastructure spending, school renovation, financial aid to prevent layoffs of state and local government workers, extended and reformed unemployment compensation, payroll tax deductions, and business tax incentives to hire new employees. Higher taxes on the rich and big corporations and wide-ranging budget cuts in years to come would pay for the short-term deficit. The plan could generate around 1.9 million jobs next year, raise GDP growth by as much as 2 percent and cut one point off the unemployment rate, estimates Moody’s Analytics economist Mark Zandi. (About 25 million Americans are looking for full-time work.) Robert Johnson, executive director of the Institute for New Economic Thinking, calculates that Obama’s plan if implemented would boost Obama’s popular vote by 1.34 percentage points, a small but not insignificant edge.

Key to Russian relationsVolkhonsky Boris, staff writer, 10-13-2011, “Will new ambassador follow the reset?” The Voice of Russia, http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/10/13/58671990.htmlOn the whole, McFaul’s address to the Senate carried a positive message to the effect that the US administration was ready to pursue the reset. One of the questions that remain to be answered, though, is whether a close ally to the Democratic president would be able to pursue the same policies in more than a year from now. While Obama’ chances of winning a second presidential term look uncertain, the prospect of the Republicans getting a majority in both houses of Congress is more than certain. Having a majority in the House of Representatives, the Republicans keep criticizing Obama for his foreign policies, including towards Russia. And since they are critical of his policies now, they will be provided with much more powerful instruments to push for a different line as of January 2013.

Relations solve multiple world problems – each causes extinctionJeffrey Tayler, 08 -The Atlantic staff writer, “Medvedev Spoils the Party,” The Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/medvedev-spoils-the-party/7130/ Like it or not, the United States cannot solve crucial global problems without Russian participation . Russia commands the largest landmass on earth; possesses vast reserves of oil, natural gas, and other natural resources; owns huge stockpiles of weapons and plutonium; and still wields a potent brain trust. Given its influence in Iran and North Korea, to say nothing of its potential as a spoiler of international equilibrium elsewhere, Russia is one country with which the United States would do well to reestablish a strong working relationship—a strategic partnership, even—regardless of its feelings about the current Kremlin government. The need to do so trumps expanding NATO or pursuing “full-spectrum dominance.” Once the world financial crisis passes, we will find ourselves returning to worries about resource depletion, environmental degradation, and global warming – the greatest challenges facing humanity. No country can confront these problems alone. For the United States, Russia may just prove the “indispensable nation” with which to face a volatile future arm in arm.


PTC Good – Canada

Key to Canada’s economyThe Globe and Mail (Canada), 9-9-2011, p. LexisPrime Minister Stephen Harper is shifting the focus of his economic priorities toward jobs as Canada gets hit by spiralling global woes threatening to drag down growth, government revenues and the nation's labour numbers. Mr. Harper's change in tone, delivered in a Parliament Hill speech Thursday, comes at a time when world leaders - including U.S. President Barack Obama - are increasingly coming to view unemployment as one of the biggest challenges to economic recovery. With ammunition running out as he exhausts policy options for jolting the U.S. economy, Mr. Obama announced a new high-stakes jobs plan worth nearly $450-billion (U.S.).

Gambling that another big round of stimulus can turn the jobs tide and finally find a way to turn the corner on the U.S. recession, the President is urging Congress to prevent a "national crisis" by approving his proposed

mix of payroll tax cuts for employers and tax hikes for higher-income Americans. While Canada's economy has been healthier than most, it's hardly immune. In his Parliament Hill speech, Mr. Harper acknowledged his government must be "flexible" - meaning further Canadian stimulus measures may also be required if the economy worsens. That's a clear change in tone from earlier this year, when erasing the deficit was the dominant Conservative priority after two years of stimulus spending.

Canadian economic decline causes Quebec secession Nuechterlein, Rockefeller Research Scholar at the University of California, Berkeley, 99 [Donald E. Nuechterlein, September 1999. “CANADA DEBATES A VARIETY OF DOMESTIC ISSUES,” http://donaldnuechterlein.com/1999/canada.html.Current opinion polls in Quebec show that pro-independence forces are somewhat below the 50 percent margin that would trigger formal negotiations with the rest of Canada on the terms of separation. The current premier, Lucien Bouchard, is a crafty nationalist who will not put the question to another referendum unless he is convinced it will obtain a majority vote. My guess is that if Bouchard has doubts about reaching at least 50 percent in favor of independence, he will first call a provincial election and hope to increase the majority of his Parti Quebecois. That would give him more confidence about winning a referendum. An important factor influencing many Quebeckers will be their degree of satisfaction with the Canadian economy. At present, prosperity reigns in most parts of the country and many Quebec voters may worry that their province will suffer economically if it separates.

US Russia war and miscalculationLansing Lamont, Time Correspondent and President of American Trust for the British Library, 1994, Breakup, p. 236It might choose to believe that through its control of territory crucial to the Western alliance, plus its vital natural resources, it could continue to wield disproportionate influence on international and continental security planning. More likely, if Ottawa continued to stint on its defense spending and became increasingly unable to patrol or secure its own borders, the United States would feel compelled to step in and do the job itself. In that event America would rekindle all the deepest passions about Canadian sovereignty, especially in the Arctic. Its development in the late 1980s proved a signal advance in continental security, although some Canadians believed that new radar technology would render the network obsolete by the end of the century. Others feared it would draw Canada further into the Star Wars strategizing of Pentagon planners. Paved Paws did not assuage the larger fear of military analysts that by the early 1990s, after the START

Treaty had been signed by the United States and Russia, Canada the front line of any nuclear attack on North America, stood to face an expanded armory of Russian cruise missile which could be launched southward from the Arcctic through Canadian airspace. A provision in the treaty to rescue both superpowers nuclear stockpiles ironically permitted the Russians, as part of a trade-off to increase their cruise missiles arsenal by nearly half. Thus, instead of landbased ICBMs, easier to track and shoot down with their predictable trajectories, Canada now faces the possibility of some day having to track one or more cigar shaped cruises streaking at tree level over Canadian territory toward a designated target. That prospect, however dim at the moment, could take on

sharper tones in the context of these possible developments: Quebec's separation and the emergence to America's north of a fragmented Canada, neither event enhancing the continent's security; Canada's military inadequacies and an erosion of Canada-U.S. relations, which might send signals invit ing aggression by the Western alliance's adversaries; or a political upheaval in the former Soviet Union, which would precipitate an interna tional crisis. Any prolonged crisis, as security analysts know,

involves not only heightened tensions and escalating suspicions but a shift in emphasis to preparing for a very rapid response if hostilities erupt. In such situations the usual safeguards are sometimes apt to be disregarded or even removed.

http://donaldnuechterlein.com/1999/canada.html


Econ Collapse Bad – Laundry List

Economic decline causes nuclear terrorism, regional nuclear war and great power resource conflictMathew Burrows, counselor in the National Intelligence Council, and Jennifer Harris, counselor in the National Intelligence Council, 2009, “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis,” The Washington Quarterly, 32:2, pp. 27-38, CIAO.Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample Hostility toward the U.S. as the source of the crisis may have received too little credence. Revisiting the Futureopportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for

greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorism’s appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the

diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groupsinheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacksand newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence

would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and

terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises. Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military.

Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.

Without a strong economy terrorism is inevitable.Times-Picayune, 9-18-01Talking about economic losses may sound crass given how terrible the loss of life was in last week's attacks. But the size and dynamism of the U.S. economy account for much of the nation's power and influence in the world. For that reason, the nation's ability to punish those responsible for the attacks and to prevent further acts of terrorism depends on keeping the economy strong.


Econ Collapse Bad – China War

US economic strength key to deterring ChinaMichael Cole, staff writer, 10-19-2011, “Deterrence key to curbing China, report says,” Taipei Times, http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2011/10/19/2003516134/2Armed conflict between the US and China during the next 20 years is improbable, provided Washington retains the capacity to deter behavior that would lead to such a clash, a US think tank says in a new report. In an occasional paper titled Conflict with China: Prospects, Consequences and Strategies for Deterrence prepared by RAND Corp for the US Army, the authors say China’s security interests and military capabilities for the next two decades are expected to remain focused on its immediate periphery, with conflict likeliest to occur over Taiwan, the Korean Peninsula, one or more countries in Southeast Asia or India. “China is seeking neither territorial aggrandizement nor ideological sway over its neighbors,” the report says. “It shows no interest in matching US military expenditures, achieving a comparable global reach or assuming defense commitments beyond its immediate periphery.” While such intentions could change, the US would probably receive considerable warning of such a shift, given the lead time

needed to develop the capabilities needed for a new strategy that would seek to alter China’s current emphasis on regional contingencies. “While China’s overall military capabilities will not equal those of the United States anytime soon, it will more quickly achieve local superiority in its immediate neighborhood, first in and around Taiwan and then at somewhat greater distances,” the paper says. “In

consequence, the direct defense of contested assets in that region will become progressively more difficult, eventually approaching impossible.” Given this, the US will become increasingly dependent on “escalatory options for defense and retaliatory capabilities for deterrence,” it says. “Conventional strikes on mainland Chinese military targets may be the best escalatory option, but there is little reason to be confident that conflict could be so confined,” the authors say. Regarding Taiwan, the authors say while relations between Beijing and Taipei have improved, “no meaningful progress has been made on the key issue between the two states, which is if, when, and how the island’s ultimate status — as an independent polity or as part of a ‘reunified’ China — will be determined.” “The chance of conflict across the Taiwan Strait will remain so long as this fundamental disagreement persists,” they write. Core missions for the US, it says, would include “preventing China from gaining air and sea dominance, and limiting the impact of Beijing’s land-attack missiles” through “flexible combinations of active and passive defense and offensive action.” Those include the possibility of US strikes against targets in China associated with the offensive against Taiwan. “As China’s military modernization progresses, the US ability to confidently accomplish these missions is eroding,” it says. “Absent an unlikely reversal in the ongoing rebalancing of military power in the area ... a direct defense of Taiwan has already become a challenge and is likely to become increasingly difficult in coming years.” The best option for planners in Washington to reduce the risk of escalation before a conflict turned hot is to “enable the [military] capabilities” and buttress the resolve of China’s neighbors in a way that does

not signal to Beijing that Washington is attempting to encircle China. A parallel effort should be made to draw China into cooperative security endeavors, it says. In the end, the economic consequences of a Sino-American conflict could be historically unparalleled, even if both sides

avoid economic warfare, they write, adding that this acts as “a powerful mutual deterrent, one marginally in the

American favor at present.” “Strengthening the US economy is the best way of ensuring that the balance of interdependence and of the associated deterrence does not shift dangerously against the United

States over the next several decades,” the paper says.

ExtinctionStraits Times (Singapore), June 25, 2000, No one gains in war over TaiwanTHE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable.Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -horror of horrors -raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq.

In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilisation.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2011/10/19/2003516134/2



Payroll Tax Cuts DA Answers


No Payroll Tax Cut

Payroll Tax Cut won’t pass, despite supportSuzy Khimm, 10-13-2011, “GOP: the party of maybe?” Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/gop-the-party-of-maybe/2011/10/12/gIQANfE1fL_blog.htmlWhat’s more, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) has already vowed to attach the smaller piece of Obama’s jobs

proposal to increments of the millionaire’s surtax to pay for the bills — a proposal that’s likely to be a non-starter for Republicans — rather than a GOP-friendly repatriation holiday. Given such a political climate, even modest policies that passed Congress with bipartisan support a year ago, such as the Social Security payroll tax, aren’t certain to pass again. Sessions, for one, says he is “very worried” that extending payroll tax cut could end up weakening Social Security and argues that it won’t be an effective stimulus. “We didn’t get that kind of bang the first time we did that,” he says. Even if employees who receive the tax break do end up spending more money as a result, Sessions is skeptical of its economic impact. “Much of what we buy is imported — the big discount guys make a few cents profit, but most of the money goes to whoever manufactures the product in the world.” But if that’s the case, I asked Sessions, why would the tax cuts that Republicans have pushed for be any more effective? His answer was that not all tax cuts are alike: “The previous tax cuts have been in place for a decade, and most of us always believe they should be permanent… This is an explicitly a temporary thing.” Not all Republicans stand as firmly opposed. Graham said the payroll tax cut would “be something I’d consider,” adding that he thinks “it’d have some bipartisan support.” But the essential problem remains: Even if the smaller pieces of Obama’s jobs bill receive patchwork support from Republicans, the caucus as a whole would still be unwilling to unite behind any one proposal.

GOP will block now even if they supported before. Matt Spetalnick, staff writer, 10-15-2011, “Obama seeks to put onus on Republicans on jobs,” Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/15/usa-jobs-obama-idUSN1E79E02I20111015Republicans, who control the House of Representatives, have in the past backed some components of Obama's package, such as a payroll tax cut, but suggest they may not do so again.

GOP opposed to PTCRichard Wolf, staff writer, 10-13-2011, “Obama won't negotiate with Republicans on jobs,” The Oval, http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/10/obama-wont-negotiate-with-republicans-on-jobs/1?csp=34newsHouse Republicans have suggested several areas of potential agreement with the White House, but not on Obama's biggest job-creating ideas, such as payroll tax cuts, spending billions on infrastructure repair and federal aid to state and local governments to keep public employees on the payroll.


No Jobs Legislation

No job-related package is ever going to pass everAlexis Simendinger, 10-14-2011, “In Whole or in Parts, Jobs Bill Likely to Go Nowhere,” Real Clear Politics, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/10/14/in_whole_or_in_parts_jobs_bill_likely_to_go_nowhere_111676.htmlBut the battle worth watching next month -- when the president’s jobs debate could tumble headlong into yet another congressional blockade -- involves deficit reduction. The congressional arguments over jobs will collide with budget ideas that could emerge by Nov. 23 from among six Democrats and six Republicans better known as the super committee. The White House concedes this mash-up is a possibility, and some lawmakers suggest that, at the very least, any opening for more near-term stimulus has closed on Capitol Hill. Similarly, there are many seasoned lawmakers and staff members on Capitol

Hill and around Washington who predict with head-shaking conviction that the super committee will fail to agree to present Congress with proposals by its deadline, or fail to find their work embraced by enough of their colleagues. Some of these experts believe House and Senate leaders and the president will wrestle anew at the end of 2011 and perhaps into 2012 over deficit-reduction, especially given the punishment built into the law: across-the-

board automatic spending cuts that would begin in 2013 if specific benchmarks are not reached. “All these things that either side is throwing out, none of it is going to pass,” said Republican Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee during a CNBC interview about the next steps in the job-creation stand-off. He suggested that lawmakers and the media “move away” from what he called an Obama “campaign” theme to a discussion about where he believes bipartisan consensus has a ghost of a chance before the 2012 election. “The thing that’s going to create stability and predictability in this country is us tackling those issues,” Corker said, referring to tax changes and Medicare reforms, which are under consideration by the super committee. As talk of enacting additional stimulus

this fall has become Obama’s campaign refrain -- “Pass this bill!” -- Republican-crafted “jobs plans” are just as unlikely to move through Congress, Corker predicted. “I think we are way beyond sugary solutions,” he said.

GOP is engaging an a kamikaze strategy – blocks everythingBill Straub, staff writer, 10-15-2011, “President's jobs plan crashes, burns, but still may arise Phoenix-like,” Courier Press, http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/oct/15/no-headline---ev__jobs_bill_-_straub/Obama acknowledged that Democrats likely will attempt to pass at least some portion of the American Jobs Act in piecemeal fashion. The Republican minority probably won't be able to generate sufficient support for their initiative. Both sides have expressed a willingness to meet in an effort to iron out differences, but that is unlikely since both sides accuse the other of playing politics. Jim Messina, manager of Obama's 2012 re-election campaign, emailed supporters this week asserting that

Republicans are engaging in a "kamikaze political strategy,'' attempting to "suffocate the economy for the sake of what they think will be a political victory.'' "They think that the more folks see Washington taking no action to create jobs, the better their chances in the next election,'' he wrote. "So they're doing everything in their power to make sure nothing gets done."

GOP feel like they cant lose from blockingIBT, 10-13-2011, “Obama Jobs Plan: President Will Continue to Press Congress for Action,” http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/230578/20111013/jobs-bill-jobs-obama-447-billion-senate-democrats-republcans-gop-tea-party-unemployment-rate-unemplo.htmIf a majority of Americans oppose additional fiscal stimulus, despite a totally unacceptable 9.1 percent unemployment rate, Republicans will feel emboldened to "run out the clock" -- i.e. not to anything to boost GDP growth, create jobs, and alleviate suffering --

calculating that voters will blame President Obama at election time. In other words, if the GOP concludes that it can oppose the jobs bill without paying a price, even it harms the nation, the party will. Conversely, if most Americans view the Republicans' stance as obstruction or the equivalent of the GOP's 1948 "Do-Nothing Congress" that then President Harry S.

Truman chastised in his successful 1948 presidential campaign, a partial jobs package is possible, and Boehner's observation hints

at that public opinion concern. At this juncture, it's too soon to tell if public opinion will coalesce in the Democrats favor, hence as of now

it's "advantage Republicans," to cite a tennis metaphor.


No Political Capital

New strategy is irrelevant – the economy is a trump – nothing he can do will get GOP on boardNew York Magazine, 10-19-2011, “Obama’s Jobs Plan As a Case Study for Fatalism,” http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/10/obamas_jobs_plan_as_a_case_stu.htmlThe debate over the Obama administration among liberals has broken down between what you might call the idealists and the fatalists. The idealists think that Obama could win if only he would adopt the right message and the right legislative strategy. If he adopts a clear-cut populist position and lambastes Republicans for opposing it, he can force them to relent. The fatalists say that’s all wrong. Obama’s problem is that he’s an incumbent during an economic crisis. The opposition party has no incentive at all to support Obama’s proposals, and there’s nothing he can do to make them . We’re currently undergoing a kind of experiment to see which side is correct. The fatalists are, unfortunately, winning the argument.

Nothing Obama can do to get capitalNew York Magazine, 10-19-2011, “Obama’s Jobs Plan As a Case Study for Fatalism,” http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/10/obamas_jobs_plan_as_a_case_stu.htmlThe real risk is being an incumbent in hard economic times when the opposition party can block your plans. Obama is not, of course, a pure bystander to his fate. He can help change the agenda and highlight Republicans’ lack of a short-term economic response. Polls show he has increased his standing vis-à-vis the Republican party on the question of who has a better plan to promote jobs. But he hasn’t helped his approval rating, which is the most important metric of his strength , and it’s hard to imagine what, within his control, could do so. We construct narratives assigning Obama’s success or failure to his own decisions or his own character because cold structural explanations are not simple or satisfying enough. We crave stories about presidents as masters of their fate. But the reality is far less satisfying than that.

New strategy is too lateScott Wilson, staff writer, 10-7-2011, “Obama, the loner president,” The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-the-loner-president/2011/10/03/gIQAHFcSTL_story.htmlWith just over a year before Election Day 2012, advisers say that Obama recognizes his people problem and is working to address it. Beyond the Saturday reconnect sessions, his stump speeches advocating for his jobs plan are becoming more populist and partisan. He is outside the Beltway more, reaching out to voters. His supporters, though still worried, are starting to like what they see. But inside the Beltway, the legacy of his relationship, or lack thereof, with Democrats on the Hill remains a problem for his jobs plan — and, by extension, his political future. A senior Democratic strategist told my colleague Chris Cillizza recently that “the person running out of air most quickly” is Obama himself, and there may not be many who come to his rescue. “We’re about a year out from the elections, and the senators are turning to their own races,” the strategist said. “They don’t have a lot of energy or political capital to spare for the president at this point.”


Solyndra Will Hurt Obama’s PC

Scandals aren’t going anywhere – wrecking ObamaFox News, 10-29-2011, “Two Controversies Threaten,” http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/29/two-controversies-threaten-to-derail-obamas-re-election-bid/With the controversies over Solyndra and Fast and Furious showing no signs of going away anytime soon,

President Obama faces an uphill battle of staying focused on winning re-election next November. The White House announced

Friday that it has ordered a review of the Energy Department’s loan guarantee program as multiple investigations swirl over Solyndra, the California-based solar company that went bankrupt after receiving a $528 million federal loan. And at least eight Republican lawmakers are calling on Attorney General Eric Holder to resign over the botched federal gun-trafficking program known as Fast and Furious. The developments come as Obama tries to convince voters that his top priority is turning the economy around and that he deserves a second term despite his low approval ratings. Obama’s $447 jobs bill failed to advance in the Senate and now he is trying to get Congress to pass the package piece by piece. But the first piece, a $35 billion bill to help local governments keep teachers on the job and pay the salaries of police and firefighters, has stalled in the Senate. Obama has begun bypassing Congress and taking steps on his own through executive actions that he says will encourage economic growth. On Friday, he directed government agencies to shorten the time it takes for federal research to turn into commercial products in the marketplace. The goal is to help startup companies and small businesses create jobs and expand their operations more quickly. He also called for creating a centralized online site for companies to easily find information about federal services. He previously announced help for people who owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth and for the repayment of student loans. The White House also challenged community health centers to hire veterans. “We can no longer wait for Congress to do its job,” Obama said. “So where Congress won’t act, I will.” But his actions are at risk of being overshadowed by the two controversies that could cause voters to lose faith in his administration. The House Energy and Commerce Committee announced Friday that the panel would vote Thursday to subpoena White House records related to the Solyndra loan. Congressional Republicans have been investigating the bankruptcy of Solyndra amid revelations that federal officials were warned that it had problems but nonetheless continued to support it. Energy Secretary Steven Chu will testify before the committee on Nov. 17 regarding the Solyndra loan. And Holder has agreed to Rep. Darrell Issa’s request to appear before the House Judiciary Committee in December to answer more questions about his level of involvement in Fast and Furious and its underlying plan to let thousands of guns sold in the U.S. get into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. The Obama administration is fighting hard to quell the controversies.

Solyndra wont go away – costs PC – GOP and Obama will have massive fightsAndrew Restuccia, staff writer, 9-25-2011, “GOP to sink its teeth deeper into Solyndra and White House,” The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/183755-for-house-gop-solyndra-saga-is-here-to-stayHouse Republicans have sunk their teeth into the bankruptcy of an Obama administration-backed solar firm, and they made

it clear this week that they’re not letting go. Unlike other GOP-led probes of the White House that quickly faded away,

Republicans are vowing to intensify their investigation into the California-based Solyndra. The company declared bankruptcy and laid off 1,100 workers this month just two years after receiving a $535 million stimulus-law loan guarantee from the

administration. The incident has ignited a firestorm in Washington , leaving the White House scrambling to

defend itself against Republican allegations that the administration missed a series of red flags that hinted at Solyndra’s pending financial

collapse. The debacle is a messaging nightmare for the White House , which has invested a huge amount of

political capital in the stimulus law and its clean energy agenda. Republicans have seized the moment, launching

investigations, leaking damaging emails from the White House and blasting the administration on television and the radio. And it’s not over yet. Not even close. Solyndra lobbying not disclosed by Dept. of Energy “Well, you can run, but you can’t even hide,” Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) said on Fox Business Network this week. “We’ve got a good e-mail trail. We’ve got a number of professional investigators interviewing people. There’ll be more witnesses. There’ll be more hearings.” R


Infrastructure Will Hurt Obama’s PC

Infrastructure is next up – everything else is unsureFox News, 10-21-2011, “Senate Unveils $60 Billion Infrastructure Bill as Next Piece of Obama Jobs Plan,” http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/21/senate-unveils-60-billion-infrastructure-bill-as-next-piece-obama-jobs-plan/President Obama's allies in the Senate on Friday unveiled the next piece of his failed $447 billion jobs measure to get a vote in the Senate: a $60 billion investment in infrastructure projects such as roads and bridges. Like its two predecessors, however, the infrastructure package figures to be unanimously opposed by Republicans and a handful of Democrats over its stimulus-style spending and tax surcharge on the very wealthy. A test vote on the measure will come after the Senate returns from vacation next month. The legislation would provide an immediate $50 billion investment in America's roads, bridges and airports, and transit systems and establish a $10 billion national infrastructure bank to leverage private and public capital for longer-term infrastructure projects. "This legislation will create hundreds of thousands of construction jobs rebuilding our roads, bridges and infrastructure," said Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. The measure would be financed by a 0.7 percentage point surcharge on income over $1 million. The announcement by Senate Democrats came the day after Republicans scuttled a pared-back jobs measure designed to boost hiring of teachers and first responders. That plan failed on a 50-50 test vote that fell well short of the 60 needed to break a filibuster. Two Democrats abandoned Obama on the vote and two more who voted with the president said they couldn't support the underlying Obama plan unless it's changed. Thursday's $35 billion measure combined $30 billion for state and local governments to hire teachers and other school workers with $5 billion to help pay the salaries of police officers, firefighters and other first responders. The White House says the measure would "support" almost 400,000 education jobs for one year. Republicans call that a temporary "sugar high" for the economy and say it's a taxpayer-funded bailout of state and local governments. Obama and his Democratic allies are acting like they've found a winning issue in repeatedly pressing popular ideas such as infrastructure spending and boosting hiring of police officers and firefighters. The sluggish economy and lower tax revenues have caused many teachers' jobs to be cut over the past several years. "For the second time in two weeks, every single Republican in the United States Senate has chosen to obstruct a bill that would create jobs and get our economy going again," Obama said in a statement after the vote. "Every American deserves an explanation as to why Republicans refuse to step up to the plate and do what's necessary to create jobs and grow the economy right now." "We cannot afford to be bailing out local governments, and we can't afford stimulus 2.0," countered Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. Democrats haven't said which piece they'll resurrect next as an individual bill, but there's widespread support among party members for spending on highway and bridge projects, as well as for a poll-tested financing mechanism -- a surcharge on income exceeding $1 million.

Obama pushes and it costs PCAnn McFeatters, staff writer, 10-14-2011, “Watch: Don't expect politicians' help with recovery,” Scripps Howard News Service, http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/64741There are ways to get America moving again, but they will take time and political will. And we all know them:

Fund infrastructure projects to put more Americans to work rebuilding roads, bridges and water projects. Relax anti-terror regulations to permit the best and brightest foreign students to stay in America after graduation. Encourage technological innovation with tax breaks and grants. Improve education at the preschool, elementary and high school levels. Let Americans whose mortgages are underwater restructure them. Get rid of tax loopholes that permit wealthy Americans to pay a lower rate than the middle class. Obama vows to push his jobs bill piece by piece, but nobody expects that to do much to help the economy even if enough Republicans sign up. All eyes will be focused on the so-called "super committee" of six Republicans and six Democrats who have to decide on $1.2 trillion worth of spending cuts by Thanksgiving.

Pushing infrastructure costs capitalTodd Zwillich, staff writer, 10-12-2011, “Infrastructure Bank Likely to Return as a Political Weapon,” Transportation Nation, http://transportationnation.org/2011/10/12/infrastructure-bank-likely-to-return-as-a-political-weapon/President Obama’s jobs plan may have died in the Senate last night, but that that doesn’t mean debate over a national infrastructure bank died along with it. That’s because Senate Democrats are likely to bring the infrastructure bank back as one of several stand-alone jobs bills expected on the floor in the coming weeks. It’s all part of the president’s promise to ratchet up political pressure on Republicans by making them vote on popular parts of his jobs bill piece by piece.


AT: Jobs = Top Of Docket

Jobs isn’t top of the docket – delayed until after appropriationsDave Boyer and Sean Lengell, 10-13-2011, “Obama vows to fight for $447 billion jobs bill,” Washington Times, lnMr. Reid said Wednesday he isn't sure what his next move will be on the bill. But he is expected to break up the package and push for votes on individual, more digestible pieces, such as an extension of a 2-percentage-point Social Security payroll tax cut through 2012 and an extension of emergency unemployment benefits. "We're working very closely with the White House and my caucus," Mr. Reid said. "Until we have a direction from my caucus, we're not really able to make a decision." The majority

leader said he likely will move forward in the coming days with three annual appropriations bills before revisiting the president's jobs package. "Every week we're going to be focusing on jobs," Mr. Reid said. "I'm not positive at this time what piece of the president's bill we're going to do.

Jobs isn’t top of the docket – no direction on which piece to push firstSteven T. Dennis and Humberto Sanchez, 10-13-2011, “Democrats Split Over Next Step on Jobs Bill,” Roll Call, lnAction on smaller chunks of President Barack Obama's $447 billion jobs bill will likely be delayed by weeks as Senate Democrats and the White House have yet to settle on which pieces to move first. After Republicans and two Democrats filibustered the bill Tuesday, Democrats and the White House indicated they would break it up to bring to the floor separately. The idea is to force Republicans to block individual items - a payroll tax cut, infrastructure spending, etc. - that have broad support. Either Democrats will try to get the GOP to crack on a smaller piece, or they can go to the public and paint the Republicans as the do-nothing party. But Democrats heading into their weekly policy luncheon were divided over what to do next - and emerged without a plan. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Democrats need more time. "I have had a number of meetings today, we are

working very closely with the White House and my caucus, and until we have direction from my caucus, we are not going to be able to make a decision," the Nevada Democrat said. One senior Senate aide said that effectively delays action until after the next Senate recess in two weeks.

Nothing gets done – total political dysfunctionMatt Spetalnick, staff writer, 10-15-2011, “Obama seeks to put onus on Republicans on jobs,” Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/15/usa-jobs-obama-idUSN1E79E02I20111015The deadlock has raised concerns that political dysfunction in Washington will block any major steps to spur hiring before November 2012 presidential and congressional elections. "Republicans (in the House of Representatives) spent the past couple days picking partisan ideological fights," Obama said, citing Republican proposals over the past week to ease environmental regulations and restrict abortion funding.


Jobs Bills Don’t Solve Economy

No component of Obama’s Jobs agenda is enough to boost the economyAct Now!, 10-12-2011, “RIP, American Jobs Act,” lnMeanwhile, legislators will try to pass things both parties might agree upon. Some great ideas may still get through, though they would have to be attached to odious compromises. Other areas of mutual agreement are just plain bad. Senator Chuck Schumer has put forth the most interesting idea so far: he wants to get the infrastructure bank idea through by coupling it with the GOP-favored overseas profit tax holiday. A national infrastructure bank could boost construction and employ thousands of workers, while enhancing the country's roads and bridges. It already has a Republican co-sponsor in the Senate. On the other hand, I wrote about this tax holiday last week-it's a massive giveaway to multinational corporations without much job-creating potential. They could bring back overseas profits at low or no taxation, which is a huge boon for them, but not anybody else. The last time this happened, in 2004, a vast majority of the money brought back to America went right to enriching shareholders and executives. Democrats would have to accept that in order to get the infrastructure bank. Elsewhere, the House might take up a measure to provide job-training funds to veterans. And of course, there are the trade deals being pushed by both the administration and Republicans. Some of these ideas are worthwhile, while others-like the trade deals-might actually cost the country jobs. In the end, though, it's all biting at the edges of a massive problem-even if the entire jobs bill was passed as written, most economists agree that it, while helpful, wouldn't be enough to push the economy out of recession.

Doesn’t solve the economy – no confidence boost – don’t trust their numbersDouglas Holtz-Eakin, President of the American Action Forum, 09-09-2011, “A Grand Bargain on Job Creation and Deficit Reduction: is it possible?” Brookings Institute Panel http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/events/2011/0909_jobs_deficit/20110909_obama_jobs.pdfSecond is on the famous issue of business confidence, I mean, Paul Krugman complains all the time about the notion that we somehow clarified the economic outlook that businesses will begin to spend more higher invest, and this is he calls the “confidence fairy.” It’s important to recognize that Keynesian economics were realized on the same confidence fairy. We all need the confidence fairy to get people to take the money out of their pocket and spend. If you create a temporary program on the spending side, say to build a road, and you tell someone I’m going to employ you for three months and they know that at the end of the three months, they're out of work again, how much confidence are they going to have to go out and spend their money? You have to actually generate the feedbacks, have the confidence that the economic (inaudible) is going to continue on either front. So, both sides are equally plagued by reliance and the confidence fairy. Confidence is very low right now, and this is a big problem for the United States, I think. And so, the reason I have tremendous skepticism about the kinds of numbers you here associated with the President’s program last night or the Recovery Act, things like that, is that they are generated by computer models, economic models in which there is no future. These are fundamentally myopic models where it’s sort of like the teenage son model of economics where they only look at today, and if you feed them something, they eat it without fail. (Laughter) That’s not the reality in which we live. Those are models, they allow you to rank proposals that give you some insight into magnitudes, but they should not be taken literally for what they're going to produce because they overstate the impasse.


Payroll Tax Cut Doesn’t Solve Economy

Payroll doesn’t solve the economyAlan Reynolds, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and formerly Director of Economic Research at the Hudson Institute 9-22-2011, “The Spend Now, Tax Later Jobs Bill,” WSJ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904194604576583151431651920.html The president's "Plan for Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction" mainly hinges on persuading Congress to trade $447 billion in

temporary payroll tax cuts and spending increases—the "jobs plan"—for permanent income-tax increases of $150 billion a year. Mr. Obama also calls on the 12-member congressional super committee to undertake "comprehensive tax reform," which he defines in peculiar fashion as trading lower deductions for higher rates. According to the Sept. 19 White House fact sheet, "The President calls on [the super committee] to undertake comprehensive tax reform, and lays out five principles for it to follow: 1) lower tax rates; 2) cut wasteful loopholes and tax breaks; 3) reduce the deficit by $1.5 trillion; 4) boost job creation and growth; and 5) comport with the "Buffett Rule" that people making more than $1 million a year should not pay a

smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay." But the administration's tax plan violates these principles. It raises rather than lowers tax rates, shrinks tax deductions to pay for more spending, makes no believable contribution to economic growth, has nothing

specific to say about the Buffett Rule, and allocates a third of the proposed $1.5 trillion tax increase over the next decade

to such miscellany as the temporary payroll tax break, more subsidies for state and local government jobs, and prolonged unemployment benefits.

Payroll doesn’t solve the economy – empiricsDouglas Holtz-Eakin, President of the American Action Forum, 09-09-2011, “A Grand Bargain on Job Creation and Deficit Reduction: is it possible?” Brookings Institute Panel http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/events/2011/0909_jobs_deficit/20110909_obama_jobs.pdfAbout 30 years ago, probably in this room -- was this room here 30 years ago? -- 30 years ago Charles Schultz said, “There’s nothing wrong with supply side economics that can’t be solved with division by 10.” There’s nothing wrong with the President’s proposals that cannot be

solved with an equal division. They’re just simply not going to do that much . If you look collectively at what Mark Zandi or macroeconomic advisors put out, they said, okay, we can spend $450 billion and we’re going to get 1.9 at the upper end or 1.2 million jobs. So at $250,000 to $350,000 a job, this is what we’re going to get for

these efforts. Those are models that are beneficial to the President’s policies. That’s the upper bound. So let’s divide by appropriate numbers and realize that this is not a solution. This is a Band-Aid, and it was a Band-Aid that I found in the end just underwhelming. There’s nothing wrong with the payroll tax cuts; there’s nothing right about them either. They’re probably the place where they can get some bipartisan agreement. I have some issues with how the new-hire tax break is structured. We’ve always wondered whether we could really successfully implement and administer a new-hire tax credit. This is a close

cousin. I think we’re going to have to stare at it carefully, and see if we can actually make it work. You know, the employee side cut, we’ve seen already the modest expansion of that so it’s not going to have a big impact. The infrastructure proposals I’m quite skeptical of. There’s nothing that’s wrong with good infrastructure. We know that a core function of government is to provide key infrastructure, basic research, national defense -- these are the economic functions of government. We know equally well that there is nothing with a worse track record of being implemented in an efficient and timely fashion than capital expenditures. Ronald Reagan failed with his public works program, and it’s happened all the way through the Recovery Act. And here we are again with the promise that, honest, this is different. It’ll get out quickly. We’ll time it correctly to avoid a double dip and we won’t waste the money. And I remain skeptical. That is not the track record.

Payroll doesn’t solve the economy – mis-targeted Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), 09-15-2011, “Three Things to Love (and a Few More to Hate) About Obama’s Jobs Plan” CEPR, http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/three-things-to-love-and-a-few-more-to-hate-about-obamas-jobs-planOn the somewhat-more-worrisome side, Obama also proposed extending the 2 percentage point payroll tax cut to

employees and increasing it to 3.1 percentage points (half of the Social Security tax). He also proposes to apply an equal size tax cut to the employer’s side of the tax on the first $5 million of business payrolls. There are two issues raised by this proposal.

First, the tax cut on the employer side is largely a gift to businesses that mostly do not need it. As a group, businesses are sitting on huge amounts of money and pulling in a record share of national income in profits. Giving them even more money is unlikely to have much effect on generating demand or creating jobs. On the plus side, limiting the tax cut to the first $5 million of payroll reduces the cost. It also means that at least some of the money will go to struggling businesses that really need it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904194604576583151431651920.html


Economy Is Resilient

Aftershocks are expect – economy is fundamentally resilientKen Rogoff, Harvard economist, 1-27-2011, “Global economy is showing signs of resiliency,” Marketplace, http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/01/27/am-global-economy-is-showing-signs-of-resiliency/ROGOFF: Well I think the recovery's reached a point where it's resilient but not robust. It happens like day follows night: you have a big financial crisis around the world, and a few years later you start seeing countries default on their debts. But it's usually been an aftershock, and not enough to shake off the recovery. But it's one of the reasons the recovery is not as robust as we're accustomed to.

Savings and loose fiscal and monetary policyJoachim Fels, staff writer, 5-16-2011, “Global economy – resilience, rebalancing and repression,” Investment Postcards from Cape Town,, http://www.investmentpostcards.com/2011/05/16/resilience-rebalancing-and-repression/We don’t share these doubts: Our big-picture view on growth remains unchanged from last month. We are constructive on economic growth; we think the global economy is quite resilient to the shocks we’ve seen; and we think that this recovery will be quite sustainable because of global rebalancing. Being constructive on growth does not mean we are blindly bullish. We don’t believe that global GDP will continue to grow at the 5% snapback pace we saw in 2010. Rather, we expect GDP to moderate to a little over 4% this year (4.2% to be precise) and we look for 4.6% next year. The important point is that we look for global growth to be above its long-term trend rate, which is 3.6% for the last 40 years. Too young to die: Keep in mind that this global recovery is only two years old – it only started in the middle of 2009. On average, recoveries in the global economy have lasted a little more than six years. The shortest one over the past 40 years took place in the second half of the 1970s and lasted only four years. The longest one was in the 1980s and ended after eight years. Recoveries typically end when major imbalances in an economy have developed and become unsustainable – such as overinvestment in the late 1990s or overconsumption in the late 2000s – and when monetary policy becomes very tight. Neither is true now. The global economy is relatively resilient: Despite the oil price shock, initial conditions are favourable because household and corporate balance sheets have improved since the financial crisis. Balance sheet clean-up and repair in the private sector has partly come at the expense of the public sector balance sheet, but that’s another story. Personal savings rates have increased in former bubble economies like the US and the UK, and corporate profit margins have widened to record highs. This implies that the capacity of both households and companies to absorb shocks from higher oil and commodity prices has increased. Global monetary and fiscal conditions are still very expansionary: Most governments are shying away from tightening fiscal policy despite large deficits. The global real short-term interest rate is still negative and way below the growth rate of the economy, indicating very easy monetary policies. Long-term interest rates are also very low and have eased further recently. As for the monetary policy tightening in China and other EM countries, we think that much of this is not genuine tightening. For example, the many increases in banks’ required reserves imposed by the People’s Bank of China are largely aimed at neutralising the hot money inflows that pump up domestic liquidity. This is not a genuine tightening, but rather an attempt to make sure that liquidity doesn’t get even more abundant. Moreover, while many central banks have been raising nominal interest rates, in most cases the increases in policy rates have lagged behind the increase in inflation. So, real rates have eased further in many cases. In short, monetary and fiscal conditions are still very easy around the world and should make the recovery quite resilient for now.


Payroll Tax Cut Bad – Economy

Payroll cut can only have a negative effect on the economyDean Baker, the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), 07-05-2011, “The Employer Payroll Tax Cut,” CEPR, http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/the-employer-payroll-tax-cut The argument being pushed by proponents of the cut is that a temporary reduction in the employer’s side of the payroll tax will give them more incentive to hire workers. This argument does not pass the laugh test , but of course most of the things being said in elite Washington circles these days do not pass the laugh test. As usual, the flaws can be exposed with simple arithmetic. The employer’s side of

the payroll tax is 6.2 percent. The argument goes that if we temporarily eliminate this tax, then it is cheaper to hire workers, so employers will hire more . This argument

depends on the responsiveness of labor demand to the price of labor. The employer tax cutters would say that

labor demand is quite responsive to changes in price. However, the evidence points in the opposite direction. Over the two-year period 1995 to 1996 we raised the minimum wage by more than 15 percent, after adjusting for

inflation. There is a large body of research that shows that this increase had no measureable impact on employment. There also have been two subsequent increases in the national minimum wage as well as several increases in state-wide and city-wide minimum wages. The overwhelming majority of research

on these hikes shows that there was no measurable impact on employment. If we can permanently raise wages by 15 percent and see no measurable decline on employment, how can we think that a temporary reduction in wages of 6.2 percent would have a major impact on employment?

Payroll Tax Cut will tank social security, hurting the economyDean Baker, the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), 07-05-2011, “The Employer Payroll Tax Cut,” CEPR, http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/the-employer-payroll-tax-cut One aspect of this tax cut that is not in dispute is that it raises important issues about the future of Social Security. And this is true whether the tax cut is on the employer side or employee side. While the plans at present call for crediting the Social Security trust fund with the full amount that it would have received had there been no cut in the payroll tax, this is a departure from past practice in which the trust fund’s revenue came entirely from the designated

payroll tax or interest earned on bonds bought by the trust fund. The 2 percentage point employee side payroll tax cut that is currently in

place, and any future cuts, imply that general revenue is now being used to finance Social Security. There is

nothing wrong with using general revenue for Social Security in principle; however several Republicans have already indicated

that they intend to use the revenue shortfall as an argument for cutting benefits. They may not get far in this effort; however giving the Obama Administration’s openness to cuts in Social Security, it is dangerous to go down this path. It is possible to give whatever cut is intended through a reduction in the payroll tax through an income tax cut or credit. There is no obvious reason to prefer that the cut be designated as a “payroll tax” cut, unless the point is to raise issues about Social Security. Presumably this is why the Republicans insist that tax cuts take this form. In short, the employer-side payroll tax cut is not only bad policy for boosting the economy, it also unnecessarily puts Social Security in jeopardy. This is one form of stimulus that we can certainly do without.

PTC is permanent causing runaway deficitsMichael Medved, staff writer, 10-12-2011, “What is Barak Obama’s Long Term Game on Taxes?” Townhall, http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelmedved/2011/10/12/what_is_barack_obamas_long_term_game_on_taxes/printIn other words, the new low rates in payroll taxes for every American household won’t suddenly evaporate at the end of 2012; they will become permanent, shrinking revenues not by $240 billion in a single

year, but by at least $2.4 trillion over 10 years. Revenue reduction on this scale would swamp any combination of

spending cuts and tax hikes cooked up by the Congressional Super Committee in November… more than doubling the 1.5 trillion in 10 year deficit reduction they need to find. What could government possibly do to plug the resulting hole in its budget?

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/the-employer-payroll-tax-cut




Documents

West Coast – November 2011 Policy Update · Web viewLisa Mascaro, staff writer, 10-11-2011, “Democrats plan next step for Obama's jobs package,” LA Times, ... Lawrence O'Donnell,