Verbatim Mac



NEG1NC – GenericInfrastructure will pass now, but it’s a fight --- Biden’s political capital is keySaenz et al. 7/14/21 – CNN White House CorrespondentArlette, with John Harwood and Kate Sullivan, “President meets Democrats on Capitol Hill as pressure ramps up on infrastructure talks.” (CNN)President Joe Biden returned to Capitol Hill Wednesday to meet with Senate Democrats during their luncheon as he makes the case for both the bipartisan infrastructure proposal and a more sweeping package that can be pursued through reconciliation."Is this my homecoming?" Biden joked as he walked up to the Capitol press corps, a familiar sight to the former Delaware senator.The President then pumped his first and said, "We're going to get this done."The President's visit came on the heels of Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee reaching an agreement on a $3.5 trillion budget resolution that includes spending for Biden's sweeping social agenda. This effort is expected to set the stage for Democrats to pass reforms like expanding the child tax credit, offering paid medical and family leave and changing the US tax code -- all without Republican support. It is separate from the bipartisan proposal that would invest in traditional infrastructure like roads and budgets.Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer accompanied Biden into the meeting and echoed the President's line, saying, "We're going to get this done."White House officials understand that the Senate Democrats' $3.5 trillion framework for reconciliation adds pressure to ongoing talks on the smaller bipartisan infrastructure deal. Some Republicans, who hoped the bipartisan deal would erode Democratic support for reconciliation, have publicly worried that linkage between the two means they'd be doing the opposite and facilitating the larger package.But a senior administration official expressed cautious optimism that Tuesday's announcement won't cause Republicans to abandon the deal, which Senate leaders aim to pass this month: "We'll see. It shouldn't."Later on Wednesday, Biden told CNN's Jeff Zeleny that he's not worried about any potential disruptions."I think it's the only way to get it done, is having two tracks," Biden said ahead of a meeting with local officials at the White House."I went up and spoke to the Democratic caucus today and we put together a plan that dealt with infrastructure. It's a bipartisan plan," he said. "I think we're in good shape. There may be some slight adjustments in -- of the pay-fors. That's going to get down to what the Congress wants to do."But, he emphasized, "We have an agreement. We have an agreement, and there may be slight changes. I'm not sure what may happen, exactly how that's going to be paid for."A source in the Democratic lunch on Wednesday said that Biden was clear-eyed about the need to get the infrastructure proposals passed and came with a message that it needs to get done.The source said that Biden made the case that the bills would make a real difference in the lives of working families who feel forgotten. The source also added that the President received a warm reception.Schumer announced the budget reconciliation agreement on Tuesday night flanked by Budget Chairman Bernie Sanders of Vermont and others on the committee in a sign of unity among members of the Democratic caucus.It is unclear whether the proposal of $3.5 trillion can earn the support of moderates, and the bill still has a long way to go. Schumer on Tuesday said that the legislation will eventually have the 50 votes needed to pass the Senate.Biden's meeting with Senate Democrats came just before he hosted a bipartisan group of governors and mayors at the White House to discuss the bipartisan infrastructure framework. The White House has sought to build support with state and local leaders -- similar to the strategy pursued with the American Rescue Plan -- as the details of the bipartisan deal are still being hammered out.The President said he was meeting with the group of local leaders, which included both Republicans and Democrats, because "there are no Democratic roads or Republican bridges.""We have a bipartisan chance to solve these problems," Biden said, adding it was also a chance for the US to "win the second quarter of the 21st century."Last minute water legislation derails the agenda – causes partisan fights and costs political capitalGoodnough and Steinhauer 16 Abby Goodnough is a national health care correspondent. She has also served as bureau chief in Miami and Boston, and covered education and politics in New York City. Jennifer Steinhauer has been a reporter for The New York Times since 1994. She has worked on the Metro, Business and National desks, and served as City Hall bureau chief and Los Angeles bureau chief. ["As Grilling Over Flint Water Begins, Partisan Divisions Surface," 02-03-2016, New York Times, Accessed 7-13-2021, URL: ] klyWASHINGTON — The water crisis in Flint, Mich., threatened Wednesday to derail the first major federal energy bill in nearly a decade while stirring partisan passions in both the Senate and the House, where members of an oversight committee grilled officials from Michigan and the federal Environmental Protection Agency over their flawed response."I don't care whether it's the EPA, whether it's local, whether it's the state," said Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. "I want everybody who's responsible for this fiasco to be held accountable."Over several hours of tense questioning, the committee sought to stitch together the chain of events that led to the water in Flint being contaminated with high levels of lead, particularly the failure to add a chemical to the water that would have prevented the city's aging pipes from corroding and leaching lead.Republicans, including Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, the chairman of the committee, cast blame on the EPA, while Democrats focused on the role of an emergency manager appointed by Gov. Rick Snyder, a Republican, to oversee the city, and on the state's Department of Environmental Quality.Much of the hearing focused on concerns about the lead level in Flint's water that were raised early last year by an EPA official who tested water samples there, and on why the EPA did not quickly insist then that officials take measures to control corrosion in the Flint water system.As House members questioned Michigan officials, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, worked to save a sweeping bipartisan energy bill that Democrats have threatened to derail if $600 million in additional federal aid to Michigan to help clean up the contaminated water is not included in the measure.Many Republicans said it would be hard to find a solution that would not divide their members.<<insert impact scenario of choice>>UQ – Will PassInfrastructure will pass nowLeonhardt 7/16/21 – Op-Ed columnist at The New York Times. Prior to joining the Opinion department, Mr. Leonhardt was the founding editor of The Upshot section, which emphasizes data visualization and graphics to offer an analytical approach to the day's news. Mr. Leonhardt has also served as Washington bureau chief and wrote “Economic Scene,” a weekly economics column, for the Business section. In 2011, he won the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary for his columnsDavid, “Where Democrats Agree.” percent — or 40?During a panel I moderated yesterday, I asked two economists — one progressive leaning and one conservative leaning — how they viewed the bills’ chances. Jason Furman, a former top aide to Barack Obama, said they were “vastly higher than I expected” a few months ago. He added that an infrastructure bill seemed on a path to pass and gave the second plan a 70 percent chance of doing so.Michael Strain of the American Enterprise Institute agreed that the second bill’s odds looked better than a few months ago but thought they were still only “40 to 45 percent.”Sanders — who is more of a dealmaker than his radical reputation suggests — is among those who is more confident. “If you’re asking me at the end of the day, do I think we’re going to pass this? I do,” he told reporters this week. Biden sounds confident, too: “I still have confidence we’re going to be able to get what I’ve proposed and what I’ve agreed to in the bipartisan agreement on infrastructure,” he said yesterday.Infrastructure will pass now, but the vote is closeSegers 7/15/21 – politics reporter for CBS News Digital based in Washington, D.C.Grace, “Schumer says Senate will act on bipartisan infrastructure bill next week.” — Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer urged a bipartisan group of lawmakers on Thursday to finalize their infrastructure proposal, saying that the Senate will begin procedural votes for the bill next week.Schumer announced that he will file cloture on a bill that will serve as a "vehicle" for the package on Monday, setting it up for consideration. The Senate will then vote on cloture, which would limit debate, with a motion to proceed on Wednesday. That vote requires 60 votes to advance — meaning that it will have to garner support from all 50 Democrats as well as at least 10 Republicans."All parties involved in the bipartisan infrastructure bill talks must now finalize their agreement so that the Senate can begin considering that legislation next week," Schumer said in a speech on the Senate floor. He told reporters later on Thursday that he believes negotiators have "plenty of time to get it done."Schumer's specification that the vote will be on a vehicle for the proposal, a House bill, means that the language for the Senate bipartisan proposal does not actually have to be ready by Wednesday, as it can be inserted later during the amendment process. But he is imposing a deadline for any outstanding issues among the bipartisan group to be resolved. Time is quickly running out ahead of the August recess, when lawmakers are scheduled to leave Washington for several weeks.Senators involved in the bipartisan discussion had previously set a self-imposed deadline of ironing out any remaining areas of disagreement by Thursday, although they appeared unlikely to reach that goal. The core group of negotiators huddled for a two-hour long meeting on Thursday afternoon, and were joined for some of that time by Steve Ricchetti, Laura Terrell and Brian Deese, members of the White House legislative team.Senators told reporters after the meeting that they would continue to negotiate over the weekend. Paying for the bill remains an area of contention, as senators are discussing whether to use tax enforcement as a revenue stream, an idea met with skepticism by some Republicans. Democratic Senator Jon Tester told reporters that senators are considering alternatives to tax enforcement as a pay-for.But even though there are still disagreements on funding for the proposal, negotiators insisted that they would reach a deal."Prospects remain good because infrastructure is so darn popular," Senator Rob Portman, the lead Republican negotiator, told reporters after the meeting. When asked if talks were falling apart, GOP Senator Mitt Romney said "absolutely not.""My goal this weekend is to make sure that we can all get there that we've got not only the agreement, but we've got texts that people can look at so that we're not in a situation where we say, 'I don't know what I'm voting on, I just hope that it's good,'" Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski told reporters, adding that she had "delivered a whole bunch of homework assignments" during the meeting.Democratic Senator Mark Warner was even more optimistic, saying, "When we make final agreements, we'll be able to announce a deal tonight."Some Republicans argued earlier on Thursday that it was counterproductive for Schumer to say he would bring a vehicle for the bill to the floor next week. Even Republicans who would likely support the bill may vote against cloture, because they aren't willing to vote on the shell of a bill if the legislative text has not been finalized."I think setting artificial deadlines is going to make it harder, not easier. Because even people on our side who might be inclined to vote for a bill, I don't think are going to vote to get on a bill they haven't seen," Republican Senator John Thune, the minority whip, told reporters on Capitol Hill.Romney said earlier on Thursday that it was a "dereliction of duty to vote on something that hasn't been drafted yet.""We're proceeding with negotiations. We're working out issues, we're drafting, that's proceeding, and we probably should reach a point where people know what they're voting on," Romney said.The bill will currently passFox, Lauren and Foran, Clare, Cnn, 7-12-2021, Schumer and Pelosi face leadership test as infrastructure push kicks into high gear ," CNN, , Accessed: 7-12-2021, /Kent Denver-ITDemocrats will face a critical month on infrastructure in July as they reckon with deep schisms in their ranks and questions over legislative strategy and policy specifics of a bill the party wants to position itself with ahead of the midterm elections.The busy July will test Democratic congressional leaders -- Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- both of whom govern diverse caucuses and control narrow majorities where just a handful of members could bring the President's legislative agenda to a screeching halt.Schumer and Pelosi are navigating a delicate balancing act over President Joe Biden's agenda amid calls from moderates for quick passage of a bipartisan bill, while progressives are focused on securing a more sweeping measure that can pass the Senate with only Democratic votes under a process known as budget reconciliation.The infrastructure push is set to kick into high gear in the Senate when the chamber returns to Washington after the July 4 holiday recess.Schumer has set an ambitious goal during the next session: pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill on the floor -- a product that currently has the backing of 11 Republicans but still faces resistance from liberal members in the Senate -- and advance a massive budget resolution, a blueprint that will guide what gets included in the Democrats' broader infrastructure package.Infrastructure can currently passFox, Lauren and Foran, Clare, Cnn, 7-12-2021, Schumer and Pelosi face leadership test as infrastructure push kicks into high gear ," CNN, , Accessed: 7-12-2021, /Kent Denver-ITIn his dear colleague letter Friday, Schumer wrote, "our committees are working tirelessly with the White House and the bipartisan infrastructure group to turn their recent agreement into legislation."Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that Biden "appropriately delinked" the two issues after the President attempted to walk back earlier remarks when he said he wouldn't sign a bipartisan bill unless it came paired with a reconciliation proposal.But McConnell has said that Biden must ensure that Pelosi and Schumer follow his lead and that if that does not happen then the "walk-back of his veto threat would be a hollow gesture."McConnell said on Thursday in Kentucky there's "a decent chance" the bipartisan infrastructure package may come together in the weeks ahead but signaled that how it's financed may continue to be a sticking point.Deal on the bill closest it’s ever been, the plan disrupts the processCarney, Jordain, 7-12-2021, Democrats closing in on deal to unlock massive infrastructure bill," TheHill, , Accessed: 7-13-2021, /Kent Denver-ITSenate Democrats say they are close to a deal on a budget resolution that will pave the way for them to pass a sweeping, multitrillion-dollar bill later this year.“The Senate Budget Committee is close to finalizing a budget resolution which will allow the Senate to move forward with the remaining parts of the American jobs and families plan,” Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said, referring to President Biden's two infrastructure proposals.Schumer met with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the chairman of the panel, and committee Democrats on Monday night for roughly two hours. While they didn't come out with an agreement on the top line for the Democratic-only infrastructure package, several members said they made "a lot of progress" and are planning to meet again on Tuesday. Infrastructure bill is coming together nowCarney, Jordain, 7-12-2021, Democrats closing in on deal to unlock massive infrastructure bill," TheHill, , Accessed: 7-13-2021, /Kent Denver-ITDemocratic senators are vowing to vote during this work period, tentatively scheduled to last through the first week of August, on both the budget resolution that greenlights reconciliation and the smaller bipartisan deal that would spend $1.2 trillion over eight years on infrastructure.Members of the bipartisan group, which now totals 22 members, are working to turn their proposal into legislative text. Democrats could bring that measure to the floor as soon as next week, though there’s skepticism that the group will finish by then. Schumer on Monday indicated that he believed the bipartisan group is making progress.UQ – Will Pass – AT: Funding DisputesThe bill’s moving forward regardless of funding details – pressure is on and PC is keyWilkie 7/17/21 – White House Reporter at CNBCChristina, “Funding for Biden’s infrastructure plan is still up in the air ahead of crucial tests.” the fact that there is no legislation written yet is not stopping Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer from moving forward with the package.The New York Democrat revealed Thursday that he plans to hold an initial litmus test vote next week on the House bill that will eventually contain the Senate’s infrastructure legislation once it’s agreed to. Schumer is under intense pressure to advance both of President Joe Biden’s domestic spending packages in the coming weeks: The infrastructure plan and a separate, $3.5 trillion Democrats-only budget resolution. Biden visited Senate Democrats on Capitol Hill Wednesday to pitch the two-track plan, and he pledged that if they could pass the bills, he would sell them to the public.They’ll figure out funding --- Wyden is on it.Reuters 7/14/21“Key Senate Democrat says will find funding for sweeping infrastructure bill.” U.S. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden told reporters on Wednesday his committee will find funding for the sweeping infrastructure proposals negotiated between top Democrats and the White House."The bottom line for me, as chairman of the Finance Committee, is to make sure - and this will be the case - that I provide the funding for the priorities of the caucus," Wyden said.Dems are unified over funding now --- that gets it done --- but proves PC is key and margins are thin!Leonhardt 7/16/21 – Op-Ed columnist at The New York Times. Prior to joining the Opinion department, Mr. Leonhardt was the founding editor of The Upshot section, which emphasizes data visualization and graphics to offer an analytical approach to the day's news. Mr. Leonhardt has also served as Washington bureau chief and wrote “Economic Scene,” a weekly economics column, for the Business section. In 2011, he won the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary for his columnsDavid, “Where Democrats Agree.” the infrastructure bill, the Democrats’ plan is to pass it with at least 10 Republican votes in the Senate, enough to overcome a filibuster. Eleven Republican senators signaled support for negotiations over a bill last month, but only five have signed on to the resulting deal. That deal includes an increase in I.R.S. funding, which would help cover the bill’s cost by reducing tax evasion — a provision that may not be able to win 10 Republican votes.If Republican votes don’t materialize, the next question will be whether Manchin and other moderate Democrats are willing to pass the bill anyway. Doing so would require using a process known as reconciliation that bypasses the filibuster and lets Democrats pass a bill on party lines.Then there is Biden’s second plan, focused on social programs like pre-K and measures to slow climate change. Republican support for it seems unlikely, which means it would need to pass through reconciliation and keep the support of every Democratic senator. It also could not afford to lose more than a handful of House Democrats.Manchin has already signaled that he finds the climate provisions too aggressive. Senator Jon Tester of Montana has called the overall $3.5 trillion price tag “a big amount.” Some House Democrats have also said they were worried about the debt.For now, these objections seem more like efforts to shape an eventual bill than block it. Moderate Democrats like Manchin often issue high-profile, if substantively modest, objections, which help maintain their centrist public image.“Democrats have found ways to bridge these divides so far,” Carl Hulse, The Times’s chief Washington correspondent, said. “But there is a long way to go.”UQ – Will Pass – AT: Timeline too ShortShort timeline increases pressure – makes passage more likely.Freking 7/15/21 – White House reporter for the Associated PressKevin, with Alan Fram, “Top Senate Dem sets infrastructure vote, pressures lawmakers.” Majority Leader Chuck Schumer pressured lawmakers Thursday to reach agreement by next week on a pair of massive domestic spending measures, signaling Democrats’ desire to push ahead aggressively on President Joe Biden’s multitrillion-dollar agenda.Schumer, D-N.Y., said he was scheduling a procedural vote for next Wednesday to begin debate on a still-evolving bipartisan infrastructure bill. Senators from both parties, bargaining for weeks, have struggled to reach final agreement on a $1 trillion package of highway, water systems and other public works projects.Schumer said he also wanted Democratic senators to reach agreement among themselves by then on specific details of a separate 10-year budget blueprint that envisions $3.5 trillion in spending for climate change, education, an expansion of Medicare and more.“The time has come to make progress. And we will. We must,” Schumer said on the Senate floor.The majority leader’s plans were an attempt to push lawmakers to work out differences so Democrats can advance their plans to fortify the economy for the long term and help lower-earning and middle-class families while imposing higher taxes on wealthy people and large corporations.“There may be some last-minute discussion as to who, what mechanism is used to pay for each of these items,” Biden said of the two measures during a White House press conference Thursday. “But I believe we will get it done.”Short timeframe doesn’t hurt odds of passage.Segers 7/15/21 – politics reporter for CBS News Digital based in Washington, D.C.Grace, “Schumer says Senate will act on bipartisan infrastructure bill next week.” Senator Bill Cassidy, another negotiator, said that he didn't believe Schumer's deadline "helps or hurts," noting to reporters that "you can't put more pressure on us than we feel internally."Portman repeatedly insisted before and after the meeting on Thursday that senators would work to "get it right.""Look, I appreciate the fact that the majority leader wants us to have a vote on this, and to have a vote as soon as possible. I don't disagree with that. But as soon as possible means when it's ready," Portman told reporters.UQ – Top of DocketInfra bill is top of the docket nowMulero Eugene, 7-8-2021, Biden Promotes Infrastructure Plan as Congress Prepares Policy Agenda," Transport Topics, , Accessed: 7-13-2021, /Kent Denver-ITPresident Joe Biden pressed Congress to legislate on the infrastructure policy aspects of his domestic agenda as lawmakers return to Washington from their July 4 recess.At a community college in Crystal Lake, Ill., the president promoted potential benefits of his $1.2 trillion infrastructure policy framework, which has been endorsed by a bipartisan group of senators.“Under a bipartisan infrastructure agreement, we’re going to make the biggest investment in roads and bridges since the construction of the interstate highway system, literally creating millions of good-paying jobs,” Biden said July 7. “I’m going to be making the case to the American people until the job is done, until we bring this bipartisan deal home; until we meet the needs of families today and the economy of tomorrow.”The framework aims to authorize $109 billion for roads and bridges, $66 billion for passenger and freight rail operations and $49 billion for public transit systems. Additionally, it would allocate $47 billion for severe-weather infrastructure resilience projects to respond to climate change. White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters she anticipates the House and Senate to be consumed with an infrastructure-centric agenda when the chambers continue with their legislative tasks on July 12.Infra bill is top in Congress right nowMulero Eugene, 7-8-2021, Biden Promotes Infrastructure Plan as Congress Prepares Policy Agenda," Transport Topics, , Accessed: 7-13-2021, /Kent Denver-ITDemocratic leaders have about three weeks before their August recess to kick off consideration of the president’s infrastructure policy deal, as well as advance transportation funding legislation for fiscal 2022. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) signaled the potential for considering a big-ticket bipartisan infrastructure framework as early as this month.“Discussions about infrastructure are moving along forward nicely,” Schumer said recently. “I’d like to get this done as soon as possible.” Schumer has not scheduled consideration of a separate budget-centric “human infrastructure” bill that would fund social and equity programs, or a comprehensive highway policy legislation. On July 1, the House advanced a $715 billion, five-year bill that would provide $343 billion for roads, bridges and safety, $109 billion for transit and $95 billion for freight and passenger rail.Republican leaders have pushed back on the suggestion of combining a big-ticket infrastructure bill with so-called “human infrastructure” budget-centric legislation. As Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) put it, “Republicans have been negotiating in bipartisan good faith to meet the real infrastructure needs of our nation. The president cannot let congressional Democrats hold a bipartisan bill hostage over a separate and partisan process.”Meanwhile, a bipartisan group of House lawmakers announced their endorsement of Biden’s comprehensive bipartisan deal. The 58-member House Problem Solvers Caucus had unveiled a $1.25 trillion, eight-year infrastructure spending framework earlier this year.PC KeyPolitical capital key to infrastructure passage – margins are thin Nazaryan 21 – National Correspondent, Yahoo! NewsAlexander, 4/7. “Biden's infrastructure plan is huge; his political margins are minuscule.” from the White House on Wednesday, President Biden touted his $2.3 trillion infrastructure proposal, known as the American Jobs Plan, as a reimagination of the economy for the new century.“It’s not a plan that tinkers around the edges,” Biden said.Supporters and critics agree on that, even if they agree on little else. For most Democrats, the proposal is a once-in-a-generation chance to address, in one fell swoop, long-standing goals. There is money to be allotted for renewable-energy jobs, public housing upgrades and even home health workers. The plan broadens the meaning of the term “infrastructure” as it seeks to accelerate a move away from a coal economy and reverse decades of systemic racism, two central themes of the Biden administration.But it is political horse trading, not visionary thinking, that will decide the fate of this no-tinkering-around-the-edges proposal. The sweeping proposal will succeed or fail based on the whims of just a few legislators — perhaps few enough to have fit into a Capitol elevator in the pre-social-distancing days.Infrastructure’s odds depend on political conditions and Biden’s PCColwell 21 – Distinguished Visiting Journalist with the Gallivan Program in Journalism, Ethics, and Democracy at the University of Notre DameJack, 3/21. “Secretary Pete Building Bridges”, South Bend Tribune (Indiana). Lexis. Would an infrastructure package be just as popular if enacted through reconciliation as well? Also, however, would it be possible? Every one of the 50 Democratic senators would have to vote "yes" in order to overcome solid Republican opposition and enable Vice President Kamala Harris to break the tie. At least one Democratic senator, Joe Manchin, the key moderate from West Virginia, has said he will block infrastructure reconciliation if Republicans aren't included in the process.They are being included in the process, if Buttigieg is talking to Republicans "about every day." But is there a spirit of compromise on either side that will lead to some Republican votes for a plan?Buttigieg, who refrains from harsh partisan rhetoric, is ideal for the negotiations. However, even as he stresses the woeful condition of the country's roads, bridges, airports, water systems and power grids, the fate of the infrastructure bill will depend most of all on the political conditions in the Senate. Will some Republicans defect from solid opposition to Biden? Will some Democrats defect from support if it gets down to reconciliation or weakening the filibuster? More will depend on the condition of Biden's approval rating, staying strong or slipping, than on the condition of any crumbling dam or bridge.Biden’s Political Capital key infrastructure Lemire 21 [Jonathan Lemire, 6/25/2021, “Joe Biden Wins Bet on Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal,” ] RL NEW YORK — Day after day, as the partisan battle lines hardened on Capitol Hill over President Joe Biden’s domestic agenda, his calls for bipartisanship seemed increasingly out of step.Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said his goal was to focus “100 percent” on stopping Biden’s agenda. Progressive Democrats, meanwhile, pushed Biden to use the brute force power of a majority, even the most slender one, to pass legislation without any GOP support.But on Thursday, it was Biden, the Washington careerist schooled in the ways of compromise, standing in front of the White House, flanked by Democrats and Republicans alike, claiming a bipartisan deal had been struck on a $1.2 trillion infrastructure packageAnd, like a dream sequence from a previous decade, senators from both parties dutifully spoke about the virtues of not getting all you want and trying to reach something that has been highly elusive in Washington for more than a decade: consensus.“It’s been a very long time since the last time our country was able to strike a major bipartisan deal on American infrastructure, which is so badly needed, I might add,” Biden said. “We’ve devoted far too much energy to competing with one another and not nearly enough energy in competing with the rest of the world to win the 21st century.”Biden had campaigned on his ability to get deals done across the aisle, and Thursday’s announcement was an undeniable victory, one that may give nervous moderate Democrats cover as they likely will be asked to support the rest of the president’s agenda on a party-line basis.But the accomplishment itself was fragile, one that faces opposition on the liberal flank of his own party and one that is far smaller than Biden first proposed. And the president’s promise that he would sign the bipartisan deal only if a far larger, $4 trillion reconciliation bill — which would contain his other priorities — also came to his desk made very real the possibility that Thursday’s celebration of bipartisanship may end up being fleeting.A new “era of good feeling” it is not.Still, Biden proved that all his stated intentions about working with Republicans were not simply to burnish his image as a moderate with swing voters.From the moment he announced his 2020 campaign, his third try at the White House, he insisted that he could restore a sense of bipartisan comity to Washington. He seemed oblivious to hyperpartisanship that had gripped the capital, one building since the 1990s and dramatically accelerated under the divisive presidency of Donald Trump.The quest to successfully reach across the aisle remained quixotic after he took office.Although the nation was in the grips of the pandemic, not a single Republican lawmaker on Capitol Hill voted for the president’s $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill even though it enjoyed widespread support among GOP voters. Goaded by Trump, who had incited an insurrection at the Capitol to prevent the certification of Biden’s very election, an increasing number of Republicans propagated the lie that the 2020 campaign was fraudulent and doubted the president’s legitimacy.And McConnell, whom Biden frequently referred to as a friend with whom he could do business, had built a solid wall of defiance among Republicans bent on thwarting the president’s agenda.The Republicans’ vocal intransigence only fueled Democrats’ worries about Biden’s approach, which many felt was a pointless waste of time. They asked why a president who promised to act with such urgency and who outlined a far-reaching liberal agenda to rival those authored by Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, would fritter away time courting obstructionist Republicans.Historically, however, bipartisanship is not unusual for infrastructure packages — the last big infrastructure bill in 2015, costing over $300 billion, passed Congress overwhelmingly.But the Democrats’ current margins are small: Only a handful of seats in the House while the Senate is 50-50, with ties broken by Vice President Kamala Harris. And with the clock ticking toward the midterms, many on the party’s left flank urged Biden to ditch the effort at bipartisanship and go it alone.But Biden had bet his political capital that he could work with Republicans and showcase that “that American democracy can deliver” and be a counterexample to rising global autocracies, and namely China.“This agreement signals to the world that we can function, deliver, and do significant things,” the president said. “These investments represent the kind of national effort that throughout our history has literally — not figuratively — literally transformed America and propelled us into the future.”Biden and his aides also believed that they needed a bipartisan deal on infrastructure to create a permission structure for more moderate Democrats — including Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia — to then be willing to go for a party-line vote for the rest of the president’s agenda.And some liberals, meanwhile, like Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, have been floating the theory that giving the moderates in his party a win on this will help others on the left keep the pressure on to pass the bigger bill.But there were limits to what was achieved.Congress had to do an annual infrastructure bill by the end of September, which required 10 Republican votes, so the bill agreed to on Thursday, in essence, was simply expanding and accelerating a package that was already on the horizon.Moreover, the new bill was for far less than the approximately $2 trillion he originally sought, which continued to raise some ire on the left. And while it focused on hard infrastructure — things like highways and subways and broadband — it left unaddressed so much of what Biden had proposed earlier this year, including sweeping reforms to housing, child care and efforts to combat climate change.Those White House priorities, the administration said, would now be tackled separately in a congressional budget process known as reconciliation, which requires only a simple majority to pass. And Biden made clear that the two items would be done “in tandem” and that he would not sign the bipartisan deal without the other, bigger piece.Both Manchin and Sinema signaled Thursday that they supported the approach, but some doubts remained about whether all the Democrats would stay in line to pass the massive piece of legislation.But McConnell said that Biden’s insistence on pairing the two bills — one of which would almost surely not receive GOP support — undermined his bipartisan outreach and “almost makes your head spin.”“An expression of bipartisanship, and then an ultimatum on behalf of your left-wing base,” the Republican leader proclaimed.But Biden was only reveling Thursday in achieving GOP support for the deal, an agreement that he said evoked his political North Star: the bipartisan spirit of yore. As if to symbolize his effort, the former Delaware senator even put his hand on the shoulder of a stoic-looking Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio as the president made a surprise appearance with a bipartisan group of senators to announce the basis for an accord outside the White House.“This reminds me of the days when we used to get an awful lot done up in the United States Congress,” Biden said.Biden’s PC is crucial and limited – the plan wastes the rest of it.Thomas Gift, 04/29/2021, "After Biden’s first 100 days, it may be now or never to cement his significant leftwards pivot on economic policy," USApp, do you expect from Biden’s economic agenda going forward? Biden used up much of his political capital with the COVID-19 relief bill, which passed along party lines via budget reconciliation. That will make pushing through other ambitious initiatives more difficult. It’s unlikely that moderate Democrats, including West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, will allow future Biden-endorsed bills to get passed without good-faith efforts by the administration to reach across the aisle and compromise. Looking ahead, the fact that Democrats might not control both chambers of Congress following the 2022 election would surely stymie Biden’s legislative goals. Over the spring and summer, I’ll mostly be looking at negotiations over the infrastructure bill. Biden faces a tough balancing act—getting Republicans (and moderate Democrats) onboard, while preventing a backlash among progressives.Manchin is already shaky, a new water bill completely throws off Biden’s political capital on infrastructureCharlie Cook, 2-5-2021, Biden Is Wasting His Political Capital," Cook Political Report, , Accessed: 7-15-2021Biden won a close race, not so much because of an agenda he ran on but because he was not Donald Trump and would not behave or govern like Donald Trump. He won more because of who he wasn’t than what he ran on. To the extent that he did win on anything else, it was that he was a unifier. He’d spent almost two-thirds of his 78 years as either a member of the Senate or presiding over it as vice president. He had an understanding of its relationships and institutions. That being the case, why recklessly discard what little political capital he has?As this column noted last week, each of the past four presidents have lost their party’s majorities in both the House and Senate. Washington wise man Bruce Mehlman points out in a slide in another of his essential presentations, just out this week, that “[p]residents historically start fast, do most in [their] 1st 2 years,” and that “major initiatives get launched early (before losing Congress).” Mehlman points to an array of major accomplishments that Presidents Clinton, George W. Bush, Obama, and Trump had in their first two years.Yet some of these very accomplishments so crippled those presidents politically that considerably fewer wins were possible in the remaining two or six years in office. A Pyrrhic victory is not much of a victory at all.My assumption is that a deal will be reached. It won’t be everything Biden and his party wants, but it will be more than Republicans want. (To be sure, there are plenty in the GOP who will simply vote against anything that comes up.) But why soil your nest this early? Why force a minimum-wage hike into this bill right now? Quite simply, this looks bad and does not help future legislative endeavors.Given that several Democratic senators, most notably Joe Manchin of West Virginia, had expressed concern that the package was a bit rich at this point, those on the Left would do well to remember that what Democrats can get through in an evenly divided Senate is only as liberal as their least-liberal member, namely Manchin.Plan costs PC – sidetracks Biden and ensure his “Crisis PC” is wasted, killing a chance for the infrastructure to passNoah Smith, 1-13-2021, "Biden Must Avoid Obama's Mistake When Setting His Agenda," Bloomberg, universe of possibilities for the Biden administration radically expanded after the Democrats clinched the Senate majority, but the increase in political capital isn’t infinite. When deciding which problems to tackle first, President Joe Biden should prioritize initiatives that address the pandemic while moving the nation toward long-term goals for public health and green-energy stimulus. Biden can learn from the experience of Barack Obama, whose focus on health-insurance reform provoked a midterm backlash and probably forfeited a chance to boost the country out of the Great Recession sooner. He should heed the words of Winston Churchill who urged, “never let a good crisis go to waste.” Because crises are times when the public understands that change is necessary, it’s possible to make deep and lasting reforms. President Franklin D. Roosevelt understood this when he focused parts of his New Deal on long-term alterations to America’s economic structure, such as Social Security and the National Labor Relations Board. These policies not only contributed to the recovery from the Great Depression — the reason for Roosevelt's election — but created a more equal and stable economy in which workers had more bargaining power and old people didn’t have to live in penury. Recession when Obama took office in 2009. With the benefit of unified Democratic control of Congress, he passed a fairly substantial stimulus. But it was still too small to make more than a modest dent in the recession. It was too weighted toward tax cuts and it didn’t include much of a bailout for underwater homeowners. Instead, Obama spent much of his political capital on passing the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare. Now, it’s true that health insurance was, and is, one of the country’s biggest problems. And it’s also true that Obamacare substantially reduced the ranks of the uninsured, which was a big, important victory. But the system Obama crafted was a compromise, which left the problem of ruinously high costs mostly unaddressed. The legislation failed to satisfy many on the left, with a few now even labeling it as mass murder for not making deeper reforms. Meanwhile, Obamacare remained unpopular throughout Obama’s term in office and may have substantially contributed to the Democrats’ catastrophic midterm election losses in 2010. Alternate histories are difficult to imagine, but it seems likely that had Obama spent his 2009 political capital on things more directly related to the recession — such as more infrastructure spending, a bigger bailout for underwater homeowners and a stronger welfare state — he'd have realized a higher return on that political capital. In other words, a crisis does present an opportunity for long-term reforms, but it’s best to use that opportunity for reforms that address the immediate crisis. The Democratic victories in the Georgia Senate runoffs have given Biden an unexpected opportunity to pass major legislation in the first year of his presidency, instead of relying on executive action and the faint hope of bipartisan compromise. The left will be clamoring for major action on health care and a variety of other momumental issues, but Biden needs to spend his political capital on reforms that are also tied to the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting recession. The first priority is public health. COVID-19 exposed deep and catastrophic weaknesses in the U.S. public health institutions. Right now, vaccination is proceeding at a glacial pace due to an uncoordinated rollout that dumped vaccines in the lap of state public health agencies utterly unequipped to rapidly inoculate the entire populace. Biden needs to come right out of the gate with a coordinated, well-funded vaccination plan that reaches maximum vaccination rates as fast as possible. In doing so, he also needs to bolster public health agencies and revitalize and reform both the Centers for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration after years of neglect. This will be a bigger challenge than is popularly realized because of the possibility that vaccine-resistant virus strains will emerge. Biden will need to reorient much of the U.S. economy toward vaccine production and distribution until COVID-19 has been decisively beaten all around the world. It will take a lot of money and a lot of will. After the virus is beaten, the U.S. economy will still linger in recession unless the government acts decisively to boost demand. The best tool for doing this, as usual, is infrastructure investment. And the rapid progress in solar power and batteries means that Biden has a unique opportunity to address the climate crisis at the same time. A huge build-out of solar power and electric-car charging stations, including subsidies to rapidly replace fossil fuel plants and gasoline vehicles, will ensure that the U.S. economy comes roaring back while making huge steps toward decarbonization. Public health and green infrastructure should be the top priorities for Biden in 2021 and 2022. Yes, there are lots of other things in America that need reform, including health care. But the realities of the political system mean these will have to wait. Reforms must fit the crisis of the day; Biden can’t afford to get sidetracked on a quixotic quest to fix everything that’s wrong with the American economy. Wasting political capital on anything else than infrastructure derails the billJoan Greve, 7-14-2021, Biden heads to Capitol Hill to boost Democrats’ ‘human infrastructure’ plan," , Accessed: 7-15-2021, /Kent Denver- US Senate Democrats agreed late July 13, 2021 on a $3.5 trillion package to implement President Joe Biden’s vast plans to fund climate initiatives, health insurance and human infrastructure programs like child care, social welfare and housing. Biden posed with Schumer as they made matching gestures of air-punching resolution, as Biden said: “We’re going to get this done.”Meanwhile the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, sent out a letter to fellow House Democrats saying the plan indicates that an agreement on a final bill “will contain many of House Democrats’ top priorities, including transformative action on the investments needed to confront the climate crisis”.Pelosi added: “This budget agreement is a victory for the American people, making historic, once-in-a-generation progress for families across the nation.”Biden joined Senate Democrats for the closed-door lunch where he sought their support and discussed strategy for passing both a $1.2tn bipartisan infrastructure deal to rebuild America’s roads and bridges, and the larger Democratic package that also addresses environmental measures and the need for stronger social services.Republicans voiced immediate objections to the plan’s massive size, as did at least one key moderate Democrat whose support would be critical to passage.Biden urged senators to think about how the package would affect average Americans, said Senator Chris Murphy.*He just kept on telling us to think about his neighbors in Scranton,” Murphy said, referring to Biden’s Pennsylvania home town. “Think about whether what we’re doing is going to pass muster with the folks that he grew up with.“An Ipsos poll conducted this month for Reuters found that most Americans want the kind of infrastructure improvements that are included in the Biden plan.It also found that nearly two-thirds of the country supports increasing taxes on “the highest-earning Americans” to pay for the improvements.In response to reporters’ questions shouted to him as he left the meeting on Capitol Hill, Biden said: “Great to be home. Great to be back with my colleagues. I think we’re going to get a lot done.”Biden represented Delaware in the US Senate for more than 35 years and served as Barack Obama’s vice-president for the Democrat’s two terms in the White House, before becoming president himself by beating Donald Trump in the 2020 election.Biden later met with a bipartisan group of mayors and governors at the White House to discuss the $1.2tn bipartisan infrastructure framework.Political Capital key to infrastructureArlette Saenz, John Harwood and Kate Sullivan, Cnn, 7-14-2021, President meets Democrats on Capitol Hill as pressure ramps up on infrastructure talks," CNN, , Accessed: 7-15-2021, /Kent Denver-ITPresident Joe Biden returned to Capitol Hill Wednesday to meet with Senate Democrats during their luncheon as he makes the case for both the bipartisan infrastructure proposal and a more sweeping package that can be pursued through reconciliation."Is this my homecoming?" Biden joked as he walked up to the Capitol press corps, a familiar sight to the former Delaware senator.The President then pumped his first and said, "We're going to get this done."The President's visit came on the heels of Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee reaching an agreement on a $3.5 trillion budget resolution that includes spending for Biden's sweeping social agenda. This effort is expected to set the stage for Democrats to pass reforms like expanding the child tax credit, offering paid medical and family leave and changing the US tax code -- all without Republican support. It is separate from the bipartisan proposal that would invest in traditional infrastructure like roads and budgets.Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer accompanied Biden into the meeting and echoed the President's line, saying, "We're going to get this done."White House officials understand that the Senate Democrats' $3.5 trillion framework for reconciliation adds pressure to ongoing talks on the smaller bipartisan infrastructure deal. Some Republicans, who hoped the bipartisan deal would erode Democratic support for reconciliation, have publicly worried that linkage between the two means they'd be doing the opposite and facilitating the larger package.But a senior administration official expressed cautious optimism that Tuesday's announcement won't cause Republicans to abandon the deal, which Senate leaders aim to pass this month: "We'll see. It shouldn't."Later on Wednesday, Biden told CNN's Jeff Zeleny that he's not worried about any potential disruptions."I think it's the only way to get it done, is having two tracks," Biden said ahead of a meeting with local officials at the White House."I went up and spoke to the Democratic caucus today and we put together a plan that dealt with infrastructure. It's a bipartisan plan," he said. "I think we're in good shape. There may be some slight adjustments in -- of the pay-fors. That's going to get down to what the Congress wants to do."But, he emphasized, "We have an agreement. We have an agreement, and there may be slight changes. I'm not sure what may happen, exactly how that's going to be paid for."A source in the Democratic lunch on Wednesday said that Biden was clear-eyed about the need to get the infrastructure proposals passed and came with a message that it needs to get done.The source said that Biden made the case that the bills would make a real difference in the lives of working families who feel forgotten. The source also added that the President received a warm reception.PC Key to Bipart BillBipartisanship is needed to pass the Infrastructure bill, but the plan’s controversy alienates Republicans and moderate Dems and wastes Biden’s political capitalJonathan Lemire, 7-12-2021, "'We have a deal,' Biden says after senators back pared-down but still huge infrastructure bill," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, — President Joe Biden announced on Thursday a hard-earned bipartisan agreement on a pared-down infrastructure plan that would make a start on his top legislative priority and validate his efforts to reach across the political aisle. But he openly acknowledged that Democrats will likely have to tackle much of the rest on their own. The bill’s price tag at $973 billion over five years, or $1.2 trillion over eight years, is a scaled-back but still significant piece of Mr. Biden’s broader proposals. It includes more than a half-trillion dollars in new spending and could open the door to the president’s more sweeping $4 trillion proposals for child care and what the White House calls human infrastructure later on. “When we can find common ground, working across party lines, that is what I will seek to do,” said Mr. Biden, who deemed the deal “a true bipartisan effort, breaking the ice that too often has kept us frozen in place.” The president stressed that “neither side got everything they wanted in this deal; that’s what it means to compromise,” and said that other White House priorities would be taken on separately in a congressional budget process known as reconciliation, which allows for majority passage without the need for Republican votes. He insisted that the two items would be done “in tandem” and that he would not sign the bipartisan deal without the other, bigger piece. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and progressive members of Congress declared they would hold to the same approach. “There isn’t going to be a bipartisan bill without a reconciliation bill,” Ms. Pelosi said. Claiming a major victory five months into his presidency, Mr. Biden said, “This reminds me of the days when we used to get an awful lot done up in the United States Congress.” Mr. Biden, a former Delaware senator, said that as he put his hand on the shoulder of a stoic-looking Republican Sen. Rob Portman, of Ohio, as the president made a surprise appearance with a bipartisan group of senators to announce the deal outside the White House. But the next steps are not likely to be nearly so smooth. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell complained that Mr. Biden was “caving” to Ms. Pelosi and Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer’s plan to “hold the bipartisan agreement hostage” for the president’s bigger package of what he called “wasteful” spending. “That’s not the way to show you’re serious about getting a bipartisan outcome,” Mr. McConnell said. And there is plenty of skepticism on Mr. Biden’s own left flank. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, of Connecticut, said the bipartisan agreement is “way too small — paltry, pathetic. I need a clear, ironclad assurance that there will be a really adequate robust package” that will follow. Thursday’s deal was struck by the bipartisan group led by Mr. Portman and Democrat Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, of Arizona, including some of the more independent lawmakers in the Senate, some known for bucking their parties. “You know there are many who say bipartisanship is dead in Washington,” said Ms. Sinema, “We can use bipartisanship to solve these challenges.” And Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said, “It sends an important message to the world as well that America can function, can get things done.” The proposal includes both new and existing spending on long-running programs and highlights the struggle lawmakers faced in coming up with ways to pay for what have typically been popular ideas. The investments include $109 billion on roads and highways and $15 billion on electric vehicle infrastructure and transit systems as part of $312 billion in transportation spending. There’s $65 billion toward broadband and expenditures on drinking water systems and $47 billion in resiliency efforts to tackle climate change. Rather than Mr. Biden’s proposed corporate tax hike that Republicans oppose or the gas tax increase that the president rejected, funds will be tapped from a range of sources — without a full tally yet, according to a White House document. Money will come from $125 billion in COVID-19 relief funds approved in 2020 but not yet spent, as well as untapped unemployment insurance funds that Democrats have been hesitant to poach. Other revenue is expected by going harder after tax cheats by beefing up Internal Revenue Service enforcement that Mr. Portman said could yield $100 billion. The rest is a hodge-podge of asset sales and accounting tools, including funds coming from 5G telecommunication spectrum lease sales, strategic petroleum reserve and an expectation that the sweeping investment will generate economic growth — what the White House calls the “macroeconomic impact of infrastructure investment.” The senators from both parties stressed that the deal will create jobs for the economy and rebuild the nation’s standing on the global stage, a belief that clearly transcended the partisan interests and created a framework for the deal. “We’re going to keep working together — we’re not finished,” said Republican Sen. Mitt Romney, of Utah. “But America works, the Senate works.” Democrat Jon Tester, of Montana, said it will show the world “we’re not just, you know, a hot mess here.” For Mr. Biden, the deal was a welcome result. Though for far less than he originally sought, Mr. Biden had bet his political capital that he could work with Republicans toward major legislation. Moreover, Mr. Biden and his aides believed that they needed a bipartisan deal on infrastructure to create a permission structure for more moderate Democrats — including Ms. Sinema and Joe Manchin of West Virginia — to then be willing to go for a party-line vote for the rest of the president’s agenda. The announcement leaves unclear the fate of Mr. Biden’s promises of massive investment to slow climate change, which Mr. Biden this spring called “the existential crisis of our times.” Biden’s Negotiation skills key to passing divided CongressWilkie and Pramuk 21 [Christina Wilkie and Jacob Pramuk, CNBC Staff Reporters, 7/13/2021, “Biden’s Agenda -and Legacy- are on the line in Congress,” ] RL WASHINGTON — Over the next four weeks, President Joe Biden and Democratic leaders in Congress will attempt to seal Biden’s legacy as a transformative president by setting the stage for nearly $5 trillion of new federal investments in the next decade, money that could profoundly change how many Americans live. But the two-track plan’s success is far from certain, and it could easily fall apart.To get it done, Biden and Democratic leaders need to win the support of two opposing groups: Skeptical Republicans in the Senate who are intent on blocking the president’s agenda, and a Democratic caucus with a wide array of views on how much the government should spend to boost the economy and combat climate change.“There are 50 Democrats in the caucus, I suspect there are 50 different points of view,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont democratic socialist and Senate Budget Committee chair who will play a major role in steering the Democrats’ bill through Congress under the budget reconciliation process. The bipartisan infrastructure plan and a separate Democratic bill to expand the social safety net are crucial for Biden. They would fulfill his core campaign promise to be a president for the middle class, and they would also serve as an example of how “American democracy can deliver” a better quality of life than autocracies can.The president is up against the clock. Several deadlines looming in Congress mean this is a make-or-break moment for his agenda.The United States will hit another debt ceiling by late July or early August, sparking another political battle. Before the end of September, Congress also needs to vote on must-pass spending bills to fund the government. Beginning Aug. 9, the Senate is scheduled to be out on recess for the rest of August and much of September.Once the annual must-pass bills are approved, Washington’s focus will turn to campaigning for next year’s midterm elections. Republicans have a historic advantage, as the president’s party typically loses congressional seats during the midterms. Democratic incumbents will need policy wins to sell to their constituents if they want to hold on to power.Infrastructure is Biden’s second major legislative initiative after Congress passed a $1.9 trillion coronavirus aid bill less than two months into his first term in office. The president now aims to make pieces of the plan, including a strengthened child tax credit and more generous health insurance subsidies, long-term fixtures as his party tries to redefine the government’s role in households.The Senate gets to workOn Monday, senators returned to Washington to begin a one-month work period, during which Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., plans to finalize, debate and approve Biden’s $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure framework. The bill will make generational investments in public transportation, clean water and broadband internet access. But it will need every Democratic vote and 10 Republicans to clear the 60-vote filibuster hurdle in the Senate.Schumer also plans to use the next month to finalize and introduce a budget resolution in the Senate, which would allow Democrats to pass a much bigger bill later this year on a party-line vote. The specifics of this bigger bill are still being worked out, as is the total cost, which is expected to be north of $3 trillion. Democrats could announce a budget resolution deal — which would include a maximum overall price tag but not specific policies — in the coming days.If the expected larger bill passes, the effects will be felt for decades to come. The package will likely include money for universal preschool, free community college, expanded health insurance, subsidized child care, expanded family and medical leave, new low-income housing, and nationwide green energy projects. The U.S. is warning American companies about the risks of doing business in Hong KongBiden says U.S. is not sending troops to Haiti after assassination of nation’s presidentFed chair grilled by grouchy senators even as the economy reboundsIf passed as Democrats envision it, the bill would mark both the biggest expansion of the social safety net in decades and one of Washington’s most sweeping efforts to curb climate change and prepare the country for its effects.On Monday, Schumer told senators to be ready to remain in Washington for part of the upcoming August recess in order to pass both measures.The window is closingSchumer’s timeline for the next few weeks is extremely ambitious by any measure. But especially so because neither of the two massive bills Democrats intend to pass have actually been written yet. Schumer said negotiators are making progress on the bipartisan infrastructure bill, and could be ready to introduce it in the Senate as soon as next week. The second bill does not need to be finalized to come to the floor for a vote. As a budget resolution, it will ultimately be hammered out in negotiations between the Senate and the House. Schumer’s timeline reflects a stark reality: The next four weeks offer Democrats their best – and potentially last – chance to enact Biden’s sweeping economic agenda and define his legacy before Washington’s attention shifts to the 2022 midterm elections. “The federal government has not made a significant stand-alone investment in infrastructure in decades. … America has less generous family support policies than so many of our peers who are not as wealthy as we are,” Schumer said Monday.He later added, “If and when we succeed, the benefits will reverberate across the country for generations to come.”U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) talks to reporters following the Senate Democrats weekly policy lunch at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, June 15, 2021.U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) talks to reporters following the Senate Democrats weekly policy lunch at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, June 15, 2021.Already, there are signs of trouble for Democrats on the ballot in 2022.In June, a pro-Biden political group penned a memo warning Democrats and the White House that they were losing the messaging war with Republicans over who would define Biden’s agenda. “Even among voters who have a favorable view of Joe Biden, there is a real lack of information about the specifics of the Biden Agenda,” said the memo released by the Biden backing group Unite the Country. The warning adds fresh urgency to Democrats’ desire to pass the two bills as soon as possible.Further upping the ante for the Senate is the insistence by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., that the upper chamber pass both measures, the infrastructure bill and the budget resolution, before the House takes up either of them. With Democrats holding a majority in the evenly split Senate on the basis of Vice President Kamala Harris’ tiebreaking vote, every Democratic senator will need to be on board for both pieces of legislation, or the whole effort will fall apart.Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi stands by U.S. President Joe Biden as he signs into law S.J.Res.15, relating to "National Banks and Federal Savings Associations as Lenders" at the White House in Washington, June 30, 2021.Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi stands by U.S. President Joe Biden as he signs into law S.J.Res.15, relating to “National Banks and Federal Savings Associations as Lenders” at the White House in Washington, June 30, 2021.Pelosi’s maneuvering typifies the kind of experience that she, Biden and Schumer have each accumulated over decades in leadership.Republicans and Democrats agree, if there’s anyone in Washington can pass these two mammoth pieces of legislation with razor’s edge majorities, it’s this trio.“The three Democratic leaders are perfectly suited to this moment,” said Matt Bennett, executive vice president at the centrist Democratic group Third Way. “Biden is the deal-maker. He understands that all sides must make concessions, and he keeps his word,” said Bennett. “The folks he’s dealing with on both the left and the right may not always agree with him, but they trust him.”AT: Thumpers – TopThumpers don’t apply – Biden’s prioritizing infrastructure and won’t get drawn in to other fights now – only the plan derails that Gittleson 21 – reporter-producer at ABC News in Washington, where he covers the White House. He previously served as an international assignment editor on ABC News' Foreign Desk in New YorkBen, 3/27. “Biden takes the long view: 'It's a matter of timing,' he says of presidency, agenda.” President Joe Biden, it's all about timing.Faced with an unprecedented array of crises, from the coronavirus pandemic to gun violence, Biden this week made clear that is looking back through the long lens of history as he formulates his agenda."Successful presidents -- better than me -- have been successful, in large part, because they know how to time what they’re doing -- order it, decide and prioritize what needs to be done," he said during a news conference Thursday.After two major mass shootings in a week, Biden made clear that crises he viewed as secondary would not deter him from staying laser-focused on his top priorities: ending the coronavirus pandemic and repairing the economy.Next up, he said, would be rebuilding America's infrastructure, a not-so-flashy task that, if he's successful, could have a lasting impact on his legacy in line with consequential presidents before him, like Franklin D. Roosevelt and his "New Deal" or Dwight Eisenhower and the interstate highway system.Biden's pragmatism is born out of his decades of passing bills on Capitol Hill, and it stands in stark contrast to his predecessor, former President Donald Trump.Trump often bounced from one issue to the next chasing headlines, with little interest in figuring out how to actually move his proposals across the finish line at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue."It's a matter of timing," Biden said Thursday, explaining why he did not think now was the time to spend his political capital on gun control.AT: Voting Rights ThumpBiden isn’t going to spend any PC on voting rights legislation.Brett Samuels, 7-10-2021, "Voting rights advocates eager for Biden to use bully pulpit," TheHill, , DJPPresident Biden has mostly worked behind closed doors as the White House maps out its next steps on voting rights, but advocates are growing impatient as they warn time is running out to spotlight the issue before restrictive state laws and new maps are imposed for the 2022 midterms. The president pledged last month he would use the bully pulpit to directly address GOP-led efforts at the state level to make it more difficult for some groups to vote. After making weekly trips to promote his infrastructure package, Biden on Tuesday will travel for the first time to speak on voting rights. Progressives and voting rights leaders who have attended recent meetings at the White House say administration officials are taking the issue seriously, and allies are confident more action is on the way. Still, some are cautioning that Biden's lack of outward urgency reflects poorly on his priorities. “I think what we’ve seen are statements, behind-closed-door meetings, a vanishingly small expenditure of political capital compared to priorities like infrastructure. It’s just not a comparison,” said Ezra Levin, co-executive director of the progressive group Indivisible. “I think it’s a political miscalculation of historic proportions, and I’m hoping they switch course in the coming days and weeks,” Levin added. “I think I would like to see them treat the crumbling of American democracy at the same level that they treat the crumbling of roads and bridges.”Biden’s not using PC on voting rights. Kilgore 21(Ed Kilgore, political columnist at New York Magazine, and former Democratic strategist; Democrats’ Voting Rights Push Stalled. It Was Still Worth It., published 6-23-21; )This boulder in the path to voting-rights legislation will almost certainly embolden those Democrats who have considered the subject a waste of time and energy all along. Both publicly and privately, some Democrats have argued that the party needs to focus on bread-and-butter economic initiatives that poll well and either have some Republican support (i.e., an “infrastructure” package) or can be passed via budget-reconciliation procedures with just 50 Senate votes. Ron Brownstein, who views reversing voter suppression efforts in the states as an existential challenge for Democrats, reports that even in the White House there exists a willingness to move on quickly after a pro forma effort on voting rights:[I]t’s clear that the White House is operating at a more tempered level of concern than other Democrats about the threats to small-d democracy emerging in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s attacks on the 2020 election. Based on my conversations with them, officials there seem to take a more nuanced and restrained view of what’s happening. They do not believe that more assertive public denunciation from Biden would dissuade any of the Republican governors or legislators who have moved to restrict voting rights. And although White House officials consider the laws offensive from a civil-rights perspective, they do not think most of those laws will advantage Republicans in the 2022 and 2024 elections as much as many liberal activists fear.Biden neglects voting rights issues—he will prioritize infrastructure firstShephard 21(Alex Shephard, staff writer at The New Republic; “Maybe the Democrats Don’t Care That Much About Voting Rights, After All”, published 6-22-21; )Yet despite all this, the administration has spent the bulk of its brief tenure largely sitting on its hands with regard to voting rights. Biden has prioritized other projects, some understandably: Passing a Covid-19 relief bill and coordinating a vaccine rollout were necessary first steps for the Biden White House, which has since moved on to pushing for an infrastructure package (that faces the same filibuster-bred inertia). But on voting rights, the administration has vacillated between urgent rhetoric and long periods of inaction. If this is as deep an existential crisis for American democracy as the Biden administration occasionally suggests, then they and their fellow Democrats in Congress should act like it. Instead, they’re fiddling while Republicans across the country make plans to bring the crisis to completion. It was a statement that echoed Biden’s own dire warnings about democracy across the globe during his recent European jaunt. The Biden administration’s own foreign policy, which involves trying to create a bloc of democratic countries in opposition to authoritarian ones like Russia and China, is, as Vox’s Andrew Prokop argued recently, dependent on passing a bill like the For the People Act. How can the Biden administration claim to be part of an international anti-authoritarian bulwark when American democracy itself is eroding? AT: Water Bill ThumpsThe bill couldn’t have cost PC – it passed 89-2, which means no political sway was needed. No PC was spent. The DWWI was just routine, everyday legislation, not a huge bill out of nowhere like the plan would be.Their card, Mascaro 21 Lisa Mascaro, ["Water bill may open spigot for Biden infrastructure plan," 4-29-2021, AP NEWS, Accessed 7-14-2021, URL: ] klyWASHINGTON (AP) — Rarely has a routine water resources bill generated so much political buzz, but as senators hoisted the measure to passage Thursday the bipartisan infrastructure legislation served as a potential template for building consensus around President Joe Biden’s ambitious American Jobs Plan.The Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act of 2021 authorizes about $35 billion over five years to improve leaky pipes and upgrade facilities, and is widely supported by lawmakers and their states back home. This time, though, it could be so much more — a building block in Biden’s broader $2.3 trillion proposal to invest in roads, bridges and other infrastructure.Senators overwhelmingly approved the measure, 89-2, in what Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called “a great example” of what’s possible in Congress.Still, the day after Biden’s address to a joint session of Congress outlining his sweeping proposals to reinvest in America infrastructure the path ahead is expected to be long and politically daunting.With Congress essentially split, and Democrats holding only slim majorities in the House and Senate, Biden and the congressional leaders will soon have to decide how they plan to muscle his priority legislation into law.The White House is reaching out to Republicans, as Biden courts GOP lawmakers for their input on the package and to win over their votes.Biden spoke by phone Thursday with Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., a leader on the water bill who is also working on a Republican alternative to Biden’s infrastructure plan.They had a warm, friendly conversation, reiterating their willingness to negotiate, the White House said. They also discussed having another potential in-person meeting in the near future.“We both expressed our mutual desire to work together and find common ground,” said Capito, the top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, in a statement.Capito called it “a constructive and substantive call” and said she stands ready to “be a partner in advancing infrastructure legislation in a bipartisan way—just as we’ve done in the past.”But most Republicans are opposing Biden’s overall agenda as big government overreach. Together the American Jobs Plan and the American Families Plan, a robust investment in free pre-school, community college and child tax breaks, sum an eye-popping $4 trillion.The water bill is an example of what’s possible, but also the gaping divide.The $35 billion effort falls far short of what the president has proposed, $111 billion over eight years, for water projects in his big infrastructure plan. But it is in line with what Capito and the Republican senators proposed last week as their counter offer to Biden’s package, and could serve as a piece of that or starting point in talks.“We know the next couple of weeks and months are going to be tough,” said Capito, in a speech before the vote. But she said she was hopeful colleagues would “remember this moment.”The water bill is the kind of routine legislation that has been a mainstay on Capitol Hill, but that lawmakers have struggled to pass in recent years amid the partisanship and gridlock, and the power that party leaders exert over the legislative process.Part of the exuberance among senators this week was over the very act of legislating, carrying the bill through the give-and-take of the committee process and onto the Senate floor for amendments and debate.“I say, the more of these we can do, the better,” said Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va.“Maybe we can take the Biden infrastructure plan and do the pieces of it,” he said. “Where we can get some agreement, do those together. And then the remaining things that we think need to be done, that price tag shrinks a little bit, because we’ve done some other stuff.”That bill was a tiny drop of routine government spending---doesn’t mean the plan’s not controversial Mascaro 21 – Congressional correspondent for the Associated PressLisa, with Kevin Freking, 4/29. “Water bill may open spigot for Biden infrastructure plan.” reason the water bill easily passed was because it’s routine government spending. Another reason is that the price tag was tiny compared to typical congressional budget spats. Few expect such harmony to last when the stakes get bigger in the months ahead.AT: Gas Tax ThumpsThis card just proves our argument that PC is real and key to infrastructureGas tax is part of the infrastructure debate. Proves PC is key.Freking 6/21/21 – White House reporter for the Associated PressKevin, with Lisa Mascaro, “Paid in full? Biden, GOP struggle over infrastructure costs.” negotiators and the White House appear open to striking a roughly $1 trillion deal on infrastructure. But they are struggling with the hard part — how to pay for it.As President Joe Biden jumps back into the talks this week, the question of where the money will come from looms large. And time is running short to solve it.Biden wants to increase taxes for corporations and those households making more than $400,000 a year. Republicans have ruled that out, putting forward alternatives that Democrats find unacceptable. Both sides have said the infrastructure spending should be paid for and not add to the national debt.It’s a long-standing challenge with no easy solution, one that puts the bipartisan agreement around infrastructure in tension with the nettlesome realities of governing. It’s a problem that has thwarted previous attempts at an infrastructure bill, including during the Trump administration, and their ability to solve it now is likely to determine whether a bipartisan accord is possible.Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell has said user fees are the way to go. But the White House and key Democratic lawmakers oppose increasing the user fee that has traditionally funded road and bridge construction, the federal gas tax, even if the increase is just allowing it to rise at the rate of inflation from its current level of 18.4 cents per gallon. The federal gas tax has not increased since 1993.“The president’s pledge was not to raise taxes on Americans making less than $400,000 a year, and the proposed gas tax or vehicle mileage tax would do exactly that,” said White House press secretary Jen Psaki. “So that is a nonstarter for him. I’d also note for the mathematicians in the room that only raises $40 billion, which is a fraction of what this proposal would cost.”Biden hosted two key Democratic senators, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, at the White House on Monday. He told them he was encouraged by the plans that were taking shape but still had questions about the policy and the financing for the proposal, a White House official said. Biden also said he was focused on budget resolution discussions. AT: Gun Control ThumpsBiden has said numerous times that gun control is behind infrastructure, and he won’t spend any PC on gun control.Annie Karni, 6-22-2021, "Biden Addresses Immigration, Voting Rights and More in His First Formal News Conference," No Publication, , DJPResponding to questions on gun control legislation, Biden makes clear it’s not his top priority. President Biden made it clear in his first news conference since taking office that being successful in passing any gun safety legislation is far from his next priority. “The successful presidents, better than me, have been successful in large part because they know how to time what they’re doing,” Mr. Biden said, when asked about what actions he planned to take in the wake of back-to-back mass shootings that killed 18 people. “Order it,” he said. “Decide priorities. What needs to be done. The next major initiative is, and I’ll be announcing it Friday in Pittsburgh in detail, is to rebuild the infrastructure both physical and technological infrastructure of this country.” Responding to a mass shooting at a grocery store in Boulder, Colo., earlier this week, Mr. Biden called on the Senate to pass a ban on assault weapons and to close background check loopholes. But so far, his administration has done nothing to indicate it plans to spend much political capital on a proposals that were immediately met with a blockade of opposition by Republicans. The White House is expected to roll out three executive actions in the coming weeks. One would classify some firearms as so-called ghost guns — kits that allow a gun to be assembled from pieces. Another would fund community violence intervention programs, and the third would strengthen the background checks system, according to congressional aides familiar with the conversations. But that may be the extent of Mr. Biden’s efforts on the issue for now, as he confronts crises on multiple fronts. “The fundamental problem is getting people some peace of mind so they can go to bed at night and not stare at the ceiling wondering whether they lost their health insurance, whether they’re going to lose a family member, whether they’re going to be in a position where they’re going to lose their home because they can’t pay their mortgage,” the president said.AT: Immigration Thumps Biden won’t be able to get immigration reform passed – empirics proveElaine Kamarck, 6-22-2021, "Can Biden pass immigration reform? History says it will be tough," Brookings, , DJPOn his very first day in office the new President Biden sent a comprehensive immigration bill to Congress to fulfill one of his major campaign promises. Will it work this time? A short look back at history shows just how difficult immigration reform can be. There have been two attempts at comprehensive immigration reform in the 21st century: one in 2007 and one in 2013. In both instances the political environment started out looking promising, and in both instances the legislation failed. In 2006 there was every reason to be optimistic about the prospects for immigration reform. President George W. Bush was in his second term and thus had nothing to fear from a far-right challenge for his party’s nomination. In addition, as a former governor of Texas, he had great familiarity with the issue and wanted very much to do something about it. He had bipartisan support in the Senate from two of its most revered members: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA). In the 2006 elections, Democrats took control and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (CA) became the first woman speaker of the House. There was reason to assume that a strong, bipartisan coalition could be put together in favor of a comprehensive bill. But that coalition never happened. In the winter and spring of 2006 pro-immigration reform groups, many of them Mexican-American political action organizations, decided that they could help the prospect of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act by organizing a series of high-profile national marches. Not content with the fact that President George W. Bush and most of the liberals in the Senate, including Senator Ted Kennedy, were planning to work together on a bipartisan bill, organizers assumed that bringing the fight out of Washington and to the country would help their cause. All through the spring of 2006 organizers put together mega-events. A march in Chicago drew 100,000 marchers. It was followed by demonstrations in Tampa, Houston, Dallas and even Salt Lake City. The biggest demonstration of all took place in Los Angeles on March 25, 2006, when more than 500,000 people marched and attended rallies at the Civic Center and in MacArthur Park. Even more marches took place on May Day (May 1) a day otherwise known as International Workers’ Day—a traditional time of demonstrations for trade unions and other left-wing political causes. The marches were widely covered by a mostly favorable media. Marchers waved American flags (some upside down—which can be a sign of distress or of disrespect) and Mexican flags. Signs were in Spanish and English—“Si se puede” was a popular one, as was “Today we march, tomorrow we vote.” In both breadth and enthusiasm, these marches evoked the large civil rights demonstrations of the 1960s. However, the consensus immediately after the fact was that the demonstrations backfired. Even though organizers had tried to get marchers to leave the Mexican flags at home, their argument was only partially successful against arguments about ethnic pride. The Federation for American Immigration Reform, an anti-immigration group, saw its membership increase. Members of Congress felt the backlash. Republican lawmakers saw their offices flooded with phone calls as a result of the marches. Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) said “They lost me, when I saw so many Mexican flags.”[1] “The size and magnitude of the demonstrations had some kind of backfire effect,” said John McLoughlin, a Republican pollster working for House members and Senators seeking re-election. With a large chunk of the Republican Party energized by their nativist base to oppose the 2007 bill, President Bush needed solid Democratic support. But the Democrats had their own factional problems. In April 2006 the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean, referred to the guest worker provisions in the bill as “indentured servitude.” And AFL-CIO President John Sweeny openly opposed the guest worker provisions as well. Opposition came from Black lawmakers too. Speaking on National Public Radio, political scientist Ron Walters pointed “to the response of the Congressional Black Caucus to a liberal immigration bill produced by one of its own members, Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas. Only 9 of the 43 caucus members supported it.” The factional divides among House Democrats were present among Democratic voters as well. A 2005 Pew poll asked Democrats questions about immigration and divided them into liberals, conservatives and disadvantaged democrats (referring to economic disadvantage). Note the stark differences between liberals and both disadvantaged Democrats and conservatives. The immigration bill died in the summer of 2007 when proponents failed to garner the 60 votes in the Senate required to move the bill forward. And in the House, Speaker Pelosi needed 50 to 70 Republican votes to move forward but a resolution in the Republican conference opposing the Senate bill passed by 114 to 21. She decided not to bring it to the floor. It took six years before a second comprehensive immigration bill was introduced into Congress. As in 2007, many political experts thought that this time the stars were aligned. Democrats had picked up seats in the Senate in the 2012 elections that gave them a comfortable majority. And Democratic President Barack Obama had won a second term in office with a strong backing from Hispanic voters, leading national Republicans to discuss the need to deal with immigration in the face of the growing Hispanic vote. While Republicans still controlled the House, Democrats had picked up seats. On June 27, 2013, Senate bill 744, a second comprehensive immigration bill, passed the Senate on a 68 to 32 vote. The bill had been created by a bipartisan “gang of 8” – four Democratic senators and four Republican senators—and its passage created the expectation that there would be quick action in the House as well. Contributing to this optimism was the fact that this time around the Democratic coalition was less divided. In the six years since failure of the 2007 legislation, the labor movement had changed and included many more Hispanics in its membership. Rick Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO had this to say about the new legislation: “Our role is to make sure that road map leads to citizenship achievable not only in theory but in fact. Workers care for the elderly, mow our lawns or drive our taxis, work hard and deserve a reliable road map to citizenship. And so the labor movement’s entire grassroots structure will be mobilized throughout this process and across this country to make sure the road map is inclusive.” The Congressional Black Caucus was a bit less enthusiastic but still expressed support for the effort while complaining that the Diversity Visa Program had been eliminated.[3] And the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the agricultural lobby were on board as well. Meanwhile, the Obama administration had continued efforts begun during the Bush administration to prove that the United States could police the borders. In 2013 federal prosecutions for immigration crimes reached an all-time high. But Obama’s get-tough actions at the border infuriated Hispanic activists and failed to convince some Republicans that the border was under control. If the factions of the Democratic Party had softened in the years between 2007 and 2013, the factions in the Republican Party had hardened. In 2013, Speaker John Boehner was facing significant intra-party infighting, largely due to the growing voice of the Tea Party activists in his conference—a group that would contribute to his historic resignation just two years later. To please the hard-liners in his party he rejected the Senate bill in favor of a series of smaller bills and then, when suspicion was that these smaller bills would go to conference with the hated Senate bill, he had to promise not to compromise. And then, as is so often the case in politics, something happened that on the face of it had nothing to do with immigration reform but that killed it nonetheless. Majority Leader Eric Cantor, widely expected to succeed Boehner as speaker, lost his Republican primary to a right-wing tea party supporter who among other things campaigned on opposition to immigration reform. Republicans were spooked by Cantor’s loss. If a member of the leadership could lose to an unknown Tea Party challenger, they could too. Boehner never brought the legislation to the floor, in spite of the fact that it probably could have passed with a united Democratic caucus and some more moderate business-oriented Republicans. What will happen this time around is anyone’s guess. Immigration reform has always had a way of eluding the best-laid plans of powerful people. The Republican Party is still in limbo, with many members clearly anti-immigrant and others fearful of an anti-immigrant primary electorate. While Democrats are less divided than Republicans, their margins are so small that they can’t afford to lose anyone. Immigration reform may be as difficult in the third decade of the 21st century as it was in the first and second. This is in part because of a fundamental paradox. On the one hand, the United States is a country of immigrants; on the other hand, it is a country that has always been worried about being overrun by immigrants. And this makes reform especially difficult.AT: Immigration Thumps – Reklaitis EvAT: Reklaitis 21Their card – Immigration reform doesn’t make Biden unpopular because it’s his only mistake; the “popularity loss” they talked about was with a small sample size of random people, who said they liked Biden in every category except immigration. The card says that Biden is popular, and that the infrastructure bill will pass later this year.Victor Reklaitis, 4-29-2021, "What has Biden gotten wrong in his first 100 days? Done right? Analysts sound off.," MarketWatch, , DJPAs President Joe Biden marks his 100th day in office, analysts have been sizing up his initial months on the job — and finding hits and misses. Scorecard: Here’s where Biden stands on key goals at his 100-day mark U.S.-Mexico border issues are the main thing that Biden is getting wrong or needs to work on, according to Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. The 46th president’s administration has struggled to handle increasing numbers of migrants arriving at the border, leading to plenty of criticism from Republicans as well as Democrats and independents. “It is the one major policy area where Americans already give him low grades,” Sabato told MarketWatch. See: Southern border woes dent Biden approval on immigration, poll finds The Biden White House has made an effort to avoid describing the situation at the border as a “crisis.” Skirmishing over terminology is “evidence that what’s happening on the border has definitely tripped up the Biden administration,” said Matthew Continetti, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank. Another problem has been Biden’s handling of former President Donald Trump’s cap on refugees, according to Sarita McCoy Gregory, who chairs the department of political science and history at Hampton University in Virginia. Biden eventually said after pressure from allies that he plans to increase the cap by May 15. “The Biden administration seemed to fumble by trying to sustain the low refugee ceiling put in place by the previous administration,” Gregory said. In addition, she said, the administration still needs to work on college-affordability issues such as forgiveness of student loans. On the foreign-policy front, AEI’s Continetti criticized Biden’s effort to convene talks with Iran about getting both countries back into, and into compliance with, a deal limiting Iran’s nuclear program, calling it a “rush into the negotiations” and warning the president could “give away too much.” What the News Means for You and Your Money Understand how today’s business practices, market dynamics, tax policies and more impact you with real-time news and analysis from MarketWatch. SUBSCRIBE NOW: 50% OFF 1 YEAR MarketWatch on Multiple devices Thursday marks the 100th day since Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20, though the milestone falls on Friday if counting full days on the job. What Biden’s getting right The COVID-19 pandemic and the economy are the two most important topics for most Americans, and so far people are pleased with Biden, Sabato said. There are hiccups with the nationwide vaccination program, but overall everyone “can finally see the light at the end of a very dark tunnel,” the University of Virginia scholar said. With the economy, there are some inflation concerns, but generally Biden is “looking good.” Henrietta Treyz, director of economic policy at Veda Partners, said the Biden team has been “impressive” in getting a $1.9 trillion relief package enacted and putting a $2.3 trillion infrastructure plan on the path to becoming a reality later this year, even as Democrats just barely have control of the Senate and House. His administration’s “disciplined approach to messaging” has led to two bills in a row “with over 70% approval ratings amongst the American public,” she said in an email. “I can’t recall a time in the last decade or more in which two [$2 trillion] pieces of legislation passed back-to-back with that kind of approval nationwide.” AEI’s Continetti said Biden is “getting very good marks on his handling of the pandemic and the distribution of vaccine” and added that “just goes to show the power of bearing and persona.” “His policies are not all that different from the Trump administration’s pandemic policies, but the way in which he communicates, the way that he models his own behavior — I think the public appreciates greatly,” Continetti said in an interview. Sabato and Hampton’s Gregory also praised Biden’s bearing. His administration has “conveyed a sense of caring and empathy for what ails the hearts of Americans,” Gregory said. She added that it has been “refreshing” to see Vice President Kamala Harris accompany the president and have featured speaking roles on many important issues. Sabato said he gives the Democratic president an “A+ for style” following Trump’s tendency to stupefy on Twitter TWTR, -2.41% and at events. “There can’t be many Americans outside the Trump cult who aren’t happy and relieved that Biden generates so little drama. Boring tweets. No harangues at rallies and press conferences,” Sabato told MarketWatch. In foreign policy, Sabato said Biden deserves credit for making allies abroad feel more confident about the U.S. through actions such as putting Russia “back on notice.” Evaluating the stock market’s gain Since Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20, the S&P 500 index SPX, -0.20% has gained about 10% and the Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA a shade less. So what’s behind the stock market’s advance during Biden’s first 100 days? “We’re in this kind of sweet spot,” Continetti said. “Biden’s tax plans have not kicked in. Major regulations that he’s no doubt thinking of — in terms of the environment — have not kicked in. And at the same time, we have a tremendous amount of money that’s just gushing through the system, so I think that the economy is going to grow, and there’s no question about that.” See: Biden’s first 100 days poised as best such stretch for S&P 500, Dow since FDR But the AEI analyst highlighted the market’s tumble on April 22, which was widely attributed to reports that the Biden administration was considering a hike in capital-gains taxes. That drop “illustrates the dangers here that some of his taxes and regulatory policies might reduce productivity and might reduce growth,” he said. When asked about the selloff, White House press secretary Jen Psaki last week noted that the market was already rallying back back from the prior day’s fall. Sabato said the Biden administration’s stability and “clear course of action on most policies” are contributing to the market’s advance. Treyz of Veda Partners, an investment adviser and consultancy, tied the gains to vaccinations for the most part. “I think the vaccine is the main player generally, but to link the administration to the market I’d say the investment community generally overestimated the extent to which the 2021 Congress would be led by the progressive wing of the party,” she said. Investors also “have registered upside surprise” to developments including the failure of the federal $15-an-hour minimum wage and the absence of tax hikes associated with the COVID relief bill and “maybe a more down-to-Earth assessment of what can happen in the forthcoming infrastructure bill,” she said. What’s ahead After the infrastructure bill, it’s “quite likely that no other proactive legislation will pass in the next three years,” Treyz said. “For that reason I think investors should anticipate significant action on the global stage, around trade, tariffs, digital taxation and other multinational- and executive-action-based fronts from 2022 [to] 2024.” AT: Police Reform ThumpsBiden is avoiding police reform to save all of his PC for infrastructure.Morgan Chalfant, 4-24-2021, "Biden takes careful approach to police reform," TheHill, , DJPBiden takes careful approach to police reform. President Biden is keeping his distance from police reform legislation negotiations on Capitol Hill, using his bully pulpit to publicly demand action on reform but leaving the legislating to lawmakers. The strategy is meant to give Republicans and Democrats time to come together on a police reform measure that can pass the Senate, and allies say that Biden is likely to become more intimately involved in the process at the appropriate moment. Behind the scenes, the White House has been engaging with lawmakers and offices on Capitol Hill involved in the discussions on police reform and Biden held a meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) recently during which the issue came up. Still, Biden has not yet convened meetings focused on police reform specifically and the White House has danced around questions about whether he has pressed Republicans in private conversations on the issue. “Joe Biden is a very pragmatic realist. He understands the legislative process,” said Moe Vela, a former Biden adviser. “The reason he is giving them room to negotiate and compromise is he knows especially in a divided Congress and country ... that the hope of getting anything done and getting any progress is rooted in compromise and collaboration.” The renewed push for policing reform after the conviction of Derek Chauvin for murdering George Floyd has underscored the need for Biden to pick and choose where to use his political capital. He has spent weeks courting Republicans to support an infrastructure proposal, and the White House signaled Thursday he would continue to hold meetings with lawmakers on that issue into next month. Next week, Biden is expected to roll out his American Families Plan, which will focus on investing roughly $1 trillion in education and child care programs. Passing it will require him to win over skeptical Democrats at a minimum so that the proposal can pass via budget reconciliation with 50 votes in the Senate. Advocates are being patient with the administration given the amount of energy officials need to spend on fighting the pandemic, but they say tackling racial injustice is a must. “We understand and we realize that [with Democrats] controlling the House and the Senate and the White House, we have a short window,” said DeAnna Hoskins, president of JustLeadershipUSA, a group that advocates for criminal justice reform. Officials said Biden’s commitment earlier this week both on a call with George Floyd’s family and in an address to the nation that he would see to it that policing reform gets done reflects that he is serious about putting his weight behind the effort. “I think it makes a world of difference when a president does it because a president is signaling that this is a priority, that this is something that has to get done, that the president is going to work to get done,” said Phil Schiliro, who served a stint as director of legislative affairs in the Obama White House. “That doesn’t mean it will get done. It all depends on the votes. But sometimes the president saying that can be the difference between getting it done and not getting it done.” Vela noted that the White House would be wise to spend significant time and resources in seeing a police reform measure across the finish line, particularly given the support from Black voters who propelled Biden to the White House. “They wouldn’t be sitting there if it wasn’t for the African American electorate. So if you’re going to use political capital, I would expect they’re going to use a substantial amount of it on the constituency that played arguably the greatest role in getting him elected,” Vela said. Democrats and Republicans remain far apart in the police reform debate, particularly when it comes to the issue of qualified immunity, leaving some allies of the White House skeptical that a bill can be passed. “This is something that Biden wants to do but I don’t know how fast it can get done,” said Jim Kessler, vice president for policy at centrist Democratic think tank Third Way. “The problem isn’t how much Biden is pushing on the accelerator on this. The issue really is that particularly over the last few months, the Republican electoral strategy is to make clear to white voters that black grievances on voting and criminal justice aren’t real.” Kessler, a former aide to Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), expressed concerns that a police reform measure could go the way of the immigration reform effort under the Obama administration. “I know there are Republicans that want to be holistic on this but what I’m afraid of is that this falls into the same whirlpool that the 2013 immigration bill did which was, as we were getting closer to getting something done, Republicans abruptly retreated and scuttled efforts out of fear of their base,” he said. Some advocates have also expressed concerns that the Chauvin guilty verdict could lessen the pressure on Congress to get a reform bill passed, meaning Biden’s involvement could be all the more important. “I think the verdict if anything is more ammunition for legislators who wouldn’t be inclined to support police reform to not support it because the verdict for them shows that the system ‘works’ and, why would it need to change?” said Alexis Hoag, a lecturer at Columbia Law School and former senior counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Rep. Karen Bass (D-Calif.) are negotiating a compromise bill. “I have been talking to the White House about policing reform before they became the Biden administration,” Booker told reporters Wednesday. “This is a big issue and critically important to this country.” The House passed the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act earlier this year in a party-line vote. But the bill’s inclusion of a policy that would overhaul qualified immunity that grants certain protections for law enforcement has been a roadblock to garnering Republican support in the Senate. Scott’s bill, the Justice Act, covers many of the same areas of concern addressed by the Democrats’ bill such as the banning of chokeholds. The senator, who is the lone Black Republican in the Senate, signaled after the passage of the George Floyd bill that he was hopeful the two sides could find common ground. As the White House undertakes a low-key outreach to Capitol Hill, the Biden administration is taking steps to address policing unilaterally by trying to increase accountability of police departments. Attorney General Merrick Garland earlier this month rescinded a Trump-era memo that curtailed the use of consent decrees to reform police departments accused of wrongdoing. Less than 24 hours after Chauvin’s conviction, Garland also announced that the Justice Department has opened a pattern or practice investigation into the Minneapolis Police Department. There are limits to what the federal government and Congress can do to advance police reform, particularly because most of the 18,000 police departments across the country are state or local law enforcement agencies. Pence urges Biden to get tough on China amid 'emerging cold war' Democrats look to flip script on GOP 'defund the police' attacks Hoskins said it is incumbent on the administration to work directly with people in communities impacted by gun and police violence and to work with the goal of eliminating systemic racism in law enforcement and other institutions. “We’re not willing to dig deep enough as to what’s the real problem,” she said. “The real problem is racism.”AT: George Floyd Act ThumpsNo PC is being spent on the George Floyd Act and everyone knows it; it has no chance to pass the Senate.CBS News, 7-7-2021, "Congressional policing reform negotiations continue despite setbacks," , DJPNearly two weeks after Senate and House negotiators announced they had a “framework” on policing reform, talks are continuing while Congress is in recess. Negotiations gained momentum after the police officer who killed George Floyd last year was convicted of murder. But the discussions, led by Democratic Senator Cory Booker, Congresswoman Karen Bass and Republican Senator Tim Scott, stalled over disagreements about litigation against police officers. Complaints from civil rights and law enforcement groups may also threaten any prospect of a deal. Despite setbacks last month and a lack of specificity in the framework, discussions between the key negotiators continued over the weekend, a source familiar with the negotiations told CBS News. Lawmakers remain optimistic about reaching a deal but staff members are still concerned about unresolved disagreements and gaps that still need to be bridged. Democrats want to overhaul qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that shields government officials, including police officers, from being held liable for constitutional violations. But Republicans are unwilling to end the practice, arguing that it would make officers vulnerable to frivolous lawsuits. In March, the House passed the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which would eliminate qualified immunity for police officers. However, it is unlikely to pass the Senate, where Democrats would need support from at least 10 Republicans to advance the bill. So negotiators have the tricky task of crafting a bill that could appeal to Democrats in the House and Republicans in the Senate. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn suggested in May that it might be more productive for negotiators to “come back” to qualified immunity in order to reach a compromise. CBS News recently asked Clyburn if he still feels that way, in view of the latest impasse. “A couple months ago when I said ‘a half loaf is better than no loaf’ is that a whole loaf to me is to get rid of qualified immunity,” Clyburn explained. “No loaf is for it to stay the way that it is. A half loaf is somewhere in between. And so that’s what I meant when I said a half loaf is better than no loaf.” Another sticking point involves disagreements over Section 242 of the U.S. Code. Democrats have advocated for changing Section 242 to require a jury to decide whether a law enforcement officer acted with reckless disregard in order to convict, rather than the current standard of “willfulness.” Republicans involved in the negotiations rejected a draft proposal circulated by Booker in early June, which would have made an officer’s employer liable for any misconduct by the officer. The draft also suggested making it illegal for police to “intentionally” use excessive force. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who is also engaged in the negotiations, told reporters last month that he thought the draft “was pretty bad.” Republicans want to ensure that any deal doesn’t diminish law enforcement officers’ ability to do their jobs. Graham said on Tuesday that he is “somewhat optimistic” a deal can still be made. “There are two goals here: to drive better policing so that some of the abuses we’ve seen in the past no longer occur, and try to make sure that the men and women in blue feel appreciated and that we put money on the table to professionalize our police forces but also to pay them more and train them better,” Graham said. But stakeholders have also voiced concerns about the negotiations. The NAACP, joined by multiple civil rights groups, said in a joint statement in late June that “there are a few factions within the law enforcement community who do not want meaningful change or accountability,” and that these actors “are committed to standing in the way of a bill moving forward.” “Congress must pass a strong police accountability measure that will address misconduct head-on, not a bill that tinkers around the edges of justice and responsibility,” the groups said, calling on Congress to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. The groups plan to raise police reform Thursday in a White House meeting with President Biden that will also focus on voting rights. “He will remain engaged closely with civil rights leaders…as well as with leaders of Congress,” said White House press secretary Jen Psaki. “He agrees with the frustration that there is more we can do to put in place reforms on policing, something that he feels is long overdue and he would like to sign a bill into law.” The Fraternal Order of Police, a large police union engaged in negotiations, said in a statement at the end of June that “demagoguery and scare tactics have jeopardized the future of these efforts and may well have derailed the negotiations.” “If Congress abandons its efforts on criminal justice reform, the results for our citizens and our profession will be tragic,” FOP President Patrick Yoes said. “If in fact the effort to craft bipartisan legislation does come to an end, we will have missed an enormous opportunity to strengthen the bonds between police officers and the communities they serve while ensuring the continuation of protections which are vital to rank-and-file police officers.” Still, negotiators seem determined to press forward until a deal is reached. “I’ve been working on this issue for 48 years. So a year, even though it’s frustrating to me, it doesn’t make me want to turn away and give up. I cannot give it up,” Bass told reporters at the Capitol last week.Even back in March, the George Floyd Act never had a chance; it caused no controversy because everyone knew it wouldn’t pass.Nicholas Fandos, Catie Edmondson and Karen Zraick, 3-4-2021, "The House passes a policing overhaul bill named for George Floyd, whose death spurred nationwide protests.," The New York Times, , DJPHouse Democrats passed a sweeping federal policing overhaul on Wednesday that would combat racial discrimination and excessive use of force in law enforcement, as lawmakers seek to rekindle bipartisan negotiations on the issue. The House first passed the legislation last summer, in an effort to respond to an outpouring of demands for racial justice after the killings of Black Americans across the country, including George Floyd, for whom the bill was named. But in the months since, Republican opposition in the House and Senate has only hardened, making its passage through the Senate exceedingly unlikely for now. The House vote was 220 to 212, with two Democrats joining Republicans to vote no. One Republican voted to pass the overhaul, but quickly said it had been a mistake. Progressives are plotting to use the opposition as an example of Republican obstruction as they build their case for Senate Democrats to jettison the legislative filibuster, to lower the threshold for Senate passage from 60 to just a simple majority. But Representative Karen Bass, Democrat of California and the bill’s principal author, said in an interview this week that she held out hope she could reach common ground with a cadre of Senate Republicans, led by Tim Scott of South Carolina, who had put together their own more modest proposal last summer. “There is tremendous good faith and good will between Senator Scott and me,” Ms. Bass said, though she conceded that there had been a “loss in momentum” in favor of an overhaul since last summer. The political shift was evident on Wednesday and may prove too formidable to overcome. After handling Democrats’ proposal gently last summer, Republicans made outright attacking liberal policing proposals a key plank of their 2020 campaigns and emerged convinced it was successful. Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the Republican leader, repeated one of those attacks on Thursday, asserting that the bill would “defund the police” by imposing “mountains of new regulations” that would drain departments’ resources. The attack sought to conflate the House Democrats’ effort with calls by progressive activists to shrink or otherwise pull resources from departments — which the lawmakers in Washington who crafted the bill explicitly rejected. “Democrats just doubled down as the party of Defunding the Police,” Mr. McCarthy wrote on Twitter. The House bill would amount to the most significant federal intervention into law enforcement in years. It would change legal protections that shield police officers from lawsuits, known as qualified immunity, and make it easier to prosecute them for wrongdoing. It would also impose a new set of restrictions on the use of deadly force, and effectively ban the use of chokeholds. Law enforcement organizations and police unions have forcefully opposed the measure, and the Trump administration had threatened a veto, arguing it would weaken law enforcement agencies. President Biden supports the bill. George Floyd, a 46-year-old African-American man, died in Minneapolis on May 25 after being handcuffed and pinned to the ground under the knee of a white police officer for more than nine minutes as he protested, “I can’t breathe.” The county medical examiner ruled the death a homicide. Jury selection is set to begin on Monday for the trial of the officer, Derek Chauvin, who was fired and charged with second-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. Three other former officers involved in Mr. Floyd’s death will be tried separately. Nicholas Fandos is congressional correspondent, based in Washington. He has covered Capitol Hill since 2017, chronicling two Supreme Court confirmation fights, two historic impeachments of Donald J. Trump, and countless bills in between. @npfandos Catie Edmondson is a reporter in the Washington bureau, covering Congress. @CatieEdmondson Karen Zraick is a breaking news and general assignment reporter. @karenzraickAT: Drug Policy ThumpsInfrastructure is Biden’s plan of working with drug policy; all the more reason for him to spend all of his PC on infrastructureBiden-Harris Administration, 2021, "," Executive Office of the President, , DJPThe Biden-Harris Administration’s Statement of Drug Policy Priorities for Year One. As we expand the continuum of care to address the chronic nature of substance use disorders, recovery support services help people build recovery capital to manage and sustain long-term recovery. Offered in a variety of institutional- and community-based settings, recovery support services include peer support services and engagement, recovery housing, recovery community centers, and recovery programs in high schools and colleges. Scaling up the capacity and infrastructure of these programs will create strong resource networks to equip communities to support recovery for everyone. In the first year, the Biden-Harris Administration will work through ONDCP to coordinate with other White House components and the interagency to: ? Work with federal partners, State and local governments, and recovery housing stakeholders to begin developing sustainability protocols for recovery housing, including certification, payment models, evidence-based practices, and technical assistance; ? Develop interagency support for Recovery Month activities in September; and ? Engage persons with “lived experience” in the development of drug policy.AT: Court Reform ThumpsBiden will not spend any PC on Court Reform, and Pelosi won’t even bring it up; no chance of thumpingUSA Today, 4/19/2021, USA Today, , DJP WASHINGTON – President Joe Biden’s lately introduced fee to examine the Supreme Court docket is going through political headwinds earlier than it convenes its first assembly, underscoring the problem advocates for change have confronted for years. Dismissed by some on the proper as an effort to “pack the courtroom” with further justices, the 36-member group can be already drawing fireplace from some quarters on the left for its composition of teachers, restricted mandate and six-month timeline to complete its work. “I’m a bit of disillusioned that the fee wasn’t given a mandate that claims ‘provide you with suggestions,'” mentioned Gabe Roth, govt director of Repair the Court docket, a nonpartisan group looking for time period limits for justices and higher transparency on the courtroom. “I do not consider it’s that arduous to provide you with a consensus on core points.” Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-NY) hold a press conference in front of the U.S. Supreme Court to announce legislation to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court on April 15, 2021, in Washington, D.C. One of many central inquiries to be studied by the fee – whether or not to develop the scale of the courtroom – was dealt a political blow Thursday when progressives proposed laws to extend the courtroom to 13 justices. Republicans and conservative teams erupted and Home Speaker Nancy Pelosi shortly undercut the hassle by saying she had no intention of bringing the invoice to the ground for a vote – at the least for now. Then-candidate Biden promised to call the fee as President Donald Trump and Senate Republicans rushed to verify Affiliate Justice Amy Coney Barrett earlier than the election, giving conservatives a 6-3 edge on the courtroom for the primary time for the reason that Nineteen Thirties. On the time, Biden mentioned he was “not a fan” of including to the nine-member bench. Throughout his ABC city corridor, Joe Biden was requested to make clear his stance on including extra seats to the Supreme Court docket. USA TODAY Biden adopted by means of final week, signing an govt order that duties the fee with learning the “deserves and legality of explicit reform proposals.” The president did not communicate in regards to the group and the White Home has thus far declined to say when the fee will maintain its first assembly, which begins the clock on its six-month deadline. Even with that understated rollout, conservatives pilloried the plan. Carrie Severino with the Judicial Disaster Community mentioned the fee was supposed to “reward the liberal darkish cash teams” and predicted something it proposed would “match that political agenda.” “Nothing produced by such a far-left fee has any probability of passing,” she mentioned. However whereas increasing the courtroom is controversial, there was bipartisan help for another adjustments to the federal judiciary, together with the Supreme Court docket, previously. A few of these concepts have been deeply intertwined with constitutional debates for the reason that nation’s founding. Listed below are just a few concepts the fee is more likely to think about this 12 months, beginning with essentially the most contentious. Adding to ‘the nine’ Biden’s order by no means mentions the fraught challenge that was the genesis of the fee, a push so as to add justices to the Supreme Court docket. A White House assertion made passing reference to the concept the group will examine the “membership and dimension of the courtroom.” Advocates observe the courtroom’s dimension is ready by federal statute, not the Structure, and that the variety of justices has modified previously. Opponents, together with among the justices themselves, counter that the courtroom’s present dimension has been set for greater than 150 years they usually assert that including seats would additional politicize the courtroom’s work. The courtroom “is out of stability, and it must be fastened,” Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., mentioned exterior the Supreme Court docket Thursday. “Too many Individuals have misplaced religion within the courtroom as a impartial arbiter of crucial constitutional and authorized questions that come up in our judicial system.” President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted -- and failed -- to expand the size of the Supreme Court in his second term. President Franklin D. Roosevelt tried — and failed — to increase the scale of the Supreme Court docket in his second time period. Hulton Archive / Getty Pictures Adding to the courtroom would offset the affect of the courtroom’s conservatives, together with the three justices that Trump appointed. Nonetheless, increasing the courtroom hasn’t been tried since President Franklin D. Roosevelt and polls present it is extraordinarily divisive. Biden has signaled he isn’t ready to spend political capital on the thought. “It could erode or denigrate the independence of the judiciary,” mentioned Paul Summers, a former Tennessee lawyer basic and co-chair of the “Preserve 9” Coalition, a gaggle that’s pushing for a constitutional modification that will set the variety of justices. “It could erode the checks and balances of the usage of energy on the opposite two branches.” A White House spokesman didn’t instantly reply to a request for remark and White House press secretary Jen Psaki was noncommittal with reporters Thursday about whether or not Biden helps the thought of increasing the courtroom. Biden, she mentioned, would make up his thoughts after seeing the results of the fee’s work. “He’ll look ahead to that to play out and wait to learn that report,” she mentioned. Limiting lifetime terms Federal judges, together with Supreme Court docket justices, maintain their workplace “throughout good conduct,” a provision within the Structure that has lengthy been interpreted to imply lifetime tenure. However there’s debate about whether or not that interpretation is sound – in any case, the Framers did not explicitly use the phrases “life time period” – and whether or not federal jurists may serve “for good conduct” for some time period set by Congress. Some advocates have known as for an 18-year time period for any new justices confirmed to the Supreme Court docket. “There’s really appreciable historic help that what this implies is that they get to serve for the time period of their appointment, and that time period of their appointment could possibly be determined by Congress,” Leah Litman, a professor at College of Michigan Legislation Faculty and a detailed observer of the courtroom, mentioned final week throughout a webinar hosted by the progressive American Structure Society. Kevork Djansezian, Getty Pictures; Manuel Balce Ceneta, AP Proponents of the thought argue partly {that a} sooner churn of justices would take away among the political sting from affirmation battles since presidents of each events would get extra alternatives to appoint candidates. The typical time on the bench for a Supreme Court docket justice has almost doubled, from 15 years earlier than 1970 to twenty-eight years since then, in accordance with Roth’s analysis. The concept shouldn’t be a strictly partisan one. Chief Justice John Roberts, then an lawyer in President Ronald Reagan’s White Home, opined in 1983 that setting a time period restrict of 15 years “would be sure that federal judges wouldn’t lose all contact with actuality by means of many years of ivory tower existence.” However Anthony Marcum, a resident fellow on the libertarian R Road Institute, argues time period limits would solely increase the temperature of Supreme Court docket affirmation fights by extra often lining them up in presidential election years. Below staggered, 18-year phrases, he famous, a two-term president would decide 44% of the courtroom’s justices. “Time period limits don’t remedy any issues surrounding the Supreme Court docket,” Marcum mentioned, including that advocates as an alternative ought to concentrate on “growing transparency” and making certain that Individuals – and lawmakers – perceive the courtroom’s position because the nation’s high judicial decisionmaker. Ethics and recusals A few of these concepts, reminiscent of a code of conduct or requiring justices to be extra forthcoming in regards to the causes they recuse themselves from circumstances, have generated bipartisan curiosity and would carry the courtroom extra according to the opposite branches.AT: Healthcare ThumpsNone of Biden’s PC will be spent on healthcare issues.Paige Winfield Cunningham, 5-27-2021, "Analysis," Washington Post, , DJPDemocrats are trying to signal they’re still serious about advancing new health-care policies, even as the White House increasingly sidelines the issue. Two top congressional Democrats have announced they’ll write a bill to create a government-run, “public option” plan — something President Biden promised on the campaign trail to do but is now expected to leave out of his budget proposal being released tomorrow. The effort by Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) still faces the same political obstacles to passing a public option plan that were always there: intense industry opposition and Democrats’ narrow majorities in the House and Senate. But it gives Democrats an easier answer when asked whether they’re working toward their oft-repeated 2020 campaign promises for a new wave of action on improving insurance options and lowering health-care costs in the United States. “This buys time for a process and is something for leadership and committees to point to on ‘action’ on public option,” a GOP health lobbyist wrote me. Pallone and Murray are soliciting feedback on how to design a public option plan. “As we work to craft legislation, our priority is to establish a federally administered public option that provides quality, affordable health coverage throughout the United States,” they wrote in a letter to “all interested parties” released yesterday. They specifically requested feedback by July 31 on a number of questions, including: Who should be eligible for the public option. Whether the plan should be available to everyone or limited to certain categories of people, such as those eligible for individual marketplace coverage. How Congress should ensure enough medical providers participate in the plan. How to determine prices for health-care items and services, and how to structure the plan’s benefit package. As expected, the industry pushback started instantly. Doctors and hospitals hate the idea of a public option plan, because through it the government could insist upon lower payments for medical services. Private insurers dislike it because of the competitive threat posed by a government-backed plan that could offer lower premiums. The news releases started flooding in, starting with one from industry-funded group called Partnership for America’s Health Care Future, which was formed several years ago to counter growing calls for a single-payer health-care system. “A large and growing body of research shows that the public option would come with unaffordable new costs, take coverage choices away from consumers and threaten access to the quality care Americans need,” the group’s executive director, Lauren Crawford Shaver, wrote. The American Hospital Association wrote that “we do not support the introduction of a public option plan that could increase the strain covid-19 has placed on our health care system.” Realistically speaking, industry doesn’t have much to worry about at this very moment. The move by Murray and Pallone is significant and signals that Democrats are serious about doing a public option after the idea was scuttled during the 2010 debate over the Affordable Care Act. But the White House has been signaling that it plans on using its political capital for initiatives other than health care this year. Biden didn't include a measure to lower prescription drug prices — one hated by the pharmaceutical industry — in his “human infrastructure” spending plan. Similarly, the financial projections in his impending budget request are expected to exclude any mention of drug pricing or public option measures, my colleagues Jeff Stein and Tyler Pager reported.AT: Election Reform ThumpsThis won’t thump – Manchin blocks any attempt to overhaul elections Nicholas Fandos, 6-22-2021, "Biden Addresses Immigration, Voting Rights and More in His First Formal News Conference," No Publication, , DJPDemocrats racing to enact the most significant federal election overhaul in a generation, including a major expansion of voting rights, ran into a familiar roadblock on Thursday: Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia. A day after Democratic leaders used the first Senate hearing on the overhaul to propel the nearly 900-page behemoth to the top of their legislative agenda, Mr. Manchin, the most conservative Democrat in the chamber, called for the proposal to be sharply pared back and renegotiated with Republicans. He said there were “legitimate” concerns over some of its provisions. “Pushing through legislation of this magnitude on a partisan basis may garner short-term benefits, but will inevitably only exacerbate the distrust that millions of Americans harbor against the U.S. government,” Mr. Manchin said in a lengthy statement. “We can and we must reform our federal elections together — not as Democrats and Republicans, but as Americans to restore the faith and trust in our democracy.” With Republicans uniformly opposed to the bill — which would end partisan gerrymandering, restructure the Federal Election Commission, neuter state voter identification laws, expand early and mail-in voting, and curb the influence of dark money in politics — Mr. Manchin’s statement spelled considerable peril for its advocates. The bill, called the For the People Act, already passed the House on party lines. Activists who have spent spending tens of millions of dollars lobbying Mr. Manchin and others for its adoption insist it cannot be broken up. One such group, Common Cause, said on Thursday that it would continue working with Mr. Manchin to address his concerns and that it was confident the bill’s backers would win his support. To pass it in the Senate, the bill’s proponents have increasingly concluded they must persuade all 50 Democrats in the chamber to set aside earlier opposition and jettison the legislative filibuster to overcome Republican opposition. With Republican statehouses across the country moving swiftly to clamp down on ballot access after the 2020 election, they argue the stakes for American democracy and Democrats’ ability to win future elections are simply too high. Mr. Manchin appeared to reject that thinking for now. A former West Virginia secretary of state, he indicated he shared concerns raised by state election administrators and Republicans in Washington that the bill’s requirements and changes would be too onerous to carry out and represented a misguided federal takeover of the election system currently overseen by statesAT: Fililbuster ThumpsBiden won’t work to end the filibuster until the infrastructure bill is passed.Annie Karni and Katie Rogers, 6-22-2021, "Biden Addresses Immigration, Voting Rights and More in His First Formal News Conference," No Publication, , DJPHe reflected on his reputation as a “nice guy” and a “decent man.” He talked about how his great-grandfather set sail on the Irish Sea to make the difficult journey to America. He observed that “politics is the art of the possible.” In his first formal news conference since taking office, President Biden offered an early glimpse of the man who inhabits the Oval Office and how he is approaching the presidency so far. Unlike President Donald J. Trump’s hot-tempered blowups or President Barack Obama’s extended answers of professorial cool, Mr. Biden was the sober political veteran comfortable with thinking out loud, talking personally and conversationally, and showing occasional impatience before a roomful of reporters. When he received a question he did not like, such as whether he expected to run in 2024 against Mr. Trump, he shrugged it off with, “I don’t know where you guys come from, man.” But Mr. Biden did say he expected to run again, with Vice President Kamala Harris at his side. After nearly four decades in politics, including eight as vice president, he showed himself as a student of the office. “It’s a matter of timing,” he said when asked about his legislative priorities. “As you’ve all observed, the successful presidents better than me have been successful in large part because they know how to time what they’re doing. Order it. Decide priorities. What needs to be done.” To that end, he cited his $3 trillion infrastructure bill as “the next major initiative.” And when asked why he did not push to abolish the Senate filibuster, which requires 60 votes to pass most legislation and which Mr. Biden called a relic of the Jim Crow era, he said simply that “successful electoral politics is the art of the possible” — and that he wanted to see whether he could change the filibuster first.Link – Water ProtectionDebates over water protection reflect broader political fights --- there’s zero space for consensus Walton 15 – writes about agriculture, energy, infrastructure, and the politics and economics of water in the United States. He also writes the Federal Water Tap, Circle of Blue’s weekly digest of U.S. government water news. He is the winner of two Society of Environmental Journalists reporting awardsBrett, 8/6. “EPA Clean Water Rule Meets Political Pushback.” question of the day, the question that the EPA rule addresses and the same one that Baker pondered, is basic and fundamental to the act’s effectiveness: which waters have federal protection?Congress had opportunities to write the definition. U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006 — Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Rapanos v. United States — brought confusion, not clarity, about which water bodies are covered by Section 404, which requires permits for destroying wetlands and streams. Congress could have stepped in and reworked the language of the act. It did not. No serious attempts were mustered. The few proposals that did appear hewed to the ends of the political spectrum, finding no common ground, said Holly Doremus, a University of California, Berkeley law professor who studies the Clean Water Act.“None has passed because there isn’t bipartisan agreement,” Doremus told Circle of Blue. “There hasn’t been sufficient control by one side to get a version passed. There’s no compromise. There are not even proposals to find compromise.”Instead, the White House and the EPA, arguably the most politically beleaguered federal agency, began writing rules to clarify the Clean Water Act’s jurisdiction.On August 28, a new Clean Water Act rule goes into effect that sets the first-ever boundaries on the waters that are covered under the law. More than two years in development, the rule was buttressed by an extensive scientific review.Though its regulatory reach is less expansive than the science suggested, the rule nonetheless stirred waves of opposition after it was released on May 27. Since then, 27 states – only four of which have Democratic attorneys general — joined lawsuits to block its implementation. Lawsuits from the coal industry and the American Farm Bureau Federation seek the same result. A lawsuit from environmental groups swings in the opposite direction, contending that the rule sets the bar for federal protection of wetlands and streams too low. Even the Army Corps of Engineers, which is responsible for issuing Section 404 permits, argued that the proposal is too weak.The final rule pays deference to Justice Anthony Kennedy’s ambiguous test of jurisdiction from the 2006 Rapanos case, his bit of muddled language that threw the federal government’s regulatory powers in question: that the waterbody have a “significant nexus” to downstream waters.Rivers and their main tributaries are clearly within the law’s scope. Large lakes too. But what about creeks that are dry half the year? Or wetlands in the middle of the prairie? Or the water that drains from farm fields?For the first time, the EPA says that certain waters — farm ditches, agricultural drainage, reservoirs storing coal waste, channels that fill with water after rainstorms — were excluded from the act’s jurisdiction. Agency officials also set limits to define this “nexus” that are based on the distance a wetland is from a river.“We established clear boundaries here that we have never done before so that people would be able to see [what is covered],” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said on a May 27 press call to announce the rule. “[Farm groups] asked us about ditches, and they asked us about ditches, and they asked us about ditches. So we not only kept all the exclusions and exemptions for agriculture that are in current rules, we actually expanded those.”By adding the exclusions, the EPA was trying to find “a sweet spot” for defending the rule in court, argued Jeff Kray, a partner with Marten Law, a firm that specializes in environmental law.Still, the states and industry sued, arguing that the federal government overstepped its authority and that the states are in a better position to regulate water quality. The lawsuits seek to force the EPA back to the drawing board. They were filed courts that, judging by legal precedent, would be most sympathetic to the opposing view — courts with conservative justices, Kray said.What this means for how the EPA and the Army Corps administer and enforce the law is not clear. Kray said that the EPA is not talking as if it will back down.Others still have worries. A judicial decision or an injunction that throws the validity of the rule into question could choke off serious enforcement action at the EPA’s 10 regional offices, according to Parenteau, who served as counsel from 1984 to 1987 for EPA Region I, which covers the New England states.“The reaction is basically to shut down and wait,” Parenteau said. “The field offices don’t want to get too far ahead of headquarters. They are risk averse in that environment. They are not going to take chances. They are not going to put their career and job at risk if they don’t have clear authority. That’s the chilling effect of the lawsuits.”Legal observers say that the dispute reflects broader political disagreements about federal power that are reflected in health care reform, immigration, and other environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Air Act. Many industries and a number of states argue that federal regulation is an undo intrusion. Water crosses political boundaries and requires uniform standards, the Obama administration retorts.“The stalemate is another piece of the larger social discourse of the role of the federal government and the role of the states,” Kray told Circle of Blue.Kray and others think that the challenges to the EPA rule will land in the U.S. Supreme Court. In the meantime, opposition to the rule — from congressional Republicans out to block agency funding, to states and industries seeking to invalidate it, to green groups wanting to strengthen it — will be a test of agency tenacity to enforce and administer standards that it spent considerable time and resources developing.“It’s politics that will control how aggressive the EPA goes after enforcing the rule,” Doremus said.Water regulation is politically contentious---triggers high-stakes fightsSimpson 19 – former EPA economist and PERC Lone Mountain FellowR. David, 4/8. “What Went Wrong With WOTUS: Reflections on Economic Valuation and Environmental Regulation.” might hope that the research now underway will lead to future economic analyses of regulatory benefits that will be more widely accepted. We are, however, in a precarious political moment. The Kansas debate I happened to hear on that evening four years ago captured how contentious environmental regulation has become. A large portion of the electorate has acquired a deep disdain for the opinions “experts” offer to guide or justify public policy, a phenomenon that was further underscored in the seismic shifts of the 2016 elections. As with so many other aspects of American life and culture, it sometimes seems that opposing interests do not want to develop workable solutions to environmental problems so much as to score triumphs over their rivals.This has played out in a curious way with WOTUS. Opponents of the Clean Water Rule argued that it would vastly expand the authority of the EPA and Corps of Engineers. Rather than trying to allay concerns about regulatory overreach, environmental advocates may have instead exacerbated them by emphasizing that the rule would extend regulation to millions of miles of streams and millions of acres of wetlands. Both advocates and their adversaries depicted a high-stakes battle. Yet the agencies based their analyses on recent records that suggested the impacts of the proposed rule would be far less dramatic. While large areas might technically become subject to regulation under the new rule, the regulations would only affect landowners who contemplated doing something to modify waters covered by the rule, and the agencies argued there was little reason to suppose large areas would fall into this category.Passing environmental laws, such as water protection of the plan, are difficult and controversial – they sidetrack Biden and Congress.Richard J. Lazarus, Professor of law at Harvard University Law School, 1-5-2021, "Environmental Law &amp; Politics," American Bar Association, 2007, the environment—in particular, global warming—burst into the public consciousness. Former Vice President Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize and saw his film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” win an Oscar and become the fourth highest-grossing documentary of all time. International leaders gathered in Bali at the close of the year to launch a new round of climate change negotiations. And here at home, the United States Congress took up varying proposals to combat global warming while the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling on the issue. Global warming may represent the newest frontier in environmental law, but the lawmaking institutions working to address it have more than 30 years of history on which to build. This history has been tumultuous, but throughout it environmental law has grown, overcoming challenges and demonstrating a surprising resilience. Whether tackling global warming, water pollution, or the protection of endangered species, environmental lawmaking is uniquely and inherently difficult. As such, its persistence over the past three decades is even more remarkable. Making environmental law is difficult in part because the environment itself is so complex. Ecological systems are complicated and dynamic, as are the factors that contribute to environmental change. Environmental law must take this complexity into account. For example, when setting standards limiting the amount of a particular air pollutant, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must consider ecological factors including temperature, atmospheric pressure, and wind. The EPA also must take into account the many sources that contribute the pollutant into the air. Finally, the agency must consider how all these factors relate to human health—a measure by which it sets standards under the Clean Air Act. Our constitutional system itself poses additional hurdles. Lawmaking institutions are divided vertically between the federal government and states, as well as horizontally among Congress, executive branch agencies, and the courts. This deliberately fragmented system makes any type of lawmaking difficult and incremental. Enacting environmental laws is particularly difficult, because the injuries they seek to prevent are often far-off and diffuse, while their economic impact may be immediate. In addition, the Constitution limits the powers of Congress to an enumerated list that does not expressly mention the environment. As a result, legislators must hitch federal environmental laws to authority Congress does possess, such as the ability to regulate economic activity under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.Environmental Law is Difficult, Partisan, and will split Congress and the Executive – Decades of empirics proveRichard J. Lazarus, Professor of law at Harvard University Law School, 1-5-2021, "Environmental Law &amp; Politics," American Bar Association, 1970s was a seminal decade for environmental protection. Its first year saw three major accomplishments: the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Clean Air Act, and the creation of the EPA. NEPA alone was groundbreaking. Often called the “Magna Carta of environmental law,” it articulated a broad declaration of national policy to protect the environment. NEPA’s action-forcing requirements were even more significant than its aspirational policy statements. The law required federal agencies to assess the environmental impacts of their actions and to identify alternatives less likely to harm the environment. This “look-before- you-leap” approach changed the way the federal bureaucracy operated and proved—along with the law’s information disclosure requirements—NEPA’s most enduring legacy. Congress enacted nearly two dozen environmental laws over the course of the decade, and it did so with overwhelming bipartisan majorities. The federal environmental laws of the 1970s were dramatic, sweeping, and uncompromising. In addition to NEPA, there were public health and pollution control laws such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. There were also natural resources laws such as the Endangered Species Act, Natural Forest Management Act, and Marine Mammal Protection Act. The natural resources laws of the 1970s were particularly noteworthy for the balance they struck in favor of conservation and against exploitation. The most sweeping—the Endangered Species Act—went even farther, making the prevention of extinction its overriding policy objective. The 1970s also witnessed the emergence of the criticism and controversy that face environmental law to this day. Ironically, President Nixon began the decade as one of environmental law’s biggest supporters but ended his term a skeptic of the very laws he initially championed. Controversy arose in other corners, too. Some environmentalists were dissatisfied with the pace of progress, while regulated industries argued that EPA was overreaching. By the end of the decade, the federalist and regulatory reform movements that would later flourish had begun to take shape. Nonetheless, Congress continued passing far-reaching laws, and the courts—including the Supreme Court—broadly interpreted them both in terms of their jurisdictional reach and their regulatory rigor. The 1980s: Consensus Breaks Down The 1980s were tumultuous years that saw numerous challenges to environmental law—but in the end confirmed its surprising persistence. President Nixon may have begun his administration as a cheerleader for environmental law and ended as a skeptic, but President Ronald Reagan left no doubt about where he stood on the body of laws enacted in the 1970s. Reagan aligned himself with the “Sagebrush Rebels,” a movement of western opponents of federal ownership of public lands. Immediately after his inauguration, he launched a cabinet-level task force on “regulatory relief” that suspended numerous pending regulations and encouraged industry to target particularly burdensome ones. Similarly, he signed an executive order requiring cost-benefit analysis of major rules and giving the Office of Management and Budget significant authority to review and shape regulations. The heads of Reagan’s Interior Department and EPA—James Watt and Anne Gorsuch (mother of now U.S. Supreme Court justice Neil Gorsuch, and the first woman to lead the agency)—were openly hostile toward the agencies they led. Watt described the Interior Department as “oppressive,” and Gorsuch drew fire for attempting to cut EPA’s budget by as much as one third. Both eventually left their posts with controversy in their wake (Gorsuch’s refusal to turn over documents to Congress led to an inter-branch confrontation and the ultimate perjury conviction of one of her assistants). Ironically, Watt and Gorsuch were such lightning rods that they undermined Reagan’s environmental agenda. While Watt succeeded in expanding oil, gas, and mineral leasing on public lands, he and Gorsuch failed to achieve many of the big reversals of environmental protection that Reagan supported. Indeed, environmental law not only withstood challenges but grew and expanded during the 1980s. President Jimmy Carter ended his term in 1980 by signing two key laws. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act reaffirmed federal stewardship of public lands in Alaska. And the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, enacted in response to the toxic waste crisis at Love Canal and other abandoned and inactive hazardous waste sites across the country, created a dramatic new liability program that forced polluting industries to pay for the cost of toxic waste cleanup. Congress also amended and strengthened existing laws, such as the Clean Water Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, over the course of the decade. Reflecting Congress’s dwindling trust in the executive branch, the new laws were increasingly prescriptive and less deferential to federal agency expertise; they added tough new deadlines on EPA’s implementation of new regulatory programs, and they imposed even stricter controls on industry. Finally, Congress reaffirmed the importance of information disclosure that it first embraced in NEPA, passing the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986. Enacted in the wake of a chemical plant explosion in Bhopal, India, the law required industry to inform communities when it used and released dangerous substances. The 1990s: Partisan Gridlock The political makeup of the federal government changed dramatically in the 1990s. President George Bush, like Nixon, marked the beginning of his term with environmental accomplishments, signing the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments into law. And like Nixon, Bush ended his term a skeptic, proposing to drill for oil in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and only grudgingly attending the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio. The election of President Bill Clinton changed the executive branch’s approach to environmental law, but countervailing changes in the composition of Congress and the courts led to increasing conflicts over environmental goals and policies. In 1994, Republican congressional candidates swept into power, capturing control of the House and Senate. As part of its “Contract with America,” the 104th Congress proposed legislation to elevate the rights of landowners, require cost-benefit analysis of environmental laws, and single out environmental programs for disproportionate budget cuts. While his campaign for the presidency stressed the economy and not a green agenda, Clinton found political advantage in fighting Congress’s proposed environmental reforms—and few ultimately became law. This same partisan gridlock prevented the legislative overhauls that characterized the previous two decades. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and EPA administrator Carol Browner responded by pursuing an activist, ambitious lawmaking agenda by administrative regulation. Congress in turn sought to block new regulations by attaching “riders,” or unrelated policy provisions, to its annual spending bills. Controversy, gridlock, and the demise of bipartisanship were hallmarks of environmental lawmaking in the 1990s. These hallmarks have continued throughout the current Bush administration, which suspended a host of Clinton-era environmental regulations immediately upon taking office. The Bush administration also drew fire for promoting energy and national forest policies that emphasized exploitation of natural resources. When Congress took up these issues, it divided largely on party lines. This continuing deterioration of bipartisanship stands in stark contrast to the broad congressional support that environmental law drew from both parties in its early decades. The courts also underwent major changes beginning in the 1990s, as years of conservative judicial appointments by Presidents Reagan and Bush came to fruition. The courts became increasingly skeptical of the efficacy of environmental protection laws. In a series of cases narrowing Congress’s authority to regulate economic activity under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court called into question the very foundation on which laws such as the Endangered Species Act rest. While domestic environmental law persisted, international environmental law became environmental law’s most engaging and dynamic area in the 1990s. By the end of the decade, the United Nations listed approximately 1,000 international environmental agreements of one kind or another—far greater than the 52 agreements that existed in 1970. At the same time, concern about the intersection of trade and the environment, as well as energy and the environment, arose. The Future The 21st century has brought new challenges, none greater than global warming. The most powerful and wealthiest nations in the world are the greatest cause of greenhouse gas emissions; by contrast, many of the poorest parts of the globe are most immediately and devastatingly threatened. Effective control of global warming, moreover, will require not only major reductions by the world’s most powerful countries but also the agreement of developing nations now caught in a bind between economic development and the environment. In short, environmental lawmaking to address global warming will need to conquer the same kind of hurdles it has always faced, which have made environmental lawmaking so difficult and controversial. The only significant difference is that the hurdles are now much higher in light of global warming’s extraordinary spatial and temporal dimensions. Lawmaking to address global warming will require sweeping international and domestic laws, the creation of new international lawmaking institutions, and perhaps also new domestic institutions. The challenges are enormous, but so too are environmental law’s past achievements and future aspirations. \Bipartisan Water Protection Bills are Impossible – Empirics prove.US Senate Policy Papers, 11-6-2015, "," Senate RPC, June 29, the Obama administration published a final rule expanding the definition of “waters of the United States” for purposes of the Clean Water Act. It extends federal jurisdiction to irrigation ditches, isolated ponds, prairie potholes, and other non-navigable waters. The rule is an executive power grab that has more to do with controlling land-use decisions than ensuring access to clean water. This week, Democrats supported the final rule when they filibustered the Federal Water Quality Protection Act. That bill would have directed the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers to improve the rule. Then, 11 of those Democrats sent a letter to the EPA and the Corps to complain about the rule. The 11 Democrats wrote that the EPA and the Corps “can and must do better to address the legitimate issues that have been raised” about the rule. They reserved “the right to support efforts in the future to revise the rule.” They expressed an interest in “working with [the EPA and the Corps] to sufficiently address the concerns” of their constituents. These 11 Democrats could have voted to require, rather than merely recommend, that the EPA and the Corps better address legitimate concerns. They could have exerted, rather than merely reserved, a right to revise the rule. They could have worked with Republicans, rather than merely express an interest in working with the Obama administration, to address the concerns of their constituents. The 11 Democrats could have done all of these things if they had simply voted in favor of allowing the Senate to consider the Federal Water Quality Protection Act. They could have supported improvements to the rule that were painstakingly negotiated by stakeholders from across the political spectrum. They could have modified those improvements or even required additional improvements by offering amendments to the legislation. At the end of the process, they could have then decided whether or not to support passage of the final, amended bill. By rejecting the legislative process, the 11 Democrats relinquished their most effective tool for effectuating improvements to the rule. By sending the letter, they paid lip-service to their constituents’ concerns and ensured no improvements to the rule will occur. When finalizing the rule, the Obama administration was insincere in listening to stakeholder concerns – then effectively ignored them. It ignored opposition from families, farmers, ranchers, home builders, state and local governments, small businesses, and other property owners. It even ignored concerns from its own Small Business Administration and Army Corps of Engineers. Last Tuesday, stakeholders were ignored once again – this time by Senate Democrats who voted to block legislation that would have required the administration to issue a revised rule that took their concerns into account. By blocking the Federal Water Quality Protection Act from consideration on the Senate floor, Democrats guaranteed that uncertainty over the definition of “waters of the U.S.” will remain. They shut out average Americans from the rulemaking process, keeping it squarely under the control of the Obama administration. They deprived the Senate of its best opportunity to achieve the policy outcome that a bipartisan group of Senators support.Water protection is as partisan as it gets – recent history provesJaime Fuller, 6-2-2014, "Environmental policy is partisan. It wasn’t always.," Washington Post, policy is partisan. It wasn’t always. When the Clean Air Act first became law in 1970, the Senate passed it without a single nay vote. Only one representative had voted against the bill. During the signing ceremony, President Richard Nixon said, "As we sign this bill in this room, we can look back and say, in the Roosevelt Room on the last day of 1970, we signed a historic piece of legislation that put us far down the road toward a goal that Theodore Roosevelt, 70 years ago, spoke eloquently about: a goal of clean air, clean water, and open spaces for the future generations of America." Six years later, Republican Sen. James Buckley joined four other Republicans in a letter pushing their fellow Party members to strengthen the Act by prohibiting industrial pollution in national parks. George H. W. Bush ran on the environment in 1988, and his presidency saw an expansive update to the Clean Air Act. The Senate passed the amendment with an 89-11 vote. Twenty-five representatives voted against the measure. Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell voted for the amendment, saying, “I had to choose between cleaner air and the status quo. I chose cleaner air.” The recession sent that aspect of Bush's platform fleeing. By the 1992 presidential election, he was calling Democratic vice-presidential candidate Al Gore, "Ozone Man." Some environmental advocates never saw Bush on their side. The director of the National Toxics Campaign said in 1988, "Calling George Bush an environmentalist is like calling Ayatollah Khomeini a human rights activist." Conservatives had been tiptoeing away from environmentalism since President Reagan took office in 1981. Now it seemed like the entire GOP was becoming afraid of the issue as businesses and coal companies' complaints grew louder. In 1989, the soon-to-be-coined "Ozone Man" told the New York Times, ''What looks like a risk-free issue is certainly not.'' Environmentalism still didn't completely toe a partisan line. In 1997, several Northeast Republicans supported the Environmental Protection Agency — also created during Nixon's presidency — and its efforts to strengthen air quality standards. N.Y. Sen. Alfonse D'Amato likened state-line crossing smog to terrorism. "We are sponsoring a form of pollution terrorism by allowing this to take place.'' Although many environmentalists have criticized the environmental legacy of President George W. Bush, he often spoke of the need to address greenhouse gas emissions, and his presidential library won a "Climate Hero" award after he left office. Arizona Sen. John McCain was a strong supporter of instituting a cap-and-trade system to limit carbon emissions, introducing bills to create such a system in 2003, 2005 and 2007. George H. W. Bush helped institute an effort to create a cap-and-trade system for sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain. The same bipartisan swoon is not greeting President Obama's new plan to cut power plant emissions by 30 percent in the next 15 years. Even half-hearted approval is hard to find, especially from Republicans and Democrats facing tough 2014 prospects in states with flinty relationships with environmental policy. Alison Lundergan Grimes, a Democratic senate candidate running against McConnell in Kentucky, said after EPA regulations on new power plants were released last year, "Coal keeps the lights on in Kentucky — plain and simple — and I will not stand idle as overreaching regulation adversely impacts jobs and middle-class families." McConnell, who supported the 1990 Clean Air Act update despite the fact he couldn't get his own amendment protecting coal added to the bill, is going to introduce legislation to stop Obama's new regulations this week. Republicans — and conservative Democrats — have been hesitant to take up the issues on environmentalists' minds for years, thanks to an American apathy, a changing ethos in the Republican Party and the powerful discontent of many who work in energy, especially those in the coal industry. The Huffington Post looked at the campaign websites of all 107 Republicans running for Senate, and only one mentioned climate change. Jim Rubens, who is running against Scott Brown in New Hampshire, told them, "Trust me. It is the most difficult part of my campaign." During the 2012 presidential election, more than one Republican candidate added abolishing the EPA to their platform. Democrats on the House Committee for Energy and Commerce tallied up 95 votes on legislation to dismantle the Clean Air Act between 2011 and 2012. McCain has said that Congress needs to do something about climate change, but hasn't supported many of their recent efforts to do so. In 2009, he called a climate bill sponsored by Sens. Lindsay Graham and Joe Lieberman "horrendous." Earlier in May, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said of McCain, he "hasn't talked as much about [climate change], or he has changed his position in a public way, and I think a lot of that just reflects the political realities of opinions out there." In a Pew Research Center survey from January 2014, 46 percent of Republicans and those leaning Republican said there was no evidence that the earth is warming. Seventy percent of tea party Republicans think the same. Pew also asked Americans to rank whether issues were top priorities of Congress and the White House. Climate change fell near the bottom, coming in 18th place out of 20. Gallup asked a similar question in March, and the only issue that worried Americans less than climate change was race relations. Part of the reason Americans aren't as vocal abut the environment as they were at the time of the Clean Air Act is that the effects of pollution aren't as visible — or aren't as easily connected to human activity. Americans could see smog. The Clean Air Act of 1970 helped rid smog from the sky, leaving behind pollution that was still causing respiratory problems and damage, but not constantly reminding people of its presence. For conservative Democrats, angering unions has been a major reason for the shift against strong environmental standards. Many labor unions have supported the aims of several environmental groups, as well as Obama's climate plan. Other unions, particularly in coal country, have been displeased with the EPA's move on power plant emissions. When Pew asked Americans about EPA power plant regulations, however, a majority of people in all parties favored them. Forty-four years ago, environmental policy wasn't a wholly partisan issue. Today, it isn't a wholly partisan issue either, but in a very different way, with Republicans and Democrats fighting some measures, different Republicans and Democrats supporting other initiatives and Republican and Democratic voters dabbling a bit in both camps. Earlier in May, the government released a report on the climate that was nothing but bad news. A co-author of the report told the Washington Post, “For a long time, we have perceived climate change as an issue that’s distant, affecting just polar bears or something that matters to our kids. This shows it’s not just in the future; it matters today. Many people are feeling the effects.” Until Americans at large connect those effects to the environment, it's doubtful that we'll see a moment where anybody can agree on how to tackle the issue, as responses to the EPA announcement this week are sure to confirm.Link – Clean Water ActA CWA bill would cost a ton of Biden’s PC Federal Register, 4-21-2020, "The Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States”," Federal Register, agencies consider the priorities they have outlined to be reasonable, especially in light of the long history of controversy and confusion over the definition of “waters of the United States.” In concurring with the Rapanos plurality opinion, Chief Justice Roberts stated that “[g]iven the broad, somewhat ambiguous, but clearly limiting terms Congress employed in the Clean Water Act, the [agencies] would have enjoyed plenty of room to operate in developing some notion of an outer bound to the reach of their authority” under the CWA, and that the agencies' interpretations under the Act are “afforded generous leeway by the courts.” Rapanos, 547 U.S. at 758 (Roberts, C.J., concurring) (emphasis in original); see also id. (“Rather than refining its view of its authority in light of our decisions in SWANCC, . . . the Corps chose to adhere to its essentially boundless view of the scope of its power. The upshot today is another defeat for the agency.”). In this rule, as described in detail in Section III, the agencies are reasonably interpreting the scope of their authority under the Act in a manner that is consistent with its text, structure, legislative history, and applicable Supreme Court guidance. This final rule presents a unifying legal theory for federal jurisdiction over those waters and wetlands that maintain a sufficient surface water connection to traditional navigable waters or the territorial seas. The agencies are finalizing a definition of “waters of the United States” that they consider to be superior to the 1986 regulations re-codified in the 2019 Rule, as well as to the 2015 Rule. The agencies are revising previous regulatory definitions of this term to distinguish between waters that are “waters of the United States” subject to Federal regulation under the CWA and waters or features that are subject to exclusive State or tribal jurisdiction, consistent with the scope of jurisdiction authorized under the CWA and the direction in the Act to both “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters,” 33 U.S.C. 1251(a), and “recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to . . . plan the development and use (including restoration, preservation, and enhancement) of land and water resources . . . .” Id. at 1251(b). The Supreme Court has recognized that new administrations may reconsider the policies of their predecessors so long as they provide a reasonable basis for the change in approach. Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders, 682 F.3d at 1043 (quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 59 (1983) (Rehnquist, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)). The agencies intend that the revised interpretation of the federal regulatory scope of the CWA will resolve longstanding confusion over broad and unclear definitions of “waters of the United States.” This final rule is more consistent with the agencies' constitutional and statutory authority than the 2015 Rule, Start Printed Page 22272for the reasons discussed in the preamble to the 2019 Rule as well as the rest of this section and Section III of this notice. The 2015 Rule did not implement the legal limits on the scope of the agencies' authority under the CWA as intended by Congress and as reflected in Supreme Court cases, including Justice Kennedy's articulation of the significant nexus test in Rapanos. In the 2019 Rule, the agencies concluded that in promulgating the 2015 Rule the agencies failed to adequately consider and accord due weight to the policy of the Congress in CWA section 101(b) to “recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution” and “to plan the development and use . . . of land and water resources.” 33 U.S.C. 1251(b). The 2015 Rule interpreted the CWA in a manner that pushed the envelope of the agencies' constitutional and statutory authority in the absence of a clear statement from Congress authorizing substantial encroachment upon traditional State land-use planning authority. See Georgia v. Wheeler, No. 2:15-cv-079, 2019 WL 3949922, at *23 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 21, 2019) (finding the 2015 Rule “unlawful” given its “significant intrusion on traditional state authority” without “any clear or manifest statement to authorize intrusion into that traditional state power”). In addition, the agencies recognize that the 2015 Rule has been remanded by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas for failing to comply with the APA. That court found that the 2015 Rule suffered from several problems, including that the distance-based limitations in the 2015 Rule were not a logical outgrowth of the proposal in violation of the APA's public notice and comment requirements. See Texas v. EPA, 389 F. Supp. 3d 497 (S.D. Tex. 2019). The court found this error “significant” because the specific distance-based limitations “alter[ed] the jurisdictional scope of the Act.” Id. at 504. Litigants challenging the 2015 Rule alleged other APA deficiencies, including the lack of record support for the distance-based limitations inserted into the final rule without adequate notice. Several commenters on the proposed repeal of the 2015 Rule raised similar concerns, arguing that the 2015 Rule was arbitrary and capricious because of the lack of record support for those limitations. The agencies recognize that the Federal government, in prior briefs before the various district courts that heard challenges to the 2015 Rule, defended the procedural steps the agencies took to develop and support the 2015 Rule. Having considered the public comments and relevant litigation positions, and the decision of the Southern District of Texas on related arguments, the agencies concluded in the 2019 rulemaking that the administrative record for the 2015 Rule did not contain sufficient record support for the distance-based limitations that appeared for the first time in that final rule. This conclusion is further supported by similar findings of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, which remanded the 2015 Rule to the agencies in August 2019 after identifying substantive and procedural errors with respect to numerous provisions, including the rule's distance limitations. Georgia v. Wheeler, 2019 WL 3949922, at *12-32. By contrast, for the reasons discussed elsewhere in this section and in Section III of this notice, this final rule remains within the bounds of the agencies' authority under the Constitution and the CWA, is properly supported by the record in this rulemaking, and is a logical outgrowth of the NPRM. Finally, the agencies believe that this final rule will be clearer than the pre-existing regulatory regime restored by the regulatory text of the 2019 Rule and the prior implementation of that regime in response to adverse Supreme Court decisions and agency guidance. For the reasons discussed in the 2019 Rule preamble, that regulatory regime is preferable to the 2015 Rule; however, a clear, comprehensive regulation that encompasses the Supreme Court's interpretations is preferable to the pre-existing regulatory regime restored by the 2019 Rule. The language of the 2019 Rule regulatory text leaves substantially more room for discretion and case-by-case variation than does this final rule, particularly paragraph (a)(3) in the 2019 Rule, which claims jurisdiction over waters that are used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes, with no reference to navigable waters. Following the Supreme Court's opinions on the definition of “waters of the United States,” particularly SWANCC and Rapanos, the 2019 Rule must be implemented taking into account the Court's holdings and agency guidance interpreting those cases. In the decade since the Rapanos decision, the agencies and the public have become familiar with this multi-layered interpretive approach, which is in part why the agencies finalized the 2019 Rule to maintain the pre-existing regime during the process of developing and considering public comments on this final rule. The regulatory definition of “waters of the United States” set forth in this final rule reflects Supreme Court case law and clearly establishes the scope of jurisdictional waters under the CWA. It provides greater regulatory predictability than the regulatory regime restored by the 2019 Rule. In sum, as compared with both the 2015 Rule and the regulatory regime restored by the 2019 Rule, this final rule more appropriately reflects the scope of the agencies' authority under the statute and the Constitution; respects the vital role of the States and Tribes in managing their land and water resources; and addresses the need of the public for predictable, more easily implementable regulations that aim to accomplish the objective of the Act, “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.” 33 U.S.C. 1251(a). G. Existing Guidance In several places in the preamble to the proposed rule, the agencies solicited comment on whether they should revoke the 2003 SWANCC Guidance or the 2008 Rapanos Guidance if the agencies were to finalize the proposal. 84 FR 4165, 4167. These guidance documents were drafted to inform the agencies' implementation of the 1986 and 1988 regulations, which the 2019 Rule recodified, in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court's decisions in SWANCC and Rapanos. Some commenters thought that the 2003 and 2008 guidance documents provided helpful information and assistance to the public in understanding how the agencies might implement a definition of “waters of the United States.” Other commenters thought that the documents should be rescinded to avoid confusion during implementation of this final rule, particularly because the agencies have totally restructured the regulatory definitions. The agencies considered these comments and conclude that, when this final rule becomes effective, these and other related agency guidance documents, memoranda, and materials will be rendered inoperative because they will no longer be necessary or material, and they may in fact create confusion as the agencies implement this final rule. The agencies can develop new guidance to facilitate implementation of this final rule should questions arise, if any, regarding the application of the rule to specific circumstances.[34] Start Printed Page 22273 III. Definition of “Waters of the United States” The following is a summary of the key elements and each substantive provision of this final rule. Each subsection describes what the agencies are finalizing, why the agencies are finalizing the regulatory text, and how the agencies plan to implement the final rule. To assist the reader, the longer subsections have internal headings. In this final rule the agencies interpret the term “the waters” in the phrase “the waters of the United States” to encompass relatively permanent flowing and standing waterbodies that are traditional navigable waters in their own right or that have a specific surface water connection to traditional navigable waters, as well as wetlands that abut or are otherwise inseparably bound up with such relatively permanent waters. As the plurality decision in Rapanos notes, the term “the waters” is most commonly understood to refer to “streams and bodies forming geographical features such as oceans, rivers, lakes,” or “the flowing or moving masses, as of waves or floods, making up such streams or bodies.” 547 U.S. at 732 (citing Webster's New International Dictionary 2882 (2d ed. 1954)); see also Riverside Bayview, 474 U.S. at 131 (characterizing “waters of the United States” as including “rivers, streams, and other hydrographic features more conventionally identifiable as `waters'?”); see also 118 Cong. Rec. 33699 (Oct. 4, 1972) (statement of Sen. Muskie) (referring to “navigable waters” as “water bodies”). According to the Rapanos plurality, however, the ordinary meaning of the term “waters” does not include areas that are dry most of the year, and which may occasionally contain “transitory puddles or ephemeral flows of water.” 547 U.S. at 733. The agencies received considerable public comments on the scope of the proposed definition of “waters of the United States.” Some commenters stated that the proposed rule would include more waters and wetlands than appropriate under a strict reading of Justice Scalia's plurality opinion in Rapanos and is therefore inconsistent with Executive Order 13778. Some commenters agreed with the proposed rule, stating that it struck an appropriate balance of asserting jurisdiction over waters that should be regulated by the Federal government, provided clear direction for the regulated community, and respected State and tribal authority over their own land and water resources. Some commenters stated that the proposal failed to include ecologically important waters and wetlands and failed to give due weight to Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion in Rapanos. Other commenters stated that the proposed rule and supporting rationale were based exclusively on the CWA section 101(b) policy to ensure that States maintain primary authority over land and water resources and failed to give due weight to the objective in CWA section 101(a) to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. The agencies disagree with commenters' suggestion that the Executive Order requires the agencies to rely exclusively on Justice Scalia's opinion in Rapanos. The Executive Order requires the agencies to consider that opinion, which is what the agencies have done here. The agencies also disagree with commenters' suggestion that the proposal failed to incorporate principles from Justice Kennedy's opinion, and further disagree with commenters' suggestion that the agencies failed to consider the objective of section 101(a) in determining where to draw the line of federal jurisdiction. However, the agencies considered these and other public comments, and have made modifications in the final rule to better incorporate common principles of the Rapanos plurality and concurring opinions, and to strike a careful balance between the clear directive from Congress to ensure that States maintain primary authority over land and water resources, and the importance of maintaining federal authority over those waters that Congress determined should be regulated by the Federal government under its Commerce Clause powers. The final definition of “waters of the United States” aligns with the intent of Congress to interpret the term “navigable waters” beyond just commercially navigable-in-fact waters. This definition recognizes Congress' intent “to exercise its powers under the Commerce Clause to regulate at least some waters that would not be deemed `navigable' under the classical understanding of that term,” Riverside Bayview, 474 U.S. at 133, but at the same time acknowledges that “[t]he grant of authority to Congress under the Commerce Clause, though broad, is not unlimited.” SWANCC, 531 U.S. at 173. The definition also recognizes the constitutional underpinning of the CWA, which was Congress' exercise of “its commerce power over navigation.” Id. at 168 n.3. Another potential outcome of the change in CWA jurisdiction is that State governments may be able to find more efficient ways of managing local resources than the Federal government, consistent with the theory of “environmental federalism” as described in the EA for the final rule. Depending on the value of a newly characterized non-jurisdictional water, States may or may not choose to regulate that water and the compliance costs and environmental benefits of its regulation could increase or decrease, respectively. In either case, however, net benefits would increase, assuming that a State can more efficiently allocate resources towards environmental protection due to local knowledge of amenities and constituent preferences. As effective regulation requires political capital and fiscal resources, however, the likely best indication of the way in which States will exercise their authority as the Federal government changes the scope of CWA jurisdiction is the way in which they have exercised authority in the past and whether the infrastructure to manage the regulatory programs already exists. The qualitative analysis is intended to provide information on the likely direction of the potential effects of the final rule on CWA regulatory programsLink – CAFOS Ag regulation costs PC—pushback from Republican farmers intensifies political controversyPerkowski 21(Mateusz Perkowski, covers legal issues at Capital Press; “Pendulum swings in Clean Water Act regulation”, published 1-12-21; )The regulatory pendulum is expected to swing toward stricter Clean Water Act enforcement, though experts say the Biden administration’s changes probably won’t be immediate.Farmers and environmentalists have been in a political tug-of-war over the law’s scope for years, largely due to ambiguous legal interpretations of the statute.While Democrats will now have power over Congress, their majority is too slim to make changes to the law, said Don Parrish, the American Farm Bureau Federation’s senior director of regulatory relations.“We see absolutely no legislative path to amend the Clean Water Act, one way or another,” Parrish said Jan. 11 during the Farm Bureau’s virtual convention.With Congress unlikely to act, that effectively leaves the Biden administration to implement its own interpretation of the statute and associated legal precedents, much as the Trump administration did in 2020 and the Obama administration did in 2015, he said.The “Waters of the U.S.” rule implemented by the Obama administration was widely criticized by farm advocates for taking an overly expansive view of the water bodies subject to federal permitting and regulations.The Trump administration’s “Navigable Waters Protection Rule” narrowed the definition of regulated waterways, which was hailed as a victory by the American Farm Bureau Federation but derided by environmentalists as increasing pollution.The Biden administration will likely want to leave its own mark on Clean Water Act enforcement but it has so many environmental priorities that actual revisions to the regulation probably won’t happen for another 18 months to three years, Parrish said.Biden is deliberately staying away from controversial regulations on CAFOs---it’s a culture war issueSinema filed legislation to decrease regs on factory farms---proves the moderate Dems linkMcCrimmon 21 – agriculture reporter for POLITICO Pro, where he covers the farm economy, agricultural trade, federal spending on food and farm programs and other ag issuesRyan, 5/23. “The red meat issue Biden won't touch.” Joe Biden is not going to ban red meat. In fact, his administration isn’t doing much to confront the flow of harmful greenhouse gases from the very big business of animal agriculture.The Agriculture Department’s newly published “climate-smart agriculture and forestry” outline says almost nothing about how Biden aims to curb methane emissions from livestock operations. But environmentalists argue that any effort to shrink the farm industry’s climate footprint is half-baked if it relies on voluntary efforts and doesn’t address America’s system of meat production.“USDA is setting itself up to fail on its climate and environmental justice goals,” says Chloe Waterman, senior program manager at Friends of the Earth U.S., a nonprofit environmental advocacy group.USDA didn’t respond to several requests for comment on this article.The problem is that meat has become an intense culture war issue. Look no further than the manufactured outrage over the recent right-wing media attack falsely claiming that Biden wants to control each individual’s beef intake. Or look at the steady stream of press releases by farm-state lawmakers blasting any hint that federal or local governments are somehow helping “meatless Monday” campaigns.But by the numbers, agriculture is a significant part of the climate problem: it accounts for 10 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gases. Livestock production — everything from raising pigs for bacon to dairy herds — is the largest source of potent methane emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. That means addressing how we produce and consume meat is critical to Biden’s pledge to put the U.S. on track to reach net-zero agricultural emissions before any other nation.The powerful farm lobby in Washington and state capitals opposes regulation of large-scale livestock operations and the promotion of alternatives to meat and dairy. Instead, Biden administration officials are talking up unproven technologies and feel-good sustainability goals when they discuss methods of how to tackle climate change with the agriculture industry.Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack is largely focused on offering new financial incentives for farmers and ranchers to adopt more climate-friendly practices. In terms of livestock emissions, Vilsack touts innovations like feed additives that reduce the potency of an animal’s gas and feces, or digester systems that capture methane fumes from manure pits and convert them into a source of energy.Stephanie Feldstein, population and sustainability director at the Center for Biological Diversity, a nonprofit environmental group, argues that such methods only have marginal benefits for the environment.“There’s simply too much meat and dairy being produced right now for any of those small tweaks to get the emissions reductions that we need,” she said. “There are so many policies, from dietary guidelines to what school meals are reimbursed, to agricultural loans and government purchases, that are currently promoting overproduction of meat — and all of that needs to change.”It’s not just Biden’s farm chief who is treading carefully on livestock emissions: John Kerry, the president’s special climate envoy, rejected the idea that the government will eventually have to tell Americans to eat less meat.“Not necessarily, because there’s a lot of research being done now that will change both the way meat is produced, cattle are herded and fed,” Kerry said in a recent BBC interview. But he also acknowledged that Biden’s aggressive goals for slashing greenhouse gas emissions rely heavily on technology that hasn’t been developed yet.That’s why environmental advocates are pressing for more immediate action. More than two dozen groups petitioned the EPA last month to restrict greenhouse gases from large dairy and hog farms under the Clean Air Act, specifically operations with at least 500 cows or 1,000 hogs.Many such large operations are propped up by USDA’s guaranteed loans and other farm support programs, Ben Lillliston, director of rural strategies and climate change at the left-leaning Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, noted recently.He’s urging USDA to “stop public funding for high emitting factory farms,” referring to what the industry prefers to call concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs.Since the Biden administration took over, agribusinesses and the prominent agricultural trade groups have accelerated efforts to head off federal regulators by setting their own climate goals and trumpeting steps that producers are taking to lower their environmental footprint.“Many meat producers, packers and processors have already committed to further strengthen their contributions to healthy land, air and water,” said Eric Mittenthal, a spokesperson for the North American Meat Institute, which represents meatpackers and processors.Other groups are throwing their weight behind the sort of voluntary efforts that Vilsack is promoting. The National Pork Producers Council has been touting the potential climate benefits of methane capture and genetically engineered pigs that better digest nutrients and effectively give off less gas. But it warned that more aggressive measures, such as curbing the growth of hog operations, would backfire.The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association also supports voluntary initiatives along the lines of existing USDA conservation programs. Practices like rotational grazing and planting cover crops “have lately become buzzwords for policymakers in Washington,” but they’ve long been employed by farmers and ranchers, Ethan Lane, the group’s vice president of government affairs, said.“It’s important to note that a sustainable future for the cattle industry does not necessitate a total overhaul of the way producers do business,” Lane said. “The U.S. cattle and beef industry has had the lowest greenhouse gas emissions intensity in the world for 25 years. Direct emissions from cattle account for only 2 percent of the nation’s overall emissions.”There’s also not much appetite in Congress for stricter regulations. Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) recently filed legislation that would prohibit the government from requiring livestock emission permits.“Livestock producers are working to improve efficiency and reduce emissions from their operations,” Thune, the second-ranked Senate Republican, said in a statement. “They should not be subject to onerous regulations and costly permit fees for their animals’ emissions, which could ultimately lead to higher food costs for consumers.”Plan costs political capital and faces massive resistanceMyers and Breggin 15 – senior attorney with the Environmental Law Institute; Senior Attorney and Co-Director of the Agriculture Law and Policy CenterBruce and Linda, September. “Tackling the Problem of CAFOs and Climate Change: A New Path to Improved Animal Welfare?” in What Can Animal Law Learn from Environmental Law?, ed. Randall Abate, p.145-6.The obstacles to near-term legal reform in the area of CAFOs and climate change are legion. Any concerted legal or policy effort to roll back GHG emissions associated with industrial livestock production in the United States will likely be greeted by a mix of ambivalent and active resistance.159. Absent broader public awareness of the underlying problem, it will be difficult to persuade lawmakers, regulators, or even judges to support change. And spirited resistance to any new form of environmental regulation for agricultural activities can be expected from the affected industries160 and from many political quarters.161 The plan costs capital and causes fightsBrown 21 – Staff Writer, StatelineAlex, 2/19. “Environmentalists Make Long-Shot Attempt to Ban New Factory Farms.” the federal level, Sen. Cory Booker, a New Jersey Democrat, has proposed legislation that would phase out so-called factory farms within 20 years. Another bill from Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat from Minnesota, would strengthen antitrust laws, a proposal that agriculture observers think could have major consequences for corporate consolidation in the industry.But agriculture is a significant economic engine in many states. Iowa, the nation’s top pork-producing state—where at any time some 24 million pigs are being raised, according to the Iowa Pork Producers Association—exports meat around the world.The state’s number of concentrated animal feeding operations, known as CAFOs, grew from 722 in 2001 to more than 10,000 in 2017, according to a study on the industry by two retired University of Iowa professors. On those large-scale farms, hogs or poultry are raised inside large buildings.The livestock industry also has cultivated political power. This week, some environmental activists told reporters that Iowa’s bill, at least, isn’t likely to get even a hearing in the GOP-dominated legislature.Current regulations are enough, Eldon McAfee, attorney for the Iowa Pork Producers Association, told the Times-Republican newspaper. “We have extensive regulations in place since 1995 that properly regulate the siting and construction. Those regulations have been followed and a moratorium would be devastating to agriculture and beyond that to Iowa’s economy.”It’s unclear how many lawmakers have the appetite to challenge the system that accounts for much of the nation’s food supply. Republicans in some states want to limit local jurisdictions’ ability to oversee factory farms through zoning laws and permitting decisions.CAFOs have proven difficult to regulate, say environmental activists. Many companies have found loopholes in the federal Clean Water Act to avoid monitoring their contaminants or obtaining permits. Many of the air pollutants emitted by livestock are not regulated under the Clean Air Act. Meanwhile, some state agencies tasked with enforcing those laws lack the resources or interest to crack down on pollution.CAFO supporters have enormous political cloutRoss 19 – journalist whose work has appeared in Truthout, the Guardian, FairWarning, Newsweek, YES! Magazine, Salon, AlterNet, Vice and a number of other publicationsDaniel, 2/20. “Factory Farms Pollute the Environment and Poison Drinking Water.” wastes are regulated to some extent. Under the Clean Water Act, for example, operators must file a nutrient management plan with their state environmental agencies. "Whether spread next to the CAFO or on neighboring fields, that manure spreading is done only after a careful analysis of both the manure itself and the land it's applied to. There are legal penalties attached to violating those plans," said Will Rodger, a spokesperson for the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), in an email. The bureau is a powerful lobbying organization that has championed efforts to weaken the Clean Water Act.Enforcement of these management plans, however, varies from state to state, said Tom Pelton, spokesperson for the Environmental Integrity Project, a nonprofit environmental watchdog. "In reality, there's not much enforcement, and they're also difficult to enforce," he added.Soil Oversaturated With Animal ManureThe prevalence of veterinary drug use in industrial farming, and the associated health risks when humans are exposed to these drugs, is another factor that critics highlight. Antibiotics, for example, make their way through the waste-streams at these facilities and out into the environment, leading to fears of increased antibiotic resistance in humans, not to mention their damaging impacts on sensitive ecosystems.There's also the question of what to do with excess animal waste when the available agricultural land surrounding CAFOs is limited, leading to oversaturation of soils with animal manure. "There are still some states that have not banned applying this waste on frozen ground," said Patty Lovera, assistant director at Food & Water Watch, a consumer advocacy organization that has called for an end to factory farms. "That's not about growing crops. That's about disposal."Animal waste doesn't only impact valuable water resources. Industrial livestock production generates huge quantities of methane, an especially potent greenhouse gas. According to the EPA, all national agricultural processes, including livestock production, accounted for 9 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2016. The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization pins the percentage share from livestock production on overall anthropogenic global greenhouse emissions much higher—at 14.5 percent.Despite the fact that the EPA has long known about high levels of CAFO-produced air pollution, the agency is seeking to exempt these facilities from having to report toxic air emissions like ammonia and hydrogen sulfide under a federal right-to-know law, though a group of environmental organizations filed a lawsuit last year to halt that proposed rule.Air quality issues from industrial farming can also be more locally felt. In North Carolina, for example, neighbors of a hog farm operated by Murphy-Brown filed a lawsuit in 2014 against the owners complaining of nuisance noises and odors, worsening their quality of life. Theirs was one of a number of lawsuits against Smithfield Foods, Murphy-Brown's parent company. The plaintiffs from that particular suit were recently awarded $473.5 million. But the state legislature also passed a law limiting the legal action that residents can now take against neighboring CAFOs.Agricultural ChemicalsMore animals, of course, means that more crops must be grown to feed them, which leads to broader industrial farming impacts, including runoff from agricultural chemicals like those found in fertilizers, insecticides and herbicides. What kinds of impacts do these chemicals have? A recent study out of New Zealand finds that certain bacteria develop antibiotic resistance up to 100,000 times faster when exposed to common herbicides like Roundup and Kamba. Agricultural runoff also helps feed harmful algae blooms.According to an Environmental Working Group (EWG) analysis of data from 2014 and 2015, the drinking water in 1,700 individual systems (affecting approximately 7 million people) contained nitrogen at levels higher than 5 parts per million (ppm), an amount the National Cancer Institute says increases the risk of colon, kidney, ovarian and bladder cancers. The EWG also found that nearly 32,000 Americans received drinking water containing nitrogen at levels exceeding the EPA's threshold of 10 ppm—a limit set more than 55 years ago.Nor is it cheap for consumers to filter out chemicals like nitrates themselves, explained Anne Weir Schechinger, EWG's senior economic analyst. As an example, the Iowan utility tackling elevated drinking water nitrate levels is reportedly spending $15 million to expand its filtration technology. "That's why we want to make sure our audience has more [information] resources so they can protect themselves if the EPA isn't going to," Weir Schechinger said, pointing to EWG's drinking water database.The American Farm Bureau Federation disputes EWG's findings, and points to what it regards as "inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity" in drinking water. "We are not impressed with this effort, nor the quality of EWG's reports across the board," said Will Rodger in an email. In response, Weir Schechinger explained how for decades, "peer-reviewed studies have shown a clear link between an increased risk of cancer and nitrate levels in tap water that are lower than EPA's legal limit—and no amount of lobbying from special interest groups will change the science."Indeed, the health risks associated with living in close proximity to CAFOs are becoming increasingly clearer. A recent study out of Duke University found that North Carolinians who live near hog farms have higher death rates from a variety of health issues—including anemia, kidney disease, septicemia, tuberculosis and infant mortality—compared to those who live further away from such facilities. And who are the people most affected? CAFOs disproportionately impact low-income rural communities, African Americans, Latino Americans and Native Americans.What Can Be Done?The regulatory framework exists—in federal laws like the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act—to force CAFO operators to properly dispose of their waste, said Sacoby Wilson, associate professor at the University of Maryland's School of Public Health. The problem is, "They [CAFO operators] have a very strong hook in the legislature," he said, pointing to the political clout that large agricultural organizations wield. That's why CAFO operators have for so long circumvented more stringent waste disposal laws, according to Wilson.Ag regulations are dangerous political groundMyers 14 – Senior attorney at the Environmental Law Institute. He co-directs ELI’s Industrial Agriculture Law & Policy CenterBruce, March/April. “Livestock’s Hoof Print,” The Environmental Forum, 31.2, of this is surprising. Attempts to regulate the environmental impacts of agriculture are always on dangerous political ground, as evidenced by preemptive attacks on EPA by agricultural interests in recent years aimed at blocking any new regulation of so-called “farm dust” (a vaguely defined category of particulate matter focusing on PM 10 but with implications for PM 2.5, measures of damag- ing inhaled particulates) or “cow farts” (ruminant methane emissions). In response to questioning at a House Science Committee hearing in November, EPA Administrator McCarthy denied that the agency was considering regulating methane from cows; and back in 2011, then-Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy testified before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power that any notion of EPA tightening regulation of “farm dust” was a myth.CAFOs regs face massive industry resistanceMyers 14 – Senior attorney at the Environmental Law Institute. He co-directs ELI’s Industrial Agriculture Law & Policy CenterBruce, March/April. “Livestock’s Hoof Print,” The Environmental Forum, 31.2, policy course is selected, CAFOs are probably the place to start. They dominate the U.S. livestock landscape, they contain (by definition) large numbers of animals, they implicate a greater use of fossil fuels than other production systems, and an industrialized livestock facility is at least a decent analogue of the factories that U.S. environmental law already addresses in other contexts. Even setting aside climate concerns, the industrialized model of livestock production is far from environmentally friendly. It has severe negative consequences for water and air resources, contributes to the growing problem of antibiotic resistance in people, and has proven detrimental time and again to animal welfare.Any new path that is forged will almost certainly face industry resistance. The Waxman-Markey capand-trade climate legislation that passed the House but failed in the Senate in 2010 not only exempted agriculture from emissions reductions, but also provided for agricultural offsets. Even with these concessions to agriculture, the American Farm Bureau and other major agricultural interests opposed the bill.That pressure is brutalHsu 15 – John W. Larson Professor and Associate Dean for Environmental Programs, Florida State University College of LawShi-Ling, “Scale Economies, Scale Externalities: Hog Farming and the Changing American Agricultural Industry Scale Economies, Scale Externalities: Hog Farming and the Changing American Agricultural Industry.” 94 OR. L. REV. 23, Article examines five areas of law which have biased hog production towards larger, more intensive farms: (1) state right-to- farm laws, (2) the Clean Water Act, (3) the Clean Air Act, (4) Food and Drug Administration oversight of the administration of antibiotics to farm animals, and (5) the Packers and Stockyards Act. Each of these areas of law has its own focus, with its own regulatory sphere that somehow touches on the production of livestock. And agricultural interests in each of these areas have successfully lobbied to essentially be left alone, carrying out agricultural operations as they see fit, without regulatory or private interference. The resulting free- for-all in a regulatory vacuum has created a hog industry that is highly concentrated, politically organized, and brutal in defending its economic position.Political pressure is against regulating CAFOsWalton 16 – writes about agriculture, energy, infrastructure, and the politics and economics of water in the United States. He also writes the Federal Water Tap, Circle of Blue’s weekly digest of U.S. government water news. He is the winner of two Society of Environmental Journalists reporting awardsBrett, 1/22. “Preventing CAFO Water Pollution Not An EPA Priority.” political pressure not to act against CAFOs is tremendous. Farm groups fought vehemently over the Clean Water Rule, 31 states sued to block its implementation, and the Republican-controlled Congress voted last week to overturn the rule. Another obstacle is state control over water pollution permitting programs, which is the case for 46 states. CAFOs that plan to discharge waste to a waterway covered by the Clean Water Act must get a pollution permit.“In some ways, in programs like these, states with the largest agricultural industries have the greatest number of problems but the least political will to take on the industry directly,” Pidot told Circle of Blue.The EPA itself treads carefully. The agency’s media relations department took one month to respond to Circle of Blue’s questions, and answered with a prepared statement. It did not reply to follow up questions or allow access to any officials.“The agency is afraid to use its authority because of a fear that Congress might take it away,” Heinzen said. “It is beaten up and seems to be licking its wounds over an inability to regulate farm pollution.”Link – Cloud SeedingThe plan draws the ire of Big Agriculture---farmers hate cloud seeding more than droughts.Kolpack 17 [Dave Kolpack, AP writer. 9-24-2017, "In parched North Dakota, cloud-seeding irks some farmers," AP NEWS, accessed 7-16-2021, ] //BYFARGO, N.D. (AP) — In the parched northern Plains, where the worst drought in decades has withered crops and forced some ranchers to begin selling off their herds, a cloud-seeding program aimed at making it rain would seem a strange target for farmer anger.But some North Dakota growers are trying to end a state cloud-seeding program that’s been around for generations, believing it may be making the drought worse. Besides anecdotal accounts from decades of farming, they cite satellite images of clouds dissipating after being seeded and statistics over two decades that they say show less rainfall in counties that cloud-seed than surrounding ones that don’t.“You watch the planes seed, you will see storms weaken,” said Roger Neshem, a 39-year-old farmer in the northern part of the state who is leading an effort to see if Mother Nature can do better on her own.In response to the push, Republican Gov. Doug Burgum has asked the state Water Commission to review the program.Hank Bodner, a cloud-seeding supporter who chairs the state’s Atmospheric Resource Board and the Ward County Weather Modification Authority, said opponents have no scientific basis for their doubts.“We’ve told them that if we’re going to have a meeting to discuss this, you need to come with someone who has a PhD to tell us that we’re chasing the clouds away,” Bodner said.While Hurricanes Harvey and Irma have been battering the Gulf Coast and Southeast with wind and water, the northern Plains have received little more than dust all summer. Almost one-third of Montana is in exceptional drought. Much of North Dakota is in severe to extreme drought, and even the least affected parts of the state are classified as abnormally dry.The federal government has offered emergency loans to help farmers, and the state has requested a federal disaster declaration that could unlock direct disaster payments to farmers and ranchers hit by the drought.Into all this comes cloud-seeding, which involves spraying fine particles of silver iodide and dry ice into a cloud system. It’s done by aircraft in North Dakota, but can be done by rockets or by generators on the ground.The silver iodide causes water droplets in the clouds to form ice crystals that become heavier and fall faster, releasing rain and small hailstones — rather than larger stones that could batter crops.More than 50 countries do it in some fashion: ski resorts use it to add precious powder to their slopes; hydroelectric companies seek to bolster spring runoff that powers generation systems; insurance companies support it to cut down on big hailstorms that require big property damage payouts.Some environmental groups have raised questions about the environmental risk of using silver iodide, but the U.S. Public Health Service says cloud-seeding is safe and the North Dakota farmers who oppose their program aren’t doing so because of health concerns.It was hail’s threat to small crops that spurred North Dakota to launch its program back in the 1950s. The state currently pays about $400,000 toward the program, or about one-third of the cost, and it operates in seven counties.Most studies suggest cloud-seeding produces more rain, but it’s not clear to what extent. The state Atmospheric Resource Board points to a Wyoming study from 2005 to 2014 that reported an increase in snowfall of 5 to 15 percent “during ideal seeding conditions.” The board also cites a nearly 50-year-old North Dakota project that estimated a potential rainfall increase of 1 inch per growing season.David Delene, a University of North Dakota professor and editor of the Journal of Weather Modification, said it’s difficult to assess the effectiveness of cloud-seeding because it’s impossible to tell how much rain would have fallen if the clouds hadn’t been seeded.“Statistics aren’t always as good as we want because every cloud is different,” Delene said. “We’re getting positive indications the seeding is working. In order for it to be accepted, you need hundreds of cases.”Neil Brackin, president of Weather Modification, Inc., the Fargo company that does the aerial seeding, said he doesn’t believe cloud-seeding is making the drought worse. He said he welcomes a review of the program.“We have a good story to tell,” he said.Neshem, the farmer, isn’t convinced.“It should be their job to prove that it works,” he said. “They’re the ones taking taxpayer money without any proof that it’s doing anything. You have 55 years of seeding in Ward County and if you want to have a true scientific experiment, let’s do 55 years without it.”Cloud seeding is unpopular---people worry it’s premature. The more someone hears, the less supportive they are. Johnson 6/11/21 [Courtney Johnson is a research associate focusing on science and society at Pew Research Center. She holds a Ph.D. from the University of Washington in Seattle, where she studied political communication. Prior to that, she received her master’s and bachelor’s degrees from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where she focused on health communication and survey research. With Brian Kennedy. 6-11-2021, "U.S. adults have mixed views on whether geoengineering would help reduce effects of climate change," Pew Research Center, accessed 7-16-2021, ] //BYNo more than half of U.S. adults say they think two geoengineering techniques – solar geoengineering and cloud seeding – would make a difference in reducing the effects of climate change, and most are worried about unintended consequences from these approaches, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey.Scientists and policymakers are exploring the use of several geoengineering techniques to alter the environment in ways that could reduce the effects of climate change. Solar geoengineering is a proposed technique that aims to temporarily lower Earth’s temperature by spreading particles in the atmosphere to reflect sunlight back into space. A recent report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine recommended that the U.S. federal government invest up to $200 million in researching the effects and feasibility of solar geoengineering.Cloud seeding, another form of geoengineering, involves dispersing particles in the atmosphere to encourage rain and snowfall. At least eight Western states have recently used this technique in an effort to increase precipitation and the water supply for rivers and lakes.About four-in-ten Americans (41%) say they think solar geoengineering technology would make a difference in reducing the effects of global climate change, while 53% say it would not make a difference. Opinion about the effectiveness of solar geoengineering is roughly the same as when the question was last asked in 2018, when 45% of adults said it would make a difference and 53% said it would not.The idea of solar geoengineering is familiar to only a small share of the public: Just 4% say they have heard or read a lot about this, another 38% say they have heard a little and a majority (57%) have heard nothing at all.Americans are also divided over whether cloud seeding would help in reducing the effects of climate change-related drought. Half of adults say it would make a difference, while 45% say it would not.Again, the public is largely unaware of this technique: 53% of Americans say they’ve heard nothing about cloud seeding, another 42% say they’ve heard a little about it and just 4% have heard a lot.Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, especially those who self-identify as liberal, are more optimistic than Republicans and GOP leaners about geoengineering’s potential impact. For instance, a majority of liberal Democrats (60%) say they think solar geoengineering would make a difference in reducing the impact of climate change, compared with just 18% of conservative Republicans.People who say addressing climate change is a top concern to them personally are also more optimistic about the potential impact of these technologies: Majorities of these adults say solar geoengineering (59%) and cloud seeding (65%) would make a difference in reducing the effects of climate change.Younger adults – who are more likely to identify as Democrats and as ideologically liberal, and to say addressing climate change is a top personal concern – are more positive about geoengineering. For example, more than half of Gen Z or Millennial adults (55% and 52%, respectively) say they think solar geoengineering techniques would make a difference in reducing climate change’s effects, compared with 29% of Baby Boomer and older adults.Some researchers have expressed concern about geoengineering and argued that the technology could have unforeseen negative impacts on the Earth’s climate. Earlier this year, climate researchers halted a test of solar geoengineering technology in Sweden after environmental conservationists and indigenous groups objected.Large majorities of Americans worry that both technologies will be deployed before scientists fully understand the environmental consequences of using them. More than seven-in-ten U.S. adults say they are very or somewhat concerned that solar geoengineering (74%) or cloud seeding (72%) will be used before we fully understand how they affect the Earth’s ecosystems. That includes about a third who say they are very concerned about this (32% and 30%, respectively).People who have heard a lot about these technologies are especially likely to express concern. For example, 72% of adults who have heard a lot about solar geoengineering say they are very concerned it will be used before we understand how it impacts Earth’s ecosystems, compared with 36% of those who have heard only a little about it and 27% who have heard nothing. A similar pattern occurs with views about cloud seeding: A majority of those who have heard a lot about it (59%) say they are very worried about using such techniques before we understand their effects, compared with about three-in-ten of those who have heard a little or nothing about it.Plan gets spun to throw shade on Biden.Reuters 21 [Reuters, objective fact reporting news service. 2-19-2021, "Fact check: Joe Biden did not predict or manipulate the weather that caused the Texas freeze," Reuters, accessed 7-16-2021, ] //BYA post circulating on Facebook claims that President Joe Biden “manipulated” and “controlled” the weather to cause the Texas deep freeze in mid-February 2021 that has left millions without power and at least 21 people dead. This claim is false. The rare winter storm was caused by an arctic air mass.The lengthy post can be seen here: here and begins: “3.5+ million people without power in Texas - JOE BIDEN’S DARK WINTER HAS ARRIVED.” Later it reads, “Joe Biden’s ‘Dark Winter’ statement was not a random thought, it was a foreshadow of what was to come.” “This is warfare, an attack on Texas by altering the Jetstream, seeding the clouds, and ultimately causing the storm that blocked out over 4 million people.”Cloud seeding is one of the only politically divisive scientific ideas.Standler 06 [Ronald B. Standler, attorney. 10-22-2006, "Weather Modification Law in the USA," RBS, accessed 7-16-2021, ] //BYI remarked above on the angry public reaction to a judge's decision. Let me compare and contrast the situation in science to that in law. Research scientists become famous for writing landmark papers in scholarly journals, and many scientists would eagerly seize the opportunity to write a publication on an important new topic. It is rare for a scientific publication to cause an angry reaction among many readers. Indeed, most scientific accomplishments are ignored by journalists, politicians, and the public. In contrast, meteorologists who are involved in public hearings on cloud seedings are often exposed to an angry, political situation that is unlike anything in conventional scientific research. And, unlike the situation in science, opinions expressed at hearings on cloud seeding may be based on superstition, emotions (e.g., fear or anger), politics (e.g., having their personal concerns ignored or rejected by a bureaucrat whom they neither trust nor respect), religion (e.g., it is immoral to modify God's weather), ….Farmers and ranchers opposed to cloud seeding have used violence and sabotage against both cloud seeders and those sponsoring cloud seeders.8Link – Dams Decommissioning Dams drains PC – The debates in congress proveColumbian 21 [(Columbian, ) “In Our View: Dam proposal provides framework for debate,” 7-14-2021, ,] *AP*A proposal from Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, regarding the future of four dams along the Lower Snake River needs robust debate and thoughtful consideration. It does not need churlish infighting designed to distract from the issues.Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-Battle Ground, is wise not to be drawn into the internecine squabble that has erupted. Herrera Beutler has been vocal in her opposition to the plan and articulate in her reasoning why the dams should remain; she need not distract from those topics, as some of her colleagues have done.The other three Republican representatives from the Pacific Northwest — Washington’s Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Dan Newhouse, and Oregon’s Cliff Bentz — last week publicized a letter they sent to Simpson criticizing his “secret” discussions with Oregon Gov. Kate Brown.Simpson posted a response that included, “How is that secret? My staff has had discussions with nearly every governor, member of Congress, and U.S. senator in the Columbia Basin on this proposal.”Simpson has worked on the proposal for three years, conducting some 300 meetings. “I expected pushback when this all started,” he said. “What I did not expect was colleagues with whom I have worked for a number of years on a number of issues to question my integrity, to insinuate I have lied about my motivation and in fact have nefarious intentions — to — what? Sabotage the economy of my own state?”Concerns about unsavory intentions should be dismissed so Congress can get to the business of considering the proposal. Because there is much to discuss.The plan, dubbed the “Columbia Basin Initiative,” would breach four dams along the river — partly out of a desire to improve salmon recovery throughout the region. Most of the proposed $33.5 billion cost would go to replacing the electricity the dams generate and the barging capacity they provide, along with irrigation that is necessary for the agriculture industry.Herrera Beutler has opposed the proposal, signing on to a statement that says, “The clean, renewable power generated by the dams along the Columbia and Snake rivers supplies half of the Pacific Northwest’s energy and is critical for a reliable power grid.”That is a reasonable position that deserves consideration. So does Simpson’s complex proposal.Any potential plan must include protections for fish and tribal interests, clean-energy solutions, flood control and farm-to-market provisions for farmers without soaking taxpayers, and Simpson has boldly attempted to strike that balance.Environmental groups quickly decried the proposal, partly out of concern that it calls for a 35-year moratorium on lawsuits related to the dams. The plan also would suspend some environmental regulations for other dams throughout the Columbia Basin. But those same conservation groups long have called for dam removal, saying it is essential for the survival of the region’s salmon — and, by extension, orcas. That provides hope that some middle ground can be found.Any proposal that has some aspects supported by all stakeholders and other aspects those stakeholders oppose is a good starting point. It should generate debate rather than claims of villainous wrongdoing. But such is the current state of politics, where accusations take the place of discussions and proposals infrequently are considered on their actual merits.Diminishing salmon runs dictate that thoughtful action be taken. Simpson’s proposal provides a framework for that thinking to begin.Link – DesalinationDesalination debates drains PC – The debates in the courts proveRy Rivard 16 [(Ry Rivard, ) “The Desalination Plant Is Finished But the Debate Over It Isn’t,” Voice of San Diego, 8-30-2016, ,] *AP*The country’s largest desalination plant is in the ground at Carlsbad and its water is in our pipes, but the debate over whether it was a wise or economical investment continues.The ability to turn salty ocean water into drinking water creates a dependable water supply for 3 million people in San Diego County. Even without a drought continuing across California, the ability to constantly sip from the ocean seems like an obvious plus.There are downsides, though: The desalination process is energy-intensive and its water is currently far more expensive than our other water supplies. The San Diego County Water Authority has committed to buying water from the plant’s private developer and owner for three decades, whether the water is needed or not.Some of the back and forth played out in court – the plant’s developers overcame years of regulatory review and faced 14 legal challenges since 2006 from environmental groups.Recently, the debate has continued here in our opinion section.A longtime critic of the Carlsbad plant, environmental attorney Marco Gonzalez, said the plant is an “expensive fraud” that is “horrible for taxpayers”?compared with other ways to increase the region’s water supply or efforts to simply save more water.The San Diego County Water Authority, which backed the project and contracts with a private company for the water, has answered this and?other criticisms?with essentially the same response each time: It’s worth it. The plant, said Water Authority board chairman Mark Weston, is a “major reason why?the area is no longer are under steep state-ordered emergency water cutback mandates.”Link – Mexico TreatyChanges in border treaties will fuel political controversyTotten 06(Glenn Totten, writer for Colorado River Project; “COMMON CAUSE: Border Water Issues Unite, Divide U.S., Mexico”, published Winter 2005-2006; )With virtually every drop of Colorado River water allotted to one user or another, any shift in water allocation in the border environment, near the river’s end point at the Gulf of California, would be acutely felt and would be controversial. Some see it as a zero-sum game – there is a finite amount of water to distribute for various uses, and any efforts to change the distribution pattern inevitably must take from supplies already allocated to one or more existing users. Strategies for finding solutions include traditional diplomatic avenues, voluntary stake- holder collaborations, private initiatives and lawsuits. Each approach has its advocates and doubters.Some have suggested that the border is becoming less relevant as the historic business, social and family relationships between the U.S. and Mexico grow closer. The relationship also extends to water, but as competition for water increases, will it be an issue that brings the two countries closer together or one that divides them?“We’re moving from a period of relative abundance of water on the river toward a future where we’re going to have to work quite a bit harder to meet the water needs of people as well as the environment and agriculture in both the United States and Mexico,” says Peter Culp, project manager and attorney for programs at the Sonoran Institute.Border water controversies cover a wide range of environmental and economic issues, including habitat preservation and enhancement, water quality and water to support agricultural and economic development. In the past, the U.S. and Mexico might try to address those issues separately or through limited binational programs, but as border cities and economies have grown more interdependent, so has the need to find solutions that satisfy constituencies on both sides of the border. A solution to a problem on one side of the border likely will have repercussions, sometimes negative, on the other side.Link – Native MiningThe plan’s massively controversial – past efforts to reform mining on native lands prove – it’s spun as industry massacreBroussard 19 – writer for Cronkite News Kailey, 10/28. “House panel OKs update to mining law; critics say it will kill industry.” House committee gave preliminary approval last Wednesday to an overhaul of a 147-year-old federal mining law that supporters called “antiquated,” while opponents called the update a “point-blank” blow to the mining industry.The Hardrock Leasing and Reclamation Act [H.R.2579] would protect national parks and tribal areas from being leased for mining, increase mining royalties and create a fund to clean abandoned mines, among other measures. The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Tucson, said it is “about bringing mining into the 21st century.”But Republicans on the House Natural Resources Committee blasted the bill as a threat to the mining industry. Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Prescott, said called it little more than a politically motivated bill that has no chance of getting through the Senate or signed by the president.“It is clear what the true motive of my colleagues is with this bill: To put every mine in the United States out of business,” Gosar said before the committee vote on the bill.Grijalva called those concerns overblown – and familiar.“For my entire life, I’ve seen the mining industry ignore concerns from tribes and local communities, and I have listened to the same industries scream bloody murder any time anyone threatened to make them play by the same rules as other industries,” he said.In a news conference before the hearing Wednesday, Grijalva said his bill merely brings hardrock mining regulations in line with those for industries such as coal and natural gas, which face tougher regulations.“You can’t regulate cellphones based on the Pony Express,” he said. “You can’t do what was done then, now. But we continue to do it.”The bill would impose a minimum 8% royalty on mineral production at already existing mine sites and a 12.5% royalty on mines with permits issued after the law takes effect, unless the company has a small miners lease. It would also bar hardrock mining from sacred sites, National Conservation System land and wilderness study areas.The law would also create a Hardrock Minerals Reclamation Fund, drawn from assorted fees, fines, donations and investments, to reclaim abandoned mines and restore affected lands and waters.But while supporters touted the environmental benefits of the bill, critics said it could backfire, noting that many clean-energy technologies rely on hardrock minerals that would be affected by the proposal.“In our world, we need critical minerals now more than ever,” said Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, and the ranking member on the committee.Gosar submitted letters of opposition on behalf of national and state groups, including the Arizona Mining Association, and argued the bill would lead to increased reliance on other countries, threaten national security and stunt sustainability initiatives.But the committee rejected amendments by Gosar and Rep. Garret Graves, R-La. Gosar’s amendments would have invalidated the act if it led to reliance for minerals on countries hostile to the U.S., or if collecting royalties threatened the economy or national security.“This isn’t an attempt to reform and get more royalties,” Gosar said before the vote. “This is to kill the industry at point blank.”The committee voted largely along party lines to send the bill, unamended, to the full House.It is the latest in years of proposed hardrock mining reforms, with recent attempts not even getting out of committee. The last proposal to make it out of the House died in the Senate in 2007.Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., has introduced a companion bill [S.1386] that is awaiting hearing by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.But Bishop said this year’s attempts will suffer the same fate as previous ones.“This is a bill that’s not going to be signed by the president, it’s not even going to be heard in the Senate. It’s going nowhere at all,” he said.Link – NativesDecisions over tribal waters cost political capital. Bushnell,?12?(Darcy Bushnell, Staff Attorney at UNM, No month 2012, accessed on 7-14-2021, Digitalrepository.unm, "American Indian Water Right Settlements ", )//TKResolving American Indian water rights is an important undertaking for the economies, community relations and water management of tribes, states and local communities. Water rights are generally formalized through stream system water right adjudications. These large, slow moving cases are usually filed in state court, involve all water users on a designated stream system within the state’s boundaries, apply both federal and state law, often address new legal questions, require extensive technical work, take decades to complete and are very expensive. While non-reservation claimants obtain their water rights under state law, most American Indian water rights are determined under the Winters Doctrine which arose out of the federal case, Winters v. United States (Winters). The Pueblos of New Mexico can have their water rights determined under the Winters Doctrine and/or under the Mechem Doctrine, found in the New Mexico v. Aamodt (Aamodt). The Mechem Doctrine holds that Pueblos retained their aboriginal rights to water by virtue of having been Mexican citizens and enjoying the protections afforded by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Tribes and Pueblos may also hold state law rights and/or aboriginal rights reserved by a tribe through treaty as defined by United States v. Winans. Determination of any American Indian water right can take decades, the court awards only a water right, and the tribe may not have resources to develop and use the right awarded. Since all adjudication parties are vulnerable to the uncertainties of trial, tribes, the United States, states, stakeholders and courts have turned to settlement to resolve difficult questions about tribal rights and to create community solutions. Lake Nighthorse Settlement of Ute Mountain Ute and Southern Ute Indian Tribes of Colorado Water Rights Courtesy of the US Bureau of Reclamation “Settlement negotiations foster a holistic, problem-solving approach that contrasts with the zero-sum logic of the courtroom, replacing abstract application of legal rules that may have unintended consequences for communities with a unique opportunity for creative, placebased solutions reflecting local knowledge and values.” David J. Hayes, Deputy Secretary, US Dept. of Interior before the US Senate Committee on Indian Affairs -Indian Water Rights: Promoting the Negotiation and Implementation of Water Settlements in Indian Country March 15, 2012. BACKGROUND In the nineteenth century as European Americans pressed westward, the United States government moved or assigned tribal peoples from across the continent to lands set aside from the public domain, generally in the west. It established reservations through treaties, presidential executive orders, and grants from previous sovereigns. While reserving the land, the enabling documents did not usually address water needs of the people assigned to the lands and, eventually, conflicts arose between users on the reservations and users off the reservations. Winters, the first case to go to the United States Supreme Court, involved the upstream settlers and the tribes and bands of the Fort Belknap reservation. The dispute was over the allocation of water in the Milk River in north central Montana. In 1908, the Court held that when Congress set aside lands for a reservation, it also impliedly reserved sufficient water to fulfill the purposes of the reservation. The Court set the water right priority date as the reservation’s date of establishment. This ruling ensured that the newly recognized federal water right could be administered under the prior appropriation doctrine along with water rights developed and recognized under state law. These American Indian rights became known as federal reserved water rights or Winters rights. Milk River, Montana Courtesy of the US Bureau of Reclamation Previously, the Winans Court held in 1905 that the Yakama Tribe reserved unto itself “the (aboriginal) right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places” and that as a result, non-Indians could not bar the Tribe’s access even to off-reservation locations. Much later in 1983 in United States v. Adair, the 9th Circuit recognized that under certain circumstances the priority of a water right can be immemorial or first in time, regardless of the date of the reservation. Tribes view these rights as a part of the bargain received when they relinquished vast tracts of land and resources. The Winters court, however, did not quantify the Fort Belknap right beyond “sufficient water to fulfill the reservation’s purpose”. Between 1963 and 1983, the Supreme Court resolved the quantification issue for agricultural reservations in the Arizona v. California decisions by adopting the ‘practicably irrigable acreage’ (PIA) standard recommended by the Special Master. The contours of that standard have been litigated ever since. In 1952, Congress passed the McCarran Act which waived the sovereign immunity of the United States and tribes for the purpose of conducting stream system adjudications in state court. Today, most of these cases are located there. Many tribes believe that this venue is hostile to their rights and interests, particularly since many of the judges are elected by popular vote. American Indian tribes have substantial federal law based claims to water for the support of viable, livable reservation homelands. The total claims of Arizona tribes exceed the total water budget for the state. The claims of the Navajo on the San Juan River in New Mexico approach 1 billion acre-feet of diversion right per year. Many tribes lack access to potable drinking water, others need access to water to support lifestyles involving agriculture, hunting, gathering and fishing, and all need access for cultural and spiritual life ways. Since many reservations were created before intensive European American settlement, the priority dates of tribal rights tend to be the most senior on the stream systems on which they are located. Thus, under the prior appropriation doctrine, tribal needs are satisfied before those of junior users. Communities around reservations have come to rely on water that has been available to them because these rights have been unquantified and tribes have lacked resources to develop uses. Unlike state-law water rights, tribes are not required to put Winters water rights to beneficial use to maintain the rights, which causes confusion among those who also rely on the resource. When tribal water rights are being determined, strife can arise between reservation and non-reservation residents because water is necessary to both the lives and cultures of both groups and changes in the water use status quo presents enormous challenges. These challenges lead to delayed socio-economic development for tribes and make management of limited water resources very difficult. Bonnie G. Colby, John E. Thorson, and Sarah Britton, Negotiating Tribal Water Rights, Fulfilling Promises in the Arid West (2005) Barbara Cosens and Judith V. Royster, eds., The Future of Indian and Federal Reserved Water Rights: The Winters Centennial (2012) (Proceedings from The Winters’ Centennial Conference hosted by the Utton Transboundary Resources Center, American Indian Law Center and University of New Mexico School of Law 2008) John Echohawk, Executive Director, Native American Rights Fund, Testimony before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Oversight Hearing on Indian Water Rights: Promoting the Negotiation and Implementation of Water Settlements in Indian Country (March 15, 2012) David J. Hayes, Deputy Secretary of United States Department of the Interior, Testimony Before the United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on Indian Water Rights: Promoting the Negotiation and Implementation of Water Rights Settlements in Indian Country, (March 15, 2012) National Congress of American Indians, Water. Native American Rights Fund, Indian Reserved Water Rights Claims Symposium. (Materials from past biennial symposium of settlement of Native American water rights sponsored by Native American Rights Fund and Western States Water Council.) The McCarran Amendment, 43 U.S.C. § 666 (1952) Arizona v. California, 373 U.S 546 (1963), decreed in final form, 376 U.S. 340 (1964), decree amended, 383 U.S. 268 (1966), supplemental decree entered, 439 U.S. 419 (1979), supplemental opinion, 460 U.S. 605 (1983), [Arizona II], second supplemental decree entered, 466 U.S 144 (1984) New Mexico v. Aamodt, No. 66CV6639, (D.N.M. 1966) New Mexico v. United States, No. D-1116-CV-75-184, 11th Judicial District of New Mexico, The United States’ Statement of Claims of Water Rights in the New Mexico San Juan River Basin on Behalf of the Navajo Nation (Jan. 3, 2011) United States v. Adair, 723 F.2d 1394 (9th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1252 (1984) United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371 (1905) Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908) LITIGATION Although litigation is the ‘traditional’ means of formalizing water rights, increasingly parties are turning to settlements to determine American Indian water rights. Litigation, for the most part, has not been a satisfactory experience. The process requires huge amounts of time and money, develops and results in great uncertainty, is destructive to community relations, and although a result is obtained from a court, a court can only award a described water right without answering related questions which plague involved communities. Further, unlike Congress, courts cannot increase financial resources available to tribes and communities.Link – Nuclear ModernizationAny change to nuclear modernization policy costs PC --- it’s highly contentiousHersman 21 – Director, Project on Nuclear Issues, and Senior Adviser, International Security ProgramRebecca, with Joseph Rodgers, 2/12. “Nuclear Modernization under Competing Pressures.” Biden administration will face early decision points regarding the modernization of critical elements of the U.S. nuclear weapons enterprise in an environment buffeted by competing forces and pressures. Fiscal constraints and a highly competitive budget climate, allies and partners seeking reassurance as to U.S. commitments to collective security, and a complex political climate for arms control and nonproliferation dynamics all pose significant challenges for the new administration.Q1: What are the biggest challenges facing nuclear modernization?A1 : The Biden administration will face high-priority, high-profile decision points for nuclear modernization early this spring, and it will likely be contentious as stakeholders within and outside of government are already positioning publicly on a range of topics. Currently, there are ongoing efforts in the Department of Defense (DoD) and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to modernize nearly every aspect of the U.S. nuclear arsenal over the next two decades. This includes all three legs of the nuclear triad and their associated delivery systems, an overhaul of the nuclear command and control architecture, the replacement of the air-launched cruise missile (ALCM) with the long-range stand-off weapon (LRSO), and a range of warhead modernization and refurbishment efforts. Additionally, NNSA plans to produce at least two new warheads for the stockpile: the W93 and the Future Strategic Missile Warhead.In confirmation testimony both Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks expressed general support for nuclear modernization and the nuclear triad, but they did not commit to specific programs, procurements, or schedules. The devil is always in the details, however, and it is in those details where these issues will come to a head early in the administration. Other appointees in the new administration have long-standing objections to central aspects of the existing program of record, especially the LRSO, Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD), and NNSA’s warhead modernization and production efforts. We can, and should, expect a thorough scrubbing of these programs for cost, efficiency, and schedule within DoD and on policy grounds in broader interagency debate.Support is mixed on Capitol Hill as well. House Armed Services Committee (HASC) chairman Adam Smith (D-WA) has long voiced personal reservations about some nuclear modernization programs, particularly the GBSD. Yet overall, congressional support for the existing nuclear modernization program has remained consistent over the past half-dozen National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAA). Speaking at CSIS on December 11, 2020, Chairman Smith made it clear that he expected many of these programs to continue to enjoy strong support on Capitol Hill. The FY 2021 NDAA and appropriations bills bear that out, as all the key elements of modernization are fully—or nearly fully—funded. The next test for these programs will come as the new administration prepares to submit its FY 2022 defense budget in early spring. With the long-awaited “bow wave” of expenditures now underway, it will be difficult to delay many of the critical funding decisions on major programs until after a full nuclear posture review can be completed.The nuclear modernization debate will continue to unfold in a climate of deep ideological polarization across the nuclear policy landscape. Finding middle ground is possible but it will take a willingness from across the community to lower the temperature and calm the rhetoric while the new administration reviews the options and determines a path forward.Link – CTBT RatificationCTBT has been controversial for decades, empirics prove this will continue in the present. We should invest our time in other efforts.Dewar,?1999?(Helen Dewar, 10-14-1999, accessed on 7-15-2021, Washingtonpost, ": Senate Rejects Test Ban Treaty", )//TKThe GOP-controlled Senate emphatically rejected the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty yesterday, dealing a devastating blow to a pact that has been at the center of global efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons.Senate Republicans said it would be impossible to ensure that other nations were abiding by the treaty, and they argued that the pact would make it difficult for the United States to ensure the viability of its own nuclear stockpile. They rejected Democratic complaints that they were sending a dangerous message to other nations interested in joining the nuclear club.Indeed, the 51 to 48 vote against the pact fell largely along party lines, with only four Republicans joining 44 Democrats in supporting the treaty -- far short of the two-thirds necessary for ratification.The vote was President Clinton's biggest foreign policy defeat on Capitol Hill and represented another collapse of bipartisanship in a Congress characterized by a high degree of strife and paralysis. It also could have far-reaching international repercussions. Major U.S. allies including Britain, Germany and France have warned that rejection of the test ban treaty would raise serious doubts about America's commitment to reducing the nuclear arms threat.Declaring that "the fight is far from over," Clinton last night denounced the treaty's rejection as "reckless" and "partisan.""For now the Senate has said no, but I am sending a different message. We want to limit the nuclear threat. We want to bring the test ban treaty into force," Clinton said on the White House lawn."When all is said and done, the United States will ratify the treaty," he said."This is a terrible, terrible mistake," said Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.). "If politics don't stop at the water's edge, nothing does."Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) said the only terrible thing was the treaty itself. It is "the most egregious treaty ever submitted to the Senate for advice and consent . . . a dangerous treaty" that merits rejection, he said.Democrats vowed to keep up pressure for ratification and predicted that the Senate's vote will become an issue in next year's elections. The treaty could be brought up again in the 107th Congress if the next president decides to resubmit it.But in the meantime the vote made history: Not since the Treaty of Versailles to establish the League of Nations after World War I had the Senate formally rejected a major arms control accord, although it has often delayed action to avert defeat and has occasionally rejected treaties on other subjects. The Senate last rejected a treaty in 1983, when it turned down an agreement dealing with aviation rules.In yesterday's vote, all Republicans voted against the treaty except for four moderates -- John H. Chafee (R.I.), James M. Jeffords (Vt.), Gordon Smith (Ore.) and Arlen Specter (Pa.) -- who joined 44 of 45 Democrats in voting for it. Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) voted "present" because he wanted the vote delayed so he could resolve reservations he has about the pact. Among Washington area senators, only John W. Warner (R-Va.) voted against the treaty.Link – Offshore DrillingClimate action is hard to pass for Biden- proves there will be fighting over offshore drilling bans.Newburger,?21?(Emma Newburger, 1-30-2021, accessed on 7-14-2021, CNBC, "Biden's climate change agenda will face big obstacles with evenly divided Senate ", )//TKPresident Joe Biden has passed an early flurry of executive action on climate change during his first weeks in office, reversing environmental rollbacks from the Trump administration and quickly acting on campaign promises to address global warming.The president’s orders, though significant, don’t substitute for the administration’s plans to implement more permanent climate legislation, including parts of the $2 trillion proposal to cut planet-warming carbon emissions to zero by 2035 and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.Without new climate legislation from Congress, Biden’s orders to reverse Trump’s rollbacks on emissions from vehicles, power plants and oil and gas drilling could be easily undone by a future administration. Many of Biden’s legal reversals could take years to impose too.What could stand in Biden’s way in passing major climate reform on issues — such as phasing out coal and oil with clean energy technology — is moderate Senate Democrats and Republicans from fossil-fuel states who oppose policies they view as harmful to the industry in their home state.The Biden administration has a slim Democratic Senate majority that’s 10 votes short of the 60 needed to break the Senate’s filibuster and pass climate bills. The Senate is divided 50-50 with Vice President Kamala Harris as a tie-breaking vote for Democrats.Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who opposes ending the filibuster and has broken with his party to defend coal production in West Virginia, is the incoming chairman of the Senate Energy Committee and will yield tremendous power in deciding what passes.Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at the Columbia Law School, said that while many of Biden’s climate proposals wouldn’t require Congressional action, Congress is essential to appropriate infrastructure spending and help strengthen the Clean Air Act and other regulatory controls to mitigate fossil fuel production.“Without Congressional action you don’t have the certainty of continuity. You have a loss of momentum, which is a big problem,” Gerrard said. “At the same time, we see the plummeting costs of wind and solar. The market is going to be driving a lot of this without government action.”Democrats tried but failed to pass climate change legislation when they controlled Congress under former President Barack Obama and will likely face similar difficulty under Biden.The national emergency optionSenator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the majority leader, has addressed how difficult major bipartisan reform on climate will be and recently called on the president to declare climate change a national emergency.Link/Internal – Moderate DemsModerate Dems don’t want to go too far on environmental legislationCochrane 20 – reporter in the Washington bureau at the New York Times, covering CongressEmily, with Lisa Friedman, 1/10. “House Democrats Push Environmental Bills, but Victories Are Few.” the surface, House Democrats have diligently stressed their commitment to the environment. They have held more than 120 hearings, championed legislation meant to curb planet-warming emissions and created a select committee on climate change. On Thursday, Ms. Pelosi, in teasing the release of a long-awaited infrastructure package, said it would be the House’s “most current initiative on the climate.”But their record of legislative victories is thin. Essential legislation — a crucial military policy bill, two voluminous funding packages and an overhaul of the North American Free Trade Agreement — has passed the House, but without far-reaching environmental provisions. Even a relatively minor provision, the extension of a tax credit for the purchase of electric vehicles, was dropped from a package of tax-credit extensions at the insistence of the White House before Congress approved them last year.“We didn’t have leadership in the Democratic Party that was ultimately willing to call the president’s bluff and say, ‘You really want to shut down the government over renewable energy? Take your best shot,’” said Michael Brune, the executive director of the Sierra Club.Democratic leaders and lawmakers involved in the negotiations said the legislation they secured was the best they could get. The administration has prioritized undoing environmental regulations, and the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, has made a career of defending his state’s coal industry.The Republican position on climate change remains “absurd,” said Representative Frank Pallone Jr., Democrat of New Jersey, who is the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and an architect of another piece of climate legislation introduced this week.But allowing the government to shut down or failing to act on a trade deal stuffed with other Democratic priorities were prices too high to pay for futile showdowns, they argue. Such spectacles would have jeopardized their House majority and doomed their campaigns to reclaim the White House and Senate.“We’re the responsible party aren’t we?” said Representative Kathy Castor, Democrat of Florida, who leads the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis. “No, we’re not going to shut down government. But we will live to fight another day.”That approach has exacerbated tensions between the liberal and moderate wings of the Democratic Party.It has also elevated fears among climate activists that Democrats, for all their passionate speeches, will not reduce fossil fuel consumption if they win the White House. The Sierra Club is already threatening to support primary challengers against House Democrats they believe have failed the movement.“We can blame Republicans all day long, but I believe we accept some responsibility in this as well,” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said.Ms. Castor was not so sure. On the tax legislation Congress approved last month, she said the blame rested with the White House, which demanded the removal of tax credits for electric vehicles. Ms. Castor said Democrats fought for those and other clean energy credits “till the very end.”Democrats refused to include technical adjustments to Mr. Trump’s 2017 tax law because Republicans would not budge on renewable-energy tax credits, according to a person familiar with the negotiations.On the North American trade deal, which is awaiting a vote in the Senate, talks included at least one heated match over Democratic language taken from the Paris climate accord, according to one person familiar with the exchange. Democrats did not win that one, but negotiators did agree to some tougher environmental provisions, including the establishment of attachés in Mexico City solely for the purpose of monitoring Mexico’s environmental laws and regulations.Still, at least one Senate Democrat plans to vote against the trade deal because provisions such as those are not focused enough on climate change.“The measure is, are we meeting the urgency of the moment?” asked that senator, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. “And we’re not even close.”Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont, also said he would vote no on the legislation over the climate issue.Climate activists say Democrats are failing to recognize that good policy fights make good politics. Climate change consistently polls in the top two issues for Democratic voters.“It’s baffling that Democratic leaders didn’t listen to their constituents and try to hold the line. They seem stuck in the past and out of touch with the kind of leadership people want,” said Varshini Prakash, a founder of the Sunrise Movement, a youth-led climate group.Democrats and environmental activists are most irate over the party’s failure to pass controls on PFAS chemicals in the annual defense policy bill.“It was their big chance to leverage their political power to get some standards that would require the E.P.A. to regulate PFAS as a hazardous substance,” said Mary Greene, the deputy director of the Environmental Integrity Project. Of Friday’s bill passage, she said, “It’s dead in the water. It’s a gesture and an empty one.”Representative Debbie Dingell, Democrat of Michigan and a leader in the fight against such “forever chemicals,” said her party “pushed until the end.” But, she said, “the Senate had very strong feelings about what they were going to allow.”Some lawmakers and congressional staff said anger over the watering down of the PFAS provisions in the defense policy bill ultimately led to the passage of Friday’s narrower measure. Representative Adam Smith, Democrat of Washington and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, was unapologetic about his negotiations with President Trump, Mr. McConnell and Senator James Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma and the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee — all opponents of stricter environmental regulations.“Throughout the negotiations, I failed in one way: I was unable to turn President Trump, Leader McConnell and Chairman Inhofe into Democrats and convince them to suddenly accept all of the provisions they despise,” he said.Ms. Ocasio-Cortez chalked up the string of climate and environment losses to her party’s “natural risk aversion.” Environmental issues — particularly ones that touch low-income communities and communities of color — are “profoundly uniting areas for the caucus, and we gave them up,” she said.Moderate Dems won’t get on board with the plan---they prefer incremental, pro-market environmental actionHolden 19 – environment reporter for FloodlightEmily, 9/18. “Moderate Democrats' climate proposal highlights rift with progressives.” congressional Democrats worried about the infeasibility of passing the kind of sweeping climate legislation their progressive counterparts are proposing, such as the Green New Deal, are laying out their own policies.The New Democrat Coalition released an 11-page outline of principles on Wednesday, along with a list of bills to back them up, advocating for incremental and “pro-market” steps to cut pollution.Their pitch comes as the Swedish youth activist Greta Thunberg visits Capitol Hill to tell US lawmakers they just aren’t trying hard enough, and young people inspire global climate strikes this Friday ahead of the UN climate change summit next week.“Congress has been working for years on powerful, proven policy solutions,” they say. “Our challenge is to build on those efforts and push past entrenched partisan fights to secure durable climate legislation that ensures we lead the global transition in combatting climate change.”The New Democrats want to set a clean energy standard, encourage nuclear power and clean up methane leaks from oil and gas companies. They say they want to get carbon pollution to net-zero by 2050, calling the climate problem “unquestionably urgent”.Progressives, by comparison, have penned the Green New Deal, a blueprint for rapidly cutting heat-trapping pollution while fighting societal inequity. But the document, sponsored by the presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is not legislation and does not spell out specific policy changes.The difference in the proposals highlights a rift between Democrats that is also on display with the 2020 presidential candidates.More centrist politicians worry about playing into Republican messaging that climate-focused Democrats want to ban cheeseburgers and end air travel. And they say lawmakers should focus on what is politically achievable. Progressives say the climate crisis requires radical change.Link/Internal – Dem UnityDem unity gets infrastructure done now. Anything that threatens it derails the bill.Leonhardt 7/16/21 – Op-Ed columnist at The New York Times. Prior to joining the Opinion department, Mr. Leonhardt was the founding editor of The Upshot section, which emphasizes data visualization and graphics to offer an analytical approach to the day's news. Mr. Leonhardt has also served as Washington bureau chief and wrote “Economic Scene,” a weekly economics column, for the Business section. In 2011, he won the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary for his columnsDavid, “Where Democrats Agree.” them: Republican support looks shaky on the infrastructure plan and nonexistent on the other plan. Democrats have such slim congressional majorities that they can lose almost none of their own members. And some liberal activists have already protested one of the plans outside the White House.The task is difficult enough that White House staff members sometimes talk about it internally as akin to “trying to land the plane on a very narrow landstrip in the middle of the ocean,” Cecilia Rouse, the chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, told me yesterday.But Biden and the Democratic leaders in Congress do have one big advantage, and it sometimes gets lost amid the noise. So far, both Senate and House Democrats seem notably unified behind the two bills’ major goals.Manchin to SandersIn the political center, Joe Manchin of West Virginia helped negotiate the infrastructure bill and has spoken positively about a large second bill focused on social programs. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, another moderate, has said she is “open to finding a path forward” on both. Mark Warner of Virginia, known as a “business guy,” is helping craft large parts of the legislation, as my colleague Jonathan Weisman explains.On the left, both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren also seem to be on board, praising the second package even though it’s smaller than they favor. “In some cases, it doesn’t provide all the funding that I would like,” Sanders said this week. But he also called it “probably the most consequential piece of legislation since the 1930s.”This relative consensus is a contrast to the internal Democratic divisions on some other issues, like voting rights and the filibuster. But the politics of economic policy tend to be different — and easier — for the party. It frequently stays unified on economic issues, including taxes and Obamacare.Why? For one thing, Democrats’ economic positions tend to be popular, even in purple and red states. The two big bills Biden is hoping to get through Congress — which together would spend money on roads, broadband internet, pre-K and other programs while raising taxes on the rich — fit the pattern. A large majority of voters support them, polls show.<<plan fractures Dem unity>>Link – AT: Plan Small/Not ControversialThe dirty-water lobby seizes on new regs and magnifies any objectionScott 15 – Director of Corporate Relations, Clean Water ActionJonathan A., 6/12. “What’s Controversial? Absolutely Nothing (about the Clean Water Rule).” more than a decade of campaigning by Clean Water Action and allies, the Obama Administration released its final Clean Water Rule on May 27.Although the protracted battle has received little news coverage, most of the time, when it has been reported at all, the news has focused on “the controversy” or “the controversial Clean Water Rule.”We can’t really complain when the news media keep on doing what they seem to do best --seize on a perceived conflict and then report on it. We’ve seen this time and again with news coverage of the climate crisis, which magnifies industry-backed anti-science climate denial and portrays deniers’ fringe views as legitimate, mainstream ones. That’s just the way much of the news business works these days.In fact, the Clean Water Rule is a relatively straightforward, common-sense fix to a growing problem within the Clean Water Act. Weakening changes first adopted during the Bush Administration (George W.) at the behest of polluter interests were made even worse by polluter-friendly court decisions. In the years since, fundamental protections were muddied to the extent that it was no longer clear what water resources were supposed to be protected. Enforcement suffered.Small streams (60 percent of small streams nationwide), 20 million wetlands acres, and drinking water sources for 1 in 3 Americans were left vulnerable to pollution, depletion and development.There is nothing remotely controversial about protecting these water resources. Otherwise the law doing so would never have gotten passed in the first place. The 1972 Clean Water Act became law with overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress.Strip away the overheated rhetoric and the policy details, and the entire debate comes down to one thing: clean water vs dirty water. For this reason, only a narrow spectrum of interests has embraced the “dirty water” side as its cause, sort of a “Who’s Who” of polluters: Corporate champions of the old energy economy (big oil and coal), Industrial agriculture (even though the law largely exempts their pollution), Some big commercial developers and their associations, A few big chemical and manufacturing companies.Unless you measure them in terms of dollars spent on lobbying and elections, the interests driving this Dirty Water train form a distinct minority at the margins of our democracy. The public and most other businesses have always strongly supported the Clean Water Act and other laws to protect clean water.So to create the illusion of “controversy” the Dirty Water folks do a lot of what they seem to do best: making stuff up (as we say in polite company) or lying (as we say in polite company when we want to make things absolutely clear). Sadly, an emerging Dirty Water Caucus in the U.S. House and Senate and front groups like the American Farm Bureau Federation have seen fit to amplify and repeat the falsehoods. Hence the “controversy.”In the closing stages of the fight, the politically unpopular American Petroleum Institute and their ilk, who had been visible and active on the issue from the beginning, suddenly stepped aside, allowing others to carry their (dirty) water. That’s why all those myths/lies about “farmers” championing the Dirty Water side have been getting so much airplay.WOTUS proves --- advocates and adversaries play up the stakesSimpson 19 – former EPA economist and PERC Lone Mountain FellowR. David, 4/8. “What Went Wrong With WOTUS: Reflections on Economic Valuation and Environmental Regulation.” might hope that the research now underway will lead to future economic analyses of regulatory benefits that will be more widely accepted. We are, however, in a precarious political moment. The Kansas debate I happened to hear on that evening four years ago captured how contentious environmental regulation has become. A large portion of the electorate has acquired a deep disdain for the opinions “experts” offer to guide or justify public policy, a phenomenon that was further underscored in the seismic shifts of the 2016 elections. As with so many other aspects of American life and culture, it sometimes seems that opposing interests do not want to develop workable solutions to environmental problems so much as to score triumphs over their rivals.This has played out in a curious way with WOTUS. Opponents of the Clean Water Rule argued that it would vastly expand the authority of the EPA and Corps of Engineers. Rather than trying to allay concerns about regulatory overreach, environmental advocates may have instead exacerbated them by emphasizing that the rule would extend regulation to millions of miles of streams and millions of acres of wetlands. Both advocates and their adversaries depicted a high-stakes battle. Yet the agencies based their analyses on recent records that suggested the impacts of the proposed rule would be far less dramatic. While large areas might technically become subject to regulation under the new rule, the regulations would only affect landowners who contemplated doing something to modify waters covered by the rule, and the agencies argued there was little reason to suppose large areas would fall into this category.Link – AT: Previous Water Bill Proves Plan PopularThat bill was a tiny drop of routine government spending---doesn’t mean the plan’s not controversial Mascaro 21 – Congressional correspondent for the Associated PressLisa, with Kevin Freking, 4/29. “Water bill may open spigot for Biden infrastructure plan.” reason the water bill easily passed was because it’s routine government spending. Another reason is that the price tag was tiny compared to typical congressional budget spats. Few expect such harmony to last when the stakes get bigger in the months ahead.L – AT: EPA Doesn’t Link Even if EPA is executive, if the agency feels threatened, they can get Congress involved – costing Biden precious PCLivermore, M. A. (2014). Michael A. Livermore is an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. Cost-benefit analysis and agency independence. University of Chicago Law Review, 81(2), 609-688.//LaDPresident Reagan also faced agency resistance to the imposition of regulatory review. Political scientists describe a "cycle of accommodation" between new presidential administrations and the existing federal bureaucracy in which "initial suspicion and hostility" on the part of incoming political appointees is gradually replaced by a relationship of "mutual respect and trust."352 This road is not always smooth.353 Where accommodation cannot be made, conflict can easily move from the staid corridors of agencies into the political battlefield, with negative consequences for both political appointees and agencies. Given that some tension will exist between the current bureaucracy and new political masters-especially those that seek to unsettle long-standing practices-much turns on how conflict is channeled. If it cannot be managed internally, bureaucrats have a wide range of external tools that can be used if needed to protect their interests. Congress is an obvious outlet, and career personnel often have links to important constituencies that can be activated. Additionally, the media can be used to great effect to embarrass the president and his appointees. Revolt on the part of the federal bureaucracy is something that the president and political appointees would strongly want to avoid. When OIRA review was established by the Reagan order, it left both career and political appointees at agencies open to the possibility that a more consolidated principal would exercise effective control. But because there was a clearly designated standard for how review would be exercised, there were internal channels for agencies, and in particular career bureaucrats at agencies, to protect their autonomy. When those channels are blocked, and methodological choices are imposed in an overtly political manner, it opens the president to genuine risks. The best example of this is the senior death discount debate discussed above. A heavy-handed imposition of the life-years methodology, which was not well grounded in the empirical literature and lacked support within the agency, resulted in very public conflict. Members of Congress weighed in, interest-group pressure was brought to bear, and unfavorable reports ran in the press. Though, of course, there was no formal involvement of the agency, it is quite possible that at least some agency personnel played a role. Ultimately, political officials who supported age-related adjustments to mortality risk reduction were forced to back down. 354 When EPA's traditional role in overseeing methodological developments was threatened, a political toll was exacted on the George W. Bush administration, a mistake that should leave a lasting imprint. Under this account, the cost-benefit-analysis requirement, and the degree of control that it afforded to the federal bureaucracy, helped support the institution of regulatory review.355 Because the review process created an internal channel for agencies to protect their autonomy, it helped prevent wholesale revolt against increased presidential control, battles for which there would no doubt have been willing patrons in Congress and among interest groups and that would have played out in very public fashion. At a time when the executive branch is viewed as ever more unitary,56 this provides a useful reminder that persuasion remains one of the most important presidential powers. 357 Embedded in one of the most aggressive structural assertions of presidential authority over the regulatory process is an allocation of responsibility over methodological development that encouraged agencies to accept it. By ceding a measure of control, while channeling agency efforts internally within the executive branch, an agency-driven cost-benefit-analysis requirement has helped allow the institution of OIRA review to survive.L – AT: Courts Don’t LinkCourts limit Biden’s PC—reversing Trump’s water rule uses strong political muscleJacobs and King 21(Jeremy P. Jacobs, worked previously as a political reporter for National Journal, The Hill and The New York Observer, a media fellow at the Vermont Law School and holds a graduate degree from Columbia Journalism School, and an honors degree from Stanford University; Pamela King, leads E&E News' coverage of environmental litigation at the Supreme Court and beyond, holds a bachelor's degree in journalism from Northeastern University and a master's degree in environmental resource policy from George Washington University; Biden races courts for chance to torpedo Trump water rule, published 4-18-21; ) President Biden has gone full throttle in his first 100 days seeking to reverse Trump-era environmental rollbacks. But on one controversial rule, the president's team may not be able to outpace the judicial system.Key lawsuits that could define the reach of the Clean Water Act are working their way through federal courts — despite Biden administration attempts to stop them so it can craft its own regulations.The cases concern what waterways and wetlands qualify for federal protections, a question that has befuddled judges for two decades.One conservative legal group is hoping it can quickly return the issue to the Supreme Court, putting the Biden administration in the tricky position of litigating the definition of "waters of the U.S.," or WOTUS, before it has time to issue its own regulation."Those cases are pushing the administration to act," said Melissa Kelly of the University of California, Irvine, School of Law. "The administration clearly wants to avoid a decision on the merits before it is able to."That may not be possible. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on a Clean Water Act case last month that touched on the WOTUS question, and there is a second case in that court with familiar plaintiffs plowing forward. Both could provide paths to the Supreme Court for stakeholders who want to limit EPA's Clean Water Act authority.The situation is in some ways similar to what happened at the start of the Trump era.At that time, two federal district courts ruled against the Obama EPA's Clean Water Rule, and one court held that the regulation went beyond the agency's congressionally mandated authority. Those legal decisions helped the Trump team justify its 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule, which took a much narrower view of what bodies of water qualify for Clean Water Act protections.A ruling against the Trump administration's regulation could similarly help Biden, said Tony Francois, an attorney with the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) in Sacramento, Calif."But it's also possible that further litigation on the 2020 rule could hem them in in some ways," he said, referring to Biden's EPA.If a court determines that EPA may not go further — or regulate more broadly — than the WOTUS definition in President Trump's rule, the Biden administration may have difficulty crafting a more far-reaching regulation that stands up in court, said David Fotouhi, former EPA general counsel during the Trump administration."That may be more challenging for EPA to overcome in a new rulemaking," said Fotouhi, who is now a partner at the firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.Francois and PLF represent challengers in one of the Clean Water Act cases at the 9th Circuit, which concerns whether an Idaho property contained wetlands that fall under the law's jurisdiction.The case has reached the Supreme Court before. In 2012, the justices unanimously ruled that Mike and Chantell Sackett could challenge EPA's jurisdictional determination in court.Now, the Sacketts and PLF are defending the Trump rule in light of the Supreme Court's famously muddled 2006 ruling in?Rapanos v. United States.In the 4-1-4 decision, a majority of the court's justices could not coalesce on a single test for defining the scope of the Clean Water Act.The late Justice Antonin Scalia won four votes for his majority opinion that said waters must have a "continuous surface connection" to a navigable water in order to qualify — a definition the Trump administration used as the foundation of its 2020 rule. Former Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a stand-alone opinion in support of the broader "significant nexus" test, which served as the basis for the Obama rule.Francois said the Supreme Court needs to review the issue and provide some clarity on?Rapanos. Otherwise, he said, EPA's rules will continue to whipsaw between Republican and Democratic administrations."If the Supreme Court just waits for something that is fully litigated and won't be changed anytime soon, they'll never get it," he said. "We'd be encouraging the Supreme Court to take this question."Litigation over Trump's WOTUS rule is moving forward in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, despite the Biden team's calls to press pause on the dispute. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the case should continue, and it later revived Trump's rule in Colorado, the only state where the regulation had been put on ice.Briefs in the Colorado District Court litigation are due this summer. The Biden administration could ask the court to send the government back to work on WOTUS without scrapping the rule — as it did in litigation over Trump's overhaul to National Environmental Policy Act implementing rules ( HYPERLINK "" Energywire, March 18).Environmentalists are asking another bench — the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina — to move forward with their lawsuit arguing that Trump's rule is far too narrow.The Southern Environmental Law Center, which is representing challengers in the case, said the courts may provide the fastest avenue to relief from Trump's WOTUS regulation. Data from the Army Corps of Engineers show that Trump's rule may have led to lasting damage to U.S. waterways ( HYPERLINK "" Greenwire, March 19)."We're encouraged that the Biden administration has said it will reconsider this rule, but rulemakings take time," said Kelly Moser, senior attorney with the law center. "To do it lawfully can take a year to two years. We see a real risk to the rule staying in place."While the early days of the Trump administration were marked by legal losses over improperly delayed and suspended Obama-era rules, the Biden team may have more success freezing Trump rules, due to the robust records that were developed to underpin Obama regulations like the Clean Water Rule, said Bethany Davis Noll, executive director of the State Energy & Environmental Impact Center at the New York University School of Law.Halting Trump's WOTUS rule would buy Biden's EPA and Army Corps some time to write a new regulation from scratch."If they want to reverse course," Noll said, "there's a record that would support that."If the WOTUS question makes it to the Supreme Court, Biden is likely to run into a firewall composed of the court's six conservative justices.The conservative wing of the court is thought to be more sympathetic to Scalia's interpretation of the Clean Water Act's scope than to Kennedy's reading of the statute.And all six Republican-appointed jurists on the bench have expressed support for the so-called nondelegation doctrine, or the view that administrative agencies should not promulgate rules that aren't expressly authorized by legislation.The doctrine could easily apply to Biden's Clean Water Act regulation, legal experts say.Support for the doctrine was evident at the Supreme Court during the Obama administration, said Robert Percival, director of the University of Maryland's Environmental Law Program. It has grown stronger with Trump's three nominees to the high court, he said."This court is clearly poised to greatly restrict the ability of Biden, or EPA, or Interior to do something unless Congress has given them that authority," he said.Courts create political opposition—disagreement over water protection laws proves courts link to politicsWortzel 20(Andrea Wortzel, University of Richmond School of Law, J.D., magna cum laude, 1996, College of William & Mary, B.A., 1991; Federal Courts Reach Opposite Conclusions Regarding Implementation of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, published 6-29-20; )In the past two weeks, two federal district courts reached seemingly opposite conclusions regarding the implementation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (“the Agencies”) Navigable Waters Protection Rule (“the Rule”). The Rule, which took effect on June 22, narrows the term “waters of the United States” and, thereby, the scope of waters subject to federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”). The Rule has been a top priority for the Trump Administration under its two-step process to repeal the Obama Administration’s 2015 rule, which expanded the scope of the CWA, and replace it with a rule that provides more distinct clarity as to which waters are jurisdictional. States, environmental groups, and other interested parties have filed lawsuits across the country challenging the Rule and requested courts issue preliminary injunctions to prevent it from taking effect.On June 19, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied a motion for a nationwide preliminary injunction that was filed by California and sixteen other states and cities (“Plaintiffs”). Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging the Rule and, on May 21, filed a motion for a nationwide preliminary injunction to prevent the Rule from taking effect. In the first ruling of its kind, Judge Richard Seeborg found that the Plaintiffs had not met the standard for a preliminary injunction and denied the motion. The Court found that the Plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their legal challenge and rejected the Plaintiffs’ claims that an injunction was warranted to avoid irreparable injury.Addressing the likelihood of success on the merits, the Court noted that the Agencies’ interpretation of the term “waters of the United States” is ultimately entitled to deference, and should be upheld if it is a reasonable interpretation of the term. The Court emphasized that Congress had failed to clearly define the term in the statute and that there had been a shifting interpretation of the term between administrations. The Court acknowledged that interpretative changes motivated by a change in administration are not inherently unreasonable and concluded that the Agencies’ current interpretation—even if it is inconsistent with the Agencies’ 2015 interpretation of the term—is likely not inconsistent with the text, structure, and purpose of the CWA.The Plaintiffs had also argued that they were likely to succeed on the merits because the Rule reflected such a significant shift from the Obama rule and the scientific foundation for the Obama rule. In denying the injunction, the Court noted that the Agencies had provided an explanation for the policy change and articulated why they discounted the scientific underpinning used to justify the 2015 rule.The Court also rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that the environment would suffer irreparable harm if the Rule takes effect. While the Court acknowledged that withdrawing protections afforded by the 2015 rule may immediately manifest in some waters and wetlands, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs’ arguments relied on speculative assumptions. The Court added that Plaintiffs likely failed to show that the alleged harms apply equally across the county, weighing against the grant of a nationwide injunction. Finally, the Court abstained from determining whether the Rule served the public interest, reasoning that such a determination would have required the Court to improperly scrutinize the Agencies’ policy decisions.On the same day, Judge William J. Martinez of the District of Colorado (an Obama appointee) reached an opposite conclusion and granted a request for a preliminary injunction, concluding that the Rule contradicts the Supreme Court’s decision in Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006). Specifically, Judge Martinez concluded that the Rule impermissibly implements the jurisdictional test put forth by the four-Justice plurality in Rapanos authored by Justice Scalia rather than Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion. Given the Rule’s contradiction of Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion in Rapanos, Judge Martinez determined that the plaintiffs would likely succeed in challenging the Rule and halted its implementation in Colorado during the pendency of the trial.Similar lawsuits remain pending in federal district courts in Arizona, Washington, New Mexico, South Carolina, and Massachusetts, which could result in the Rule’s suspension on a state or nation-wide basis. For more information on these cases or the implications, please contact Andrea Wortzel, Fitzgerald Veira, Byron Kirkpatrick, Brooks Smith, Patrick Fanning, Ashley Cameron, or Rich Pepper.Congress politicizes Court decisions and reacts accordinglySlattery 20 – Former Legal Fellow and Appellate Advocacy Program Manager, HeritageElizabeth, 4/8. “The Way to Stop Politicizing the Supreme Court.” in the shadow of the Supreme Court on March 4, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) delivered an ominous message to Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh:“You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”Earlier that day, the court had heard a case challenging Louisiana’s regulation of abortion doctors. Schumer was not-so-subtly hinting that there would be consequences unless the justices rule the way he wants.Months earlier, a group of senators took aim at the Supreme Court. Writing in a “friend of the court” brief in a case challenging New York City’s gun regulations, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and four of his colleagues menacingly declared the court is “not well” and must “heal itself” or face restructuring. The path toward “healing” naturally would include ruling the way the senators want.These threats are part of a broader attempt to politicize the Supreme Court. The senators mistake the justices for politicians in robes and confuse the justices’ rulings with policy preferences.SCOTUS and its decisions are treated as another political branchLong 20 – Senior Lecturer in American Studies, University of East AngliaEmma, 10/29. “Where the politicisation of the US Supreme Court could lead.” what happens when politicians involved in nominating justices portray the court as little more than another political branch to be “won” or “lost” by those holding elective office? For example, during the successful 2016 Republican campaign to deny Barack Obama the chance to appoint a justice to replace Antonin Scalia, then presidential hopeful Ted Cruz said: “We cannot afford to lose the supreme court for generations to come.”More recently, Mitch McConnell, the Republican majority leader in the Senate and architect of the appointments of both Neil Gorsuch in 2016 and now Barrett, claimed: “The reason we were able to do what we did … is because we had the majority.” This implies that legitimacy now rests on the political implications of the court’s rulings.Tracing public opinionOpinion polls in recent years suggest there is a trend in this direction already. In 2012, the year the court upheld Obamacare for the second time, its approval ratings hit a 25 year low of 52%.Three years later, having struck down key provisions of the Voting Rights Act and held that same-sex marriage was protected by the constitution, the court’s favourability rating had fallen to 43%. As polls by the Pew Research Center revealed, much of the overall drop in approval was driven by conservative Republicans who argued that the court was too liberal.Fast forward to September 2020, before the death of the justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was announced, and the court’s overall approval rating had shot up to near 70% according to Pew research. Although approval of the court increased among both Republicans and Democrats, the sharpest rise came from Republicans whose favourability rating had almost doubled in five years to 70%. At the same time, significantly more Republicans reported believing the court was “middle of the road” while an increasing number of Democrats viewed it as conservative.Everybody losesBoth Democrats and Republicans implicitly assume that they have a right to control the outcomes of the court – that they have a claim by virtue of the appointment process to get the “right” results in key cases. Setting aside the complex question of whether justices really make decisions based on their personal politics, a fact most justices have consistently disputed, such a claim is deeply problematic.It opens the door for adherents of one party to argue that a particular ruling is illegitmate because it came from a court with members appointed under questionable circumstances influenced by politics which they disagree.Assume, further down the line, that Democrats, having won control of the White House and Senate, enact some of the changes that have been mooted in the run up to the 2020 election: introducing term limits, increasing the number of justices – called “packing the court” – or changing the appointment rules.Whether those changes are beneficial or not, they are likely to be seen as political retaliation, linking the court even closer to partisan battles. The Republicans might even argue that the decisions from a future court are illegitimate because it was shaped by their political opponents.With politically divisive battles over each new appointment seemingly the new norm, and the rise of language which treats the court as part of the electoral spoils, it’s not too hard to imagine a point when decisions are only considered legitimate when they come from a court dominated by appointments from one party of the other.Politicians of both parties should take note and beware: in treating the court as simply another political branch of government they may undermine entirely its legitimacy. And then both sides lose.It’s 2021, the courts link to politicsSechrest 21 – editor of The Prindle Post at DePauw University. He earned his PhD from Binghamton University with a focus in Political Philosophy and Philosophy of LawTucker, 5/27. ““Politicians in Robes”: Neutrality in the Supreme Court.” divisiveness seen in the Court mirrors the ugly politics in Congress that preceded its recent newcomers. All three justices, Ian Millhiser points out, were “nominated by a president who lost the popular vote and confirmed by a bloc of senators who represent less than half of the country.” Given the hypocrisy surrounding Gorsuch and Barrett’s appointments as well as the acrimony on both sides over Kavanaugh’s confirmation, it will be hard to dispel the notion that the Supreme Court is just another battleground for political score-settling.Add to this a common belief in the practice of strategic retirement – justices timing their departure to ensure the installation of like-minded predecessors – and it’s hard to see the Court as anything other than an ideological land grab. The lottery appointment system, ensuring that justices are confirmed unevenly, erodes public trust and stretches the connection between the people’s will and its rulers’ authority to its breaking point.Taken together, these considerations question the Court’s ability to serve its necessary function as a check on power and legal backstop. Contrary to Justice Roberts’s claim that the Court’s job is merely to “call balls and strikes,” the prevailing perception is that justices are overwhelmingly motivated by their personal political agendas and, thus, the Roberts Court stands committed to effecting the Right’s political will.The Court is a political institution in a political environmentCDSP 19 – Center for the Study of Democratic Politics, citing Keith E. Whittington – William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics at Princeton University“Is the Supreme Court a Guardian or Player?” ’s meticulous analysis is the foundation of his conclusions about whether the Supreme Court’s actual behavior as an institution aligns with the story we learn, and tell ourselves, about a body removed from politics and insulated from political winds by no less a barrier than the constitution. Whittington doubts the veracity of this story, “My work confirms that the court is a political institution operating in a political environment, often surrounded by controversy, and exercises political power to modify federal policy.” His analysis suggests that the justices are individuals subject to political influences and processes that then influence decision-making. Supreme Court decisions are a result of a vote by nine individuals, who each became decision-makers through political appointment processes after having been socialized, politically, just as their colleagues and all people are. And they are subject to the same emotional turmoil and political opinion storms as are we all. But, unlike most of us, they are powerful actors in the political world. Repugnant Laws concludes,“When the Court intervenes to vindicate those principles against an errant national legislature, it is often doing the political work that political leaders want it to do. It is acting as a player within democratic politics, not simply as a constitutional guardian standing outside of democratic politics.”L – AT: Courts/EPA Don’t LinkEPA and Courts cost PC—this causes political controversy from water protection lawsWyland 21 (Scott Wyland, reporter for Santa Fe New Mexican; EPA to repeal controversial water rule impacting New Mexico, published 6-14-21; )U.S. regulators aim to repeal a contentious Trump-era rule that stirred fierce opposition from conservationists and many New Mexico leaders because it removed most of the state’s water from federal protection.The Environmental Protection Agency’s head said the agency and the Army Corps of Engineers had determined the rule was causing substantial harm to water bodies and pointed to New Mexico and Arizona as among the states most affected.The current rule, which has spurred a string of lawsuits, only protects waterways that flow year-round or seasonally and connect to another body of water.It excludes as “ephemeral” storm-generated streams as well as tributaries that don’t flow continuously to another water body — disqualifying most of New Mexico’s waters. Unregulated storm runoff can carry contaminants into rivers used for drinking water, conservationists say.Water advocates see the announced change as an encouraging move, but warned that it will take time to repeal and replace the rule. In the meantime, they say potentially harmful projects already approved will move forward.“I think many people remain concerned that the Trump rule remains in place, and that waters can be injured because of it,” said Cliff Villa, associate professor and supervising attorney for the University of New Mexico’s Natural Resources and Environmental Law Clinic.Under Villa’s guidance, a group of law students filed suit on behalf of Laguna and Jemez pueblos with the aim of persuading the federal courts to vacate the rule — partly because overturning regulations can take years.It took the Trump administration three years to undo the Obama-era clean water rule, although some delay was caused by a former EPA head’s missteps while trying to rush it through, Villa said.One water advocate said she thinks the repeal can be done relatively quickly.After the EPA states its intention to scrap “the dirty water rule” in the Federal Register, a 30-day public comment period will follow and then the agency can work to repeal it, said Rachel Conn, projects director for Taos-based Amigos Bravos.Establishing a new rule will take considerably more time, Conn said, but in the meantime it’s crucial to get rid of a standard that is leaving most of New Mexico’s waters unprotected.“The rule is having serious harm now to our waterways,” Conn said.Conn and other critics of the current rule have worried it would nix the EPA’s oversight of heavily polluted runoff from Los Alamos County into the Rio Grande — a prime source of drinking water — and that it might disqualify the Gila River from protection because that waterway runs dry before reaching the Colorado River.“After reviewing the Navigable Waters Protection Rule as directed by President Biden, the EPA and Department of the Army have determined that this rule is leading to significant environmental degradation,” EPA Michael Regan said in a statement.The lack of protections is especially significant in arid states such as New Mexico and Arizona, where nearly every one of over 1,500 streams has been found to be outside federal jurisdiction, the EPA said in a news release.Regan said the agency is committed to creating a “durable definition” of U.S. waters based on Supreme Court precedents, learning from past regulations and getting input from a variety of interested parties. The agency also will consider the impacts of climate change, he said.In an emailed statement, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said the rule would devastate New Mexico’s waters. “We are grateful to Administrator Regan for recognizing the disproportionate impacts of the rule to New Mexico,” she added. “And we are hopeful that meaningful protections will be restored under a revised, long-lasting rule based on sound science and robust state, tribal and stakeholder engagement.New Mexico is one of just three states that has no authority from the EPA to regulate discharges of pollution into rivers, streams and lakes under the Clean Water Act, which leaves it at the mercy of whomever is in the White House, Conn said.A longtime environmental attorney said he is optimistic about the shifting political tide, even if replacing the rule takes time.If the rule is repealed, the regulations will revert to more stringent ones enacted in 1987, said Charles de Saillan, staff attorney for the New Mexico Environmental Law Center.Conn and de Saillan are among several parties involved in suing the EPA over its navigable waters rule.Congress should intervene and create well-defined and permanent updates to the Clean Water Act to stop the political seesawing that happens every change of administration, de Saillan said.Congressional action would be much better than having the U.S. Supreme Court make rulings on it, de Saillan said. The last high court decision on which waters merited federal protection was ambiguous, causing more confusion and legal battles, he said.“The Supreme Court is not the place to resolve this,” de Saillan said. “That would be unfortunate.”EPA and Courts link to politics—unstable EPA decisions result in a switch of political sidesBarnes 20(Robert Barnes, Washington Post reporter and editor since 1987; Supreme Court rejects Trump administration’s view on key aspect of Clean Water Act, published 4-23-20; )During the Obama administration, the EPA had sided with environmentalists in the case. But it reversed its position after President Trump took office and said discharges into groundwater fell largely outside the law. Only direct discharges into navigable waters were covered, it said.Breyer wrote that the administration’s interpretation could not be right. All a polluter would need to avoid regulation, for instance, would be to end a discharge pipe just before reaching the water, he said.“We do not see how Congress could have intended to create such a large and obvious loophole in one of the key regulatory innovations of the Clean Water Act,” Breyer wrote.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that a permit was required if the pollution was “fairly traceable” to a source. But Breyer said that was too broad, allowing “EPA to assert permitting authority over the release of pollutants that reach navigable waters many years after their release (say, from a well or pipe or compost heap) and in highly diluted forms.”He had proposed the “functional equivalent” standard when the case was argued, and he acknowledged then and in Thursday’s opinion that it could be criticized as vague.“But there are too many potentially relevant factors applicable to factually different cases for this court now to use more specific language,” he said. He proposed a seven-factor test, and said it will evolve through EPA regulations and lower court decisions.Breyer was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Brett M. Kavanaugh.Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.They said the majority’s decision is not supported by the text of the law and leaves too many questions unanswered.“The court makes up a rule that provides no clear guidance and invites arbitrary and inconsistent application,” Alito wrote in his dissent. Water authorities won’t know if they are covered, and “regulators are given the discretion, at least in the first instance, to make of this standard what they will. And the lower courts? The Court’s advice, in essence, is: ‘That’s your problem. Muddle through as best you can.’?”L – AT: Plan PopularWater-protection legislation causes fights---patches of support don’t translate to Congressional politicsAndreen 13 – the Edgar L. Clarkson Professor of Law at the University of Alabama School of LawWilliam L., 8/12. “The Clean Water Act Needs Positive Reform.” the need for legislation to address these imperfections in a statutory scheme that has otherwise proved remarkably successful and resilient, Congress has been unable to enact any positive legislation related to water pollution since 1987. The current prospects for passage of any such legislation remain poor. In fact, the momentum has shifted to those who would weaken the protections provided by the Clean Water Act. Since January 2011, the House of Representatives has voted in favor of several bills and riders designed to obstruct effective environmental regulation. One bill in particular, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act, was designed to retard additional progress under the Clean Water Act. Although these bills have not been enacted, they demonstrate a disconcerting disconnect in American politics. While the majority of Americans favor vigorous environmental protection, the majority of members of the House apparently do not.The challenge facing those favoring continued environmental progress is translating broad, but admittedly rather shallow, public support into strong, tangible support for comprehensive legislative action. The key to meeting this challenge, however, is fairly clear. We need active and informed citizens, engaged professionals, and a press that is able and willing to dig into environmental issues in a thoroughly objective and factual way.L – AT: Winners Win Winners don’t winSubramanian 21 – White House correspondent at USA Today, citing William Howell – political scientist at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public PolicyCourtney, with Joey Garrison, 3/7. “'Dinner table' politics: Why Joe Biden ditched bipartisan dealmaking to pass his COVID-19 relief bill.” the relief plan's popularity outside the Beltway, it is unlikely that momentum from its passage will hurtle Biden into future legislative wins, Howell said.“The idea that a legislative win begets a subsequent legislative win in this environment is probably asking for too much,” he said, noting the prospect of passing COVID-19 relief was higher than more hot-button issues like immigration or health care.A legislative defeat would have raised questions about Biden’s ability to pass any meaningful legislation, but its passage won’t be a “springboard to the production of all kinds of landmark legislation – far from it," Howell said. “Sure, he can claim victory,” said Ari Fleischer, former press secretary for President George W. Bush. “Nobody will ultimately know whether it truly is a victory until we see the shape the economy is in a year or so.”PC Finite – can’t increase, only decreasesWorthy and Benister ’12 (Ben and Maark, “Getting It, Spending It, Losing It: Exploring Political Capital”). Ben is a research associate, and Mark is a lecturer in politics. Political Studies Association 2012 Annual Conference. sci-hub.se/10.2139/ssrn.2480548 // BBPolitical capital, which is finite, is not the same as money in the bank, which can [not] keep growing indefinitely. Political capital is also subject to depreciation as part of ‘a natural trajectory’ during which support and power is lost over time. Winners don’t win – productivity and agenda success are INVERSELY related in polarized environments Masket 14 (Seth, “Unpopularity and Productivity are Related”). Professor of Political Science at University of Denver. // BBBut policy accomplishments don't really help a president much in terms of popularity. LBJ wasn't popular because he signed Medicare or the Civil Rights Act. It works the other way around; he was able to pass those in part because he was popular in 1964-65, thanks to a very strong economy and public goodwill in the wake of the Kennedy assassination. Notably, all his Great Society legislation didn't help him out once the public got annoyed by the Vietnam War; his party lost many seats in 1966 and he chose to resign rather than face the voters' wrath in 1968. Beyond that, to the extent productivity and popularity may be related today, they may run in the opposite direction. In a polarized political environment, a president's achievements are likely to generate as least as many enemies as friends. Take health care reform, Obama's signature accomplishment. No Democrat could credibly run for president in 2008 (or for many years before that) without health care reform being a top priority. That was the nature of the Democratic coalition for decades. Conversely, the Republican coalition had been organized for decades around preventing Democrats from enacting health care reform. Obama's efforts were bound to produce substantial pushback, just as Clinton's did twenty years ago. The passage of health care reform indeed exacerbated Democratic congressional losses in 2010, and may well have handed Republicans the House of Representatives. This doesn't mean that it was wrong for Democrats to pass health care reform or for Obama to do any of the things he's recently done. It just means that actually being productive will engender resistance. Obama is unpopular at least in part because he's been effective. Political capital is finite – PC key for infrastructure nowSmith 21 (Noah, “Biden Must Avoid Obama’s Mistake when Setting his Agenda”). Bloomberg Opinion. Bloomberg Opinion columnist. Assistant professor of finance at Stony Brook University. // BBThe universe of possibilities for the Biden administration radically expanded after the Democrats clinched the Senate majority, but the increase in Political capital isn’t infinite. When deciding which problems to tackle first, President Joe Biden should prioritize initiatives that address the pandemic while moving the nation toward long-term goals for public health and green-energy stimulus. After the virus is beaten, the U.S. economy will still linger in recession unless the government acts decisively to boost demand. The best tool for doing this, as usual, is infrastructure investment. And the rapid progress in solar power and batteries means that Biden has a unique opportunity to address the climate crisis at the same time. A huge build-out of solar power and electric-car charging stations, including subsidies to rapidly replace fossil fuel plants and gasoline vehicles, will ensure that the U.S. economy comes roaring back while making huge steps toward decarbonization.Public health and green infrastructure should be the top priorities for Biden in 2021 and 2022. Yes, there are lots of other things in America that need reform, including health care. But the realities of the political system mean these will have to wait. Reforms must fit the crisis of the day; Biden can’t afford to get sidetracked on a quixotic quest to fix everything that’s wrong with the American economy.. No winners win – infrastructure is key, overreach risks Biden agendaZeller 21 - Shawn Zeller, editor of CQ Magazine. editing of stories on Congress, politics, and Washington writ large. 1-25-2021, "The choices Joe Biden makes now will set his legacy in motion," Roll Call, — President Joe Biden laid out a sweeping mission on Inauguration Day, declaring his goal to tackle the “cascading crises” afflicting America. He cited eroding faith in democracy and even in truth, growing inequity, systemic racism and the climate crisis. “Any one of these would be enough to challenge us in profound ways. But the fact is, we face them all at once,” he said. Biden pledged then to “rise to the occasion” and “to master this rare and difficult hour.” The implication was that he would offer solutions, or at least progress, to all of these crises. In reality, he’ll have to pick his battles, and the choices he makes in the coming weeks will begin to set the terms of his legacy. The modern president faces constraints built into the framers’ system of checks and balances. The job is all the harder given the party polarization that today makes even plausible compromises hard to reach. So Biden will have to decide: Which crises deserve the bulk of his attention and political capital and which will have to wait? Presidents have to make these choices early, when their terms are fresh and their party is in control of Congress because that’s when making far-reaching law is possible. There’s no doubt that Biden will focus on the pandemic. He will try to use COVID-19 relief to address other Democratic priorities around inequity, racial injustice and environmental protection. But with a Senate evenly divided at 50-50 and a 10-seat Democratic House majority, any overreach could plunge his agenda into quicksand. Biden is seasoned enough in the ways of Washington that he knows this. So of the sweeping pledges in his inaugural address, some will rise to the top of his legislative agenda and he’ll settle in other cases for rhetorical nods, executive actions and regulatory maneuvers. Some pledges will prove just lip service to constituencies in the Democratic Party’s base. What will Biden allow to slip? His incoming Treasury secretary, Janet Yellen, said that tax hikes on corporations and the wealthy would not be an immediate priority.? These decisions have consequences. The president Biden served for eight years, Barack Obama, let immigration slip off his priority list in 2009 and 2010 in favor of an economic stimulus, an overhaul of American health insurance and a financial regulatory law. The comprehensive immigration bill he said he wanted never got done. Republicans are already dismissing Biden’s virus relief proposal as too expensive and overbroad and his executive actions as sops to progressives.?Winners win false – political capital is finite Bennister and Worthy 12 - Mark Bennister was a Senior Lecturer in Politics, Ben Worthy is a lecturer in Politics at Birkbeck College. 4-12-2012, "Getting it, Spending it, Losing it: Exploring Political Capital by Mark Bennister, Ben Worthy :: SSRN," No Publication, capital is frequently used as a short hand for the diverse range of attributes and advantages a leader brings with them to power and develops in office. Compared to other forms of ‘capital’ it remains under theorised. Since Pierre Bourdieu first outlined it, scholars have viewed political capital either as being synonymous with personal skills or a description of wider contextual attributes, particularly the link between leader and public. It is frequently seen as analogous to financial capital: a political leader has a fixed stock of capital that they can spend, hoard, fritter or gamble. This paper takes a first look at the literature and applies it to ‘t Hart’s approaches to leadership study, drawing on examples predominantly from US and UK politics. Following Lopez (2002) it takes the view that political capital is both ‘personal’ (in terms of their own skills) and ‘political’ (in terms of events, institutional resources and context). A politician with skills and attributes can use this to shape the context in which they operate, creating a ‘positive multiplier’ as the personal and political reinforce each other. Where events can also overwhelm leaders and expose flaws and personality weaknesses, a ‘negative multiplier’ takes effect. However, unlike money in the bank, political capital is finite and subject to depreciation as part of ‘a natural trajectory’ whereby support and power is lost over time. Yet this trajectory is not always uniform. The loss is inevitable but the rate and shape may not be. Winners win not proven -- Passing popular legislations does not guarantee future wins Bond 21 - Mike Bond, 3-2-2021, "Why Republicans Don’t Fear An Electoral Backlash For Opposing Really Popular Parts Of Biden’s Agenda," Thakoni, in the US house last week unanimously against President Biden’s economic stimulus plan, even though Survey show that the legislation is popular with the public. The U.S. Senate will be considering the bill soon – and it looks like the vast majority of Republicans are in that chamber will also refuse. And it’s not just the incentive. House Republicans too last week mostly against an invoice Prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. And the GOP seems poised to oppose the upcoming democratic bills Make voting easier and Spending hundreds of billions to improve the country’s infrastructure. All these ideas are Popular With the public, also. “Duh” you could say. Of course, the party without power is against the agenda of the party in power. Democrats did The during the four years of former President Donald Trump. republican done during former President Barack Obama’s two terms in office. The parties disagree on many important issues. You’ve seen this movie before, haven’t you? This sequel is actually a little different. Obama’s health bill was just hover around the majority support when it moved through Congress. Trump’s proposals to repeal Obamacare and lower corporate taxes were downright unpopular. In contrast, Biden and the main elements of his agenda are popular. And the Republican Party is not. This explains why it was overridden in the 2018 and 2020 elections. So if an unpopular party speaks out against the politics of the population in the run-up to 2022 and 2024, will it buy a ticket further into the political wilderness? Not necessarily. There are several reasons to believe that rejection of popular politics will not harm Republicans in the election, and conversely, implementing a people’s agenda will not necessarily empower Biden as much. The first reason Republicans in Congress can afford to oppose popular ideas is one that you’ve probably read a lot about in recent years: the GOP has several big ones structural advantages in the America’s electoral system. Because of the electoral college, Trump would have won the presidency with around 257,000 other votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, though he lost by nationally more than 7 million votes. The Senate gives equal weight to sparsely populated states like Wyoming and large states like California, so the Chamber’s 50 Democratic Senators effectively represent about 185 million Americans while the 50 Republican Senators represent about 143 million, like Vox’s Ian Millhiser recently calculated. Republican gerrymandering and Democratic weakness in rural areas make it difficult for Democrats to win and maintain control of the House, even if most voters support Democratic House candidates. That’s what happened in 2020. Put it all together, and the Republicans in Congress are somewhat isolated from the public will. The advantage for Biden and the Congressional Democrats to be closer to the public opinion is again blunt. Second, Electoral politics and politics are increasingly separated from one another. More and more Americans are voting by party lines and are unlikely to break away from their side no matter what they do. Some scholars argue that the loyalty of voters to the parties is not so closely tied to the political platforms of the parties as it is more like loyalty to a team or a brand. And, in contrast to politics, partisanship and voting are increasingly associated with racist attitudes. So GOP-oriented voters can support some democratic politics but still vote for Republican politicians who oppose this policy. Third, the last several mid-term elections were all defined by Backlash against the incumbent president. One could argue that there is nothing inevitable about this and that former President George W. Bush (Social security reform, Iraq war), Obama (Obamacare in 2010 and his faulty rollout in 2014) and Trump (Repeal of Obamacare) All of them did or suggested controversial things that irritated voters. If Biden is sticking to popular things, he might be bucking the trend. But it could instead be the case that, in the medium term, voters for the presidential party are more likely to be fat and happy while the opposition is inspired to emerge. Even if Biden does popular things, GOP voters might be more motivated to vote in November 2022. Fourth, voters may like a president’s policies abstractly, but still think that he is not doing a good job or that his policies are not as effective if those policies are not bipartisan. Think of that as the Mitch McConnell theory. At the start of Obama’s first term, when the Democrats last had control of the House, Senate, and Presidency, the Kentucky Senator and other members of the GOP leadership developed a strategy of trying to get so few Congressional Republicans as possible to realize the ideas of then President Obama. How McConnell said publicly At the time, he did not see voters as particularly attuned to everyday events in Washington. Instead, he said, they judge a president, in part, on whether his agenda appears divisive, especially a president who works for the unification of the country (as both Obama and Biden did). This enables the opposition party to create the perception of the split by simply voting against the president’s agenda. In other words, the opposition party can guarantee a lack of bipartisan support – and then criticize the president for lacking bipartisan support. Maybe history won’t repeat itself. But be that “Party of No ”in the Obama years This resulted in the GOP winning the House, Senate, and then the presidency from 2010 to 2016. It makes perfect sense that a party would still be led by key figures from the Obama era (McConnell and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy) would think that total opposition to a democratic president would work again. The fifth reason is more complicated: Swing voters are not allowed to swing to the party with the most popular politics – Either because they don’t engage in politics that way or because they are motivated by non-political concerns. The Democratic Party and much of the media (either implicitly or explicitly) approach American politics with a “Median selector. Model of political success. This model looks like this: some voters hold predominantly liberal views, others predominantly conservative views, and other views somewhere in the ideological middle. Candidates and parties with more centrist views will do better in the elections because they will win the support of voters in the ideological center and voters on the left or right. Why didn’t Trump have a major backlash? Well, voter partisanship undoubtedly played a big role. There were a ton of voters who would never support a Democrat, no matter how moderate the candidate was or how many controversial positions Trump took. “The argument that the Democrats’ demand for popular policies, or that Republicans’ opposition to them, will affect voters’ views of the parties rests on the unspoken assumption that accurate news about who supports what voters will actually achieve is based on the unspoken assumption that , he said Lara Putnam, a historian at the University of Pittsburgh. “But it’s the right wing that dominates the last mile communications infrastructure in millions of American homes: the memes that are shared on Facebook groups, the known and trusted radio personalities,” she said.PC is finite -- already in shortage Sensiba 20 - Jennifer Sensiba, Author at GreenTechnica, 11-6-2020, GreenTechnica, capital is scarce, and the threats to our future from climate change are real, so allowing the various Democratic lobbies to suck all of the oxygen out of the room is not an option. In short, political capital is a way to think about political power in democratic countries. Yes, winning elections does give some political power, but you can’t effectively use it unless you have coalitions, alliances, trust, goodwill, and influence. Your earned trust and connections are like money (capital). You can work hard to earn it and build it up, but it’s easy to spend it and even waste it, just like money. If you get power from an election and then quickly spend all of the political capital impressing loyalists, you’ll get to the point where you can’t win future elections (Trump is a great example of this), can’t get votes together for legislation, and can’t get people to help you in a variety of other ways. At worst, a political leader who has run completely out of political capital might not even be able to get normal citizens to follow laws. As the consent of the governed is withdrawn, you see protests, riots, violence, terrorism, and even war. For better or worse, Biden won’t start out with much political capital to begin with. After a narrowly won election, not taking the Senate (because many voters rejected Trump but voted for Republicans further down the ballot), and then extended accusations of cheating, it’s not going to be easy to get things done.Winners don’t win – Obama provesHohmann and Harris 12 (James and John, "10 quotes that haunt Obama"). POLITICO. Hohmann is politics and law columnist for Washington Post and graduated from Stanford with a BA in History. Harris is founding editor of POLITICO. // BBObama’s errant assumptions about the politics of health care shaped his presidency in other ways. Recall the “big bang” strategy from 2009. The plan was that his first year in office would produce a trio of legislative achievements: reform of health care, reform of the financial services sector and a cap-and-trade measure to limit carbon emissions. The idea was that victory would beget victory, and that a rapid string of first-year successes would infuse years two, three and four of his presidency with even greater momentum. Obama achieved two of the three — cap and trade fell by the wayside — though it took longer than expected. But far from generating new momentum, each victory drained his political capital. The result is that Obama has had few big domestic policy achievements since 2010I/L---AT: PC FakeConsensus of empirical research concludes political capital theory is trueByers 20 – PhD in Political Science at the University of Georgia, Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of MichiganJason S., “Policymaking by the Executive: Examining the Fate of Presidential Agenda Items”, Congress & the Presidency, Volume 47, Issue 1, Taylor & FrancisA number of studies have shown that Congress considers current levels of presidential approval when passing legislation (Brady and Volden 1998; Cohen et al. 2000; Edwards 1980, 1989). Early studies were able to find correlations between approval ratings and success in Congress (see, e.g., Edwards 1980; Ostrom and Simon 1985). However, later research depicts the relationship between approval ratings and legislative success as more conditional (Canes-Wrone and De Marchi 2002; Edwards 1989). Supporting a piece of legislation championed by an unpopular president could ultimately result in negative consequences for members of Congress. If presidents propose legislation to Congress that is salient with the mass electorate and has higher levels of approval, however, then members stand to gain from supporting the president.9On a similar note, the honeymoon period of a president’s initial time in office has been shown to increase the likelihood of legislative success (Beckmann and Godfrey 2007; Brace and Hinckley 1991; Farnsworth and Lichter 2011; McCarty 1997). Presidents lose their favorability with the public and with Congress the longer that they are in office (McCarty 1997), which is why they often push for significant legislative accomplishments early in their term. Members of Congress are uniquely aware of the public’s sentiments after a presidential election, especially because they share a common constituency with the president and are more likely to capitulate to a president’s agenda.10 Therefore, a president should receive more cooperation from members of Congress for their legislative agenda items earlier in his term.We should also expect the president to have varying levels of success depending on the policy in question (Ragsdale 2014). One area where the president is more likely to succeed in Congress is in foreign policy. The amount of knowledge the president possesses in matters of foreign policy, compared to members of Congress, is usually much greater (Canes-Wrone, Howell, and Lewis 2008; Wildavsky 1966). This information asymmetry in foreign policy leads Congress to be relatively deferential to the president’s proposals, therefore often negating their need to act unilaterally in order to achieve the president policy goals (Marshall and Pacelle 2005).11 Furthermore, members of Congress often have little incentive to get involved in foreign policy as there is little or no direct electoral return for them (Mayhew 1974).12A president’s ability to pursue policies with Congress is also affected by institutional features such as unified government, polarization, filibuster or veto pivots, and the partisan composition of the chambers (Bond and Fleisher 1990; Howell 2005; Krehbiel 1998; Mayhew 2011). Much of the previous work on presidential success in Congress has focused on the distinction between unified versus divided government and has found that presidents are more likely to shift policy when there is unified government, which makes intuitive sense (Barrett and Eshbaugh-Soha 2007; Bond and Fleisher 1990; Mayhew 2011). If the same party controls the presidency and both chambers of Congress, then it is reasonable to assume that a majority of the legislation that is proposed by the president will at least make it onto the legislative agenda. It also follows that during times of divided government, the president would have a harder time getting legislation passed through Congress as a result of more divergent policy preferences, which therefore impedes their ability to form the necessary coalition needed to move the status quo (Mayhew 2005; Ragusa 2010).13 The effect of divided government is likely to be exacerbated with greater polarization as well. As the parties’ ideologies diverge, fewer opportunities exist for bipartisan compromise on issues, therefore potentially hampering the president’s ability to move policy.Beyond simple majority status, the actual size of the president’s party within Congress also matters. Prior research demonstrates that the size of the coalition that the president has within Congress affects the likelihood that policy change is enacted (Bond and Fleisher 1990; Deering and Maltzman 1999). A bare majority is insufficient unless there is no diversity among members’ ideologies, and even substantial majorities may not suffice if one faction holds substantially different policy preferences from the rest of the party (such as the Southern Democrats during the 1950s and 1960s). Therefore, simple majority status is not sufficient for understanding policy changes. Instead, one must consider the size of the president’s coalition and its ideological homogeneity as well (Rohde 1991). Increasing the size of the coalition the president has in Congress should result in an easier path in passing legislation.14 This should be especially true during times of distinctly different ideological preferences between the majority and minority parties.A variety of factors could influence the success of a president’s legislative proposal in Congress. Based on the president’s proclivity to have legislative proposals realized through law, the previous factors will influence the success or failure of a president’s ability to have proposals make it through Congress. Although presidents may not witness a specific proposal become law, this does not mean their initiatives will necessarily remain unrealized. Allowing an issue to remain at its status quo is indeed an option; however, the president may also decide (or be forced) to move policy unilaterally.15 There are a multitude of reasons that a legislative proposal would receive no action by Congress or the president. At times it is unclear why no action is initially taken in Congress, because it is difficult to ascertain a legislator's motivations in not pursuing a particular course of action. In addition, the use of the Hastert Rule in the House and the filibuster in the Senate could result in no action taken on specific policy proposals. Gridlock is an issue that must be addressed before legislation moves out of either chamber, which would stall progress and result in no action taken by the legislative body. Unpopular presidents usually struggle to have their legislative proposals acted on by Congress (Canes-Wrone and De Marchi 2002); based on the fact that the public does not support the president, Congress will decide not to act. When dealing with legislative proposals, there are two specific endings—either the status quo is changed (i.e., Congress or the president creates a policy shift) or the status quo remains the same and the proposal receives no action.Biden can use his PC to influence Congress, but there’s little of it and he has to be strategic Beckmann, M. N., & Kumar, V. (2011). Matthew N. Beckmann is an Associate Professor of Political Science at UC Irvine, where he studies Washington politics, particularly those involving the White House. How presidents push, when presidents win: A model of positive presidential power in US lawmaking. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 23(1), 3–20. we can now see the crux of the president’s strategic options, his choice among them, and his influence over the outcome. For in overlaying the president’s influence via the combination of agenda-centered lobbying and vote-centered lobbying with that from vote-centered lobbying alone, as in Figure 3, our core findings emerge. For one, in many circumstances, agenda-centered lobbying will not be employed and does not improve the president’s policymaking prospects. One of these occurs when the president has little to no political capital. Here the president is almost always better off trying to move a few marginal voters a short distance rather than some leading opponent a great distance. This is especially true in today’s polarized setting, where changing even a few legislators’ positions can dramatically shift the chamber’s ‘pivot point’ towards the president (see Beckmann and McGann (2008)).Other conditions where adding an agenda-centered strategy to the president’s arsenal has little effect on lawmakers or legislation surface when the status quo sq and/or the president’s proposal approaches the pivotal voter’s predisposition. In the former case, that is, the status quo approaches the pivotal voter’s predisposition (the median voter in Figure 3); even if White House officials could get a leading opponent to capitulate to the president’s wishes, they would still need to move swing voters toward the president’s position to keep these decisive voters from supporting the status quo. In the second case, that is, when a president proposes a centrist policy, then the president need only invest enough political capital to move swing voters a small distance, an investment likely to be less than that needed to keep a leading opponent from challenging him at every turn. So in these rather common circumstances, the president’s fate turns on the pivotal voter’s position and his ability to change it. However, that the agenda-centered strategy is not always viable does not mean it is irrelevant. In fact, in other circumstances agenda-centered lobbying gives presidents a much stronger hand for promoting their agenda, circumstances that surface as the president’s ideal (p) and the status quo (sq) are at opposite extremes, the opposition leader’s most preferred policy is near the median, and/or leading opponents care more about cutting a deal with the president on some other dimension than they do about winning the policy at hand.13 As these opportunities arise, the president’s returns increase from focusing his capital on leading opponents rather than scattering it across a band of marginal voters. As a matter of fact, if these strategic stars align, a president can not only exert greater influence with an agenda-centered strategy than he could have with just a vote-centered strategy, but doing so may actually require less political capital than a vote-centered strategy alone would have demanded. All told, then, our model predicts presidents’ positive influence turns not only on factors they do control, that is, the smart choice and effective execution of vote-centered and agenda-centered lobbying strategies, but also ones over which they have little say, that is, the availability of distant status quos, the supply of political capital, and the predispositions of pivotal voters and leading opponents. 4. Discussion Constitutional niceties notwithstanding, American citizens believe their presidents should play a signal role in US lawmaking. Americans expect presidential aspirants to articulate a detailed legislative agenda during the campaign, and then to advocate it once in Washington. Not surprisingly, recent administrations have happily obliged; today’s presidents routinely propose preferred initiatives and consistently lobby for their passage. In light of this self- and public perception of contemporary presidents as ‘Legislatorin-Chief ’, political scientists have long sought to assess the empirical reality of presidents’ potential influence in Congress. Although earlier generations of scholars largely concurred with Woodrow Wilson’s proclamation that ‘The President is at liberty, both in law and conscience, to be as big a man as he can’, subsequent research has rebutted such ‘great man’ conceptions of presidential power in lawmaking. More recent takes suggest presidents may see some opportunities for exerting influence on Capitol Hill, but as yet none has specified either the opportunities or the systematic means by which presidents can exploit them. This was what our paper sought to offer. Agreeing that presidents’ strategic options in Congress do indeed depend heavily on factors beyond their control, our model’s first insight is explicating the two systematic strategies presidents have available for exerting influence in Congress: they can target marginal voters to shift the preference distribution on roll-call votes and they can target congressional leaders to censor the policy alternatives making it that far. While the first of these is widely recognized and studied, the second is not. By detailing the actual mechanisms of president-led coalition building on Capitol Hill, ours is a theory that puts positive presidential power on a firmer conceptual footing; legislative opportunities are predictable (if not controllable) and capitalizing on them depends on nothing more heroic than the normal grist of legislative politics: arm-twisting, brow-beating, and horse-trading. In this way, we subscribe to President Eisenhower’s observation: ‘I’ll tell you what leadership is: it’s persuasion, and conciliation, and education, and patience. It’s long, slow, tough work’ (Hughes, 1963: 124). However, if spending political capital in the service of vote-centered and agendacentered strategies is a necessary condition for presidents to have positive influence in Congress, it certainly is not a sufficient condition. Instead, we find the exact policy return on a particular presidential lobbying campaign is conditioned by the location of the status quo, and the nature of leading opponents’ and pivotal voters’ preferences. Beyond enjoying ample political capital, then, those presidents who seek to change far-off status quos and confront pliable leading opponents and/or pivotal voters are expected to wield the greatest policymaking impact. By comparison, presidents with little to no political capital, seeking to change centrist status quos, or confronting opposing leaders and pivotal voters who staunchly oppose their proposals can find themselves with ‘nothing to do but stand there and take it’, as Lyndon Johnson once put it.Political capital key to agenda-settingKatz 16 [Politics Theory Practice writer, 4/6/2016, “Does Political Capital Matter?”, ] RL In spite of an inability to directly change public opinion or persuade lawmakers to vote a certain way, presidents?can use the bully pulpit to direct debate and draw attention to issues they deem important.?This process is known as?agenda-setting, and while Congress officially controls?their own agenda,?presidents have tools like the annual State of the Union address and the media that afford them the ability to exert a hefty amount of influence over?what agenda items get highlighted.?Agenda-setting doesn’t guarantee that presidents get their desired legislative outcomes, but bringing attention to some issues?that once had a decent degree?popularity in the first place but lost?congressional momentum, can lead to minor legislative successes,?according to?political scientist Brandice Canes-Wrone.Obama’s strategy during his second term has been more in line with this idea of agenda-setting, recognizing that presidential influence doesn’t necessarily equate to votes in Congress for?a bill, as Mark Blumenthal (formerly of the Huffington Post)?indicates. No longer operating with majorities in both houses, Obama has had to pivot?from directly exerting influence on?Congress to using the bully pulpit to focus debate in the hope that he can still achieve the policy goals set out during his 2008 campaign. Blumenthal cites?student loan subsidies?as an example of?this new strategy: during 2012, Obama turned to?college campuses?and?late night television?to pressure?congressional Republicans into supporting an extension of?subsidies on student loans. After Mitt Romney came out in support, Republicans had no choice but to hold a vote, producing a legislative victory for Obama that July.PC is real---empirics prove agendas succeed or fail based on political conditions in Congress.Huq 12 [Aziz Z. Huq, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School. 5-25-2012, "Binding the Executive (by Law or by Politics)," University of Chicago Law Review, accessed 7-14-2021, ] //BYConsider first a simple measure of Presidents’ ability to obtain policy change: Do they obtain the policy changes they desire? Every President enters office with an agenda they wish to accomplish.53 President Obama came into office, for example, promising health care reform, a cap-and-trade solution to climate change, and major immigration reform.54 President George W. Bush came to the White House committed to educational reform, social security reform, and a new approach to energy issues.55 One way of assessing presidential influence is by examining how such presidential agendas fare, and asking whether congressional obstruction or legal impediments— which could take the form of existing laws that preclude an executive policy change or an absence of statutory authority for desired executive action—is correlated with presidential failure. Such a correlation would be prima facie evidence that institutions and laws play some meaningful role in the production of constraints on executive discretion. Both recent experience and long-term historical data suggest presidential agenda items are rarely achieved, and that legal or institutional impediments to White House aspirations are part of the reason. In both the last two presidencies, the White House obtained at least one item on its agenda—education for Bush and health care for Obama—but failed to secure others in Congress. Such limited success is not new. His famous first hundred days notwithstanding, Franklin Delano Roosevelt saw many of his “proposals for reconstruction [of government] . . . rejected outright.”56 Even in the midst of economic crisis, Congress successfully resisted New Deal initiatives from the White House. This historical evidence suggests that the diminished success of presidential agendas cannot be ascribed solely to the narrowing scope of congressional attention in recent decades; it is an older phenomenon. Nevertheless, in more recent periods, presidential agendas have shrunk even more. President George W. Bush’s legislative agenda was “half as large as Richard Nixon’s first-term agenda in 1969–72, a third smaller than Ronald Reagan’s first-term agenda in 1981–84, and a quarter smaller than his father’s first-term agenda in 1989–92.”57 The White House not only cannot always get what it wants from Congress but has substantially downsized its policy ambitions.Supplementing this evidence of presidential weakness are studies of the determinants of White House success on Capitol Hill. These find that “presidency-centered explanations” do little work.58 Presidents’ legislative agendas succeed not because of the intrinsic institutional characteristics of the executive branch, but rather as a consequence of favorable political conditions within the momentarily dominant legislative coalition.59 Again, correlational evidence suggests that institutions and the legal frameworks making up the statutory status quo ante play a role in delimiting executive discretion.Insiders agree PC is real.Schier 09 [Steven E. Schier is Dorothy H. and Edward C. Congdon Professor of Political Science at Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota, and director of the college's study program in Washington, DC., 4-9-2009, "Understanding the Obama Presidency," The Forum, Vol 7, Issue 1, accessed 7-15-2021, ] //BYIn additional to formal powers, a president’s informal power is situationally derived and highly variable. Informal power is a function of the “political capital” presidents amass and deplete as they operate in office. Paul Light defines several components of political capital: party support of the president in Congress, public approval of the presidential conduct of his job, the President’s electoral margin and patronage appointments (Light 1983, 15). Richard Neustadt’s concept of a president’s “professional reputation” likewise figures into his political capital. Neustadt defines this as the “impressions in the Washington community about the skill and will with which he puts [his formal powers] to use” (Neustadt 1990, 185). In the wake of 9/11, George W. Bush’s political capital surged, and both the public and Washington elites granted him a broad ability to prosecute the war on terror. By the later stages of Bush’s troubled second term, beset by a lengthy and unpopular occupation of Iraq and an aggressive Democratic Congress, he found that his political capital had shrunk.Even if it’s not, it motivates Congress---McConnell proves.Nagarajan 20 [Shalini is a London-based reporter for Markets Insider. She covers stock markets, commodities, cryptocurrencies, economic outlook, and analyst research. She has previously reported for Reuters in Bangalore, India covering quarterly earnings, market-movers, and global breaking news events. 10-17-2020, "A chief economist says Mitch McConnell expects Trump to lose the election — and breaks down why that means there will be no stimulus money until February," Business Insider, accessed 7-15-2021, ] //BYSenate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell won't risk his position by forcing through a stimulus bill now, because he expects President Donald Trump to lose next month's election, Ian Shepherdson, the chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, said in a webinar on Thursday."I think McConnell expects Trump to lose, and therefore, for him to spend political capital to support Trump by forcing through a bill which would put his own leadership position at risk after the election, to me, doesn't make any sense," Shepherdson said."It's always wise to do things from McConnell's personal perspective, because that's how things operate in the Senate. He has enormous personal power, and he wants to be leader again, even if he has to be a leader in the minority," he said, alluding to the potential that Democrats could win a majority in the Senate next month.House Democrats have put forward a $2.2 trillion plan, but McConnell has described it as "outlandish" and said the amount was too high.On Thursday, he signaled that his limit is $500 billion. "My members think what we laid out — a half a trillion dollars, highly targeted — is the best way to go," he said. "So that's what I'm going to put on the floor."To pass a big relief bill, Shepherdson said, McConnell would end up dividing his own party, since about 15 to 20 Republicans oppose a deal at or above $1.5 trillion.But he ultimately wouldn't push Republicans to agree, because "splitting the party is death to the leader," Shepherdson said. He cited examples of the Republican leaders John Boehner and Paul Ryan, who also faced contentious splits within the GOP.If anything, it’s under-researched.Bennister 12 [Mark Bennister, Unversity of Lincoln, with Benjamin Worthy, January 2012, "'One is, after all, ?nite': what is political capital? how do political leaders get it, use it and then lose it?," ResearchGate, accessed 7-15-2021, 'One_is_after_all_finite'_what_is_political_capital_how_do_political_leaders_get_it_use_it_and_then_lose_it] //BYPolitical capital is frequently used as a short hand for the diverse range of attributes and advantages a leader brings with them to power and develops in office. Compared to other forms of ‘capital’ it remains under theorised. Since Pierre Bourdieu first outlined it, scholars have viewed political capital either as being synonymous with personal skills or a description of wider contextual attributes, particularly the link between leader and public. It is frequently seen as analogous to financial capital: a political leader has a fixed stock of capital that they can spend, hoard, fritter or gamble. This paper takes a first look at the literature and applies it to ‘t Hart’s approaches to leadership study, drawing on examples predominantly from US and UK politics. Following Lopez (2002) it takes the view that political capital is both ‘personal’ (in terms of their own skills) and ‘political’ (in terms of events, institutional resources and context). A politician with skills and attributes can use this to shape the context in which they operate, creating a ‘positive multiplier’ as the personal and political reinforce each other. Where events can also overwhelm leaders and expose flaws and personality weaknesses, a ‘negative multiplier’ takes effect. However, unlike money in the bank, political capital is finite and subject to depreciation as part of ‘a natural trajectory’ whereby support and power is lost over time. Yet this trajectory is not always uniform. The loss is inevitable but the rate and shape may not be. Often leaders begin with high levels that slowly dwindle but some leaders build it more slowly. The most unfortunate never have it. The article concludes with a look at a selection of politicians who managed to turn around an initial lack of political capital or even regain it.Biden can utilize his pc if he forms a distinct narrative Mark Bennister, Paul ‘t Hart & Ben Worthy (2015) (Mark Bennister is a Senior Lecturer in Politics at Canterbury Christ Church University. Paul ‘t Hart is Professor of Public Administration at Utrecht University and Associate Dean of the Netherlands School of Public Administration. Ben Worthy is a Lecturer in Politics at Birkbeck College.) Assessing the Authority of Political Office-Holders: The Leadership Capital Index, West European Politics, 38:3, 417-440, DOI: 10.1080/01402382.2014.954778//LaDInstitutional parameters vary, as can the situational context within which the leader must operate. Elgie (1995: 7) sensibly proposed an interactionist approach, combining the personal and systemic aspects of the leadership process, whereby political leaders operate within an environment ‘which will both structure their behaviour and constrain their freedom of action’. This implies that ‘political leaders do have the opportunity to shape the environment in which they operate’ (Helms 2005: 20), or, as Riker (1986: ix), put it, ‘structuring situations so you can win’ only when the leadership environment actually allows such restructuring (see Greenstein 1969; Hargrove and Owens 2002; Helms 2005). But to do so, they need not just skills but authority, conceived of here as a warrant to challenge and alter institutional traditions and path dependencies. Leadership capital provides a measure for what one might call the ‘aggregate authorisation’ a political actor enjoys from his environment (Moore 1995); in other words, a composite measure of their warrant to lead. Having a healthy ‘stock’ of leadership capital confers on leaders the power to sway decision-making processes, to persuade publics and to convene stakeholders otherwise reluctant to engage in dialogue. In short, it enhances their ability to confront and resolve dilemmas (Renshon 2000: 223). Figure 1 offers a breakdown of the constituent parts of leadership capital. Skills capital refers to the perceived personal competences of a leader, e.g. their cognitive, physical, communicative and managerial capacity. Political psychologists who study the impact of personality on leadership remind us that ‘who leads matters’. For example, US presidential scholar Fred Greenstein (2010) distinguished six key skill areas of leadership style to describe and diagnose the performance of the holders of that office. Greenstein’s categories provide useful shorthand for comparing and contrasting the personal styles of different political leaders, and not just US presidents (Daleus 2012). His effort is just one among many who have tried to capture key dimensions of politicians’ leadership styles and skills and to develop them into predictive and/or evaluative performance assessment instruments (Cronin 2008; Hermann 2014; Kaarbo 1997; Post 2005; Preston 2001; see also Nye 2008). What really matters is the competencies that are projected onto leaders by their authorising environment: the actors and institutions whose support is essential for them to maintain the ability to lead. The nature and scope of these authorising environments varies across political systems and situations (Kane and Patapan 2012). It may include any or all of the following: the armed forces, media owners and editors, party barons, key industrialists, trade union elites, voters in marginal seats, celebrity endorsers, and so on. The nature of the mix varies across time and space. What is crucial for reaching and consolidating leadership positions are perceptions of a leader’s skills, here pragmatically separated into ‘hard’ (unilateral and transactional) and ‘soft’ (persuasive and inspirational) skills (Nye 2008: 83). Relational capital refers to the loyalties that leaders mobilise. Why people follow, or at least accept leaders, matters a great deal in shaping leadership authority and influence. Some leader–constituent relationships are characterised by fierce, unconditional and enduring loyalty. In cases of charismatic leadership, constituents become fully formed followers whose loyalty is unconditional, indeed blind (Aviolo and Yammarino 2013; Davis and Gardner 2012). Other leader–follower relationships are much more cerebral, contingent and ephemeral. Understanding leadership, in other words, involves grasping the ‘dynamic interplay of wants, needs, motives, values, and capacities of both would-be leaders and their potential followers’ (Burns 2003: 16). Social psychology and sociology provide a rich reservoir of insights about the composition, social categorisations and identifications, and leadership expectations of followers and constituents. These are key to understanding the nature of the psychological contract that develops between them and their representatives (Cronin 2008; Reicher et al. 2010). This contract extends beyond the circle of party members or movement followers. It can also be usefully applied to capture the relations between leaders and the media and the wider electorate (Davis and Seymour 2010). Leadership relations differ in the kind of psychological contract that underpins them. Burns (1978) picked up on this in making his classic distinction between transformational and transactional leaders, but by now there are many other salient distinctions (Brett 2009; Reicher et al. 2014). The ‘visionary’ transformational leader first and foremost hopes to gather capital through a mobilising story of ideals and aspirations, and is prepared to risk the political costs of ideological opposition to it and of delivered realities falling short of evoked expectations. In contrast, pragmatic, transactional leaders bank primarily on acquiring capital through technical competence and tangible achievements at the risk of leaving a vacuum of meaning and identification for their political competitors to fill. This stylistic divide cuts across holders of the same political office. Each type of leadership claim sets up its own performance test. Moralising leaders need ‘to walk their talk’. Idealist leaders need to be seen to be taking risks and making sacrifices for the values they believe in. Pragmatists need to demonstrate competence and ‘bring home the bacon’. This brings us to the third component: reputational capital. Leaders’ words and deeds are constantly monitored and assessed. Followers, observers and critics alike all try to distil a ‘narrative’ about what a leader ‘is really like’ from the pattern of that leader’s behaviour and its observable impact. For each leader such a narrative emerges. Though only partially shaped and controlled by the leader, this narrative forms the core of a leader’s reputation. A leader’s reputation increases leadership capital when it meets two conditions: its normative core is seen by the observer as appropriate for the times; and the gap between perceived promise and observed performance is seen as limited or caused by exogenous, temporary circumstances. Effective reputations are coherent, believable narratives in which a leader’s life story, espoused philosophy and observable in-office behaviour are widely deemed to be in alignment.two areas of pc, but lots of uncertainty in predicting López, E.J. (2002) Edward J. López is a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, BB&T Distinguished Professor of Capitalism at Western Carolina University, and former President of the Association of Private Enterprise Education. The Legislator as Political Entrepreneur: Investment in Political Capital. The Review of Austrian Economics 15, 211–228 (2002). this lean model of the legislator, Denzau and Munger (1986) incorporate unorganized interests (i.e., voters and groups with very high Olson costs) as a margin of political support. The model also features an additional constraint-a time, or effort, endowment-through which political opposition emerges as a shadow price: the cost of servicing a group is the foregone benefit of not servicing the next best alternative group. With this slightly more complicated model, the maximizing choice is still to service each vector of electoral support until the net marginal gains are equal. But now this depends in part on whether unorganized interests care about the legislator servicing a particular interest group, and how intensely they like or dislike the interest group involved. If voters are sufficiently opposed to the legislator being bedfellows with organized labor, for example, then the legislator will not service that group. Also, voter opposition could be sufficiently strongly negative toward an organized interest—such as tobacco or firearms industries—that the legislator benefits from extracting wealth from the organized interests. The Denzau-Munger model introduces institutional detail to the interest group model; therefore embodied in the model, in two distinct but related ways, is the centrality of political capital. First, the composition of a legislator’s parliamentary rights determines which groups he can service with the least cost. For example, a legislator on the agriculture committee is better suited than a legislator on the armed services committee to imparting rents on farmers. So is a more senior legislator, ceteris paribus. Second, the legislator’s standing among voters and other unorganized interests also determines which groups he can service with the least cost. Between two legislators representing similar constituencies, the one with higher poll support or greater margin of victory (or some other measure of standing among voters) will be better suited to servicing a given organized interest. From the perspective of an organized interest, a lower cost provider is preferable to a higher cost provider, ceteris paribus, because the lower cost legislator will charge the lower “supply price” for imparting the rent. In short, these two types of political capital will affect a legislator’s productivity in creating policies for specific interests, and therefore will affect the types of interests with which he exchanges.1 The distinction between these two types of political capital warrants careful attention. First, let representative capital be defined as the vector of parliamentary rights and legislator attributes that determines productivity in influencing a policy. Examples of representative capital would include (but not be limited to) the legislator’s committee assignments, seniority within those committees, logrolling and lobbying contacts, law-making acumen, and political wile. Such attributes help to define policy areas where the legislator has a comparative advantage. A legislator with low representative capital on a policy issue is at a comparative disadvantage in influencing that issue. Since it is costlier for this legislator to influence this issue, interest groups would have to pay a high supply price for this legislator’s service on this issue. So interest groups would be wise to lobby legislators with greater representative capital (and lower supply price) in their policy areas. A wealth of empirical evidence, which I discuss later, supports this notion. We should predict, therefore, that a change in representative capital would result in changing legislator behavior. As a legislator acquires the committee seats he seeks, accumulates seniority, assumes sub-committee chairs, committee chairs, and eventually leadership positions, he will begin servicing more groups and his returns to holding office will increase. On this view, the member has incentive to accumulate representative capital over time. In the next section, I elaborate on this claim with evidence from the literature, and I later demonstrate the specific forms of investment that are required for this accumulation. Second, let reputational capital be defined as the vector of legislator attributes that determines his standing with voters and other unorganized interests. Examples of a legislator’s reputational capital would include his political party affiliation, voting record, campaign platform, and name recognition—attributes that are recognizable to voters as a prediction of future performance in office. Reputational capital can be thought of as the political counterpart of human capital in asymmetric information labor markets. To economize on information costs in the face of voter uncertainty, legislators have the incentive to signal productivity to voters, and voters use a legislator’s reputational capital to form expectations of his likely performance if re-elected. The greater a legislator’s reputational capital (or the better his ability to signal it clearly), ceteris paribus, the lower will be the legislator’s reelection costs.2 Like labor supply, legislators can utilize different forms of signaling. The avoidance of scandal or major political gaffes, for example, is essential to maintaining reputational capital. More common signals of reputational capital are party affiliation and the legislator’s voting record. Finally, advertising—i.e., campaign spending—is a potent form of reputation building in a manner similar to the way that advertising builds brand name and goodwill for firms.3 A Denzau-Munger style capital investment conception of the legislator departs from the static Peltzman model. This is not necessarily due to a change in the legislator’s assumed maximand but to the arguments therein. A legislator may forego immediate political gains if doing so will create greater expected and appropriately discounted gains in the future. As I elaborate on the processes of accumulating representative and reputational capital, I will also argue that forming expectations of future political gains and losses involves structural uncertainty—which suggests an extension from the Denzau-Munger model toward an entrepreneurial conception of the legislator.PC is a tangible goal achieved through a certain pathwaySiewert 14 [Markus Siewert, 8/31/2014, “WHEN POTUS DOES (NOT) GET WHAT HE WANTS – A FUZZY-SET QUALITATIVE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PRESIDENTIAL SUCCESS ON THE SUBSTANCE OF LEGISLATION,”] RL The conservative solution consists of three pathways to high presidential success in the legislative arena. The first and the second solution term demonstrate that strong unified party control AND close ideological proximity lead to presidential success either in combination with strong public approval OR strong White House involvement. This fits well with the state of the art that congressional factors have strong effects on the presidential position within the legislative arena. However, it is shown that party control and ideological proximity are not by themselves sufficient. The president rather needs to get involved in the legislative process and has to exert influence on legislators in Congress or he needs a high public standing as a sign of his political capital. The third explanatory path to high presidential success shows that in the absence of strong party control of both branches of government the president can overcome congressional obstacles through the joint presence of lobbying efforts by the White House towards Congress AND the simultaneous presence of high public approval ratings. This finding is in-line with the arguments provided by more case-oriented studies on the presidential role in the legislative process. The XY-plot in figure 3 depictsPolitical capital is real and finite. Ulrik Kjaer (2013) Ulrik Kjaer is a professor at the Department of Political Science at University of Southern Denmark. Local Political Leadership: The Art of Circulating Political Capital, Local Government Studies, 39:2, 253-272, DOI: 10.1080/03003930.2012.751022//LaDAs mentioned in the introduction, the linkage between the concepts of political leadership and political capital dates all the way back to Banfield's 1961 study. The concept of political capital, however, has since been used in different contexts and with various connotations. President George W. Bush, speaking after his re-election in 2004, observed: ‘I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style’ (White House, Office of the Press Secretary, 4 November 2004). However, this is a very static way of looking at political capital, as when Burns speaks about ‘the possibility of “banking” goodwill and influence over time so that [the political leader] will have a reservoir of power to draw on as needed’ (Burns 1978, p. 355). Banfield, on the other hand, sees the political leader as being involved in a more sophisticated process where ‘influence may be regarded as a sort of currency which its possessor may either conserve or “spend” in order to secure desired outcomes’ (Elcock 2001, p. 22) but also a process where ‘excessive “saving” of influence by inaction when action is required, just as much as unwise “spending” of influence by supporting lost causes or taking decisions which turn out to be wrong or unwise, may cause the leader's holding of the “currency” of influence to be dissipated every bit as quickly as one may lose one's savings by making foolish investments on the stock exchange’ (Elcock 2001, p. 23). Political capital is a bit special: if you just bank your political capital for a long time, it does not accrue interest, and you therefore have to invest in the political market if you do not want to lose your endowment due to inflation. On the other hand, if you participate regularly in the investment business, you can increase your political capital and stay in the political game for quite some time: ‘Unlike a relationship based on discrete exchange, which has a certain zero-sum nature, this process can create power continuously without new fuel’ (Kotter and Lawrence 1974, p. 72).But what is political capital? As already pointed out in the introduction, we agree with Bourdieu in seeing political capital as a power credit. Political capital is the sum of formal and informal political power – and again borrowing from Bourdieu – both delegated and personal capital (Bourdieu 1991, p. 194). We understand political capital as potential political power and say that bringing the potential political power into play by investing it in leadership tasks such as policy formulation and overseeing implementation processes and – even more important – doing so by complying with the norms and demands associated with each task and its order of priorities, the mayor will receive various forms of rewards from elected and appointed officials, citizens and others. Whether in the form of acknowledgment, acceptance, support, confidence, trust, respect and/or autonomy, the rewards will altogether increase the mayor's potential power, i.e., political capital, and ultimately the success will feed back into the process of political leadership (Berg and Kjaer 2009, p. 71).The case studies show that the mayors perform facilitative leadership (following Svara) and use both ‘power over’ and ‘power to’ (following Stone), which means that the power broker model needs updating. In addition, recalling that gaining and losing political capital in one's relation with a given actor in the political process tends to spill over to the balance of political capital between the political leader and other actors (political popularity is contagious), we can simplify our notion of political capital as an asset where the capital of different actors goes into the same pot. We can thus suggest a model of circulation of political capital as in Figure 1.According to the model, the political leader starts out with an endowment of political capital based on his performance and credentials from the period prior to entering office and especially from the electoral result. A decisive electoral victory reflects high hopes in the future mayor's abilities and this starting point provides the leader with a larger political capital endowment than would a marginal victory after an election that is lost by the opponent rather than won by the now elected mayor. The mayor can now choose to invest or to bank his political capital in some balance. The important element – what is new compared to Banfield's model – is that the mayor can choose to invest his political capital in both ‘power over’ and ‘power to’. Whenever he chooses to invest in ‘power over’ and use his influence to have his say on a specific point in policy formulation or implementation, he will receive what we here denote as politics revenue. If the other actors in the political process view the outcome of the policy he has initiated as successful, they will ascribe him more political capital than he invested, and he will end up with a positive rate of return on his investment. If the result of his investment is not considered positive by others, he will end up with less political capital than he invested and a negative return. If the mayor chooses to act in a facilitative manner and use his political capital as ‘power to’, his investment will take the form of coalition building with some of the other actors. This will lead to actions on policy formulation and implementation which in the same way – depending on the assessment of others – will result in a positive or a negative return. But on top of this, we claim on the basis of the case studies, the mere fact that he is forming coalitions will in itself generate a return, what we label ‘coalition revenue’. If the coalition is formed with the ‘right’ actors and follows the prescribed norms, the coalition revenue will be positive, whereas it will be negative if the mayor has violated the existing norms and engaged with the ‘wrong’ collaborators.Whether the politics revenue and the coalition revenue will be positive or negative depends on the norms in the specific context and situation. For instance, the balance between policy formulation and implementation, which generates the highest revenue, depends on whether the municipality is facing a financial crisis (where policy formulation is probably in high demand) or prospering (where the balance between the two is probably more in the direction of overseeing implementation). Similarly, in some municipal settings, building coalitions with the traditional opposition party will result in positive coalition revenue; in others the mayor might encounter historical hostilities that prevent successful coalition building, generating negative coalition revenue. Note, however, that specific norms may exist for specific tasks. For example, we have demonstrated that in Denmark the process of policy formulation must include material as well as immaterial political projects.I/L – PC True for InfrastructureBiden needs to prioritize infrastructure---political capital is zero-sum.Smith 21 [Noah Smith is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He was an assistant professor of finance at Stony Brook University, and he blogs at Noahpinion. 1-13-2021, "Biden Must Avoid Obama's Mistake When Setting His Agenda," Bloomberg, accessed 7-12-2021, ] //BYThe universe of possibilities for the Biden administration radically expanded after the Democrats clinched the Senate majority, but the increase in political capital isn’t infinite. When deciding which problems to tackle first, President Joe Biden should prioritize initiatives that address the pandemic while moving the nation toward long-term goals for public health and green-energy stimulus.Biden can learn from the experience of Barack Obama, whose focus on health-insurance reform provoked a midterm backlash and probably forfeited a chance to boost the country out of the Great Recession sooner.He should heed the words of Winston Churchill who urged, “never let a good crisis go to waste.” Because crises are times when the public understands that change is necessary, it’s possible to make deep and lasting reforms. President Franklin D. Roosevelt understood this when he focused parts of his New Deal on long-term alterations to America’s economic structure, such as Social Security and the National Labor Relations Board. These policies not only contributed to the recovery from the Great Depression — the reason for Roosevelt's election — but created a more equal and stable economy in which workers had more bargaining power and old people didn’t have to live in penury.The U.S. was in the depths of the Great Recession when Obama took office in 2009. With the benefit of unified Democratic control of Congress, he passed a fairly substantial stimulus. But it was still too small to make more than a modest dent in the recession. It was too weighted toward tax cuts and it didn’t include much of a bailout for underwater homeowners. Instead, Obama spent much of his political capital on passing the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare.Now, it’s true that health insurance was, and is, one of the country’s biggest problems. And it’s also true that Obamacare substantially reduced the ranks of the uninsured, which was a big, important victory. But the system Obama crafted was a compromise, which left the problem of ruinously high costs mostly unaddressed. The legislation failed to satisfy many on the left, with a few now even labeling it as mass murder for not making deeper reforms. Meanwhile, Obamacare remained unpopular throughout Obama’s term in office and may have substantially contributed to the Democrats’ catastrophic midterm election losses in 2010.Alternate histories are difficult to imagine, but it seems likely that had Obama spent his 2009 political capital on things more directly related to the recession — such as more infrastructure spending, a bigger bailout for underwater homeowners and a stronger welfare state — he'd have realized a higher return on that political capital. In other words, a crisis does present an opportunity for long-term reforms, but it’s best to use that opportunity for reforms that address the immediate crisis.The Democratic victories in the Georgia Senate runoffs have given Biden an unexpected opportunity to pass major legislation in the first year of his presidency, instead of relying on executive action and the faint hope of bipartisan compromise. The left will be clamoring for major action on health care and a variety of other momumental issues, but Biden needs to spend his political capital on reforms that are also tied to the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting recession.The first priority is public health. COVID-19 exposed deep and catastrophic weaknesses in the U.S. public health institutions. Right now, vaccination is proceeding at a glacial pace due to an uncoordinated rollout that dumped vaccines in the lap of state public health agencies utterly unequipped to rapidly inoculate the entire populace. Biden needs to come right out of the gate with a coordinated, well-funded vaccination plan that reaches maximum vaccination rates as fast as possible. In doing so, he also needs to bolster public health agencies and revitalize and reform both the Centers for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration after years of neglect.This will be a bigger challenge than is popularly realized because of the possibility that vaccine-resistant virus strains will emerge. Biden will need to reorient much of the U.S. economy toward vaccine production and distribution until COVID-19 has been decisively beaten all around the world. It will take a lot of money and a lot of will.After the virus is beaten, the U.S. economy will still linger in recession unless the government acts decisively to boost demand. The best tool for doing this, as usual, is infrastructure investment. And the rapid progress in solar power and batteries means that Biden has a unique opportunity to address the climate crisis at the same time. A huge build-out of solar power and electric-car charging stations, including subsidies to rapidly replace fossil fuel plants and gasoline vehicles, will ensure that the U.S. economy comes roaring back while making huge steps toward decarbonization.Public health and green infrastructure should be the top priorities for Biden in 2021 and 2022. Yes, there are lots of other things in America that need reform, including health care. But the realities of the political system mean these will have to wait. Reforms must fit the crisis of the day; Biden can’t afford to get sidetracked on a quixotic quest to fix everything that’s wrong with the American economy.Political capital theory true for Biden, especially at this stage Politi 21 – world trade editorJames, 1/18. “Joe Biden’s challenge: big, early victories in a toxic political climate.” shock of the mob attack on the US Capitol had barely subsided when Joe Biden took the stage last week at the Queen, a theatre in his hometown of Wilmington, Delaware to lay out his $1.9tn relief plan for the world’s largest economy. That evening, the president-elect made no mention of the January 6 insurrection that shook Washington, leaving five people dead and Donald Trump being swiftly impeached for the second time. Instead, he spoke of Patricia Dowd, the 57-year-old Californian and first known person to die from coronavirus in the US, and the millions of Americans who had lost what he called the “dignity and respect” of employment during the pandemic. “I promise you, we will not forget you. We understand what you’re going through. We will never ever give up and we will come back.” Mr Biden said, adding: “Come Wednesday, we begin a new chapter.” At 78 years old, Mr Biden will be sworn in on January 20 as the 46th US president, without any of the cheering crowds and celebrations afforded to his predecessors. In addition to coronavirus restrictions, his inauguration will be protected by 25,000 members of the National Guard in the US capital to avoid another episode in domestic terror. The bleak circumstances of Mr Biden’s first day in office have added sobriety to the moment, and pointed to the massive political challenge he is facing. Having won the White House by projecting a mix of competence, empathy and renewal to American voters after four years of Trumpism, he will have to translate all that into governing at a wrenching moment in US history. Mr Biden is no stranger to tough starts, given that he became vice-president to Barack Obama at the height of the financial crisis. But the problems now confronting the country are arguably more severe and multi-faceted than they were in 2009, requiring even more sure-handed intervention and political skill. Many Democrats believe Mr Obama spent too much of his first year trying to win bipartisan support for his plans. They are well aware that to be successful, Mr Biden will need to show rapid concrete results. “To be able to deliver tangibly in the near term in ways that all people in the country can see and feel and know is a critically important thing to do,” says Mara Rudman, vice-president for policy at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning Washington think-tank, and a former official in the Clinton and Obama administrations. “We have had a self-perpetuating cycle in a very negative direction,” she adds. “I think we have the opportunity to get to a self-perpetuating cycle in the positive direction.” The president-elect’s transition team has already set out plans for a barrage of unilateral executive orders during the first 10 days to rejoin the Paris climate agreement and scrap the travel ban imposed on certain Muslim-majority countries, undoing some of Mr Trump’s most controversial policies. It has also made clear that Mr Biden wants to rebuild the US’s traditional alliances with other western nations that frayed during the past four years, while being more focused in confronting strategic rivals such as China and Russia. But Mr Biden has tried to focus the attention of lawmakers rattled by the assault on the Capitol — and an anxious public — primarily on his prescriptions to resolve America’s health and economic crises, as he prepares to enter the White House. Nearly 400,000 Americans have died from Covid-19, and 9.8m fewer Americans are employed compared with last February. At the Queen, the president-elect called on Congress to pass his sweeping relief plan, which includes a new round of direct payments to Americans, aid to cash-strapped states and cities, a top-up of federal jobless benefits, a beefed-up tax credit for children and more funding for vaccinations. Securing its passage will be the first big test of Mr Biden’s presidency, and no easy task given his Democratic party’s exceedingly tight edge in both the House of Representatives and the Senate — and the toxic climate on Capitol Hill that may be exacerbated by Mr Trump’s second impeachment trial. “There is going to be a compulsion to get something done and get something done quickly, but it is definitely under more difficult circumstances given the political environment, the non-cooperation of the Trump administration, the severity of the pandemic itself and the close margins in Congress,” says John Lawrence, former chief of staff to Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker. “It is going to be tough.” Mr Biden’s urgency in pushing for a large-scale coronavirus relief package — less than a month after another fiscal stimulus package, worth $900bn, was agreed by Congress — reflects the knowledge that new presidents often have a short window to make use of their political capital. Midterm elections, where the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate will be up for grabs, will take place in less than two years, and Mr Biden’s Democratic predecessors, Mr Obama and Bill Clinton, each saw their agendas curbed and upended after their party lost control of the House in 2010 and 1994 respectively. “What you really have in American politics is 18 months. Every administration gets 18 months of policymaking every four years,” says Glenn Hutchins, founder of private equity group Silver Lake Partners and a former Clinton administration official. “So once you've begun the process of cleaning up the dystopian nightmare that Trump left behind, how do you then pivot to addressing the long term underlying issues of importance? What do you choose to focus on? That's going to be the main thing.” As the new administration grapples with priorities, there has been plenty of debate among Democrats in recent years about how to make progressive policies more easy to understand and more popular with the American public — which Mr Biden’s team has tried to absorb both in crafting its policies and its communication. “The ambitions are at the New Deal scale, they are about kitchen table, lunch-pail, meat-and-potatoes economic concerns that people have,” says Kenneth Baer, a former senior Obama administration official and co-founder of Crosscut Strategies, a consultancy in Washington. “And [the message is] we are going to help you.” In addition to the $1.9tn stimulus package laid out by Mr Biden last week, he is expected to move quickly in February to present a second recovery plan involving trillions of dollars in additional spending centred on infrastructure and green energy. To be at least partially funded by higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy, it is another hugely ambitious legislative endeavour. Mr Biden’s hopes of a successful first-term agenda did receive a big boost on January 5, the eve of the assault on the US Capitol, when Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff, two Democrats, won a pair of run-off Senate races in Georgia. The twin victories handed control of the upper chamber to Mr Biden’s party — albeit with a 50:50 split and tiebreaking votes cast by Kamala Harris, the incoming vice-president. Given that the Democrats now get to decide which proposals can be put up for a vote in the Senate, the Georgia results ensure that, at the very least, Mr Biden’s goals will not be blocked by Mitch McConnell, the Republican senate leader, at every turn. Mr Biden’s ability to enact crucial parts of his agenda will initially depend on keeping the Democratic party fully united behind any legislation, marrying the needs of conservative lawmakers with those of the progressive bloc, with very little room for defection.I/L---AT: HirschConcedes that even if PC isn’t real, it’s an effective metaphor.Hirsh 13 [Michael Hirsh, senior correspondent and the deputy news editor for Foreign Policy. He was the former national editor for Politico. 2-8-2013, "There’s No Such Thing as Political Capital," Yahoo News, accessed 7-14-2021, ] //BYThe point is not that “political capital” is a meaningless term. Often it is a synonym for “mandate” or “momentum” in the aftermath of a decisive election—and just about every politician ever elected has tried to claim more of a mandate than he actually has. Certainly, Obama can say that because he was elected and Romney wasn’t, he has a better claim on the country’s mood and direction. Many pundits still defend political capital as a useful metaphor at least. “It’s an unquantifiable but meaningful concept,” says Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. “You can’t really look at a president and say he’s got 37 ounces of political capital. But the fact is, it’s a concept that matters, if you have popularity and some momentum on your side.”I/L---AT: PC Fake---Climate In context of climate legislation, PC is real.Sensiba 20 [Jennifer Sensiba is a long time efficient vehicle enthusiast, writer, and photographer. She grew up around a transmission shop, and has been experimenting with vehicle efficiency since she was 16 and drove a Pontiac Fiero. She likes to explore the Southwest US with her partner, kids, and animals. 11-6-2020, "Don’t Encourage Biden To Waste Political Capital," CleanTechnica, accessed 7-14-2021, ] //BYPolls predicting a blue wave in United States elections turned out to be wrong. Instead of a sweeping win, Democrats appear to be on the edge of narrowly winning the presidency, losing seats in the House, and not getting control of the Senate.If we want clean energy to succeed in the upcoming Biden administration, we have to (a) be realistic, and (b) fight like hell to keep him focused on it as much as possible. Political capital is scarce, and the threats to our future from climate change are real, so allowing the various Democratic lobbies to suck all of the oxygen out of the room is not an option.Here’s a quick rundown of the problem and some ideas on what we can do to help clean energy win.It’s All About Political CapitalIn short, political capital is a way to think about political power in democratic countries. Yes, winning elections does give some political power, but you can’t effectively use it unless you have coalitions, alliances, trust, goodwill, and influence. Your earned trust and connections are like money (capital). You can work hard to earn it and build it up, but it’s easy to spend it and even waste it, just like money.If you get power from an election and then quickly spend all of the political capital impressing loyalists, you’ll get to the point where you can’t win future elections (Trump is a great example of this), can’t get votes together for legislation, and can’t get people to help you in a variety of other ways. At worst, a political leader who has run completely out of political capital might not even be able to get normal citizens to follow laws. As the consent of the governed is withdrawn, you see protests, riots, violence, terrorism, and even war.For better or worse, Biden won’t start out with much political capital to begin with. After a narrowly won election, not taking the Senate (because many voters rejected Trump but voted for Republicans further down the ballot), and then extended accusations of cheating, it’s not going to be easy to get things done.Earning More Political Capital Is EssentialTo get more political capital, Biden will need to find ways to heal the rifts after the election. This is true after any election, but the job is going to be that much harder in 2021. While there’s a segment of the population that will never accept a president of the opposite party, there are still plenty of reasonable people who will need to be won over (at least a little).If we want Biden to succeed, we need to not take part in divisive politics. Don’t rub Trump fans’ faces in it, as tempting as that can be. Be nice to people on social media, even if they’re hurt or feeling pain over the loss of an election. Try to understand that people have whipped up many people into fear of a Democratic president, and cut them some slack. Do anything you can to discourage “sore winners” next year.Don’t Encourage The Don Quixotes To Waste It On The ImpossibleThere are things that simply aren’t possible with a Democratic president and a Republican Senate. No matter how badly people might want an expansive Green New Deal, gun control, high taxes on the rich, and other such things, it’s just not going to happen. Like Don Quixote, a fictional senile old man who tried to fight imaginary monsters (who were, in reality, windmills), there are people in the Democratic Party who would gladly waste what little political capital is available on their quixotic quests.If it’s not going to happen, it’s not harmless to try anyway, or even to make a bunch of noise about it. Everything has a cost, and the cost of pushing these policies is that policies you could get passed into law don’t happen.Executive Power Is ExpensiveWhile Trump abused executive power frequently, don’t be tempted by calls for Biden to take revenge and do the same thing. The short term gains may be enticing, but the longer term costs are much bigger than they might appear to be at first. Trump found out the hard way that pushing for things like the border wall, fights against LGBT rights, and attempts to prop up the failing coal industry alienates reasonable people. It’s easy to say “Trump did it! We can too!”, but don’t forget that was part of his undoing.The worst thing a President Biden could do is use unconstitutional executive orders for something divisive like gun control. Yes, Trump actually did this, because he thought it would make him look good after the Las Vegas shooting, but it divided his own supporters. Loyalists made excuses or claimed it was part of some elaborate game to “beat the libs,” while people who really believed in gun rights deeply lost trust in Trump. Make no mistake, a Democratic president doing this would quickly earn the hostilities of both camps and suffer a deeper cost than Trump did.That’s just one example. There are many other little regulatory things a President Biden could do to put the screws to Republicans, but in most cases it simply isn’t worth it when we need real legislation to get the job done.Focus On The Possible!The best way to make actual progress on clean energy is to look for ways to find common ground with part of the Republican Party.Libertarian-leaning Republicans are big on free markets, and don’t like things like tariffs and subsidies. One way to put renewable energy on better footing would be to cut fossil fuel subsidies, and that’s something you’d find Republican supporters for. Tariffs that drive up the cost of solar panels are another target that you’d find Republican allies against.Another possible source of Republican support comes from Republicans concerned with national preparedness and energy security. American cars (e.g., Tesla vehicles, the Nissan LEAF, the Chevy Bolt, the Ford Mustang Mach-E) that run on American fuel (electricity) would have been a Republican dream in 2005, and definitely could be today. Add in that you can generate the fuel at home, store it safely, and enable broad swaths of the public’s homes and most key facilities to run uninterrupted when the power goes out, and you have an emergency preparedness winner. Solar roofs and Powerwalls are also great for preppers and homesteaders, many of whom are Republicans.I’m sure with some creativity we can come up with many other ways to make real progress on renewable energy, but it’s going to take goodwill, trust, and lots of healing to get there. Be sure to be part of that solution.! – Turns Case – Water GenericThe bill is monumental for water – it does more than the aff’s minor changesUS Water Alliance ND; [US Water Alliance; driving a One Water movement—an approach to water stewardship that is innovative, inclusive, and integrated. As a member-supported national nonprofit organization, the Alliance educates the nation about the true value of water and proactively advances policies and programs that manage water resources to advance a better quality of life for everyone; ND; “President Biden Introduces Plan for $111 Billion in Water Infrastructure Investment”; ; accessed: 7/14/21; YS]The US Water Alliance has advocated for increased investment in water infrastructure since 2015 through our Value of Water Campaign. Water is essential to everything we do, to every community, business, and home in the United States. Today President Biden released an ambitious infrastructure plan, the "American Jobs Plan” that included an unprecedented and historic $111 billion investment in water infrastructure. It is heartening to see water be prominently featured in the plan after years of water infrastructure being out of sight and out of mind. We commend today’s commitment to water infrastructure as a reflection and recognition of political will to take action to begin to close the water infrastructure investment gap.The Plan released today reflects many of the recommendations highlighted in the 2020 paper “The Economic Benefits of Investing in Water Infrastructure” produced by the Alliance’s Value of Water Campaign and the American Society of Civil Engineers. We also see in the Plan a number of funding priorities articulated in the Alliance’s Federal Policy Blueprint, released last month as part of our Recovering Stronger Initiative.Highlights of the American Jobs Plan proposal for $111 billion in water infrastructure investment:To eliminate all lead pipes and service lines in the country, the plan calls for $45 billion in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and in Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN) grants. To modernize aging drinking water, stormwater, and wastewater systems by scaling up existing, successful programs, the plan calls for providing $56 billion in grants and low-cost flexible loans to states, Tribes, territories, and disadvantaged communities across the country.Finally, the plan includes $10 billion in funding to monitor and remediate PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) in drinking water and to invest in rural small water systems and household well and wastewater systems, including drainage fields.The infrastructure bill is a moonshot for water --- vastly outweighs the aff’s tweaksZerrenner 21 – writer and policy wonk, with a focus on water, clean energy, climate change and environmental security. She spent over a decade running energy-water nexus and energy efficiency programs at Environmental Defense Fund as well as time at the U.S. Departments of Energy and Defense, U.S. Government Accountability Office, and state and federal legislaturesKate, 4/6. “What's Crucial in Biden’s Infrastructure Bill: Water Investments.” week, the White House announced the American Jobs Plan, a far-reaching, economy-wide infrastructure and jobs investment proposal. While the plan proposes $621 billion for transportation infrastructure — what people typically think of when they hear the word “infrastructure” — surprisingly, the bulk of the proposal would go to community infrastructure, as in sustainable housing, broadband access, electric infrastructure and, critically, water. The proposal comes not a moment too soon.What’s in the American Jobs Plan?The American Jobs Plan proposes $111 billion for water infrastructure, but that is spread out over several initiatives, including: $45 billion to eliminate all lead pipes and service lines; $10 billion to monitor and remediate drinking water contaminants and invest in small, rural water systems; $56 billion to upgrade and modernize America’s drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater systems; and $16 billion to plug oil and gas wells that contaminate local water and air quality. Additional funds earmarked in this infrastructure bill would address the effects of drought in the western U.S. along with investments in resilience solutions for areas disproportionately affected by climate prehensive in nature, these solutions aim to tackle water from several different angles. Typically, policies tend to silo water quality and water quantity. Further, problems relating to climate change, such as nature-based infrastructure, tend to be put into another silo. Developing a plan that uses water as the connector makes sense as these issues often overlap.While pipe materials or industrial processes may lead to poor quality, pressures on water quantity can also case degradation in the quality of water. For example, in Guanajuato, Mexico, the depletion of aquifers for a thirsty agricultural sector has led to toxic levels of arsenic in local drinking water supplies. California’s breadbasket, the Central Valley, has long endured similar problems. And restoring wetlands and watersheds, often viewed through the resilience lens, also helps protect water quantity.Why an infrastructure bill now?The American Society of Civil Engineers recently released its 2021 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure. As of now, water infrastructure report cards are not ones you’d want to take home to your parents.Dams scored a “D.” According to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, more than 2,300 dams fall under the category of deficient high-hazard-potential, meaning if these dams failed, the result would likely be a direct loss of human life and extensive property damage. The high number of dams in this category is due to lack of adequate investment.Drinking Water scored a “C-.” While increased attention has led to better strategies and smarter investments, the system as a whole remains critically underfunded and beyond its planned life expectancy. A water main breaks every two minutes in the U.S., resulting in an estimated 6 billion gallons of treated water lost each day — which also results in compounded losses due to the energy-water nexus. It takes water to generate electricity (using fossil fuel- or nuclear-powered electricity) and treating moving water requires an extensive amount of electricity. The high volume of water loss flushes money down the drain and generates unnecessary associated emissions.Stormwater scored a “D.” With climate change leading to more economic losses due to flooding throughout the country, the state of stormwater infrastructure is a serious concern. While stormwater infrastructure runs the gamut extensive concrete storm sewers to flood control reservoirs, urban centers in particular face challenges with the rising costs of infrastructure upgrades, particularly after suffering repeated flooding events.Wastewater scored a “D+." Like drinking water infrastructure, much of the wastewater infrastructure is old and underfunded. In fact, 15 percent of the country’s 16,000 wastewater treatment plants exceed their design capacities. Further, in some urban areas, extreme weather can stress the system. As an example, Austin Water has issues boil water notices twice in the last three years - once after catastrophic flooding and again after this year’s ice storm.In addition, events in recent years have raised alarm about the toxic levels of chemicals in drinking water, most recently in Jackson, Mississippi. And while lead in water makes the news, especially from places like Flint, Michigan, other chemicals threaten our water supplies and public health.For example, PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), man-made chemicals used in many everyday consumer goods like nonstick cookware as well as water- and stain-resistant clothing and furniture, are extremely harmful in low doses and do not break down in our bodies. The American Jobs Plan specifically targets money to monitor and remediate PFAS in our water systems, and Michael Regan, the new head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Program, called out the necessity of addressing them during his confirmation hearing in the Senate. To further drive the point home, a nine-month study conducted by Consumer Reports and The Guardian found that 118 of 120 samples taken had levels exceeding Consumer Reports’ recommended maximum for PFAS, arsenic and lead.What’s at stake in the infrastructure billAmerica’s water infrastructure has been at a critical level for some time, as systems built in the first half of the 20th century have already started to age, and now they confront added pressures from population growth in urban areas and accelerating climate change. A major push, like the White House’s infrastructure bill, could jumpstart investment across the broader water sector. Further, by tackling the problems facing the sector with a broader stroke and creating solutions strategically, investors and policymakers could uncover even more efficiencies. Some have called this plan a “moonshot” for water. As our most critical resource, water deserves nothing less.! – Ag/FoodThe bill is vital to a struggling agriculture industry – it improves key transportation and technologyVoorhees ’21; [Josh Voorhees; an American political journalist and senior writer for Slate, and the former editor of its news blog Slatest. He graduated from Davidson College, and currently lives in Iowa City, Iowa. In 2013, he was named a fellow of the Kiplinger Program by Ohio State University; 4/1/21; Modern Farmer; “Why Biden’s Infrastructure Plan Could Be a ‘Big F**king Deal’ for American Farmers”; ; accessed: 7/14/21; YS]Dubbed the American Jobs Plan, the eight-year spending proposal promises to modernize 20,000 miles of roads, repair 10,000 bridges and improve the drinking water in 400,000 schools and child-care facilities, among myriad other improvements to the built environment in the United pared to the $1.9-trillion coronavirus aid package, the infrastructure package is light on direct aid to the agriculture sector. But, if enacted, the infrastructure plan could ultimately have a bigger impact on American farmers over the long run—affecting everything from how they farm to how and where they sell their products.Farmers rely on the nation’s roads, railways and waterways to transport their food and fiber to domestic and global markets. Those paths are rarely a straight line. A soybean harvest meant for export, for instance, may use all three of those transportation modes as it travels from field to storage to processing plant to port, all before it even leaves the United States. Lost time along the way from congestion and other delays is lost money for farmers in the short term and lost market share in the long term, which is why groups such as the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association have been pushing Biden to improve rural transportation networks since he took office. This plan would do just that via $115 billion for roads and bridges, $80 billion for railways and $17 billion for waterways and ports.The more noticeable impact on farmers’ everyday lives, meanwhile, would be the $100 billion that Biden wants to spend bringing affordable broadband internet service to every American, including the estimated 35 percent of whom currently lack reliable access.Agriculture, like pretty much every other industry, is an increasingly high-tech and data-driven endeavor. Farmers can use the internet to track the weather in real time, to guide GPS-enabled tractors and other machinery and to utilize a whole host of other precision-farming techniques that take into account soil moisture levels, plant health and other metrics. Internet access also helps on the business side of things, allowing farmers to find the best deals on seeds, fertilizer and equipment, as well as the best prices for their products.Internet access, however, is not currently a given on American farms. According to the US Department of Agriculture, 1 in 4 farmers lacked access in 2019, the most recent year for which data is available. Meanwhile, having internet access isn’t the same thing as having reliable access. A poll conducted that same year by the United Soybean Board found that nearly 60 percent of US farmers believed poor connectivity was negatively impacting their business. There’s not a lot that farmers can do about that on their own, either, since those in rural areas often only have a single provider from which to choose.All of this is why, broadly speaking, expanding rural broadband has support on both sides of the political aisle, including with farm-state Republicans such as Sen. John Boozman, the ranking member on the Agriculture Committee. It’s also been a top priority at the US Department of Agriculture in administrations both past and present. USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack has touted broadband access as a boon to American farmers, and his predecessor, Sonny Perdue, went as far as to suggest that rural broadband would be as revolutionary in this century as rural electrification was in the last one.Current agriculture practices are unsustainable – they foster climate change and food insecurity Pawlak & Ko?odziejczak ’20; [Karolina Pawlak; Holder of a postdoctoral degree in the field of economic sciences. Associate professor in the Department of Economics and Economic Policy in Agribusiness. Author or co-author of over 140 original research papers or monographs in the field of international economics and agricultural economics. Her research focuses on issues related to international trade and international competitiveness of the agri-food sector and the application of general equilibrium models to assess the effects of changes in agricultural policy and trade policy on the agri-food sector; Ma?gorzata Ko?odziejczak; University of Life Sciences in Poznań Associate Professor (Faculty of Economics, Department of Economics and Economic Policy in Agribusiness); 7/7/20; “The Role of Agriculture in Ensuring Food Security in Developing Countries: Considerations in the Context of the Problem of Sustainable Food Production”; accessed: 7/15/21; YS]Published in 2010, the sixth report on the world nutrition situation by the United Nations System Standing Committee on Nutrition (UNSCN) points to the key role of agriculture in ensuring food and nutrition security [45]. Since the worldwide food production capacity is no longer the main limitation, the problem of exhausting resources and sustainable food production appears. Some scientists observed that intensive and industrialized food production practices, which have been developed to satisfy the global food demand [46], have been increasingly damaging the environment [47] and may bring ecological catastrophe on a local or even global scale. Rockstr?m et al. [48] noted the existence of some bio-physical thresholds in the global ecosystem which, when exceeded, may have disastrous consequences for humankind. Due to environmental pollution and the reduced ecological stability of the biosphere, hundreds of millions of people living in extreme poverty will not have a realistic chance of alleviating hunger and addressing other vital needs. According to Geist and Lambin [49] and Foley et al. [14,50], agriculture is the largest contributor to tropical deforestation and is responsible for up to 35% of global greenhouse gas emissions, with demonstrated negative impacts on air and water quality, biodiversity, carbon sequestration and infectious disease transmission. On the other hand, it is shown that a more productive and resource-efficient agriculture can increase the availability of food and contribute to world food security, while at the same time preserving natural resources and biodiversity [51–57]. McDonald [58] also followed this finding and stressed that it is a universal observation, especially in developing and the least developed countries, indicating that hunger is widespread with many food production systems being unsustainable. There are several indications that a new orientation for agricultural development must be sought [59–63]. The new trajectory of agricultural development should take into account the postulates of sustainable development in all countries, with special regard afforded to the developing ones. Obviously, some transitional stages, such as replacing human labor with mechanical power (mechanization of agriculture), cannot be completely omitted. However, it should be noted that at such an early stage of development of agricultural production (e.g. in some African countries), some environmental restrictions may emerge. Otherwise, in the future these countries would incur significant costs of today’s production growth, especially when it comes to areas threatened by soil degradation and water scarcity.When observing a progressive deterioration in the global nutrition situation, a challenge to feed the growing world’s population becomes more and more important, while the role of efficient and sustainable agriculture in this process seems to be a priority (for more see e.g. [64]). Therefore, in this study selected characteristics of the agricultural sector in developing countries were analyzed as determinants of their food security status.US ag and food security stabilize the globe — collapse greenlights great power warsCastellaw 17—Lieutenant General, former President of the non-profit Crockett Policy Institute (John, “Opinion: Food Security Strategy Is Essential to Our National Security,” )The United States faces many threats to our National Security. These threats include continuing wars with extremist elements such as ISIS and potential wars with rogue state North Korea or regional nuclear power Iran. The heated economic and diplomatic competition with Russia and a surging China could spiral out of control. Concurrently, we face threats to our future security posed by growing civil strife, famine, and refugee and migration challenges which create incubators for extremist and anti-American government factions. Our response cannot be one dimensional but instead must be a nuanced and comprehensive National Security Strategy combining all elements of National Power including a Food Security Strategy. An American Food Security Strategy is an imperative factor in reducing the multiple threats impacting our National wellbeing. Recent history has shown that reliable food supplies and stable prices produce more stable and secure countries. Conversely, food insecurity, particularly in poorer countries, can lead to instability, unrest, and violence. Food insecurity drives mass migration around the world from the Middle East, to Africa, to Southeast Asia, destabilizing neighboring populations, generating conflicts, and threatening our own security by disrupting our economic, military, and diplomatic relationships. Food system shocks from extreme food-price volatility can be correlated with protests and riots. Food price related protests toppled governments in Haiti and Madagascar in 2007 and 2008. In 2010 and in 2011, food prices and grievances related to food policy were one of the major drivers of the Arab Spring uprisings. Repeatedly, history has taught us that a strong agricultural sector is an unquestionable requirement for inclusive and sustainable growth, broad-based development progress, and long-term stability. The impact can be remarkable and far reaching. Rising income, in addition to reducing the opportunities for an upsurge in extremism, leads to changes in diet, producing demand for more diverse and nutritious foods provided, in many cases, from American farmers and ranchers. Emerging markets currently purchase 20 percent of U.S. agriculture exports and that figure is expected to grow as populations boom. Moving early to ensure stability in strategically significant regions requires long term planning and a disciplined, thoughtful strategy. To combat current threats and work to prevent future ones, our national leadership must employ the entire spectrum of our power including diplomatic, economic, and cultural elements. The best means to prevent future chaos and the resulting instability is positive engagement addressing the causes of instability before it occurs. This is not rocket science. We know where the instability is most likely to occur. The world population will grow by 2.5 billion people by 2050. Unfortunately, this massive population boom is projected to occur primarily in the most fragile and food insecure countries. This alarming math is not just about total numbers. Projections show that the greatest increase is in the age groups most vulnerable to extremism. There are currently 200 million people in Africa between the ages of 15 and 24, with that number expected to double in the next 30 years. Already, 60% of the unemployed in Africa are young people. Too often these situations deteriorate into shooting wars requiring the deployment of our military forces. We should be continually mindful that the price we pay for committing military forces is measured in our most precious national resource, the blood of those who serve. For those who live in rural America, this has a disproportionate impact. Fully 40% of those who serve in our military come from the farms, ranches, and non-urban communities that make up only 16% of our population. Actions taken now to increase agricultural sector jobs can provide economic opportunity and stability for those unemployed youths while helping to feed people. A recent report by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs identifies agriculture development as the core essential for providing greater food security, economic growth, and population well-being. Our active support for food security, including agriculture development, has helped stabilize key regions over the past 60 years. A robust food security strategy, as a part of our overall security strategy, can mitigate the growth of terrorism, build important relationships, and support continued American economic and agricultural prosperity while materially contributing to our Nation’s and the world’s security.--XT: Infra K2 AgThe bill addresses inadequate physical infrastructure as well as providing broadband access – key to the agriculture industryFerguson ’21; [Ellyn Ferguson; reports on agriculture and food issues for CQ Roll Call. For nearly 20 years she worked as a Washington-based reporter for Gannett covering the overhaul of federal welfare programs and the writing of several farm policy bills, including the 1996 overhaul. She is a member of the North American Agricultural Journalists and the National Press Club and is former president of the Regional Reporters Association. Ellyn graduated from the University of Florida in Gainesville with a degree in journalism; 4/1/21; Roll Call; “Biden’s infrastructure plan seen as aiding ‘initial link’ in farm supply chain”; ; accessed: 7/16/21; YS]President Joe Biden’s plan to spend billions for better roads, safer bridges and modernized locks and dams on waterways will aid rural areas and the agriculture sector, but some groups say his broad definition of infrastructure and his proposed tax increases are problematic.Johnathan Hladik, policy director for the Center for Rural Affairs in Nebraska, said he is heartened by the $115 billion the plan says is needed to “repair the worst 10,000 smaller bridges, including bridges that provide critical connections to rural and tribal communities.”Hladik said large-scale farming means heavy equipment is needed for harvesting and the routes to fields frequently mean crossing bridges “in very, very poor condition” built decades ago for smaller vehicles. Navigating those bridges can be tricky. "When you’re growing corn, you need to bring your semi and your trailer to that field to haul the corn back away,” he said. “Well, if you can’t get to that field because all of the bridges are out or all of these bridges are so antiquated that they are not designed to hold the weight that you have with your machine, you can’t do your job.”The American Society of Civil Engineers’ 2021 report card gives U.S. roads, bridges, rails, waterways, public parks and other infrastructure an overall grade of C-. The grade was an improvement from D+ in the last report card issued in 2017.The report says 43 percent of U.S. roads, mostly non-interstate streets in rural and urban areas, are in a poor or mediocre state while 42 percent of bridges are at least 50 years old and 7.5 percent of them are structurally unsound. The report card estimates there is a combined $786 billion backlog of road and bridge repairs. The report also estimates there is a $6.8 billion backlog in construction of aging locks.Hladik also sees promise for rural areas with Biden's proposed $100 billion for access to broadband service, which is increasingly viewed in agriculture and rural development to be as essential as access to electricity. He said broadband and the growing use of technology in agriculture could lead to good-paying, high-tech jobs in small towns and communities.He wonders if other parts of the $2 trillion proposed plan will “distract from the other tangible brick and mortar problems we have. I don’t know. That’s a fair question.”The Biden plan proposes $621 billion over eight years for transportation-related infrastructure, including $80 billion for passenger and freight rail; $17 billion for inland waterways, coastal ports, land ports of entry, and ferries; $85 billion for modernizing existing public transit; and $25 billion for projects of regional or national importance.The plan is drawing Republican opposition as a tax-and-spend package for its cost and for proposing that the corporate income tax rate rise to 28 percent from 21 percent and that the minimum tax rate paid by U.S. multinationals rise to 21 percent from 10.5 percent.The bill modernizes vital transportation infrastructure, improving efficiency and overall boosting agriculture Wyant ’21; [Sara Wyant; is President of Agri-Pulse Communications, Inc., a communications firm with offices in Washington, D.C., Sacramento, Calif. and Camdenton, Missouri. As a veteran farm policy reporter, she is recognized on Capitol Hill, as well as with farm and commodity associations across the country; 4/10/21; High Plain Journals; “How a new infrastructure package could impact rural America”; ; accessed: 7/16/21; YS]If you’ve jumped in a vehicle and driven across large sections of the United States, it’s pretty easy to be convinced that we need to invest more in our nation’s infrastructure. Many of our interstate highways are speckled with cracks and potholes and some are so crowded with cars and semis that they easily turn into traffic jams.Add in the bridges and waterways that desperately need repair, along with long overdue improvements needed for rural broadband and clean water projects, and you’ve got a pretty strong case for a big infrastructure package that both Democrats and Republicans might be able to support. For American agriculture, it’s critical to invest in ways that products can leave the farm gate and efficiently move to other domestic and international markets.However, the most recent infrastructure package is more than roads, bridges, water projects and connectivity. If anything, the scope seems destined to grow. The funding mechanism remains controversial, casting some doubts about whether all 50 Democrats in the U.S. Senate or any Republicans will support it.The initial $2.25 trillion infrastructure package proposed by President Joe Biden will have a heavy focus on climate policy and include substantial new funding for rural broadband, according to a fact sheet released by the White House, but that’s not all.Biden’s “American Jobs Plan” includes $621 billion for transportation including roads, bridges, electric vehicles and waterways, plus $100 billion to ensure that the entire country has access to broadband.Another $16 billion is earmarked for port and waterway improvements.The “plan will modernize 20,000 miles of highways, roads, and main streets. It will fix the 10 most economically significant bridges in the country in need of reconstruction. It also will repair the worst 10,000 smaller bridges, providing critical linkages to communities,” the White House says.An additional $50 billion is set aside in the plan for climate resilience projects. The funding could be used in part for “agricultural resources management and climate-smart technologies” and forest management, according to the White House fact sheet.Another $5 billion is earmarked for rural development. This program will empower rural regions by supporting locally led planning and capacity building efforts, and providing flexible funding to meet critical needs,” the fact sheet says! – BroadbandInfrastructure bill includes massive investment in broadband – key to bridging the digital divide Eideberg ’21; [Kip Eideberg; the Senior Vice President of Government and Industry Relations at the Association of Equipment Manufacturers; 6/11/21; The Hill; “How the infrastructure bill can help close the digital divide”; ; accessed: 7/14/21; YS]Even as the negotiations between President Biden and Sen. Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) ended with no deal and the focus now turns to a group of bipartisan rank-and-file members in both Senate and the House, there is one aspect of infrastructure that still continues to enjoy broad support — and it also happens to be the most important part of the plan: $100 billion in broadband infrastructure.This much-needed investment would ensure every single American has access to affordable, reliable high-speed broadband. For the sake of our country's economic well-being, leaders in Washington must come to an agreement that makes broadband expansion a top priority. Doing so will change millions of lives for the better.As it relates to traditional infrastructure, expanding broadband access may seem like secondary to funding improvements for roads, bridges, and highways. But as the COVID-19 pandemic has made clear, broadband is essential for nearly every aspect of daily life — from going to school to buying basic necessities. Most jobs today require an internet connection. Our economy simply cannot run without it.But we are lagging behind other countries when it comes to internet access. Around 23 percent of Americans lack a high-speed internet connection. Among the Organizational for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, a club of developed nations, the United States ranks 15 out of 37 in fixed broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants. It trails the likes of Switzerland, France, Germany, Canada, and the United Kingdom, among others.And even if Americans do have broadband lines in their areas, the connection may be spotty or non-existent. According to a Wall Street Journal analysis, poorer neighborhoods, including those in cities, have internet speeds 40 percent slower than those in high-income neighborhoods. In rural counties, 65 percent of households connect to the internet, compared to 78 percent of households nationwide, according to the Census Bureau.Americans of all ages miss out on opportunities when they don't have adequate broadband connections.Even before schools closed for in-person instruction, a third of K-12 students didn't have a strong internet connection, a digital device, or both. Today's K-12 education relies on online tools, like Google Docs or Canvas, for everything from homework assignments to tests. Without internet, many students cannot complete basic assignments.And they are missing out on important skills needed in the modern workforce. Between 2002 and 2016, the need for digital skills increased by 95 percent for workers in all occupations and cities. Today, 70 percent say they can't do their job without an internet connection at home. Experts speaking at the World Economic Forum last year estimated that by 2030, nine in ten jobs will need digital skills.Universal broadband would help close the digital divide between rich and poor Americans while keeping America competitive in the global economy.For example, broadband investment will help the many Americans employed in the agricultural sector. As of 2019, a quarter of farmers did not have access to the internet — even though up-to-date information about the weather, the economy, and USDA reports is vital to a farm's success. According to a report from the Breakthrough Institute, expanding rural broadband would allow farmers to adopt new technologies that could lead to a 60 to 70 percent increase in corn yields and generate up to $65 billion in economic revenue annually.A new Brookings Institution report further underscore the benefits of expanded broadband. It concludes that increased internet usage is "associated with higher incomes, lower poverty rates, and higher levels of education."That is not surprising. After all, reliable internet grants workers access to thousands of job postings, educational resources, and other networking opportunities. It provides business owners working from home with a gateway into e-commerce, which accounts for 14 percent of national retail sales. And it allows high school students to study for exams, connect with mentors, and apply to colleges.None of that can happen without investment into new broadband infrastructure. As Democrats and Republicans continue to work toward a bipartisan deal on infrastructure, they need to make sure that they close the digital divide and ensure all Americans can participate and thrive in the 21st century economy.They must embrace this opportunity today.Lack of broadband access fosters inequality and worsens the rural-urban divide Tomer et al. ’20; [Adie Tomer; a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program and leads the Metropolitan Infrastructure Initiative. Tomer is an expert in infrastructure policy and urban economics, with a particular focus on transportation and digital technology issues; 2/27/20; “Digital prosperity: How broadband can deliver health and equity to all communities”; ; accessed: 7/15/21; YS]BROADBAND IS THE COUNTRY’S MOST INEQUITABLE INFRASTRUCTURE The current state of American broadband access, adoption, and use is one of disparate outcomes. According to the 2018 American Community Survey (ACS), 18.1 million—or 15%—of households do not have subscriptions to any form of “broadband” internet service (the Census Bureau defines broadband as anything faster than dial-up). Compare that to the 99.6% of households with complete plumbing, according to the ACS, or the effective 100% of households with access to electricity.Broadband works best when households have both an in-home connection—for activities such as telework and entertainment streaming—and a wireless subscription. However, of those households with a broadband subscription, about 14 million only have a cellular data plan, and 12.3 million only have a wireline subscription.Broadband gaps infect every kind of community. The majority—13.6 million—of digitally disconnected households live in urban areas. Meanwhile, rural broadband gaps tend to garner attention because the overall adoption rate in rural areas (81%) is still five percentage points lower than that of urban areas (86%).Comparing statewide broadband adoption underscores this geographic divide (Figure 2). In 2018, the average state had a broadband adoption rate of 84%, but there was still a nearly 15-percentage point difference between the states with the highest rate of adoption (Washington and Utah, at 90%) and the lowest (Mississippi, at 76.3%). These differences can largely be explained through social, economic, and geographic contexts. The states with the lowest broadband adoption rates also had the lowest median incomes, highest shares of rural communities, and the highest shares of communities of color.Looking further at how broadband adoption intersects with communities of color at the national level, white, Asian American, and Latino or Hispanic households all have broadband adoption rates above the national average (at 90%, 94%, and 86%, respectively), but Black households have a lower adoption rate, at 82%. A neighborhood-level analysis revealed even starker differences. While the average majority-white tract had an average broadband adoption rate of 83.7%, the average majority-Black tract (more than 50% Black residents) had a broadband adoption rate of just 67.4%.Similarly, there are drastic differences across income groups, particularly for low-income communities and communities with high levels of poverty. At the national level, households earning less than $20,000 have a broadband adoption rate of 62%, those earning $20,000 to $74,999 have an adoption rate of 83%, and households earning more than $75,000 have an adoption rate of 85%. Similarly, the average tract with a poverty rate lower than 20% had an 81.8% broadband adoption rate, while the average tract with a poverty rate over 20%—or what qualifies as concentrated poverty—had an average broadband adoption of 64.9%.Time and again, researchers confirm these findings: those least likely to have broadband in America are communities of color and low-income communities, suggesting that systemic barriers remain in place.Extinction WEF 17, World Economic Forum, "The Global Risks Report 2017" www3.docs/GRR17_Report_web.pdfThe combination of economic inequality and political polarization threatens to amplify global risks, fraying the social solidarity on which the legitimacy of our economic and political systems rests. New economic systems and policy paradigms are urgently needed to address the sources of popular disenchantment.20 These could include more effective human capital policies, to enable more people to benefit from skill-biased technological change; better public goods (whether publicly or privately provided) to address the ambitions of the growing middle class around the world; and more responsive governance systems to empower individuals at the local level without sacrificing the many benefits of globalization. Society: Rebuilding Communities Issues of identity and culture were central to the two most dramatic Western political results of 2016, in the United Kingdom and the United States. This is part of a broader trend affecting both international and domestic politics. Across the European Union, parties stressing national sovereignty and/or values have prospered,21 boosted in part by migration flows that GRPS respondents continue to point to as a major geopolitical risk. Outside the European Union, polarization in Turkey has deepened since 2010,22 while Russia has been expressing its national political identity in increasingly assertive foreign policy stances.23 Globally, politics is increasingly defined by the rise of charismatic “strongman” national politicians and emotive political debate: “post-truth” was the Oxford English Dictionary’s word of the year.24 In the latest GRPS, respondents ranked “increasing polarization” as the third most important trend for the next 10 years – it was cited by 31% of respondents, with “increasing national sentiment” cited by 14%. The survey recorded an increase in the perceived impact of “failure of national governance” but, perhaps surprisingly, “profound social instability” dropped in the rankings for both perceived likelihood and impact. One possibility is that the global decision-makers who mostly comprise the GRPS panel have not been sufficiently attuned to this risk. Another way of interpreting the GRPS, however, is to focus on the underlying trends rather than the risks. By placing both polarization and intensifying national sentiment among the top five trends (see Table 1.1), GRPS respondents have highlighted long-term patterns that, if they persist, are likely to continue to amplify a range of social and political risks. In the West, decades of rapid social and economic change have widened generation gaps in values, disrupted traditional patterns of affiliation and community, and eroded the support of mainstream political parties.25 Early analysis by political scientists Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris points to the populism behind the victories of Brexit and President-elect Trump as being driven more by demographics and cultural factors than income inequality:26 a backlash among older and less-educated voters who “feel that they are being marginalized within their own countries” by changing values in areas such as gender, sexual orientation, race, multiculturalism, environmental protection and international cooperation. Pew research found stark divisions in the self-described values of supporters of President-elect Trump and Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton: for example, 72% of President-elect Trump’s supporters described themselves as “traditional”, versus 31% of Clinton supporters; other big differences included “honor and duty are my core values” (59% vs 35%); “typical American” (72% vs 49%), “feminist” (5% vs 38%) and “supporter of LGBT rights” (24% vs 66%).27 Many established political parties are ill-equipped to respond to voters’ placing greater emphasis on culture and values, because the parties have shifted towards the centre of the political spectrum and a managerial or technocratic style of politics.28 They have lost touch with their traditional core constituencies, particularly those with class-based roots.29 In 2013, political scientist Peter Mair wrote that political parties’ failure to engage voters meant democracy was starting to buckle as electorates “are becoming effectively non-sovereign”.30 Events last year suggest that verdict may have been premature. Both the Brexit and President-elect Trump victories featured (1) outsiders to major party politics (2) successfully engaging traditionalist voters with (3) appeals to sovereignty rooted in national identity and pride. Unusually, older voters were in the vanguard of these disruptive movements – and with populations ageing, the pendulum may not swing back towards the younger generation’s views for some time.31 Dramatic events can have complex effects on the risk landscape. They can trigger new risks or exacerbate existing ones, but they can also open the way to responses that mitigate risks. As many of the West’s democracies face up to the growing electoral influence of traditionalist political identities, there are potential gains for social solidarity and democratic legitimacy if processes of political debate and compromise re-connect with the older, less-educated and predominantly male voters who currently feel excluded. However, it will be challenging to find political narratives and policies that can repair decades-long cultural fault-lines while preserving, for example, gender and minority rights. Failure could further undermine social and cultural cohesion: Daron Acemoglu, author with James Robinson of Why Nations Fail, has cautioned that current divisions in the United States risk undermining not just the electoral process but the institutions and norms on which it is founded.32 Technology: Managing Disruption Evidence suggests that technological change provides a better explanation than globalization for the industrial decline and deteriorating labour-market prospects that have catalyzed antiestablishment voting in many of the world’s advanced economies. Today’s world is one in which production, mobility, communication, energy and other systems are changing with unprecedented speed and scope, disrupting everything from employment patterns to social relationships and geopolitical stability. Driven by the convergence between digital, biological and physical technologies, the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) is creating new global risks and exacerbating existing risks. Perhaps because of the increasing ubiquity of innovative technology, respondents to the GRPS have tended not to include technological risks among the most impactful or the most likely to occur. This can be seen in the comparatively few technological risks that appear in the evolving risk matrix (Figure 2, inner cover). There are possible signs of change, however. The year 2014 was the first in which two technological risks made it into the evolving risk matrix, and this year, although only one is included (“massive incident of data fraud/theft”), another (“large-scale cyberattacks”) came sixth in the list of risks most likely to occur in the next 10 years. According to the economists Michael Hicks and Srikant Devaraj, 86% of manufacturing job losses in the United States between 1997 and 2007 were the result of rising productivity, compared to less than 14% lost because of trade. Most assessments suggest that technology’s disruptive effect on labour markets will accelerate across non-manufacturing sectors in the years ahead, as rapid advances in robotics, sensors and machine learning enable capital to replace labour in an expanding range of service-sector job. Estimates of the number of jobs at risk to technological displacement vary: a frequently cited 2013 Oxford Martin School study has suggested that 47% of US jobs were at high risk from automation; in 2016 an OECD working paper put the figure lower, at 9%.33 In 2015 a McKinsey study concluded that 45% of the activities that workers do today could already be automated if companies choose to do so.34 As discussed in Chapter 3.1, respondents to this year’s GRPS rate artificial intelligence and robotics as the emerging technology with the greatest potential for negative consequences over the coming decade. Technology has always created jobs as well as destroying them, but there is evidence that the engine of technological job creation is sputtering. The Oxford Martin School estimates that only 0.5% of today’s US workforce is employed in sectors created since 2000, compared with approximately 8% in industries created during the 1980s.35 Technological change is shifting the distribution of income from labour to capital: according to the OECD, up to 80% of the decline in labour’s share of national income between 1990 and 2007 was the result of the impact of technology.36 At a global level, however, many people are being left behind altogether: more than 4 billion people still lack access to the internet, and more than 1.2 billion people are without even electricity.37 We can shape the dynamics of the 4IR. Careful governance can guide the distribution of benefits and impact on global risks, because the evolution of new technologies will be heavily influenced by the social norms, corporate policies, industry standards and regulatory principles being debated and written today.38 Unfortunately, however, current legal, policy-making and standard-setting institutions tend to move slowly. For example, the US Federal Aviation Authority took eight months to grant Amazon an “experimental airworthiness certificate” to test a particular model of drone, by which time the model was obsolete;39 Amazon conducted its trials in Canada and the United Kingdom instead. In 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved an application by AquaBounty Technologies for regulatory approval of genetically modified salmon – an application made in 1995. The salmon still cannot be sold in the United States, pending an update to labelling regulations.40 Such regulatory delays can mean social and economic benefits are missed – but when health, the environment and broader social impacts are at stake, a cautiously deliberative approach is prudent. How best to strike this balance is currently causing debate, for example, in efforts to accelerate the regulation of self-driving vehicles.41 Although populist movements have recently tapped public hostility to globalization more than to technology, there is still the risk of backlash against technological change. For example, public concerns about genetically modified foods have consistently exceeded scientific assessments of the risks associated with them, and concerns about climate change have not precluded public opposition to wind farms.42 We are in a highly disruptive phase of technological development, at a time of rising challenges to social cohesion and policy-makers’ legitimacy. Given the power of the 4IR to create and exacerbate global risks, the associated governance challenges are both huge and pressing, as further discussed in Part 3. It is critical that policy-makers and other stakeholders – across government, civil society, academia and the media – collaborate to create more agile and adaptive forms of local, national and global governance and risk management. Geopolitics: Strengthening Cooperation In a worrying sign of deteriorating commitment to global cooperation, states are stepping back from mechanisms set up to underpin international security through mutual accountability and respect for common norms. For example, 2016 saw Russia, South Africa, Burundi and Gambia withdraw from the International Criminal Court, and China reject the verdict of the international tribunal on the South China Sea. At the time of writing, the incoming US president is considering withdrawal from the recent Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (Iran nuclear deal) and the Paris Climate Change agreement. The exit of major stakeholders from economic agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership also carries geopolitical significance. In Syria, the drawn-out nature of the war indicates how the absence of a great-power accord handicaps the United Nations, compounding the difficulties of brokering a settlement to a conflict with multiple stakeholders at global, regional and non-state levels, or even organizing a limited intervention to facilitate humanitarian relief or protect civilians. The death toll among non-combatants – including from chemical weapons – has been met with despairing rhetoric but no effective action to enforce long-standing humanitarian laws and norms. In parallel to their withdrawal of support for collective solutions, major powers now openly trade accusations of undermining international security or interfering in their domestic politics. For years President Putin has accused the United States of seeking to undermine global stability and Russian sovereignty, and in 2016 the US National Security Agency blamed Russia for interference in the presidential election. Tensions rose between the United States and China over freedom of navigation in the South China Sea and the deployment of US missile defence systems to the Republic of Korea, which led to Beijing warning the United States not to “harm China’s strategic security interests”. In response to the general loss of faith in collective security mechanisms, regional powers and smaller nations are increasingly exploring the acquisition of new conventional weapons capabilities, offensive cyber weapons and even nuclear ones. Notwithstanding the normative and practical obstacles confronting a state seeking nuclear capability, political leaders in nuclear and non-nuclear weapons states alike have increasingly made reference to the utility of nuclear weapons in the context of changing threat perceptions and wavering confidence in alliance structures. If this rhetoric turns into policy, it could entail a huge diversion of resources into a new nuclear arms race and a jump in the risk of preemptive strikes aimed at preventing an adversary gaining nuclear capability. In summary, developments in 2016 present numerous reminders that international security requires collective commitments and investment to define a positive vision, as well as political will to make responsible trade-offs and commit resources (Box 1.1). As technological, demographic and climate pressures intensify the danger of systems failure, competition among world powers and fragmentation of security efforts makes the international system more fragile, placing collective prosperity and survival at risk.--XT: Infra K2 BroadbandThe bill is a moonshot for broadband – it solves the digital divide and solves inequality heightened by COVIDDeChiaro ‘21; [Dean DeChiaro; After graduating he returned to New Jersey to write for the Hudson Reporter, where he won awards for investigative journalism and political coverage. He then earned a Master's degree from the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University and moved to Washington D.C. to cover immigration for CQ Roll Call; 3/16/21; Roll Call; “Next infrastructure bill aims to end ‘digital divide’”; ; accessed: 7/16/21; YS]Now that President Joe Biden has signed into law the $1.9 trillion pandemic relief package that Congress passed last week, Democratic lawmakers are beginning to focus on the next big-ticket item on their legislative agenda, a massive infrastructure package, and the broadband money they plan to include in it.Several coronavirus-related aid packages that Congress passed since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic included money for broadband, but not on the scale that Democrats are eyeing for the upcoming package. Last week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said broadband would be among the priorities for the upcoming infrastructure package, which she called “big, bold and transformational.”Right on cue, all 32 Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee proposed a far-reaching infrastructure measure that would authorize more than $109 billion to expand broadband access throughout the country in an effort to close what’s become known as “the digital divide,” the gap between those who can access the internet at home and those who cannot.Of that total, $80 billion would be set aside for deploying new broadband networks or expanding existing ones to reach those who currently can’t get a signal. The committee said the investment would be enough to drive 100 percent connectivity throughout the country.The Federal Communications Commission would be responsible for awarding three-fourths of the $80 billion through a national bidding process, according to the bill summary, to “ensure the efficient distribution of the funds to areas that don’t have high-speed broadband internet service today.” The remainder of the funds would be given to the states to fill in connectivity gaps.An additional $15 billion would go toward implementing Next Generation 911 services, including systems that accept text messages, images or videos in emergencies when a phone call is not possible. Another $5 billion would be used to subsidize low-interest financing for broadband deployment projects and $8 billion in subsidies to help low-income families and students afford their monthly internet bill.The proposed legislation, backed by Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J., is one of the leading contenders to make up the broadband aspect of the coming infrastructure package. But it’s not the only one. (It wasn’t even the only one last week.)House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn, D-S.C., and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., last Thursday reintroduced legislation to authorize $94 billion in broadband spending. The legislation, also backed by Pallone, overlaps to an extent with the bill introduced by Energy and Commerce Democrats but has provisions specifically aimed at deploying service in unserved and underserved communities.“Access to broadband today will have the same dramatic impact on rural communities as the rural electrification efforts in the last century,” Clyburn said in a statement. “When I formed the Rural Broadband Task Force, our mission was to address the digital divide. The disparate effects of that divide have been amplified during the COVID-19 pandemic and exposed the urgency of ensuring universal access to high-speed internet.”Clyburn’s proposal won immediate support from Democratic commissioners at the Federal Communications Commission, including acting Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, as well as a wide variety of industry groups and advocacy organizations.“For the last year the conversation around closing the digital divide has centered on short-term, urgent solutions necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic,” John Windhausen Jr., executive director of the nonprofit Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition, said in a statement. “While these efforts are critical, we also need long-term solutions to address the enormous inequities in our broadband landscape so we are better prepared for the next crisis.”So far it isn’t clear exactly how Democrats plan to move their infrastructure bill through Congress. Party leaders have left open the possibility of bypassing the Senate filibuster by passing the infrastructure package through the budget reconciliation process, similar to last week’s relief package, but they say they first want to appeal for Republican support.Broadband, especially in rural areas, is a longtime priority for Republican lawmakers, but they have their own ideas for how it should be deployed. Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker, the top Republican on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, earlier this month announced legislation that would use proceeds from an FCC spectrum auction to establish a rural broadband fund worth up to $65 billion.“This legislation would preserve valuable resources to expand broadband access in unserved areas, secure the nation’s communications supply chain, and promote the development of next-generation technologies,” Wicker said in a statement.Broadband access is key to solving the digital divide and inequalitiesWest & Karsten ’16; [Darrell M. West; is vice president and director of Governance Studies and holds the Douglas Dillon Chair. He is Co-Editor-in-Chief of TechTank. His current research focuses on artificial intelligence, robotics, and the future of work. West is also director of the John Hazen White Manufacturing Initiative. Prior to coming to Brookings, he was the John Hazen White Professor of Political Science and Public Policy and Director of the Taubman Center for Public Policy at Brown University; Jack Karsten; was a Senior Research Analyst with the Center for Technology Innovation at The Brookings Institution. He also served as the Managing Editor of the Institution's TechTank blog; 7/18/16; Brookings; “Rural and urban America divided by broadband access”; ; accessed: 7/16/21; YS]The battle for broadband is far from over with a recent court ruling upholding net neutrality. Most importantly, the decision maintains that the internet is a public utility, as critical as phone service and power. This preserves the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) authority to heavily regulate Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and internet infrastructure to ensure everyone can enjoy equal access to this public utility.However, these new rules fail to rectify existing inequalities between urban and rural communities. The FCC in 2015 redefined broadband as connections with 25 megabits per second (Mbps) download speeds and 4 Mbps upload speeds. This is more than six times the previous standard of 4 Mbps download, allowing for multiple simultaneous video streams. According to the FCC’s 2016 Broadband Progress Report, 10 percent of Americans lack access to broadband by this definition. This number, however, fails to illustrate the stark contrast between rural and urban access to broadband. Rural areas have significantly slower internet access, with 39 percent lacking access to broadband of 25/4 Mbps, compared to only 4 percent for urban areas. This rural/urban “digital divide” in access severely limits rural populations from taking advantage of a critical component of modern life.While rural broadband access has improved with the help of the FCC, the digital divide remains too large to bring rural communities fully into the digital age. The internet has become a necessity in modern life for communication, information services, and work. The FCC has been responsible for universal service of telecommunications since its inception in 1934, creating equal access to communications like phone service. In 2007, the Joint Board of the FCC redefined the concept of universal service to include broadband. Coupled with the recent net neutrality decision, the FCC wields a powerful precedent to create equal access to broadband.This discrepancy in access inhibits rural communities in often unforeseen ways. While their YouTube stream may not be the highest quality, rural communities may also be unable to efficiently provide internet access to students in public schools. The FCC in 2013 established a standard of 100 Kbps per student, and by 2015, 77 percent of school districts met this standard. However, rural schools lack access to high-speed fiber and pay more than twice as much for bandwidth. In a growing world of personalized online curricula, internet-based research, and online testing, this severely restricts rural students from educational opportunities their urban counterparts may enjoy.Furthermore, rural communities may be unable to access critical government services. From Social Security to FAFSA, government services are transitioning to online access. Tax forms and services are being increasingly streamlined through online portals and tools, and with limited broadband speed, rural America may struggle to access these services.The FCC has worked to enable ISPs in rural communities. Rural markets present a massive entry costs for ISPs due to low population densities. Companies often have to lay their own fiber or cable to provide internet access, requiring extensive infrastructural investment. This barrier to entry greatly inhibits competition and limits the ability of ISPs to provide adequate high-speed coverage. However, the FCC has worked to mitigate these initial costs. Through its Connect America Fund, the FCC subsidizes some of the initial costs of ISPs entering rural markets, helping to bridge the divide in broadband access.To fulfill its role, the FCC must do more as a regulatory body to ensure equal access to this public utility. It has made efforts in recent years to expand the Connect America Fund, providing funding to create broadband access for over 7 million consumers over the next 6 years. However, the FCC must expand access alongside advances in technology rather than after the fact, satisfying increased demands for faster internet with infrastructure growth. Otherwise, rural communities will continue to play catch up with their urban counterparts and the U.S. will remain digitally divided.! – ChinaInfrastructure bill is key to deter China – it allows the U.S. to compete economically and prevents China from having any advantage Seib ’21; [Gerald F. Seib; the executive Washington editor for The Wall Street Journal. He was previously the Washington bureau chief, overseeing the Journal’s news and analysis from Washington; 4/5/21; The Wall Street Journal; “China Looms Large in Biden Infrastructure Plan”; ; accessed: 7/13/21; YS]Lurking just behind the domestic debate breaking out over President Biden’s $2.3 trillion infrastructure plans is a powerful foreign force: China.The Biden team sees the plan—and wants the Chinese to see the plan—as a sign the U.S. intends to put itself in better position to compete with Beijing economically. Thus, infrastructure marks just the latest example of how the specter of a long competition with China is beginning to color all manner of American policy moves, in both parties.At its heart, of course, the $2.3 trillion infrastructure proposal is a domestic-policy initiative, one that the administration argues will produce millions of jobs and an improved economy—and that Republicans over the weekend tore into as largely a progressive wish list hiding behind the disguise of infrastructure and financed by a job-killing corporate tax increase.Yet significant pieces of the package have been constructed with the express purpose of trying to put the U.S. on a better footing to compete with China and its own giant investments in infrastructure and key industries. The administration doesn’t want this to go unnoticed in Beijing. When President Biden unveiled the plan, he mentioned China six times, including this reference: “That’s what competition between America and China and the rest of the world is all about. It’s a basic question: Can democracies still deliver for their people?”And when Secretary of State Antony Blinken and national security adviser Jake Sullivan met top Chinese officials in Alaska just before Mr. Biden unveiled his plan, they purposely constructed the conversation so the first item on the agenda was a description of domestic initiatives. That allowed them to tell the Chinese what the administration was doing to fight the coronavirus—and what it intended to do to build up its competitive position. U.S. officials worry China sees the U.S. in a long-term state of decline and will act accordingly, and perhaps recklessly, as a result. They are eager to head off that impression, and the infrastructure program is a key part of that effort.“This is central to our national security strategy,” Mr. Sullivan said in an interview. “Central, essential, foundational to our national security strategy.”Of course, competition with China also provides the administration with a convenient selling point for its plan. And some of the plan’s provisions—expanded access to long-term care under Medicaid, for example, or expanded union organizing rights—certainly don’t qualify as essential to putting America on a better footing for international economic competition.Still, other elements of the plan are clearly constructed with an eye toward better competing with China, and in ways generally supported in both parties:—Providing $50 billion for semiconductor manufacturing and research. This proposal would put oomph and dollars behind a bipartisan initiative Congress pushed into a defense bill late last year, called the CHIPS Act, authorizing research and subsidies to increase domestic manufacturing of semiconductors and lessen dependence on China for the computer chips now essential to all manner of products.The leaders of the congressional push to help the semiconductor industry include Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, a conservative who agrees with the Biden administration on very little. The current shortage of chips plaguing the American auto industry underscores the arguments for this piece of the package. This is one of several areas where traditional conservative arguments against federal “industrial policy,” in which the government picks specific industries to boost with support from Washington, have fallen by the wayside in the face of Chinese advances.—Allotting $180 billion in federal funding for research and development. Government funding of pure research is one area broadly seen as a legitimate use of federal dollars, and one where China has been running faster. China now ranks second in the world in R&D spending, and has been closing the gap with the U.S., still the world leader.There won’t be bipartisan agreement on all the specifics of the Biden R&D proposal, particularly its hefty allotment of research funds for climate-change initiatives, but the idea has broad support. In a sense, this proposal marks the final reversal of a budget process called “sequestration” that kicked in a decade ago to enforce caps on federal spending, a process that compelled some federally funded labs to lay off researchers and, in some cases, close facilities.—Creating a new office in the Commerce Department, with a $50 billion budget, to work on bringing supply chains back to the U.S. from abroad. The coronavirus pandemic shocked Americans in many ways, including by revealing the extent to which the U.S. depends on medical supplies made in China. Health supplies are just one area in where that is the case.So, use some federal incentives to prompt companies to bring those supply chains back home—which, again, represents a new bipartisan impulse for 2021.Its key now – Chinese tech and R&D is bolstering amid perceptions of the U.S. as weak and vulnerable Detrow and Ordo?ez ’21; [Scott Detrow; is a White House correspondent for NPR and co-hosts the NPR Politics Podcast; is a White House Correspondent for NPR's Washington Desk. Before he came to NPR in 2019, Ordo?ez covered the White House for McClatchy. He has also written about diplomatic affairs, foreign policy and immigration, and has been a correspondent in Cuba, Colombia, Mexico and Haiti; 4/14/21; NPR; “For Biden, China Rivalry Adds Urgency To Infrastructure Push”; ; accessed: 7/13/21; YS]But the repeated references in Biden's comments about infrastructure and the proposals the White House sees as key to leveling the economic playing field with China also demonstrate how the administration is approaching both foreign and economic policy."If we don't act, we're just going to fall further behind. China spends three times as much on infrastructure as a share of GDP than we do," Daleep Singh, a deputy national security adviser, as well as deputy director of Biden's National Economic Council, told NPR in an interview."In the 1960s, around the time of Sputnik, we spent more on public [research and development] than any other country and companies combined — about 2% as a share of our economy. And that gave us a huge lead on technology until the 1990s. And now, if you look at what our federal government spends on public R&D, it's less than half that amount. And meanwhile, in China, there we've seen R&D expenditures increase roughly 30 times since 1990."In an increasingly protectionist and populist global environment — and after China and the U.S. amped up a trade war of tariffs and hostile rhetoric under President Donald Trump — the Biden administration worries the spending gap could allow China to set more terms on the global market.Biden officials and their Chinese counterparts have gotten off to a rocky start. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and national security adviser Jake Sullivan held a tense, confrontational meeting with Chinese diplomats last month in Anchorage, Alaska. The administration has left Trump-era tariffs in place. This week, Biden sent an unofficial delegation of former U.S. officials to Taiwan to show support for Taiwan amid heightened Chinese military maneuvers, even as Biden's climate envoy, John Kerry, prepared to travel to China to discuss collaboration on confronting climate change.Ali Wyne, who analyzes U.S.-China relations for the Eurasia Group, sees Biden's infrastructure pitch as the latest amplification of an escalating argument that Chinese and American leaders are carrying out on a global stage.Wyne says there are three key audiences for what he calls dueling narratives from the Biden administration and Chinese President Xi Jinping's government: U.S. and Chinese citizens, but also leaders in the rest of the world, who are making decisions each day about which country to align with.Wyne says China is arguing that it's now in the world's driver's seat, economically and politically. At the same time, he told NPR, China is arguing "that the United States is, sufficiently at this point, riven by domestic dysfunction and sufficiently uncertain about its course in world affairs. That it is no longer just in relative decline, but it has in fact entered into a state of acute terminal decline.""And the United States is pushing back," Wyne explained, "saying, nope, we are going to reinvent ourselves at home and abroad and wait until this next chapter writes itself."You could hear the framing at play as Singh explained why the infrastructure plan would help the U.S. compete. "Look, China has global ambition, and their global ambition is centered upon their economy and their technological progress," he said.The administration is worried that China is outpacing the U.S. on not only physical infrastructure but also research on artificial intelligence, high-speed computing and communications.The messaging also underscores just how committed the Biden administration is to tapping into the federal government's regulatory and market power in order to shift private industry."We're convinced that if we just leave it to the private sector, the amount of innovative capacity that we're going to generate is going to be lower than what is good for America, good for our national interests," Singh told NPR. "And so we're thinking really hard about how can the government help to shift incentives, provide resources, provide coordination?"This type of thinking is a huge shift from how the federal government has largely operated over the past few decades. It's part of the administration's return to an unapologetic approach to big government, a traditional approach of Democrats decades ago."The reality is, at home or abroad, we don't believe — I don't believe — the private sector by itself is going to solve the biggest problems we have in our society," said Singh. "Whether it's extreme levels of inequality or social disparity, an existential climate crisis or people dropping out of the workforce or stagnant wages."So far, this approach to both domestic and foreign policy isn't winning over Republicans. "I don't think it has anything to do with reality," said Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., an increasingly vocal critic of China.Chinese tech leadership leads to nuclear warKroenig 18, Deputy Director for Strategy, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security Associate Professor of Government and Foreign Service, Georgetown University (Matthew, Nov 12, 2018, “Will disruptive technology cause nuclear war?” BAS, )Recently, analysts have argued that emerging technologies with military applications may undermine nuclear stability (see here, here, and here), but the logic of these arguments is debatable and overlooks a more straightforward reason why new technology might cause nuclear conflict: by upending the existing balance of power among nuclear-armed states. This latter concern is more probable and dangerous and demands an immediate policy response. For more than 70 years, the world has avoided major power conflict, and many attribute this era of peace to nuclear weapons. In situations of mutually assured destruction (MAD), neither side has an incentive to start a conflict because doing so will only result in its own annihilation. The key to this model of deterrence is the maintenance of secure second-strike capabilities—the ability to absorb an enemy nuclear attack and respond with a devastating counterattack. Recently analysts have begun to worry, however, that new strategic military technologies may make it possible for a state to conduct a successful first strike on an enemy. For example, Chinese colleagues have complained to me in Track II dialogues that the United States may decide to launch a sophisticated cyberattack against Chinese nuclear command and control, essentially turning off China’s nuclear forces. Then, Washington will follow up with a massive strike with conventional cruise and hypersonic missiles to destroy China’s nuclear weapons. Finally, if any Chinese forces happen to survive, the United States can simply mop up China’s ragged retaliatory strike with advanced missile defenses. China will be disarmed and US nuclear weapons will still be sitting on the shelf, untouched. If the United States, or any other state acquires such a first-strike capability, then the logic of MAD would be undermined. Washington may be tempted to launch a nuclear first strike. Or China may choose instead to use its nuclear weapons early in a conflict before they can be wiped out—the so-called “use ‘em or lose ‘em” problem. According to this logic, therefore, the appropriate policy response would be to ban outright or control any new weapon systems that might threaten second-strike capabilities. This way of thinking about new technology and stability, however, is open to question. Would any US president truly decide to launch a massive, bolt-out-of-the-blue nuclear attack because he or she thought s/he could get away with it? And why does it make sense for the country in the inferior position, in this case China, to intentionally start a nuclear war that it will almost certainly lose? More important, this conceptualization of how new technology affects stability is too narrow, focused exclusively on how new military technologies might be used against nuclear forces directly. Rather, we should think more broadly about how new technology might affect global politics, and, for this, it is helpful to turn to scholarly international relations theory. The dominant theory of the causes of war in the academy is the “bargaining model of war.” This theory identifies rapid shifts in the balance of power as a primary cause of conflict. International politics often presents states with conflicts that they can settle through peaceful bargaining, but when bargaining breaks down, war results. Shifts in the balance of power are problematic because they undermine effective bargaining. After all, why agree to a deal today if your bargaining position will be stronger tomorrow? And, a clear understanding of the military balance of power can contribute to peace. (Why start a war you are likely to lose?) But shifts in the balance of power muddy understandings of which states have the advantage. You may see where this is going. New technologies threaten to create potentially destabilizing shifts in the balance of power. For decades, stability in Europe and Asia has been supported by US military power. In recent years, however, the balance of power in Asia has begun to shift, as China has increased its military capabilities. Already, Beijing has become more assertive in the region, claiming contested territory in the South China Sea. And the results of Russia’s military modernization have been on full display in its ongoing intervention in Ukraine. Moreover, China may have the lead over the United States in emerging technologies that could be decisive for the future of military acquisitions and warfare, including 3D printing, hypersonic missiles, quantum computing, 5G wireless connectivity, and artificial intelligence (AI). And Russian President Vladimir Putin is building new unmanned vehicles while ominously declaring, “Whoever leads in AI will rule the world.” If China or Russia are able to incorporate new technologies into their militaries before the United States, then this could lead to the kind of rapid shift in the balance of power that often causes war. If Beijing believes emerging technologies provide it with a newfound, local military advantage over the United States, for example, it may be more willing than previously to initiate conflict over Taiwan. And if Putin thinks new tech has strengthened his hand, he may be more tempted to launch a Ukraine-style invasion of a NATO member. Either scenario could bring these nuclear powers into direct conflict with the United States, and once nuclear armed states are at war, there is an inherent risk of nuclear conflict through limited nuclear war strategies, nuclear brinkmanship, or simple accident or inadvertent escalation. This framing of the problem leads to a different set of policy implications. The concern is not simply technologies that threaten to undermine nuclear second-strike capabilities directly, but, rather, any technologies that can result in a meaningful shift in the broader balance of power. And the solution is not to preserve second-strike capabilities, but to preserve prevailing power balances more broadly. When it comes to new technology, this means that the United States should seek to maintain an innovation edge. Washington should also work with other states, including its nuclear-armed rivals, to develop a new set of arms control and nonproliferation agreements and export controls to deny these newer and potentially destabilizing technologies to potentially hostile states. These are no easy tasks, but the consequences of Washington losing the race for technological superiority to its autocratic challengers just might mean nuclear Armageddon.--XT: Infra K2 Beat ChinaThe U.S. is falling behind China – new infrastructure investment is necessary to global competitivenessAnderson ’21; [Norman Anderson; the Chairman & CEO of CG/LA Infrastructure, a firm focused on global infrastructure project development, driving productivity across countries, and maximizing the benefits of infrastructure for people; 3/9/21; Forbes; “AI & The Biden Infrastructure Plan - How To Invest In Our Future”; ; accessed: 7/16/21; YS]Last week was a bad week for democracy, and for liberty globally - but hopefully a wake-up call for all of us. The Schmidt AI Report highlighted a huge danger in how quickly we could fall behind China in AI, across the board, and - especially from my point of view - in the area of infrastructure. China’s National People’s Congress - no way to sugarcoat this - set out goals, and a confident plan, for becoming the leading economy across the board, and across the world, with average 6% growth through to the end of the decade (U.S. growth is barely 1/3 of that, and we don’t set goals anyway). To top off the week Freedom House released their annual report showing an increase in the velocity of the fifteen year decline in democracy around the world - “The malign influence of the regime in China, the world’s most populous dictatorship, was especially profound in 2020.” This is not a good set of facts.What does AI have to do with infrastructure and investment? Everything. By focusing on the digitization and electrification of infrastructure we can drive an industrial Renaissance, turbo-charging a sustained period of productivity growth and opportunity creation. The best way to start is to unleash an AI mini moonshot on infrastructure by opening up the sector’s investment potential: addressing regulation (speed, transparency), so that great projects can be approved quickly; identifying best practices, so that the death valley of construction risk is minimized, or obliterated; and highlighting priority brownfield projects - digitizing and electrifying the $33 trillion in invested assets (the interstate highway system, our transmission network, our ports and waterways) - so that we finally put our industrial commons in a position to compete globally.China is emboldened by Trump – infrastructure investment will restore competitiveness and balanceBaer ’20; [Daniel Baer; is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and former U.S. ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe from 2013 to 2017; 11/6/20; Foreign Policy; “America Under Biden Won’t Go Soft on China”; ; accessed: 7/16/21; YS]A Biden White House is likely to oversee a steadier and more coherent China policy than the Trump administration, whose erratic approach careened from President Donald Trump’s fawning praise of Chinese President Xi Jinping—including reportedly condoning concentration camps in Xinjiang—to name-calling and fighting a failed tariff war. A consistent approach will bring more stability to a delicate and difficult relationship. But a more stable approach does not mean a soft one, since there is now a bipartisan recognition in the United States that China is a strategic competitor. Indeed, while Beijing may appreciate soon having a more predictable set of interlocutors, it should not expect them to be more pliable.Helping Biden is the fact that much of U.S. foreign policy is the prerogative of the president and therefore less constrained than domestic policy by the legislative branch. But if Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell remains in control of the U.S. Senate, one of the first tests for the Republicans in the Senate will be whether they will cut off America’s nose in order to spite the new president’s face. The United States needs a robust economic stimulus, including significant investment in infrastructure, in order to make it to the other side of the pandemic and jump-start the economy. Republicans who want to be tougher on China must recognize that a strong U.S. economy is a strategic imperative.Some commentators have suggested that the Trump presidency, and its undignified end, has emboldened Chinese government leaders and raised their confidence in the superiority of their own system. On Election Day, the editor of the Chinese government propaganda newspaper Global Times, Hu Xijin, gleefully posted on Twitter about storefronts being boarded up in U.S. cities, writing that unrest is usually a “complication of elections in poor countries, but people are worried it may appear in the US. The US is in degradation.” It should be noted, of course, that the Chinese Communist Party boards up its windows from the inside, metaphorically speaking, to keep citizens from seeing how the leaders of its authoritarian regime are selected.The bill is transformative and increases U.S. competitiveness – taking advantage is key Doctoroff ’21; [Andy Doctoroff; a Huntington Woods attorney, is an adjunct professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School where he teaches a class he created about infrastructure; 4/8/21; Detriot Free Press; “Biden's infrastructure plan: A chance to transform US economy | Opinion”; ; accessed: 7/16/21; YS]President Joe Biden’s American Jobs Plan contemplates mammoth investments in infrastructure. It has the potential to be transformational, and not just because of its $2 trillion price tag. In an era of public-private partnerships, the plan recognizes private investment cannot fill the yawning infrastructure funding gap; it places government front and center as the funder of projects that may not generate healthy revenue streams. It is visionary because it seeks to make our economy smarter and more competitive by focusing on emerging industries like 5G broadband and electric vehicles. By investing billions in home health care workers and other members of the labor force, it controversially expands beyond physical structures the definition of infrastructure to include “human infrastructure.”Never has a Congress as closely divided as this one is, in a country so polarized, passed a major piece of infrastructure legislation. If history were any guide — hopefully, it’s not — the odds of the American Jobs Plan becoming law would seem long, particularly if policy-makers overreach and allow opponents to effectively portray it as an untargeted “liberal wish-list.”But if Biden manages to seize this moment of challenge and shepherd through Congress a comprehensive infrastructure package, he will be remembered as one of the few presidents who marshalled the powers of the federal government to strengthen our public works, the backbone of any modern, dynamic economy.Contrary to what we hear from pundits, prodigiously spending money to improve infrastructure traditionally has not been as “American as apple pie.” Ambitious legislators who forget this fact increase the risk of squandering a singular opportunity to invest in our future, one only made possible during disruptive political and economic times – like those we face today.BBB is directly aimed at increasing growth and competitiveness with China in a variety of industriesTankersley ’21; [Jim Tankersley; is a White House correspondent for The New York Times, with a focus on economic policy. Over more than a decade covering politics and economics in Washington, he has written extensively about the stagnation of the American middle class and the decline of economic opportunity in wide swaths of the country; 3/24/21; NY Times; “Biden’s Task: Overhaul the Economy, as Fast as Possible”; ; accessed: 7/16/21; YS]Mr. Biden’s forthcoming proposals, which aides and documents suggest could cost as much as $4 trillion over the next decade, are a pivot to the core economic agenda he campaigned on: rebuilding infrastructure, revitalizing America’s competitiveness in emerging industries and reducing the barriers that hold back men of color and women in the workplace.Mr. Biden will have the benefit of momentum in pushing them, and of a political moment that seems ripe for another large spending bill. Democrats are riding high on the public approval ratings for their coronavirus relief bill across the country. Even the most conservative Democrats in the Senate are eager to spend big again to address infrastructure concerns that have festered for a decade, and to combat widened income inequality that has helped fuel the rise of populist politicians in both parties.A year of protests over racial justice, and an early administration focus on racial equity, has energized liberal lawmakers to move aggressively to close racial opportunity gaps in the economy. And across party lines in Washington, warnings over increased federal deficits have quieted, as lawmakers voted repeatedly over the past year to spend trillions of dollars to sustain the economy through crisis.Still, Mr. Biden’s next economic task will be much more difficult than his relief bill, which sailed through the House and Senate with only Democratic votes. Moderate Democrats are more insistent this time that the process engage Republicans, and that at least some of the spending be paid for with tax increases that could add up to trillions of dollars. Conservatives have already lined up to reject Mr. Biden’s plans to force corporations and the rich to pay more to fund the programs.In navigating those obstacles, Mr. Biden faces a strategic dilemma: how to pass as much of his potentially transformative agenda, as quickly as possible, through the narrow window afforded him by Democrats’ thin margins in the House and Senate.Mr. Biden’s team has recommended that he split his efforts between two bills, totaling $3 trillion in new spending and up to $1 trillion more in tax breaks, seeing that as a way to ensure that at least part of his agenda makes it through Congress.Some allies wonder whether the president is willing to compromise the “human” half of his spending priorities — his plans to invest in educational access and programs to lift women in the work force, including help with care for children and aging parents — to secure what would be the most expensive federal investment ever in roads, bridges, public power and the building blocks of a low-carbon energy economy.Liberal economists stress that if he wants to truly upgrade the economy, Mr. Biden needs both.“This is actually a really exciting and important moment, in terms of the compelling argument for expanding our concept of infrastructure to include human capital — the idea that strengthening both the work force and the access around care is crucial,” said Thea Lee, the president of the liberal Economic Policy Institute, a think tank in Washington.“There is an old-fashioned way of thinking,” she said, “which is the only thing that counts as an investment in the future is tangible, a structure that you can pick up or kick.”Mr. Biden is a politician who loves to build big, tangible things, preferably assembled by well-paid, blue-collar union members. In the waning days of his vice presidency, in 2016, he toured the Mississippi River to celebrate projects built with money from an $800 billion economic stimulus bill that had passed seven years before. He stopped at a port, a bus and train terminal, and a rail yard where he declared, “I’m a railroad guy.”In his campaign, he spoke frequently of the need to build more in the United States to improve the economy and better compete with international rivals like China in a host of emerging industries like fifth-generation cellular networks, known as 5G, and advanced battery manufacturing. Like President Donald J. Trump before him, he has set ambitious goals to reverse a decades-long slide in American factory employment, pledging to create at least five million new jobs in manufacturing and innovation. Aides say he is particularly fond of repeating his pledge to install 500,000 electric-car charging stations across the country.The “Build Back Better” plan that his economic advisers recommended Mr. Biden pursue this week would lead with those physical investments: a combination of spending and tax incentives on traditional infrastructure, high-growth industry cultivation and carbon-reducing energy investment that documents suggest could top $2 trillion.But Mr. Biden’s economic advisers emphasize that the economy needs more than construction to increase productivity and achieve the president’s goals. They argue that it also needs investments in education, like universal prekindergarten and free community college, and in efforts to relieve the burdens of caring for family that often hamper working women. Those initiatives are included in the second half of the proposal that aides took to Mr. Biden this week, along with extensions of newly expanded tax credits meant to fight poverty.On Wednesday, the chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, Cecilia Rouse, and another of the council’s members, Heather Boushey, said initiatives like providing paid leave and reducing child care costs are critical pieces of building an economy where women can work and earn more.“This next package is really about investing in our future and making the kind of smart investments that we know will increase growth,” Ms. Rouse said at a White House news briefing. “And we want that growth to be widely shared.”“These aren’t simply women’s issues,” she said. “They affect all families, the ability of our economy to recover and our nation’s competitiveness.”! – CompetitivenessInfrastructure key to competitivenessO’Boyle 7/2 Mike O’Boyle is the Director of Electricity Policy for Energy Innovation. He directs the firm’s Power Sector Transformation program to uncover policy and technology solutions for a clean, reliable, and affordable U.S. electricity system. ["Without the American Jobs Plan, clean energy jobs will go to China and Europe," 7-2-2021, TheHill, Accessed 7-15-2021, URL: ] klyThe opportunity cost of inaction is particularly acute for clean energy technologies. With or without global action on climate, renewable energy and electric vehicles (EVs) are the technologies of the future. By 2024, EVs will cost the same upfront as their gasoline counterparts (with much cheaper fuel), and wind and solar energy are already the cheapest electricity on the planet.Even as COVID-19 was ravaging the world economy, clean energy technologies continued to thrive in 2020. Renewable electricity construction shattered records and accounted for 90 percent of the entire global power sector’s expansion, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). Electric vehicles did the same, increasing sales 43 percent year over year.Perhaps counter-intuitively, industry support can be paired with industry regulation to super-charge domestic clean energy manufacturing and create millions of American jobs. That is the American Jobs Plan’s vision — beating China and Europe to the clean energy future by pushing businesses to innovate while incentivizing them to capture this opportunity.China’s policies will continue to support the domestic manufacturing of solar panels and batteries, which are key components of the clean energy economy. Though China emits more planet-warming pollution than any other country, President Xi has also set goals to build more wind and solar power in the next nine years than today’s entire U.S. grid has online.European countries have cornered the international market on another emerging renewable technology: offshore wind. Proactive government support to build transmission lines, hold competitive auctions, and expand port infrastructure have allowed European companies to manufacture over 80 percent of the world’s offshore wind turbines and develop and own the majority of projects. Meanwhile, the technology now competes subsidy-free in European electricity markets and employs 110,000 Europeans. Because they command the market, virtually all major offshore wind turbine manufacturers reside in Europe — meaning any U.S. offshore wind farm built in the near-term will have to rely on European manufacturing.The American Jobs Plan is a national strategy to bring these jobs back home. Pairing a national clean electricity standard, which requires utilities to buy clean power, with high-road labor standards and domestic manufacturing support, will expand the middle class by creating jobs that pay wages higher than the national average while reducing air pollution and enhancing environmental justice. A recent report from the University of California, Berkeley, and Energy Innovation, where I serve as director of electricity policy, found the American Jobs Plan would generate $1.5 trillion in investments and up to 1 million jobs by 2030 in every corner of the country. It should also be noted that I helped author the report.Renewable energy is cheap and plentiful enough to replace 80 percent of existing coal-fired power plants locally at no additional cost to consumers. And Princeton research shows high-road labor standards can push wind and solar salaries higher than average fossil fuel jobs, without meaningfully increasing customer electricity bills. The American Jobs Plan also positions the U.S. to lead on the next generation of clean electricity technologies by investing $50 billion in emerging technologies including offshore wind, green hydrogen, advanced nuclear, carbon capture, and battery storage. China and Europe are investing in these opportunities, why aren’t we?The story is similar for electric vehicles. In 2020, Europe’s electric vehicle registrations grew more than any major economy, nearly catching China’s market share. They did it by combining government investments in charging, customer incentives, and the world’s most stringent regulations on auto manufacturers. For Europe, dealing with climate change and air pollution also means leading the electric vehicle revolution.While China leads the world in battery manufacturing and electric vehicle deployment, its true competitive advantage is its leadership on electric buses and trucks. China owns 95 percent of the electric bus market and 90 percent of the global heavy-duty electric truck market. According to IEA, China’s local air pollution standards account for induced demand for these technologies and could save transit and shipping companies trillions in fuel costs by 2035.It’s clear U.S. auto manufacturers see the writing on the wall: GM pledged to sell 100 percent electric vehicles by 2035 while Ford plans to invest more than $22 billion in EVs through 2025. Federal infrastructure investment and market support can empower these stalwarts of American industry to recapture domestic and international leadership.The American Jobs Plan invests in charging infrastructure and consumer incentives for electric vehicles to keep pace with Europe and China. It creates a tax credit to support the market for electric and fuel cell trucks and other heavy vehicles. It also invests $25 billion in electric buses, and $20 billion in electrifying school buses, reducing kids’ exposure to pollution. California shows the payoff of these types of policies — electric vehicles were the state’s top export in 2020. More than 275,000 people work in California’s electric vehicle industry, earning more than $90,000 annually on average, more than the statewide average manufacturing salary of $80,000 per year. California and other states with zero-emission vehicle regulations deserve substantial credit for U.S. electric vehicle leadership to this point.If we do nothing to stimulate domestic production and demand for clean energy technologies, we forfeit any chance to maximize our share of the jobs they are already creating in other nations. The demand for these technologies is surging globally, regardless of U.S. policy. It’s up to Congress to determine if we will lead the world in supplying these technologies or sit back and let China and Europe do it. Passing the clean energy investments in the American Jobs Plan would give American businesses the support they need to expand the middle class and win the 21st century.ExtinctionBaird 20 – A.B. Phi Beta Kappa and J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, Member of the Aspen Strategy Group, CEO and President of the Markle Foundation, Former Trustee at the Council on Foreign Relations and Partner in the law firm of O’Melveny & MyersZo?, October. “Equitable Economic Recovery Is a National Security Imperative”, in Domestic and International (Dis)Order: A Strategic Response, Ed. Bitounis and King, October 2020, p. 89-90Broadly shared economic prosperity is a bedrock of America’s economic and political strength—both domestically and in the international arena. A strong and equitable recovery from the economic crisis created by COVID-19 would be a powerful testament to the resilience of the American system and its ability to create prosperity at a time of seismic change and persistent global crisis. Such a recovery could attack the profound economic inequities that have developed over the past several decades. Without bold action to help all workers access good jobs as the economy returns, the United States risks undermining the legitimacy of its institutions and its international standing. The outcome will be a key determinant of America’s national security for years to come.An equitable recovery requires a national commitment to help all workers obtain good jobs—particularly the two-thirds of adults without a bachelor’s degree and people of color who have been most affected by the crisis and were denied opportunity before it. As the nation engages in a historic debate about how to accelerate economic recovery, ambitious public investment is necessary to put Americans back to work with dignity and opportunity. We need an intentional effort to make sure that the jobs that come back are good jobs with decent wages, benefits, and mobility and to empower workers to access these opportunities in a profoundly changed labor market.To achieve these goals, American policy makers need to establish job growth strategies that address urgent public needs through major programs in green energy, infrastructure, and health. Alongside these job growth strategies, we need to recognize and develop the talents of workers by creating an adult learning system that meets workers’ needs and develops skills for the digital economy. The national security community must lend its support to this cause. And as it does so, it can bring home the lessons from the advances made in these areas in other countries, particularly our European allies, and consider this a realm of international cooperation and international engagement.Shared Economic Prosperity Is a National Security AssetA strong economy is essential to America’s security and diplomatic strategy. Economic strength increases our influence on the global stage, expands markets, and funds a strong and agile military and national defense. Yet it is not enough for America’s economy to be strong for some—prosperity must be broadly shared. Widespread belief in the ability of the American economic system to create economic security and mobility for all—the American Dream— creates credibility and legitimacy for America’s values, governance, and alliances around the world.After World War II, the United States grew the middle class to historic size and strength. This achievement made America the model of the free world—setting the stage for decades of American political and economic leadership. Domestically, broad participation in the economy is core to the legitimacy of our democracy and the strength of our political institutions. A belief that the economic system works for millions is an important part of creating trust in a democratic government’s ability to meet the needs of the people.The COVID-19 Crisis Puts Millions of American Workers at RiskFor the last several decades, the American Dream has been on the wane. Opportunity has been increasingly concentrated in the hands of a small share of workers able to access the knowledge economy. Too many Americans, particularly those without four-year degrees, experienced stagnant wages, less stability, and fewer opportunities for advancement.Since COVID-19 hit, millions have lost their jobs or income and are struggling to meet their basic needs—including food, housing, and medical care.1 The crisis has impacted sectors like hospitality, leisure, and retail, which employ a large share of America’s most economically vulnerable workers, resulting in alarming disparities in unemployment rates along education and racial lines. In August, the unemployment rate for those with a high school degree or less was more than double the rate for those with a bachelor’s degree.2 Black and Hispanic Americans are experiencing disproportionately high unemployment, with the gulf widening as the crisis continues.3The experience of the Great Recession shows that without intentional effort to drive an inclusive recovery, inequality may get worse: while workers with a high school education or less experienced the majority of job losses, nearly all new jobs went to workers with postsecondary education. Inequalities across racial lines also increased as workers of color worked in the hardest-hit sectors and were slower to recover earnings and income than White workers.4The Case for an Inclusive RecoveryA recovery that promotes broad economic participation, renewed opportunity, and equity will strengthen American moral and political authority around the world. It will send a strong message about the strength and resilience of democratic government and the American people’s ability to adapt to a changing global economic landscape. An inclusive recovery will reaffirm American leadership as core to the success of our most critical international alliances, which are rooted in the notion of shared destiny and interdependence. For example, NATO, which has been a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy and a force of global stability for decades, has suffered from American disengagement in recent years. A strong American recovery—coupled with a renewed openness to international collaboration—is core to NATO’s ability to solve shared geopolitical and security challenges. A renewed partnership with our European allies from a position of economic strength will enable us to address global crises such as climate change, global pandemics, and refugees. Together, the United States and Europe can pursue a commitment to investing in workers for shared economic competitiveness, innovation, and long-term prosperity.The U.S. has unique advantages that give it the tools to emerge from the crisis with tremendous economic strength— including an entrepreneurial spirit and the technological and scientific infrastructure to lead global efforts in developing industries like green energy and biosciences that will shape the international economy for decades to come.--Infrastructure Bill K2 CompetitivenessInfrastructure bill key to US economic competitivenessTankersley 21 – White House Correspondent and Former Tax and Economics Editor for the New York TimesJim, 3/26. ““Biden’s Task: Overhaul the Economy, as Fast as Possible.” The New York Times, LexisMr. Biden’s forthcoming proposals, which aides and documents suggest could cost as much as $4 trillion over the next decade, are a pivot to the core economic agenda he campaigned on: rebuilding infrastructure, revitalizing America’s competitiveness in emerging industries and reducing the barriers that hold back men of color and women in the workplace.Mr. Biden will have the benefit of momentum in pushing them, and of a political moment that seems ripe for another large spending bill. Democrats are riding high on the public approval ratings for their coronavirus relief bill across the country. Even the most conservative Democrats in the Senate are eager to spend big again to address infrastructure concerns that have festered for a decade, and to combat widened income inequality that has helped fuel the rise of populist politicians in both parties.A year of protests over racial justice, and an early administration focus on racial equity, has energized liberal lawmakers to move aggressively to close racial opportunity gaps in the economy. And across party lines in Washington, warnings over increased federal deficits have quieted, as lawmakers voted repeatedly over the past year to spend trillions of dollars to sustain the economy through crisis.Still, Mr. Biden’s next economic task will be much more difficult than his relief bill, which sailed through the House and Senate with only Democratic votes. Moderate Democrats are more insistent this time that the process engage Republicans, and that at least some of the spending be paid for with tax increases that could add up to trillions of dollars. Conservatives have already lined up to reject Mr. Biden’s plans to force corporations and the rich to pay more to fund the programs.In navigating those obstacles, Mr. Biden faces a strategic dilemma: how to pass as much of his potentially transformative agenda, as quickly as possible, through the narrow window afforded him by Democrats’ thin margins in the House and Senate.Mr. Biden’s team has recommended that he split his efforts between two bills, totaling $3 trillion in new spending and up to $1 trillion more in tax breaks, seeing that as a way to ensure that at least part of his agenda makes it through Congress.Some allies wonder whether the president is willing to compromise the “human” half of his spending priorities — his plans to invest in educational access and programs to lift women in the work force, including help with care for children and aging parents — to secure what would be the most expensive federal investment ever in roads, bridges, public power and the building blocks of a low-carbon energy economy.Liberal economists stress that if he wants to truly upgrade the economy, Mr. Biden needs both.“This is actually a really exciting and important moment, in terms of the compelling argument for expanding our concept of infrastructure to include human capital — the idea that strengthening both the work force and the access around care is crucial,” said Thea Lee, the president of the liberal Economic Policy Institute, a think tank in Washington.“There is an old-fashioned way of thinking,” she said, “which is the only thing that counts as an investment in the future is tangible, a structure that you can pick up or kick.”Mr. Biden is a politician who loves to build big, tangible things, preferably assembled by well-paid, blue-collar union members. In the waning days of his vice presidency, in 2016, he toured the Mississippi River to celebrate projects built with money from an $800 billion economic stimulus bill that had passed seven years before. He stopped at a port, a bus and train terminal, and a rail yard where he declared, “I’m a railroad guy.”In his campaign, he spoke frequently of the need to build more in the United States to improve the economy and better compete with international rivals like China in a host of emerging industries like fifth-generation cellular networks, known as 5G, and advanced battery manufacturing. Like President Donald J. Trump before him, he has set ambitious goals to reverse a decades-long slide in American factory employment, pledging to create at least five million new jobs in manufacturing and innovation. Aides say he is particularly fond of repeating his pledge to install 500,000 electric-car charging stations across the country.The “Build Back Better” plan that his economic advisers recommended Mr. Biden pursue this week would lead with those physical investments: a combination of spending and tax incentives on traditional infrastructure, high-growth industry cultivation and carbon-reducing energy investment that documents suggest could top $2 trillion.Infrastructure bill key to competitiveness---makes critical investments in the backbone of the economyPrivate investment can’t fill in on the necessary scaleDoctoroff 21 – Huntington Woods attorney, adjunct professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School where he teaches a class he created about infrastructureAndy, 4/8. “Biden's infrastructure plan: A chance to transform US economy | Opinion.” Joe Biden’s American Jobs Plan contemplates mammoth investments in infrastructure. It has the potential to be transformational, and not just because of its $2 trillion price tag. In an era of public-private partnerships, the plan recognizes private investment cannot fill the yawning infrastructure funding gap; it places government front and center as the funder of projects that may not generate healthy revenue streams. It is visionary because it seeks to make our economy smarter and more competitive by focusing on emerging industries like 5G broadband and electric vehicles. By investing billions in home health care workers and other members of the labor force, it controversially expands beyond physical structures the definition of infrastructure to include “human infrastructure.”Never has a Congress as closely divided as this one is, in a country so polarized, passed a major piece of infrastructure legislation.If history were any guide — hopefully, it’s not — the odds of the American Jobs Plan becoming law would seem long, particularly if policy-makers overreach and allow opponents to effectively portray it as an untargeted “liberal wish-list.”But if Biden manages to seize this moment of challenge and shepherd through Congress a comprehensive infrastructure package, he will be remembered as one of the few presidents who marshalled the powers of the federal government to strengthen our public works, the backbone of any modern, dynamic economy.Contrary to what we hear from pundits, prodigiously spending money to improve infrastructure traditionally has not been as “American as apple pie.” Ambitious legislators who forget this fact increase the risk of squandering a singular opportunity to invest in our future, one only made possible during disruptive political and economic times – like those we face today.Through the ages, nations have spent blood and treasure constructing and maintaining what we now call “infrastructure” – a word whose etymology traces only from 1927 and that now connotes structures “built to last” and connecting people, places, or things.The Roman Empire coalesced thanks partly to its vast network of well-constructed roads stretching more than 250,000 miles and fusing 113 provinces, achieving what one historian called a “reorganization of space.”China today remains committed to its $4 to $8 trillion Belt and Road Initiative – intended to create a multi-continental Sinocentric trade network of ports, highways, railroads, tunnels, airports, and dams.But fully funding physical infrastructure to secure our own country’s economic health (not to mention pride) is a road we have rarely taken.During Antebellum America, Jeffersonian Democrats and states’ rights advocates believed a strong central government both was unconstitutional and threatened slavery and, therefore, vigorously (and successfully) opposed federal investments in “internal improvements.”Congressional majorities would have nothing to do with the Erie Canal, whose construction was financed with bonds issued by New York State. “If Congress can make canals,” a Southern senator said in 1818, “they can make more property emancipated.”Washington’s hands-off approach to public works continued for much of the next century. Falling prey to the spread of infectious diseases, urban populations at the turn of the twentieth century had limited access to sanitation systems, a state of affairs summoning to mind Winston Churchill’s pungent observation that there is “little glory in an Empire which can rule the waves and is unable to flush its sewers.”In 1919, Dwight Eisenhower led the Army’s first transcontinental motor convoy, a 62-day journey that was, according to biographer Jean Edward Smith, “marred by ... rain that turned dirt into gumbo ... collapsed bridges, deeply rutted roadways, and the absence in places of any roadbed whatsoever.”This legacy of underinvestment in infrastructure lives on today: The 2021 “report card” issued by the American Society of Civil Engineers calculates an infrastructure funding gap totaling $2.59 trillion. It should come as no surprise the ASCE assigns our country’s roads a lowly “D.” Congress last raised in 1994 the gasoline tax, which pays for highway and bridge construction. Since then, inflation has increased by 79%. Michigan’s road funding quandary is partly attributable to this erosion of purchasing power.Thus, any notion the United States traditionally has robustly funded public works misunderstands the history of infrastructure, which has witnessed long periods of stasis or neglect punctuated by rare bursts of federal investment. Those moments occurred only when political stars aligned – usually during a crisis with a Congress dominated by legislators favoring a strong federal government.It was during the Civil War when Southern secession left Congress controlled by activist Republicans who passed legislation that created the Transcontinental Railroad. (A nearly insolvent federal government later subsidized railroads by deeding unceded Indian lands and resorting to gimmicky “taxless” financing schemes.) It was during the Great Depression when New Deal Democrats commanded overwhelming majorities and worked with President Franklin Roosevelt to create the Works Progress Administration, which employed millions of laborers to build post offices, schools, dams, and roads that still shape our landscape.And it was in 1954 when a looming recession spurred President Dwight Eisenhower – recalling his firsthand experience on muddy and makeshift roads decades earlier – to team with a broad congressional coalition of progressives and moderates to create the interstate highway system.Exceptions to the general rule of chronic infrastructure underfunding are rare, which is why a Pulitzer Prize-winning biography was written about Robert Moses, the New York “power broker” who built ribbons of highway after bending legislatures to his will.Congressional enactment of the Biden administration’s American Jobs Plan would, in one unprecedented stroke, reverse the United States’ centuries-long and rarely interrupted history of underfunding public works — and history will forever have its eyes on him.! – EconomyMajor infrastructure spending and investment is crucial to a large-scale economic recovery from COVIDLarsen ’21; [Nicholas Larsen; International Banker; Finance Publishing Limited, the parent company of the International Banker, International Director and Forex Focus is a global leading source of authoritative analysis and opinion on banking, finance and world affairs. We deliver our information with excellence through a wide range of accessible formats, from newsletters and magazines to websites, mobile apps, videos, conferences and documentaries. We are dedicated to providing extensive financial news, commentary and insights to strategic global markets; 5/31/21; “THE CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE OF INVESTMENT IN PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ECONOMIC RECOVERY”; ; accessed: 7/12/21; YS]It is not only the United States that plans to rejuvenate the economy through infrastructure spending. With the coronavirus pandemic decimating economies all over the world, and with interest rates at rock bottom or even in negative territory in the US, the eurozone, Japan and other major economies, governments are increasingly having to look towards adopting more active fiscal policy. By boosting infrastructure expenditure, many countries aim to kick-start not only GDP (gross domestic product) growth but also job creation.Indeed, infrastructure investment is a proven method of successfully stimulating growth in the aftermath of an economic shock. Perhaps most famously is the New Deal that US President Franklin D. Roosevelt enacted in 1933 to accelerate the US recovery from the Great Depression. Among the reforms was a package of public-works programmes to build and improve the country’s infrastructure, including roads, dams, schools and airports. It was largely successful, providing more than 10 million jobs for the unemployed and lowering the unemployment rate significantly over the next decade.Biden’s American Jobs Plan, meanwhile, is an approximately $2-trillion initiative to improve American infrastructure and transition towards greener energy over the next eight years. “The United States of America is the wealthiest country in the world, yet we rank 13th when it comes to the overall quality of our infrastructure,” the plan states. “It has never been more important for us to invest in strengthening our infrastructure and competitiveness, and in creating the good-paying, union jobs of the future.”The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has similarly called for governments all over the world to capitalise on this low interest-rate environment and boost infrastructure spending to drive economic recovery from the pandemic. “Investment is now urgently required in sectors critical to controlling the pandemic, such as health care, schools, safe buildings, safe transportation, and digital infrastructure,” the IMF stated in its fiscal monitor report in October. It also calculated that by increasing their public investment by 1 percent of GDP, advanced and developing economies could grow their GDP by 2.7 percent as well as create seven million jobs directly and between 20 million and 33 million jobs in total when accounting for the indirect macroeconomic effects of such investment. “Even before the pandemic, global investment had been weak for over a decade, despite crumbling roads and bridges in some advanced economies and massive infrastructure needs for transportation, clean water, sanitation, and more in most emerging and developing economies,” IMF’s fiscal affairs director, Vitor Gaspar, wrote in October, adding that “low interest rates globally also signal that the time is right to invest”.The research strongly supports infrastructure investment as a leading stimulus for economic growth, moreover. The Global Infrastructure Hub, a G20-created organisation that connects the global community in helping to fulfil the group’s infrastructure ambitions, found that public investment—which represents a proxy for government investment in infrastructure—is more effective than other types of public spending in increasing economic output, particularly over the medium term. This was the main finding from the Hub’s analysis of more than 3,000 estimates of the fiscal multiplier—that is, the impact that increases in fiscal spending will have on GDP—from more than 200 academic studies over the last 25 years, published in December 2020 to support the “G20 Action Plan in Response to the Covid-19 Pandemic”.The research also found that public investment has an average fiscal multiplier of about 0.8 within one year and around 1.5 within two to five years. These multipliers are higher than those found for public spending as a whole across both timeframes. Perhaps more importantly, given the current climate, the research revealed that “this multiplier effect tends to be larger—at around 1.6—during the contractionary phase of the economic cycle, suggesting that public investment is generally less likely to ‘crowd out’ private economic activity in times of recession”.Such analysis bodes well for turning to public-infrastructure investment as a tool for stimulating economic growth and job creation during this recovery phase. It can also prove particularly effective given the unique nature of the COVID-19 economic crisis, caused by the global shutdown of economic activity rather than fiscal imbalance and/or economic mismanagement that have typically triggered previous crises. In turn, this means that a rapid global rebound in activity should transpire on this occasion; that said, the longer the coronavirus continues to weigh on economic activity, the greater the magnitude of the fiscal intervention required through such measures as infrastructure spending.Nonetheless, government stimulus programs can also use this opportunity to direct funding towards more sustainable and green infrastructure, which will boost the resilience of infrastructure to climate-change threats. Indeed, the IMF highlighted that public investment in such infrastructure projects could both address climate change and pay back more than two to one in economic growth within two years.It’s now or never – the economy is regressing day by day and investment in infrastructure is necessary to avert future disasterBriaud and Lahood ’21; [Jean-Louis Briaud; is president of the American Society of Civil Engineers and a professor at Texas A&M University; Ray LaHood; is a co-chair of Building America’s Future. He previously was U.S. secretary of transportation from 2009 to 2013 and a seven-term member of the U.S. House of Representatives, representing Illinois’s 18th District; 3/25/21; Fortune; “It’s time to invest in infrastructure like the economy depends on it”; ; accessed: 7/12/21; YS]Despite broad, bipartisan interest in infrastructure and strong interest from all recent Presidents, year after year we have not paid the bill. It’s now overdue and the costs keep rising with every day that passes. We’ve failed to make the investments needed to maintain infrastructure that in some cases was built more than 50 years ago.The economic harm if we don’t act is staggering and sobering. Unless Congress and the administration acts quickly to close the investment gap, the U.S. economy will be on pace to lose $10 trillion in growth and $2.4 trillion in exports over the next two decades. Millions of jobs will disappear.When we fail to adequately invest in our infrastructure, we all pay the price. Poor roads and airports mean travel times increase. An aging electric grid and inadequate water distribution make utilities unreliable. Problems like these translate into higher costs for businesses to manufacture and distribute goods and provide services. These higher costs, in turn, get passed along to workers and families. America’s overdue infrastructure bill is costing the average American household $3,300 a year—a hidden tax that weighs down families.Adding to the challenge: The COVID-19 pandemic’s negative impact on state funding for infrastructure programs threatens to derail the modest progress we’ve made in some areas—such as drinking water infrastructure—over the past four years.Decision-makers at all levels of government understand the critical role our infrastructure plays in supporting our quality of life and economy. But now we need more than understanding. We need action.The U.S. has an opportunity to build infrastructure in a way that supports our economic recovery, saves money, helps our businesses compete globally, and makes the whole system more resilient.Both sides agree we need to improve our infrastructure, and now is the time to act. It’s a case of pay now or pay later. The funding gap we have for infrastructure needs and repairs will balloon in the coming years if we don’t act.ASCE and Building America’s Future urge Congress and the Biden administration to work together, act boldly, and provide a sustained investment to raise the national infrastructure grade. If they do so, every American family, community, and business will have a better chance of thriving.If the US recovery falls behind, it emboldens Chinese challenges to the US-led order Lei ‘20 (Cui Lei – PhD in International Politics from Peking University, associate research fellow with the China Institute of International Studies, published dozens of academic articles and op-eds on international affairs, in addition to authoring a book on US nuclear strategies during the cold war. <KEN> “For the US and China, the coronavirus pandemic could be a game changer” Subtitle: “Coronavirus disruptions are shaping domestic political currents while the world’s assessment of their Covid-19 efforts could have lasting soft power ramifications” Subtitle: “Crucially, the race is on for economic recovery. Which economy bounces back faster from the coronavirus knock will affect the longer-term outcome of their power game” South China Morning Post. March 31, 2020. DOA: 4/16/2020. )The second factor is how the world scores the two on their efforts to fight Covid-19. Having defused the crisis at home, China is able to help other countries by sending medical equipment and personnel, gestures that can expand its influence overseas, at least in public health. The US, already wary of China’s growing influence, will not be comfortable with this. The outbreak may have stalled progress on China’s Belt and Road Initiative but not for long, and the heated contest between the two giants over soft power will continue in the wake of the pandemic. The future of US-China relations also hinges on their economic resilience. With its mass lockdowns, China controlled the outbreak but paid a huge economic price. China has achieved zero growth in local infections but it is still hard to return to normal, as the virus may be merely dormant, ready to return next winter or next year. The economic future will be grim, at least for the next few months, even if there are no further outbreaks. The US is no better than China, having also adopted restrictive measures to tackle the virus. It risks recession and huge debts after rounds of quantitative easing. The speed of each country’s economic recovery will affect the outcome of the US-China power game in the long run. If the US economy emerges more resilient and robust and the economic gap widens, China will have to take a softer line in the international arena. If the economic gap narrows, competition will intensify between an increasingly anxious US and a more confident China.Nuke war and AI militarization – extinction.Orts 18 (Eric Orts – the Guardsmark Professor at The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. “Foreign Affairs: Six Future Scenarios (and a Seventh),” June 27, 2018. )7. Fascist Nationalism. There is another possible future that the Foreign Affairs scenarios do not contemplate, and it’s a dark world in which Trump, Putin, Xi, Erdogan, and others construct regimes that are authoritarian and nationalist. Fascism is possible in the United States and elsewhere if big business can be seduced by promises of riches in return for the institutional keys to democracy. Perhaps Foreign Affairs editors are right to leave this dark world out, for it would be very dark: nationalist wars with risks of escalation into global nuclear conflict, further digital militarization (even Terminator-style scenarios of smart military robots), and unchecked climate disasters.The global challenges are quite large – and the six pieces do an outstanding job of presenting them. One must remain optimistic and engaged, hopeful that we can overcome the serious dangers of tribalism, nationalism, and new fascism. These "isms” of our time stand in the way of solving some of our biggest global problems, such as the risks of thermonuclear war and global climate catastrophe. However, although selective decoupling may take place, the effort to move production out of China will face strong headwinds. China is likely to remain central to the global economy over the next several years if not the next decade.--XT – Infrastructure Key to EconomyInfrastructure is the best tool to stimulate the economy and should be the top priority Smith ’21; [Noah Smith; a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He was an assistant professor of finance at Stony Brook University, and he blogs at Noahpinion; 1/13/21; “Biden Must Avoid Obama's Mistake When Setting His Agenda”; ; accessed: 7/16/21; YS]After the virus is beaten, the U.S. economy will still linger in recession unless the government acts decisively to boost demand. The best tool for doing this, as usual, is infrastructure investment. And the rapid progress in solar power and batteries means that Biden has a unique opportunity to address the climate crisis at the same time. A huge build-out of solar power and electric-car charging stations, including subsidies to rapidly replace fossil fuel plants and gasoline vehicles, will ensure that the U.S. economy comes roaring back while making huge steps toward decarbonization.Public health and green infrastructure should be the top priorities for Biden in 2021 and 2022. Yes, there are lots of other things in America that need reform, including health care. But the realities of the political system mean these will have to wait. Reforms must fit the crisis of the day; Biden can’t afford to get sidetracked on a quixotic quest to fix everything that’s wrong with the American economy.Investing in infrastructure is necessary to stimulate economic growth during recessionsAnderson et al. ’19; [Stacy A. Anderson; is the Communications Manager for the Hamilton Project in the Economic Studies program at Brookings; Ryan Nunn; is an assistant vice president for applied research in Community Development at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Previously, he was a fellow in Economics Studies at the Brookings Institution and policy director for The Hamilton Project. Prior to that role, he was an economist in the Office of Economic Policy at the U.S. Department of the Treasury. He has conducted work on a variety of topics ranging from occupational licensing and unemployment insurance to labor market trends and geographic disparities. He received his doctorate in Public Policy and Economics from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; Jay Shambaugh; is a nonresident senior fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution and former director of The Hamilton Project. He is also a Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Elliott School of International Affairs at The George Washington University; 7/2/19; Brookings; “Wise infrastructure investments can stabilize the economy and reduce climate risk”; ; accessed: 7/16/21; YS]Physical infrastructure underlies all economic activity, allowing consumers, workers, and firms to coordinate to mutual advantage. Getting infrastructure decisions right is a core part of economic policy, and infrastructure has been a constant topic of conversation in Washington, D.C. for years. As policymakers consider new directions for infrastructure policy, they should have in mind the following questions: when infrastructure should be built, what type of infrastructure is needed, and how to choose and fund infrastructure projects.For example, if infrastructure investments were better timed, they could help to minimize the damage and duration of a recession by working as effective fiscal stimulus. In the new Hamilton Project book, Recession Ready: Fiscal Policies to Stabilize the American Economy, economist Andrew Haughwout proposes an automatic infrastructure investment program that would use federal funds and local expertise to increase transportation spending during an economic downturn. This proposal would also incentivize states to develop a catalog of construction projects that the federal government would fund as soon as a recession begins. These projects could include improvements to highways, bridges, ports, and bus and rail transit, among other projects.Regardless of the timing of infrastructure spending, efficient selection of infrastructure projects is vital. When local knowledge is brought to bear, interjurisdictional spillovers are taken into account, and cost-benefit analysis is applied, the likelihood of efficient selection is significantly increased. This, in turn, allows infrastructure projects to be as effective as possible in facilitating economic growth and other social objectives, from public health challenges to climate risk.The lifespan of infrastructure projects can extend across generations, and choices we make today will affect where people live, how they travel, and how resilient our economy is to a changing climate. Accordingly, as policymakers consider the nation’s infrastructure needs and how best to meet them, the economic costs of climate change must be a chief concern. In a Hamilton Project proposal, economist Matthew Kahn describes infrastructure investments that would protect urban places and populations by making them more resilient to climate change and environmental threats, from severe storms to extreme heat. Kahn explains that new investments in infrastructure will be most effective if they flow to areas that face the largest climate risks and have the most difficulty in funding their own investments in resiliency.Moreover, policies must be adjusted to encourage population and economic activity to gradually flow towards places with inherent climate resiliency advantages. Kahn proposes diagnosing the risks through the creation of a real-time database of infrastructure gaps related to climate resiliency. City governments would be encouraged to assess their risks, generating annual reports on climate challenges.Investing in the most valuable projects will promote long-run economic growth and climate resilience, but infrastructure spending matters in the short run as well as the long run. This is evident in the important contribution that infrastructure investment makes to GDP. The investment of state and local governments—who do the bulk of infrastructure spending, even if the federal government pays for much of it via grants—makes a sizable contribution to annual GDP growth.This matters especially during recessions, when state and local governments tend to reduce their expenditures, thereby amplifying economic downturns. Perversely, recessions are the times when infrastructure investments make the most sense: interest rates are typically low and substantial amounts of capital and labor are idle, meaning that public investments are less likely to displace private activity.One good option to make more use of infrastructure spending as fiscal stimulus is to leverage the current BUILD (formerly TIGER) program in which states apply for infrastructure funding from the federal government. The objective, as proposed by Haughwout, would be to make BUILD funding countercyclical: during a recession, the program would automatically expand funding for state and local transportation projects, prioritizing shovel-ready plans with the potential to yield the highest returns. Funds would then shrink later in an expansion, given that in good times states are better able to fund their own projects. The proposed projects would go through rigorous cost benefit evaluation and would be insulated from political considerations, allowing for selection of the investments with the highest economic and social returns.While project timing, evaluation, and selection are of great importance, funding and financing decisions are also critical. A combination of taxation, user fees, and traditional borrowing are usually the most appropriate choices, as they allow for a transparent accounting of infrastructure costs. These and other infrastructure policy considerations are discussed in a Hamilton Project report that focuses on the key choices confronting policymakers.Much of our nation’s economic activity is made possible by roads and railways, parts of which were built over a century ago. Getting the decisions right regarding when we build infrastructure, what we build, and how we spend our money will affect our economy long into the future. Whether policymakers are facing the costs of climate change or cyclical economic downturns, they should consider the potential benefits of sound infrastructure investments.The bill includes investments in several areas of the economy - leads to overall growth Mangas ’21; [Robert Mangas; a shareholder in the firm’s Federal Government Law & Policy group. He has represented clients before Congress and federal agencies from a variety of industries and in a number of policy areas, including trade, energy, environment, health care, biotechnology, transportation, financial services, manufacturing, tax, pensions, defense, and foreign relations. Rob has a depth of understanding of the rules of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, and he has deep experience in legislative drafting. He previously served as chief of staff to U.S. Senator Wendell Ford, the former Senate Majority Whip; 2/23/21; GreenbergTraurig; “The ‘Second’ Reconciliation Bill? President Biden’s ‘Build Back Better’ Plan and the Agenda After COVID Legislation”; ; accessed: 7/16/21; YS]Although Congress is focused on COVID Relief legislation in the early weeks of 2021, the largest and most complex bill it will consider all year may be the Build Back Better plan proposed by President Biden. The President will address a joint session of Congress in the weeks ahead, where he will describe more details of the Build Back Better plan. It includes proposals in several areas that the Biden Administration believes are key to jumpstarting the economy. The proposals have a budget impact of more than $3 trillion and are grouped in the following areas:Infrastructure ($1.376 trillion): funding for roads and bridges, transit, aviation, water infrastructure, and broadbandClean Energy ($600 billion): electric car charging stations, electric grid upgrades, energy efficiency, carbon captureManufacturing and Workforce Support ($400 billion): manufacturing incentives, Buy American, minimum wage, paid leaveInnovation and R&D ($300 billion): funding for breakthrough technologies like electric vehicles, 5G, artificial intelligence (AI)Caregiver Economy ($775 billion): support for health care workers, home and community-based care, universal pre-K, child carInvesting in infrastructure would help economic recovery and allow the U.S. to compete globallyCoble ’21; [Bob Coble; s a former Richland County Council member and a former mayor of Columbia; 3/3/21; The State; “Federal infrastructure bill proposed by President Biden is needed now more than ever”; ; accessed: 7/16/21; YS]If there is anything in Washington that might — and I emphasize might — generate bipartisan support, it will be an infrastructure bill. While Congress and the president will undoubtedly debate the cost of such a bill, very b would argue that America’s infrastructure doesn’t need significant upgrading and modernizing.President Biden and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg have already met with a bipartisan group of senators to discuss the critical need for investing in modern and sustainable American infrastructure. And while this examination includes traditional transportation modes like roads, airports, railroads, and ports, it also includes support for water and sewer systems, power grids, renewable energy, and universal broadband networks.One priority that we have heard from both the president and the secretary is the importance of improving and expanding our passenger rail system. They have identified the need to build a more robust high-speed rail service throughout the country to support our global competitiveness as other countries like China outpace the U.S. when it comes to investing in high-speed rail.Investing in America’s aging infrastructure across urban and rural areas would advance our economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, create millions of good-paying jobs, and promote our ability to compete and succeed in the global economy.We do not have to look too far to see the issues facing Americans due to inadequate or antiquated infrastructure. The recent breakdown of the power grid in Texas during the recent winter storms shows that more should be done to ensure basic systems can withstand these events. Millions were without power for days, water systems failed, and hospitals struggled to remain open because of the conditions.Infrastructure key to the economyLeah Rubin Shen, 7/7/21, Leah Rubin Shen leads federal legislative and political engagement on advanced energy infrastructure and wholesale markets. She also supports AEE’s advanced energy manufacturing work and legislative and regulatory engagement in western states. Prior to joining AEE, Leah advised U.S. Senator Chris Coons on energy and environmental policy and studied new materials for fuel cells. “How to Turn $1 in Infrastructure Investment into $6 of Economic Impact? Spend It on Advanced Energy” […]As discussions move forward, our message to the White House and to members of Congress on both sides of the aisle is that federal investments in advanced energy technologies and infrastructure are a winning prospect. An?independent report?commissioned by AEE shows that federal investment in a range of advanced energy technologies and programs produces a?sixfold return on investment.?The analysis started with the categories of investment proposed in the American Jobs Plan, such as manufacturing, buildings, R&D, and the grid. The report authors then made reasonable assumptions about how much of each of those buckets would be spent on the advanced energy sector – just under $600 billion of the $2-trillion-plus American Jobs Plan. That amount was divided across a range of subsectors, including renewable energy, energy efficiency, transportation and building electrification, energy storage, grid modernization, transmission, and job training.?The conclusion? That not-quite-$600 billion investment results in $3.5 trillion added to GDP, over 28 million new jobs, $631 billion in additional federal, state, and local tax revenue, and over $74 billion in annual consumer savings. And the investment scales – more dollars invested in advanced energy means more jobs, consumer savings, and economic growth.A separate?report?from Analysis Group commissioned by AEE looks specifically at the results of $274 billion of public stimulus investment in transportation electrification (TE). Investments in TE, which are spread across a few categories in the analysis – including vehicle purchase incentives, manufacturing and domestic supply chain incentives, charging infrastructure build-out, workforce training, and research & development – would result in a $1.3 trillion contribution to the U.S. GDP, create 10.7 million jobs (in job-years), and generate $231 billion in additional tax revenue for federal, state, and local government. Beyond tax revenues and job creation, an investment of this scale would help accelerate the transition to EVs, saving consumers, governments, and businesses $19 billion annually in the process. While the proposed infrastructure package rightly includes investments in electric school and transit buses and building a nationwide network of EV chargers, it misses opportunities around EV purchase incentives and supply chain investments.?We appreciate the hard work that the President and the senators put into the bipartisan? agreement. Our country’s infrastructure has?massive needs, and the agreement, if it can be turned into legislation, passed through Congress, and signed into law, would make real investments that would address some of those needs. Democratic leaders have also said that they intend to move a separate infrastructure bill through the budget reconciliation process, allowing Democrats to address additional priorities that they cannot get Republican support for, such as climate policy and health care. Regardless of the legislative vehicle, we hope to see Congress make significant investments in advanced energy infrastructure this year. Otherwise, our country will miss out on trillions of dollars of economic benefits and the chance to ensure that America remains globally competitive during the energy transition.--Economy ImpactDiversionary tendencies cause nuclear war --unstable prolif only comes from diversion. A regime’s legitimacy concerns are intimately tied to the decision to use a nuclear weapon. Economic decline is the most powerful variable.--doesn’t matter if the audience actually cares about the diversion or not because the leaders think that the public cares so they’ll divert. Abulof 13 (Uriel, Princeton University and Tel-Aviv University, “Nuclear Diversion Theory and Legitimacy Crisis: The Case of Iran” Politics & Policy, Volume 41, No. 5 (2013): 690-722.)Analyses typically detach causes from the consequences of proliferation, separating the considerations for obtaining nuclear weapons from their strategic and operational deployment. Nuclear diversion theory shows that the reason for developing nuclear capacity can be linked to whether and how the regime might use it. This proposition highlights the need to envisage the actual diversionary strategies that a regime might employ when undergoing a domestic legitimacy crisis. Since regimes are purposeful actors, the possible strategies might prospectively shape the motivation to go nuclear and the ways to go about it. How, then, could an authoritarian/totalitarian regime address its eroding legitimacy, and what role might nuclear diversion play?Drawing on Weber’s typology of legitimation, we may presume that when a regime loses its legitimacy of one type or another, three measures might offer remedy: (1) rebuilding the frail legitimacy; (2) constructing other types of legitimacy; and (3) sustaining political stability through coercive mechanisms. A leadership in domestic distress may or may not try these potential remedies via diversion. It stands to reason that the more concerned the leaders are about their own survival, the more acute is the legitimacy crisis, and the more feasible, safe, and promising the diversion, the more willing to divert the leaders will be. To reiterate, in establishing why and how leaders divert (not whether they succeed), what matters is the leaders’ perceptions of these parameters, not some neutral assessment. For example, as the deposed and deceased Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi faced mounting domestic dissension, he quickly resorted to diversionary rhetoric: “Bin Laden . . . this is the enemy who is manipulating people” (BBC News Africa 2011), but to no avail. Diversion does not require a nuclear program. However, nuclear diversion offers discrete benefits and strategies, over and beyond the structural benefits discussed above. When the “flag” to rally around bears the nuclear emblem, sentiments, ideas, and calculations transmute. This is especially true if the regime effectively consecrates the nuclear project, rendering it an article of faith in the state’s civil religion (Santiago 2009), thereby conferring inviolability (a Weberian charisma) upon the leadership in charge of the project and delegitimating its opposition.At the heart of the presumed linkage between patriotism and support for leadership lies the identification of the flag with its current carrier and the belief that rallying around the former bestows public support upon the latter—as if by ousting the flag carrier, the flag will inevitably fall, and with it the nation as a whole. Note again, however, that what matters is not whether patriotism—even if engendered by nuclear diversion—would confer public support on the leadership; in fact, the linkage between the two is far from self-evident, as Churchill’s loss of the 1945 U.K. election half-anecdotally suggests. What matters is that this linkage is strongly believed (we are surprised by Churchill’s domestic defeat in the aftermath of defeating the Nazis) and that leaders might act upon this belief, even if it is largely wishful thinking.What are the concrete strategies that a regime can use to rally the public around the nuclear flag? The regime’s ability to produce a “nuclear civil religion” via diversion depends on both words and actions, constituting concrete strategies along an escalation ladder. Considering the eminence of the proliferation threshold—acquiring nuclear weapons—we may distinguish between prebomb and postbomb strategies, implausibly concluding with the bombing itself. Importantly, in stepping up this diversionary escalation ladder, failing one rung encourages stepping up to the next, which is more dangerous and aggressive, and less likely.First, an endangered regime could leverage the nuclear project without even acquiring the bomb, let alone the means to deliver it. A deliberately protracted progress toward the threshold of weaponization would allow the regime to showcase rhetorical defiance and practical resilience in the face of external pressure, engendering patriotic pride and prestige. Under this nuclear threshold, if push comes to shove, the regime might even provoke foreign actors to launch a preventive attack intended to boost the regime’s domestic standing as the protector of the nation and to discredit the opposition by portraying it as a fifth column. Moreover, because nuclear diversion complements rather than substitutes conventional diversion, at this prebomb stage the regime might also engage in “crisis making” on grounds detached from the nuclear issue (thus beyond the remit of nuclear diversion).Second, less likely and more dangerous, the regime might opt to acquire the bomb. Under a nuclear umbrella, the regime might find it easier, and certainly safer, to exercise defiance. Weaponization itself, especially when demonstrated by a nuclear test, might boost national pride and the regime’s prestige (e.g., India’s Smiling Buddha; see below). Weaponization further allows the regime to employ incendiary discourse with greatly diminished risks of foreign retaliation. Importantly, authoritarian regimes generally suffer minimal audience costs by failing to follow through on hollow military threats (as recently demonstrated by DPRK).Beyond rhetorical defiance, the regime may believe that the nuclear umbrella diminishes the risks of exerting some perilous diversionary strategies. The latter include (1) manufacturing international crises, (2) a conventional attack against nonnuclear neighboring states, and (3) inciting foreign actors to launch a preemptive attack by indicating the imminent possibility of employing nuclear weapons against a credibly demonized enemy. Similar to a preventive attack, inciting a preemptive attack would demonstrate that the diversionist was not the first to open fire, and ostensibly acted only in self-defense, thus perhaps improving his domestic and foreign legitimacy. This strategy is nevertheless quite improbable if the diversionist had a second-strike capability; the chances for foreign attack are then greatly diminished.Third, if all else fails, the most implausible, and dangerous, strategy entails launching a nuclear attack. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that, accidents and fanaticism aside, nuclear weapons would not be used. Indeed, even if other strategies fail and the regime faced an imminent, violent fall and has sufficient nuclear capacity, it is still much more likely—in case of a nuclear adversary—that the regime would rather yield than risk national suicide. Still, we should not dismiss the improbable alternatives: that the regime might deem the launch of a nuclear attack, preferably incognito, as the only viable way out—to either ensure regime survival (less likely) or to take its enemies down with it, the so-called “Samson Option” (Hersh 1991). Ominously, this “gambling for resurrection” scenario (see above) makes the deliberate use of nuclear weapons seem (in the regime’s eyes) both rational and plausible. While admittedly provocative, this possibility should be considered, if only because of the immense stakes involved.Nuclear diversion is concerning leaders’ perceptions—their beliefs, feelings, and calculations. But leaders’ perceptions are strategic; that is, they should, and often do, take into account the perceptions of others. It is in this sense that nuclear diversion extends Walt’s (1987) concept of balance-of-threat— employed thus far only to foreign relations—to the domestic sphere: nuclear diversion allows the regime to create a domestic balance-of-threat vis-à-vis its opposition to induce or coerce its submission. From the regime perspective, it is not the actual resort to these diversionary strategies, but the projection of their desired effect on domestic opposition, that matters most. As in mutual assured destruction, the regime must demonstrate capability as well as communicate a credible willingness to utilize the nuclear-related diversionary strategies. A nuclear test often serves the purpose of demonstrating capability for the postbomb strategies; demonizing the external enemy is pivotal for communicating credible willingness to attack (or provoke it to launch a preventive/preemptive attack).Nuclear diversion also entails learning. Present leaders may well take their cue from past experiences—of themselves and their peers. The potential domestic benefits of nuclear diversion for a government in distress were demonstrated, for example, in India’s 1974 first nuclear test Smiling Buddha (Abraham 1998; Sagan 1996, 67-8). Later, “India’s populist political movements no doubt played a role in that government’s decision to test a nuclear weapon in 1998” (Campbell 2004, 27). However, nuclear weapons do not necessarily shield authoritarian regimes. Proliferators who believe that nuclear possession allows them to safely generate domestic support through conventional fighting would do well to learn from the experience of Pakistan in the Kargil War with India (May-July 1999), which precipitated the subsequent coup d’état against the Pakistani premier Nawaz Sharif.Learning also involves real-time reassessments of the diversion. For example, a leader might come to realize that he has fallen prey to the “sunk cost fallacy,” whereby loss aversion prompted him to regard nuclear diversion as having passed the point of no return, when in fact it is still possible, and prospectively more beneficial, to eschew it. Of course, leaders often fail to learn such lessons.Economic decline heightens the risk of global conflict—multiple scenarios.Harris and Burrows 9 —Mathew J. Burrows, counselor in the National Intelligence Council, principal drafter of Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World—an unclassified report by the NIC published every four years that projects trends over a 15-year period, has served in the Central Intelligence Agency since 1986, holds a Ph.D. in European History from Cambridge University, and Jennifer Harris, Member of the Long Range Analysis Unit at the National Intelligence Council, holds an M.Phil. in International Relations from Oxford University and a J.D. from Yale University, 2009 (“Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis,” The Washington Quarterly, Volume 32, Issue 2, April, Available Online at , p. 35-37)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 [end page 35] opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity.Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in 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 groups—inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks—and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises. [end page 36] Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational 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.Their impact defense is wrong—economic crisis cause war and turn the caseStrauss-Kahn 9—Managing Director of the IMF [Dominique Strauss-Kahn, International Monetary Fund, ]Securing stabilityLet me stress that the crisis is by no means over, and many risks remain. Economic activity is still dependent on policy support, and a premature withdrawal of this support could kill the recovery. And even as growth recovers, it will take some time for jobs to follow suit. This economic instability will continue to threaten social stability.The stakes are particularly high in the low-income countries. Our colleagues at the United Nations and World Bank think that up to 90 million people might be pushed into extreme poverty as a result of this crisis. In many areas of the world, what is at stake is not only higher unemployment or lower purchasing power, but life and death itself. Economic marginalization and destitution could lead to social unrest, political instability, a breakdown of democracy, or war. In a sense, our collective efforts to fight the crisis cannot be separated from our efforts guard social stability and to secure peace. This is particularly important in low-income countries.War might justifiably be called “development in reverse”. War leads to death, disability, disease, and displacement of population. War increases poverty. War reduces growth potential by destroying infrastructure as well as financial and human capital. War diverts resources toward violence, rent-seeking, and corruption. War weakens institutions. War in one country harms neighboring countries, including through an influx of refugees.Most wars since the 1970s have been wars within states. It is hard to estimate the true cost of a civil war. Recent research suggests that one year of conflict can knock 2-2? percentage points off a country’s growth rate. And since the average civil war lasts 7 years, that means an economy that is 15 percent smaller than it would have been with peace. Of course, no cost can be put on the loss of life or the great human suffering that always accompanies war.The causality also runs the other way. Just as wars devastate the economy, a weak economy makes a country more prone to war. The evidence is quite clear on this point—low income or slow economic growth increases the risk of a country falling into civil conflict. Poverty and economic stagnation lead people to become marginalized, without a stake in the productive economy. With little hope of employment or a decent standard of living, they might turn instead to violent activities. Dependence on natural resources is also a risk factor—competition for control over these resources can trigger conflict and income from natural resources can finance war.And so we can see a vicious circle—war makes economic conditions and prospects worse, and weakens institutions, and this in turn increases the likelihood of war. Once a war has started, it’s hard to stop. And even if it stops, it’s easy to slip back into conflict. During the first decade after a war, there is a 50 percent chance of returning to violence, partly because of weakened institutions. ! – Grid CollapseInfrastructure bill is vital to the grid – it modernizes it through green energy and increased transmission Christian, Potter, and Hale ’21; [Molly Christian; Experienced energy professional with extensive knowledge of US energy markets. Over a 10-year history of reporting and editorial leadership on publications covering US and international energy markets, including coal, electricity and emissions; Ellie Potter; a journalist covering federal energy policy while pursuing a master's degree in energy policy and climate at Johns Hopkins University; Zack Hale; reports on federal energy policy for S&P Global Market Intelligence, a leading business news organization delivering actionable insights to industry professionals, NGOs, government officials and the broader public. My coverage primarily focuses on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, but I often write about state-level energy policy, as well; 3/31/21; S&P Global Market Intelligence; “Biden's $2 trillion infrastructure plan aims to 'reenergize' US power grid”; ; accessed: 7/13/21; YS]The White House on March 31 released the outline of a jobs and infrastructure plan that calls on Congress to invest $100 billion to "reenergize America's power infrastructure."The 10-year, $2 trillion American Jobs Plan also seeks to upgrade roads, bridges and water systems and help make U.S. infrastructure more resilient to the impacts of climate change.Noting that the U.S. is still struggling economically from the coronavirus and ranks 13th in the quality of its infrastructure despite being the wealthiest country in the world, the White House said "it has never been more important for us to invest in strengthening our infrastructure and competitiveness, and in creating the good-paying, union jobs of the future."The White House will need to work with Congress to draft comprehensive legislation to realize President Joe Biden's infrastructure vision. But finding ways to fund the plan and gain sufficient support in Congress could be challenging with Democrats holding only thin majorities in both chambers.Power gridAlong with repairing other infrastructure, the plan calls for the modernization of the country's aging electric grid, which Biden wants to produce 100% carbon-free electricity by 2035.The plan proposes $100 billion in spending on upgrading and building out the nation's aging and regionally siloed electric transmission system. Various studies have estimated the U.S. will need to double or even triple its electric transmission capacity to successfully decarbonize its economy by midcentury.The proposal would "put hundreds of thousands of people to work laying thousands of miles of transmission lines," according to a White House fact sheet. To that end, the plan would establish a new Grid Deployment Authority within the U.S. Department of Energy to leverage existing rights-of-way for transmission lines along roads and railways. The new office would also support "creative financing tools to spur additional high priority, high-voltage transmission lines."In terms of related legislation, Rob Gramlich, executive director of Americans for a Clean Energy Grid, said a bill introduced last week by Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., to establish a tax credit for the installation of "regionally significant" transmission lines may be part of the legislative package."There's an opportunity to go really big and look at the needs of a $100 billion-plus macro grid but there's also an opportunity to focus on near-term deployment, and that's what the transmission tax credit would do," Gramlich said in an interview.Gramlich said his firm has calculated that nearly two dozen large-scale interregional projects around the country, representing approximately 20 GW of transmission capacity, have stalled due to a lack of financing. "They're most of the way through the permitting process, so they really could get going soon," Gramlich said.The grid is extremely vulnerable right now – terrorists and nation-states have the capability to induce major physical or cyber-attacks in various ways Wintch ’21; [Timothy M. Wintch; an active-duty Major in the United States Air Force. He is currently a graduate student at the Oettinger School of Science & Technology Intelligence, National Intelligence University, in Bethesda, Maryland. Mr. Wintch has over 11 years of experience in command-and-control operations as an Air Battle Manager. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in Politics from the University of California, Santa Cruz, and a Master of Arts in Military Studies from American Military University; 4/20/21; Homeland Security Today; “PERSPECTIVE: Cyber and Physical Threats to the U.S. Power Grid and Keeping the Lights on”; ; accessed: 7/13/21; YS]Among critical infrastructure sectors in the U.S., energy is perhaps the most crucial of the 16 sectors defined by the Department of Homeland Security. This sector is so vital because it provides the energy necessary to run every other critical infrastructure sector. However, the U.S. power grid, the backbone of the energy sector, is built upon an aging skeleton that is becoming increasingly vulnerable every day. Whether from terrorists or nation-states like Russia and China, the power grid is susceptible to not just physical attacks, but also to cyber intrusion as well. However, much of this threat can be mitigated if the U.S. takes the appropriate steps to safeguard the power grid and avoid a potential catastrophe in the future.Since Sept. 11, 2001, terrorism on U.S. soil has been at the forefront of American consciousness. Critical infrastructure provides an appealing target because of the disproportionally large impact even a small attack can have on the sectors. In particular, the power grid represents a particularly lucrative target, both in terms of the ease of access and the large impact it can make. The National Research Council stated that the U.S. power grid is “vulnerable to intelligent multi-site attacks by knowledgeable attackers intent on causing maximum physical damage to key components on a wide geographical scale.”[1] Additionally, the physical security of transmission and distribution systems is difficult due to the dispersed nature of these key components, which in turn is advantageous to attackers as it reduces the likelihood of their capture.[2] From 2002-2012, approximately 2,500 physical attacks occurred against transmission lines and towers worldwide and approximately 500 attacks against transformer substations.[3] Terrorists have the motivation to attack the U.S. power grid but the very nature of the grid makes it highly vulnerable. The power grid is not only at risk from physical attacks, but also nation-state cyberattacks.One nation that has shown both the capability and intent to use attacks against critical energy infrastructure is Russia, as demonstrated in their 2015 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine. A Russian cyber threat group known as Sandworm, which used its BlackEnergy malware, attacked Ukrainian computer systems that provide remote control of the Ukraine power grid.[4] This attack, and another in 2016, each left the capital Kiev without power, prompting cyber experts to raise concern about the same malware already existing in NATO and the U.S. power grids.[5] In any conflict between Russia and NATO, not only would similar cyberattacks pose a threat, but so would potential physical attacks severing fuel oil and natural gas lines to Western Europe. Russia has both the capability and intent to attack critical infrastructure, particularly power grids, during future conflicts in their “hybrid warfare” approach.Another nation that has the capability to attack critical energy infrastructure is China, representing a threat to not just the U.S. energy infrastructure but also that of our allies whose support would be vital in a major conflict. A recent NATO report highlighted this threat from China’s Belt and Road Initiative, stating that “[China’s] foreign direct investment in strategic sectors [such as energy generation and distribution] …raises questions about whether access and control over such infrastructure can be maintained, particularly in crisis when it would be required to support the military.”[6] Like Russia, China has been active with cyber intrusions in U.S. energy infrastructure. The Mission Support Center at Idaho National Laboratory characterized these as attacks as “multiple intrusions into US ICS/SCADA [Industrial Control Systems/Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition] and smart grid tools [that] may be aimed more at intellectual property theft and gathering intelligence to bolster their own infrastructure, but it is likely that they are also using these intrusions to develop capabilities to attack the [bulk electric system], as well.”[7] China, therefore, has both the capability and intent to conduct cyber intrusions and attacks for myriad reasons.Another arm of this threat is the reliance the U.S. energy industry has on imports from China, especially transformers. In early 2020, federal officials seized a transformer in the port of Houston that had been imported by the Jiangsu Huapeng Transformer Company before sending it to Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque. Sandia is contracted by the U.S. Department of Energy for mitigating national security threats.[8] The Wall Street Journal reported that “Mike Howard, chief executive of the Electric Power Research Institute, a utility-funded technical organization, said that the diversion of a huge, expensive transformer is so unusual – in his experience, unprecedented – that it suggests officials had significant security concerns.”[9] Previously destined for the Washington Area Power Administration’s Ault, Colo., substation, the transformer is believed to have been seized due to “backdoor” exploitable hardware emplaced by the Chinese prior to shipment.[10] Shortly after these events, President Trump issued Executive Order 13920, “Securing the United States Bulk-Power System,” essentially limiting the import of Chinese-built critical energy infrastructure components due to concerns about cybersecurity.[11] Interestingly, Jiangsu Huapeng “boasted that it supported 10 percent of New York City’s electricity load.”[12]Franklin Kramer, the former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, testified before a U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce subcommittee during an energy and power hearing in 2011 and said that a “highly-coordinated and structured cyber, physical, or blended attack on the bulk power system, however, could result in long-term (irreparable) damage to key system components in multiple simultaneous or near-simultaneous strikes.” He added that “an outage could result with the potential to affect a wide geographic area and cause large population centers to lose power for extended periods.”[13] Even the inclusion of features such as smart grids to the overall grid structure poses new vulnerabilities through their connectivity. Kramer stated that “such connectivity means that the distribution system could be a key vector for a national security attack on the grid.”[14]Power generation represents a key vulnerability of the U.S. energy infrastructure. Physical security measures vary by site and type of power plant; however, most are still limited in their security measures beyond chain-link fences, with the notable exception of nuclear power plants.[15] The very nature of power plants does provide some physical security, with plants often residing in rural areas over large areas with multiple buildings, which makes locating and accessing critical components more difficult. While an attack on a power plant would have a large effect, it would also result in increased security at other plants. Finally, the nature of the U.S. energy grid provides the capability to provide some level of self-healing, meaning that even if a power plant were to go offline other sites can mitigate that loss and prevent cascading effects.System Control Centers represent another key vulnerability. These centers contain not only important technical control systems, but also the personnel who operate those systems and their unique intricacies. However, like power plants, the physical security of these sites varies, ranging from minimal security to extensive hardening.[16] Fortunately, these centers have redundant facilities that can mitigate losses to the rest of the system.[17]Power lines may be viewed as a key vulnerability as the most visible aspect of the transmission infrastructure, but the number of lines, ability to redirect power, coupled with the relative ease of replacement, mean that an attack on power lines is likely to be limited in both scope and duration. Therefore, while still a required part of the power infrastructure, transmission lines are not a significant vulnerability especially when other critical infrastructure sectors often have their own temporary backup power such as batteries and motor-generator sets (e.g. an on-site diesel motor running an electrical generator at a hospital).Perhaps the most vulnerable aspect of the U.S. power grid is the high-voltage transformers that allow efficient transmission from power plants to distribution substations. Bottom line is that power generation is of no consequence if it cannot be delivered to the end user, but “there is general agreement among security planners that key high-voltage substations are the most worrisome terrorist targets within the power transmission system.”[18] This fact is complicated in that the transformers are “difficult to protect” and “replacement parts are difficult to obtain, and damage to substations can separate customers from generation for long periods,” often taking over a year to replace under ideal conditions.[19] As previously stated, the power industry is heavily reliant on imports for these transformers, with many coming from China. Finally, these substations are often unprotected by more than a perimeter fence, making them vulnerable to standoff and penetration attacks.[20] The critical nature of these transformers, combined with the difficulty in manufacturing and replacing them, makes the transmission substations one of the most vulnerable aspects of the U.S. power grid.A further vulnerability of energy infrastructure is the increased use of remote-control mechanisms to operate critical equipment and manage energy loads all the way from power generation to transmission. The more connected critical energy infrastructure is to a network, the more vulnerable it becomes to cyberattack. Kramer described the potential effects of a cyberattack in 2011, following the STUXNET attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, stating, “We have had even further confirmation of the problem of the [US power] grid’s vulnerability, as demonstrated by the STUXNET attacks. STUXNET – while not grid-directed, showed the vulnerability of control machines – which are the very type of machines upon which the grid depends for effective operation.”[21] This vulnerability is further described by the Mission Support Center, which stated, “Growth of networks and communication protocols used throughout ICS networks pose vulnerabilities that will continue to provide attack vectors that threat actors will seek to exploit for the foreseeable future. The interoperable technologies created for a shift toward a smart grid will continue to expand the cyberattack landscape.”[22]As evident in the example of the seized Chinese transformer in Houston, software and networks are not the only mechanisms for cyberattacks. In fact, ICS and hardware, such as transformers, present a significant vector for cyber intrusion as well.[23] The added danger of this vector is that ICS controls can be affected without the people monitoring even knowing. This was the case with STUXNET, where Iranian engineers could see that something abnormal was occurring but could not pinpoint the cause in time to avert destruction of the centrifuges.[24] Thus, vectors exist for cyberattacks in the U.S. energy infrastructure from software, networks, and malware installed in imported hardware including components such as transformers.Loss of critical infrastructure causes extinctionFriedemann 16 (Alice Friedemann, transportation expert, founder of and author of “When Trucks Stop Running, Energy and the Future of Transportation,” worked at American Presidential Lines for 22 years, where she developed computer systems to coordinate the transit of cargo between ships, rail, trucks, and consumers, citing Dr. Peter Vincent Pry. Pry is executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, a Congressional advisory board dedicated to achieving protection of the United States from electromagnetic pulse and other threats. Dr. Pry is also the director of the United States Nuclear Strategy Forum, an advisory body to Congress on policies to counter weapons of mass destruction. Dr. Pry has served on the staffs of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, the Commission to Assess the Threat to the U.S. from an EMP Attack, the House Armed Services Committee, as an intelligence officer with the CIA, and as a verification analyst at the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. 1-24-16, accessed 1/1/19 “Electromagnetic pulse threat to infrastructure (U.S. House hearings)” )Modern civilization cannot exist for a protracted period without electricity. Within days of a blackout across the U.S., a blackout that could encompass the entire planet, emergency generators would run out of fuel, telecommunications would cease as would transportation due to gridlock, and eventually no fuel. Cities would have no running water and soon, within a few days, exhaust their food supplies. Police, Fire, Emergency Services and hospitals cannot long operate in a blackout. Government and Industry also need electricity in order to operate. The EMP Commission warns that a natural or nuclear EMP event, given current unpreparedness, would likely result in societal collapse. Terrorists, criminals, and even lone individuals can build a non-nuclear EMP weapon without great trouble or expense, working from Unclassified designs publicly available on the internet, and using parts available at any electronics store. In 2000, the Terrorism Panel of the House Armed Services Committee sponsored an experiment, recruiting a small team of amateur electronics enthusiasts to attempt constructing a radiofrequency weapon, relying only on unclassified design information and parts purchased from Radio Shack. The team, in 1 year, built two radiofrequency weapons of radically different designs. One was designed to fit inside the shipping crate for a Xerox machine, so it could be delivered to the Pentagon mail room where (in those more unguarded days before 9/11) it could slowly fry the Pentagon’s computers. The other radiofrequency weapon was designed to fit inside a small Volkswagon bus, so it could be driven down Wall Street and disrupt computers— and perhaps the National economy. Both designs were demonstrated and tested successfully during a special Congressional hearing for this purpose at the U.S. Army’s Aberdeen Proving Ground. Radiofrequency weapons are not merely a hypothetical threat. Terrorists, criminals, and disgruntled individuals have used home-made radiofrequency weapons. The U.S. military and foreign militaries have a wide variety of such weaponry. Moreover, non-nuclear EMP devices that could be used as radiofrequency weapons are publicly marketed for sale to anyone, usually advertised as ‘‘EMP simulators.’’ For example, one such simulator is advertised for public sale as an ‘‘EMP Suitcase.’’ This EMP simulator is designed to look like a suitcase, can be carried and operated by one person, and is purpose-built with a high energy radiofrequency output to destroy electronics. However, it has only a short radius of effect. Nonetheless, a terrorist or deranged individual who knows what he is doing, who has studied the electric grid for a major metropolitan area, could—armed with the ‘‘EMP Suitcase’’— black out a major city. A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER. An EMP weapon can be used by state actors who wish to level the battlefield by neutralizing the great technological advantage enjoyed by U.S. military forces. EMP is also the ideal means, the only means, whereby rogue states or terrorists could use a single nuclear weapon to destroy the United States and prevail in the War on Terrorism or some other conflict with a single blow. The EMP Commission also warned that states or terrorists could exploit U.S. vulnerability to EMP attack for coercion or blackmail: ‘‘Therefore, terrorists or state actors that possess relatively unsophisticated missiles armed with nuclear weapons may well calculate that, instead of destroying a city or military base, they may obtain the greatest political-military utility from one or a few such weapons by using them—or threatening their use—in an EMP attack.’’ The EMP Commission found that states such as Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran have incorporated EMP attack into their military doctrines, and openly describe making EMP attacks against the United States. Indeed, the EMP Commission was established by Congress partly in response to a Russian nuclear EMP threat made to an official Congressional Delegation on May 2, 1999, in the midst of the Balkans crisis. Vladimir Lukin, head of the Russian delegation and a former Ambassador to the United States, warned: ‘‘Hypothetically, if Russia really wanted to hurt the United States in retaliation for NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia, Russia could fire an SLBM and detonate a single nuclear warhead at high altitude over the United States. The resulting EMP would massively disrupt U.S. communications and computer systems, shutting down everything.’’ China’s military doctrine also openly describes EMP attack as the ultimate asymmetric weapon, as it strikes at the very technology that is the basis of U.S. power. Where EMP is concerned, ‘‘The United States is more vulnerable to attacks than any other country in the world’’: ‘‘Some people might think that things similar to the ‘Pearl Harbor Incident’ are unlikely to take place during the information age. Yet it could be regarded as the ‘Pearl Harbor Incident’ of the 21st Century if a surprise attack is conducted against the enemy’s crucial information systems of command, control, and communications by such means as… electromagnetic pulse weapons… Even a superpower like the United States, which possesses nuclear missiles and powerful armed forces, cannot guarantee its immunity…In their own words, a highly computerized open society like the United States is extremely vulnerable to electronic attacks from all sides. This is because the U.S. economy, from banks to telephone systems and from power plants to iron and steel works, relies entirely on computer networks… When a country grows increasingly powerful economically and technologically…it will become increasingly dependent on modern information systems… The United States is more vulnerable to attacks than any other country in the world.’’ Iran—the world’s leading sponsor of international terrorism—in military writings openly describes EMP as a terrorist weapon, and as the ultimate weapon for prevailing over the West: ‘‘If the world’s industrial countries fail to devise effective ways to defend themselves against dangerous electronic assaults, then they will disintegrate within a few years… American soldiers would not be able to find food to eat nor would they be able to fire a single shot.’’ The threats are not merely words. The EMP Commission assesses that Russia has, as it openly declares in military writings, probably developed what Russia describes as a ‘‘Super-EMP’’ nuclear weapon—specifically designed to generate extraordinarily high EMP fields in order to paralyze even the best protected U.S. strategic and military forces. China probably also has Super-EMP weapons. North Korea too may possess or be developing a Super-EMP nuclear weapon, as alleged by credible Russian sources to the EMP Commission, and by open-source reporting from South Korean military intelligence. But any nuclear weapon, even a low-yield first generation device, could suffice to make a catastrophic EMP attack on the United States. Iran, although it is assessed as not yet having the bomb, is actively testing missile delivery systems and has practiced launches of its best missile, the Shahab–III, fuzing for high- altitude detonations, in exercises that look suspiciously like training for making EMP attacks. As noted earlier, Iran has also practiced launching from a ship a Scud, the world’s most common missile—possessed by over 60 nations, terrorist groups, and private collectors. A Scud might be the ideal choice for a ship-launched EMP attack against the United States intended to be executed anonymously, to escape any last-gasp U.S. retaliation. Unlike a nuclear weapon detonated in a city, a high-altitude EMP attack leaves no bomb debris for forensic analysis, no perpetrator ‘‘fingerprints.’’ Under present levels of preparedness, communications would be severely limited, restricted mainly to those few military communications networks that are hardened against EMP. Today’s microelectronics are the foundation of our modern civilization, but are over 1 million times more vulnerable to EMP than the far more primitive and robust electronics of the 1960s, that proved vulnerable during nuclear EMP tests of that era. Tests conducted by the EMP Commission confirmed empirically the theory that, as modern microelectronics become ever smaller and more efficient, and operate ever faster on lower voltages, they also become ever more vulnerable, and can be destroyed or disrupted by much lower EMP field strengths. Microelectronics and electronic systems are everywhere, and run virtually everything in the modern world. All of the civilian critical infrastructures that sustain the economy of the United States, and the lives of 310 million Americans, depend, directly or indirectly, upon electricity and electronic systems. Of special concern is the vulnerability to EMP of the Extra-High-Voltage (EHV) transformers, that are indispensable to the operation of the electric grid. EHV transformers drive electric current over long distances, from the point of generation to consumers (from the Niagara Falls hydroelectric facility to New York City, for example). The electric grid cannot operate without EHV transformers—which could be destroyed by an EMP event. The United States no longer manufactures EHV transformers. They must be manufactured and imported from overseas, from Germany or South Korea, the only two nations in the world that manufacture such transformers for export. Each EHV transformer must be custom-made for its unique role in the grid. A single EHV transformer typically requires 18 months to manufacture. The loss of large numbers of EHV transformers to an EMP event would plunge the United States into a protracted blackout lasting years, with perhaps no hope of eventual recovery, as the society and population probably could not survive for even 1 year without electricity. Another key vulnerability to EMP are Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition systems (SCADAs). SCADAs essentially are small computers, numbering in the millions and ubiquitous everywhere in the critical infrastructures, that perform jobs previously performed by hundreds of thousands of human technicians during the 1960s and before, in the era prior to the microelectronics revolution. SCADAs do things like regulating the flow of electricity into a transformer, controlling the flow of gas through a pipeline, or running traffic control lights. SCADAs enable a few dozen people to run the critical infrastructures for an entire city, whereas previously hundreds or even thousands of technicians were necessary. Unfortunately, SCADAs are especially vulnerable to EMP. EHV transformers and SCADAs are the most important vulnerabilities to EMP, but are by no means the only vulnerabilities. Each of the critical infrastructures has their own unique vulnerabilities to EMP: The National electric grid, with its transformers and generators and electronic controls and thousands of miles of power lines, is a vast electronic machine—more vulnerable to EMP than any other critical infrastructure. Yet the electric grid is the most important of all critical infrastructures, and is in fact the keystone supporting modern civilization, as it powers all the other critical infrastructures. As of now it is our technological Achilles Heel. The EMP Commission found that, if the electric grid collapses, so too will collapse all the other critical infrastructures. But, if the electric grid can be protected and recovered, so too all the other critical infrastructures can also be restored. Transportation is a critical infrastructure because modern civilization cannot exist without the goods and services moved by road, rail, ship, and air. Cars, trucks, locomotives, ships, and aircraft all have electronic components, motors, and controls that are potentially vulnerable to EMP. Gas stations, fuel pipelines, and refineries that make petroleum products depend upon electronic components and cannot operate without electricity. Given our current state of unpreparedness, in the aftermath of a natural or nuclear EMP event, transportation systems would be paralyzed. Traffic control systems that avert traffic jams and collisions for road, rail, and air depend upon electronic systems, that the EMP Commission discovered are especially vulnerable to EMP. Communications is a critical infrastructure because modern economies and the cohesion and operation of modern societies depend to a degree unprecedented in history on the rapid movement of information—accomplished today mostly by electronic means. Telephones, cell phones, personal computers, television, and radio are all directly vulnerable to EMP, and cannot operate without electricity. Satellites that operate at Low-Earth-Orbit (LEO) for communications, weather, scientific, and military purposes are vulnerable to EMP and to collateral effects from an EMP attack. Within weeks of an EMP event, the LEO satellites, which comprise most satellites, would probably be inoperable. Banking and finance are the critical infrastructure that sustain modern economies. Whether it is the stock market, the financial records of a multinational corporation, or the ATM card of an individual—financial transactions and record keeping all depend now at the macro- and micro-level upon computers and electronic automated systems. Many of these are directly vulnerable to EMP, and none can operate without electricity. The EMP Commission found that an EMP event could transform the modern electronic economy into a feudal economy based on barter. Food has always been vital to every person and every civilization. The critical infrastructure for producing, delivering, and storing food depends upon a complex web of technology, including machines for planting and harvesting and packaging, refrigerated vehicles for long-haul transportation, and temperature-controlled warehouses. Modern technology enables over 98 percent of the U.S. National population to be fed by less than 2 percent of the population. Huge regional warehouses that resupply supermarkets constitute the National food reserves, enough food to feed the Nation for 30–60 days at normal consumption rates, the warehoused food preserved by refrigeration and temperature control systems that typically have enough emergency electrical power (diesel or gas generators) to last only about an average of 3 days. Experience with storm-induced blackouts proves that when these big regional food warehouses lose electrical power, most of the food supply will rapidly spoil. Farmers, less than 2 percent of the population as noted above, cannot feed 310 million Americans if deprived of the means that currently makes possible this technological miracle. Water too has always been a basic necessity to every person and civilization, even more crucial than food. The critical infrastructure for purifying and delivering potable water, and for disposing of and treating waste water, is a vast networked machine powered by electricity that uses electrical pumps, screens, filters, paddles, and sprayers to purify and deliver drinkable water, and to remove and treat waste water. Much of the machinery in the water infrastructure is directly vulnerable to EMP. The system cannot operate without vast amounts of electricity supplied by the power grid. A natural or nuclear EMP event would immediately deprive most of the U.S. National population of running water. Many natural sources of water—lakes, streams, and rivers—would be dangerously polluted by toxic wastes from sewage, industry, and hospitals that would backflow from or bypass wastewater treatment plants, that could no longer intake and treat pollutants without electric power. Many natural water sources that would normally be safe to drink, after an EMP event, would be polluted with human wastes including feces, industrial wastes including arsenic and heavy metals, and hospital wastes including pathogens. Emergency services such as police, fire, and hospitals are the critical infrastructure that upholds the most basic functions of government and society—preserving law and order, protecting property and life. Experience from protracted storm-induced blackouts has shown, for example in the aftermath of Hurricanes Andrew and Katrina, that when the lights go out and communications systems fail and there is no gas for squad cars, fire trucks, and ambulances, the worst elements of society and the worst human instincts rapidly takeover. The EMP Commission found that, given our current state of unpreparedness, a natural or nuclear EMP event could create anarchic conditions that would profoundly challenge the existence of social order.--XT – Infrastructure Bill K2 GridThe bill includes massive investment in cybersecurity measures for the grid – its key now Riley ’21; [Tonya Riley; is a researcher helping to produce and write the Technology 202 and Cybersecurity 202. Before joining The Post in 2019, she covered technology for Mother Jones magazine. Her writing on technology and culture has also appeared online at Buzzfeed, CNBC, Wired, Esquire and others; 3/12/21; Washington Post; “The Cybersecurity 202: Democrats' new infrastructure bill highlights cybersecurity concerns”; ; accessed: 7/12/21; YS]Coming up on the Biden administration's agenda now that the massive coronavirus relief bill has passed: A major infrastucture and jobs package. The House's new $312 billion infrastructure bill, as part of that push, aims to secure the country's most critical infrastructure – and increase the cybersecurity of essential services, including hospitals, broadband and the electric grid. A recent string of high-profile cyberattacks pushed long-neglected cybersecurity issues to the center of national policy discussions.“The infrastructure in the United States is in sore need of updates and the fact that Congress is now recognizing the importance of upgrading not just physical infrastructure but cybersecurity infrastructure is a sign of a new importance and awareness of cybersecurity,” says John Gilligan, president and CEO of the Center for Internet Security, a cybersecurity nonprofit.Key cybersecurity-related investments in the bill include $10 billion to help hospitals guard against cyber criminals and roughly $3.5 billion for electric grid security.Mounting high-profile cybersecurity incidents have made the problem hard to ignore.“Over the last year, we’ve seen the devastating results of inaction: major power outages, water shortages, health care facilities stretched to the limit, and communities left behind due to the digital divide,” Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) said in a statement introducing the bill. In February, Florida police revealed that a hacker tried to poison the water supply of the town of Oldsmar. And although not the result of a cyberattack, the fallout of a mass grid failure in Texas raised alarms from researchers and lawmakers about cybersecurity weaknesses in America's power systems that could lead to a much worse outage. During the coronavirus pandemic, hospitals have been hit with a surge of dangerous attacks in which attackers locked up data and systems in exchange for a ransom, leaving hospital services unavailable.Congress is also scrambling to respond to a Russian attack on software company SolarWinds, which resulted in the hacking of at least nine federal agencies, as well as a recent Chinese-tied campaign against a vulnerability in Microsoft software. Both are used heavily by the government and critical industries including the energy sector. Biden last month signed an executive order requiring a review of the security of America's supply chains and is expected to sign another executive order addressing cybersecurity improvements in critical software systems.Current infrastructure is vulnerable – federal investment is key to avoiding major threatsGozdziewski ’21; [Charles J. Gozdziewski; is the American Council of Engineering Companies' (ACEC) Board Chair. He is also the Chairman Emeritus of Hardesty & Hanover in New York where he oversees transportation planning, construction inspection and support services for highways; all types of movable, fixed and railroad bridges; as well as special structures; 3/22/21; The Hill; “Our nation's critical infrastructure is dangerously vulnerable”; ; accessed: 7/16/21; YS]The recent historic snowfall in Texas and the ensuing failure of the state's power grid have laid bare what we in the engineering industry have known for a long time - our nation's critical infrastructure is dangerously vulnerable to a wide range of threats. We must act quickly and comprehensively to make our infrastructure more resilient because those threats will only become more severe in the future.While the focus right now is justifiably on the energy sector and the power grid, all of our nation's infrastructure systems - transportation, water, and power - are at risk from extreme weather. Climate change lies at the heart of this challenge, and to mitigate its effects, we must have robust investment to fund the design and construction of the resilient infrastructure our country needs. As engineers, infrastructure is who we are. It is critically entwined in everything we do - from embracing smart cities, to establishing safe protocols in buildings for a post-COVID world, to preparing for the much needed Fourth Industrial Revolution. The need for resilience, sustainability, reliability, and flexibility will become even more vital as we move into the future.As leaders in the engineering and design industry, we have both a stake in and a valuable perspective on the policy discussion on infrastructure. Moreover, we are a critical partner in the implementation of that policy and the repair and upgrading of all aspects of our physical infrastructure - including roads, bridges, freight rail, ports, electrical grids, and Internet provision. Each of these components is critical to the health of our physical and built environment. Yet our expertise is worth nothing if the public sector clients we serve lack certainty from the federal government that there will be consistent, predictive funding in place to finance the infrastructure improvements we need. No designs will be drawn up and no dirt will be moved. It is imperative that our federal lawmakers act on a transformative infrastructure plan before the current law expires in September. Investing now in a long-term infrastructure bill will pay dividends, not only to mitigate the effects of a changing climate, but to help our nation recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. Engineers play a substantial role in the health of the national economy. According to the ACEC Research Institute's Industry Impact Series of reports, the Engineering and Design Services sector currently employs 1.5 million Americans directly. Those employees and their companies collectively support another 3 million jobs in the various contracting and other firms with which they work. The Institute's latest study found that each new job created in the Engineering and Design Services industry indirectly creates two additional jobs in related sectors across the economy. The data shows that investments in infrastructure that support engineering jobs pave the way for economic opportunity. What's more, the designs our industry creates help improve the built environment, making it more resilient to climate change. This is a win-win for society, creating a more equitable, environmentally sound, and prosperous built environment resulting in job creation and economic mobility. We look forward to working with policyholders, members of Congress, and the Biden-Harris Administration to develop sustainable solutions that benefit the country as a whole in the weeks ahead.Infrastructure is essential now – constant threats of disaster mean its imperative for sweeping investment Pittsburgh Post Gazzette ’21; [Pittsburgh Post Gazzette; is Western Pennsylvania's largest newspaper and post- is the region's most visited news website, together reaching nearly 1 million people each week; 3/4/21; “Invest in infrastructure”; ; accessed: 7/16/21; YS]The decisions (or the lack thereof) that made Texas’ power grid vulnerable to the calamitous winter storm that left millions without heat and water are undergoing fierce scrutiny. It’s about time. It’s actually past time.Dozens died due to freezing temperatures, and the economic impact already tallies in the hundreds of millions.Could regulators have done more to prepare for the storm? Could energy companies have done more to prepare for freezing conditions? Should lawmakers have pushed harder to force such companies to prepare?Of course, the answer is “yes” to all of these questions, but this is hindsight speaking. However, it shouldn’t take a look in the rearview mirror to come to these conclusions.Now is the time for a reckoning, a realization: While it’s important to study the past to avoid repeating the same mistakes, the country must also look to its future and see the obvious — that America’s infrastructure as a whole needs some serious upkeep.Democrats and Republicans alike have flirted with the idea of a sweeping infrastructure bill in recent years, and President Joe Biden’s team is working to outline such legislation. These efforts should proceed swiftly — now is the time for Congress to invest in infrastructure, not only to help prevent crises, but also to jump-start an economy mired in the coronavirus pandemic.Despite being one of the richest countries in the world, the U.S. seems constantly to hover on the edge of disaster, with news of natural forces smashing through power grids and levies and fire prevention strategies on a yearly or monthly basis. Texas is only the most recent state to have been pushed over the edge.The American Society of Civil Engineers just this week gave America’s infrastructure an overall grade of C-minus in its quadrennial report card. The last grade was D-plus and that report cited decades of underfunding and unheeded recommendations. C-minus is an improvement but deserves not just federal attention but actual intervention. The report notes “we are heading in the right direction, but a lot of work remains.”There is opportunity in the recent economic and environmental devastation that grabs headlines and breaks hearts. In the aftermath of the Great Depression, the government put millions to work improving parks and building roads and bridges and airports. President Dwight Eisenhower’s interstate highway system remains the life veins of interstate travel.A new and vigorous infrastructure package for America would fix what needs to be fixed and offer the promise of an economic boon.The purpose of the federal government is to address the needs of American society in a way that can’t be tackled by states in a piecemeal fashion. What has happened in recent days within The Lone Star State demonstrates keenly that this is the time — actually past the time — that our federal leaders must shore up the foundations of our federation. Congress should act swiftly to lead states in reversing the entropy chewing away at America’s foundations. Until this happens, society stands on shifting sands.Multiple mechanisms solve cybersecurity – investment, grants, tax creditSegal 21 Edward Segal, ["How Biden’s American Jobs Plan Seeks To Increase Cybersecurity," 5-18-2021, Forbes, Accessed 7-15-2021, URL: ] klyThe White House, saying that “cybersecurity is one of the preeminent challenges of our time,” today released details on how President Joe Biden’s American Jobs Plan would increase the country’s cyber defenses.According to a fact sheet issued by the White House on Tuesday, the plan would:Make $20 billion in energy infrastructure investments for state, local, and tribal governments, contingent on cyber modernization.This $20 billion investment in Department of Energy-administered energy system modernization block grants would support critical infrastructure through grid resilience, clean electricity, and cybersecurity efforts.The funds are designed to spur early action by state and local governments to create a favorable environment for increased private investment, creating jobs, reducing pollution, and boosting security. The modernization block grants will be tied to the use of and compliance with 21st century energy, technology, and security standards.Promote a secure network with a $100 billion investment in broadband.This investment will also promote network security.Grant recipients will be asked to source from “trusted vendors” and give preference to open, interoperable architecture where feasible, and implement cybersecurity consistent with approaches and priorities described in the Executive Order on Cybersecurity of May 12, 2021.Create a new tax credit for transmission infrastructure that will help finance cyber technologies for the electric grid.This would be a targeted investment tax credit that incentivizes the buildout of at least 20 gigawatts of high-voltage capacity power lines and mobilizes tens of billions in private capital off the sidelines.These tax credits will also encourage stronger cybersecurity capabilities.It’s key to solve cybersecurity – allocates billionsEpstein and Mehrotra 21 Jennifer Epstein – White house correspondent. Before joining Bloomberg Politics in February 2015, she spent more than four years at Politico, most recently as a White House reporter. Kartikay Mehrotra – Bloomberg reporter ["Biden Proposes Billions for Cybersecurity After Wave of Attacks," 5-18-2021, Bloomberg, Accessed 7-16-2021, URL: ] klyPresident Joe Biden’s infrastructure proposal includes billions of dollars tied to improving cybersecurity, an area of intensified interest after the ransomware attack on the Colonial Pipeline Co. sent U.S. gasoline prices soaring last week.But the exact amount that will be spent on improving cyber defenses remains to be seen.The $2 trillion American Jobs Plan, as the infrastructure proposal is known, includes $20 billion for state, local and tribal governments to modernize their energy systems contingent upon meeting cybersecurity standards, as well as $2 billion for grid resilience in high-risk areas that will be contingent on meeting cybersecurity targets, the White House said in a fact sheet obtained by Bloomberg News ahead of its release Tuesday.The administration is also characterizing the plan’s call for $100 billion for high-speed broadband access as part of its wider security effort, since grant recipients will be asked to source from “trusted vendors” and implement cybersecurity measures. In addition, the plan lays out a new tax credit for transmission infrastructure that the administration believes will encourage stronger cyber capabilities.The White House is negotiating with a group of Senate Republicans on an infrastructure bill that would include much of Biden’s proposal, with a counter-proposal expected from the senators on Tuesday. The original infrastructure plan, which was released at the end of March, doesn’t mention the need for cybersecurity spending.Administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity to preview the outline of cybersecurity proposals, stressed that the jobs plan proposals are just one part of a broader effort to elevate cyber issues across the federal government. “Cybersecurity is one of the preeminent challenges of our time, which is why President Biden has made strengthening U.S. cybersecurity capabilities a top priority,” the White House said in the fact sheet.Bill key to secure the gridAssociated Press, 7/6/21, “New infrastructure deal must focus on climate, activists say,” activists and their Democratic allies in Congress are pressing with renewed urgency for huge investments to slow global warming, after a bipartisan infrastructure plan cut out some of President Joe Biden’s key climate initiatives.Supporters say a larger, Democratic-only package now being developed in Congress must meet Biden’s promise to move the country toward carbon-free electricity, make America a global leader in electric vehicles and create millions of jobs in solar, wind and other clean- energy industries.But passage of a larger, multitrillion-dollar bill faces significant hurdles, even if Democrats use a procedural method that requires only a simple majority. It's far from certain, in an evenly divided Senate, that moderate Democrats will agree to an expansive measure that could swell to as high as $6 trillion.On the other hand, a less costly bill that does not fully address climate change risks losing support from large numbers of liberal Democrats who have pledged action on an issue that Biden has called “the existential crisis of our times.”Elimination of climate measures in the bipartisan plan comes as the effects of climate change, like worsening disasters such as hurricanes, wildfires and drought, are increasing. Scientists urge immediate action to slash greenhouse emissions to avoid the worst consequences of global warming.“The bipartisan infrastructure deal is not a climate bill," said Jamal Raad, executive director of Evergreen Action, an advocacy group that has pushed for urgent action on climate change. "And we know that fossil fuel lobbyists in Washington are already hard at work to eliminate key climate provisions from the (Democrat-only) package.“To meet this moment, Democrats must stand firm and pass a package that makes historic investments in climate, jobs and justice,″ he said.Even the bipartisan agreement is not certain to pass a closely divided Congress. A framework announced June 24 by Biden and a bipartisan group of senators does not include legislative provisions and many details need to be worked out.Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, D-Ore., called the bipartisan deal inadequate when his state and others in the West face a record heat wave and destructive wildfires. “It will not include comprehensive clean energy policy, and I am not willing to support throwing climate change overboard,” Wyden said. “The two bills have to be directly connected.”The $973 billion bipartisan deal includes money to build a national network of electric vehicle charging stations, purchase thousands of electric buses and upgrade the electrical grid. It also would spend $55 billion to improve drinking water and wastewater systems and $47 billion in resiliency efforts to tackle climate change.But many climate-related proposals were cut out, including plans promoted by Biden to make electricity carbon-free by 2035 and spend hundreds of billions in tax incentives for clean energy such as wind and solar power and technologies that capture and store carbon emissions. […]--Grid VulnerableGrid’s vulnerable to EMP’sMatthew Weiss?&?Martin Weiss, 2019, [QUALS] “An assessment of threats to the American power grid” […]The E1 pulse (“fast pulse”) is due to gamma radiation (photons), generated by a nuclear detonation at high altitude, colliding with atoms in the upper atmosphere. The collisions cause electrons to be stripped from the atoms, with the resultant flow of electrons traveling downward to earth at near the speed of light. The interaction of the electrons with the earth’s magnetic field turns the flow into a transverse current that radiates forward as an intense electromagnetic wave. The field generates extremely high voltages and current in electrical conductors that can exceed the voltage tolerance of many electronic devices. All this occurs within a few tens of nanoseconds.The Congressional EMP Commission postulated that E1 would have its primary impact on microelectronics, especially SCADAs (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition), DCSs (digital control systems), and PLCs (programmable logic controllers). These are the small computers, numbering now in the millions, that allow for the unmanned operation of our infrastructure.To assess the vulnerability of SCADAs to EMP, and therefore the vulnerability of our infrastructure, the EMP Commission funded a series of tests, exposing SCADA components to both radiated electric fields and injected voltages on cables connected to the components. The intent was to observe the response of the equipment, when in an operational mode, to electromagnetic energy simulating an EMP. “The bottom line observation at the end of the testing was that every system tested failed when exposed to the simulated EMP environment” [6].E1 can generate voltages of 50,000?V. Normal operating voltages of today’s miniaturized electronics tend to be only a few?(3-4) volts. States the EMP Commission: “The large number and widespread reliance on such systems by all the nation’s critical infrastructures represent a systemic threat to their continued operation following an EMP event” [39]. A scenario seen in films is all automobiles and trucks being rendered inoperable. This would not be the case. Modern automobiles have as many as 100 microprocessors that control virtually all functions, but the vulnerability has been reduced by the increased application of electromagnetic compatibility standards. The EMP Commission found that only minor damage occurred at an E1 field level of 50?kV/m, but there were minor disruptions of normal operations at lower peak levels as well [40].There is a self-published post (J. Steinberger, Nobel laureate physics, 1988) disputing the potential effects of E1 [41]. This is an isolated opinion.Shielding against E1 could theoretically be accomplished through the construction of a Faraday cage around specific components or an entire facility. The cage is composed of conductive materials and an insulation barrier that absorbs pulse energy and channels it directly into the ground. The cage shields out the EM signals by “shorting out” the electric field and reflecting it.To be an effective Faraday cage, the conductive case must totally enclose the system. Any aperture, even microscopic seams between metal plates, can compromise the protection. To be useful, however, a device must have some connection with the outside world and not be completely isolated. Surge protective devices can be used on metallic cables to prevent large currents from entering a device, or the metallic cables can be replaced by fiber optic cables without any accompanying metal. The US Military has taken extensive measures to protect (“harden”) its equipment against E1. “On the civilian side, the problem has not really been addressed” [42].--Grid ! Ext.Grid collapse causes extinction.Greene ’19 – Nuclear Engineering M.S. degrees from the University of Tennessee, recognized subject matter expert in nuclear reactor safety, nuclear fuel cycle technologies, and advanced reactor concept development, worked at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) for over three decades, as Director of Research Reactor Development Programs and Director of Nuclear Technology ProgramsSherrell R., “Enhancing Electric Grid, Critical Infrastructure, and Societal Resilience with Resilient Nuclear Power Plants (rNPPs),” Nuclear Technology 205(3), are a variety of events that could deal crippling blows to a nation’s Grid, Critical Infrastructure, and social fabric. The types of catastrophes under consideration here are “very bad day” scenarios that might result from severe GMDs induced by solar CMEs, HEMP attacks, cyber attacks, etc.5As briefly discussed in Sec. III.C, the probability of a GMD of the magnitude of the 1859 Carrington Event is now believed to be on the order of 1%/year. The Earth narrowly missed (by only several days) intercepting a CME stream in July 2012 that would have created a GMD equal to or larger than the Carrington Event.41 Lloyd’s, in its 2013 report, “Solar Storm Risk to the North American Electric Grid,” 42 stated the following: “A Carrington-level, extreme geomagnetic storm is almost inevitable in the future…The total U.S. population at risk of extended power outage from a Carrington-level storm is between 20-40 million, with durations of 16 days to 1-2 years…The total economic cost for such a scenario is estimated at $0.6-2.6 trillion USD.” Analyses conducted subsequent to the Lloyd’s assessment indicated the geographical area impacted by the CME would be larger than that estimated in Lloyd’s analysis (extending farther northward along the New England coast of the United States and in the state of Minnesota),43 and that the actual consequences of such an event could actually be greater than estimated by Lloyd’s.Based on “Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack: Critical National Infrastructures” to Congress in 2008 (Ref. 39), a HEMP attack over the Central U.S. could impact virtually the entire North American continent. The consequences of such an event are difficult to quantify with confidence. Experts affiliated with the aforementioned Commission and others familiar with the details of the Commission’s work have stated in Congressional testimony that such an event could “kill up to 90 percent of the national population through starvation, disease, and societal collapse.” 44,45 Most of these consequences are either direct or indirect impacts of the predicted collapse of virtually the entire U.S. Critical Infrastructure system in the wake of the attack.Last, recent analyses by both the U.S. Department of Energy46 and the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine47 have concluded that cyber threats to the U.S. Grid from both state-level and substatelevel entities are likely to grow in number and sophistication in the coming years, posing a growing threat to the U.S. Grid.These three “very bad day” scenarios are not creations of overzealous science fiction writers. A variety of mitigating actions to reduce both the vulnerability and the consequences of these events has been identified, and some are being implemented. However, the fact remains that events such as those described here have the potential to change life as we know it in the United States and other developed nations in the 21st century, whether the events occur individually, or simultaneously, and with or without coordinated physical attacks on Critical Infrastructure assets.! – Warming Infrastructure bill is essential for warming - it decarbonizes and invigorates the economy by speeding up construction and the development of green techMcDonnell ’21; [Tim McDonnell; a reporter covering global climate change and energy issues, based in Washington, D.C. He has worked previously for National Public Radio and Mother Jones, and spent a couple years freelancing across sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia for National Geographic, The New York Times, and other outlets. He was a Fulbright-National Geographic Storytelling Fellow and a National Geographic Explorer; 3/23/21; Quartz; “Biden’s infrastructure bill will make or break his climate legacy”; ; accessed: 7/12/21; YS]President Joe Biden is turning to his next legislative priority, a $3 trillion pair of infrastructure bills that put climate change front and center. As first reported in the New York Times on March 22, funding will be directed to the electric grid, energy-efficient affordable housing, electric vehicle charging stations, and other clean energy priorities. It follows a $1.9 trillion economic stimulus package signed earlier this month.The infrastructure package shows that Biden is taking a different approach to the climate crisis than Barack Obama. Rather than centering his climate policy agenda on regulating greenhouse gas emissions from power plants (as Obama did, with his Clean Power Plan), Biden’s priority is to pour money into new technologies and clean energy hardware with a goal to decarbonize the US electricity system by 2035. The administration is betting that leading with a carrot, rather than the stick, will be the fastest, lowest-cost way to make a lasting dent in emissions, while breathing life in to the post-pandemic economy (new emissions regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency will likely follow).“This could be the most promising opportunity to make progress on decarbonization across the economy that the US has had in a long time,” said John Larsen, director of climate and energy at Rhodium Group, a research firm. “And as far as getting very quick returns on investments, the power sector is the most important place to make progress.”How infrastructure spending can benefit the climateThe last time the US saw a big clean energy spending bill was Obama’s $90 billion green stimulus in 2009, which ultimately gave a dramatic boost to solar and wind energy. Biden’s new effort is an order of magnitude greater: The Times reports that the package includes “nearly $1 trillion in spending on the construction of roads, bridges, rail lines, ports, electric vehicle charging stations, and improvements to the electric grid and other parts of the power sector,” as well as “one million affordable and energy-efficient housing units.” The remainder of the $3 trillion is set aside for rural broadband connectivity, building and renovating schools, and job retraining for millions of workers.As for spending on the power sector, Larsen and his colleagues laid out a few guiding principles for the Biden team in a Mar. 23 report. They recommend dramatically increasing and extending the duration of tax credits for renewables, which are currently scheduled to wind down over the next few years; create new incentives to help existing nuclear power plants stay open; and write off old federal loans made to local governments to build coal-fired power plants, so that those can close ahead of schedule.It spills over globally – US action and leadership incentivizes others to follow through on climate change measures German ’21; [Ben German; an energy reporter at Axios. He is the author of the daily Axios Generate newsletter and covers the world of energy business and politics; 6/7/21; Axios; “The global stakes of Biden's infrastructure negotiations”; ; accessed: 7/12/21; YS]The infrastructure drama enveloping Capitol Hill could spill onto the global climate stage.Why it matters: Major new U.S. investments and policies could help spur other nations to take more aggressive and tangible steps to cut emissions. But failure to steer major new initiatives through Congress could hinder the White House diplomatic posture as the U.N. conference looms.State of play: The White House is negotiating with Republicans amid all kinds of uncertainty over whether Democrats can pass legislation without GOP backing.President Biden has proposed major investments in electric vehicles, grid tech, mass transit, clean energy tax incentives and many other initiatives.The negotiations with Republicans — who object to the plan's steep price tag and expansive definition of infrastructure — come ahead of November's critical United Nations climate summit.What they're saying: "Because of the importance of American leadership on climate, the rest of the world is definitely watching what happens on Capitol Hill," said the Environmental Defense Fund's Nathaniel Keohane.Keohane, who leads EDF's climate program, said major U.S. investments will bolster the country's economy and competitiveness. But they're also consequential internationally, he said."The more the U.S. can demonstrate leadership — not only in the ambition of its targets but in the ambition of its implementation and the seriousness of its implementation — the more likely we are to see the rest of the world stepping into its ambition and accelerating its own climate action," he said.Catch up fast: In April the White House set a voluntary target under the Paris Agreement of cutting U.S. emissions by 50% below 2005 levels by 2030.But that's much harder to achieve absent Capitol Hill approval of new investments and incentives.The Atlantic Council's Margaret Jackson said Biden's climate initiatives thus far have borne some fruit, pointing to several nations strengthening their Paris targets.But Jackson, who has written about the importance of congressional action, also tells Axios: "U.S. allies and partners are still somewhat skeptical in terms of how much this administration can really accomplish, and will it be lasting."Warming causes extinctionSprat and Dunlop 19 (David Spratt and Ian Dunlop, *Research Director for Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration and co-author of Climate Code Red: The case for emergency action; **member of the Club of Rome AND formerly an international oil, gas and coal industry executive, chairman of the Australian Coal Association, chief executive of the Australian Institute of Company Directors, and chair of the Australian Greenhouse Office Experts Group on Emissions Trading, "Existential climate-related security risk: A scenario approach," Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration, )//BB2050: By 2050, there is broad scientific acceptance that system tipping-points for the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and a sea-ice-free Arctic summer were passed well before 1.5°C of warming, for the Greenland Ice Sheet well before 2°C, and for widespread permafrost loss and large-scale Amazon drought and dieback by 2.5°C. The “hothouse Earth” scenario has been realised, and Earth is headed for another degree or more of warming, especially since human greenhouse emissions are still significant. While sea levels have risen 0.5 metres by 2050, the increase may be 2–3 metres by 2100, and it is understood from historical analogues that seas may eventually rise by more than 25 metres. Thirty-five percent of the global land area, and 55 percent of the global population, are subject to more than 20 days a year of lethal heat conditions, beyond the threshold of human survivability. The destabilisation of the Jet Stream has very significantly affected the intensity and geographical distribution of the Asian and West African monsoons and, together with the further slowing of the Gulf Stream, is impinging on life support systems in Europe. North America suffers from devastating weather extremes including wildfires, heatwaves, drought and inundation. The summer monsoons in China have failed, and water flows into the great rivers of Asia are severely reduced by the loss of more than one-third of the Himalayan ice sheet. Glacial loss reaches 70 percent in the Andes, and rainfall in Mexico and central America falls by half. Semi-permanent El Nino conditions prevail. Aridification emerges over more than 30 percent of the world’s land surface. Desertification is severe in southern Africa, the southern Mediterranean, west Asia, the Middle East, inland Australia and across the south-western United States. Impacts: A number of ecosystems collapse, including coral reef systems, the Amazon rainforest and in the Arctic. Some poorer nations and regions, which lack capacity to provide artificially-cooled environments for their populations, become unviable. Deadly heat conditions persist for more than 100 days per year in West Africa, tropical South America, the Middle East and South-East Asia, which together with land degradation and rising sea levels contributes to 21 perhaps a billion people being displaced. Water availability decreases sharply in the most affected regions at lower latitudes (dry tropics and subtropics), affecting about two billion people worldwide. Agriculture becomes nonviable in the dry subtropics. Most regions in the world see a significant drop in food production and increasing numbers of extreme weather events, including heat waves, floods and storms. Food production is inadequate to feed the global population and food prices skyrocket, as a consequence of a one-fifth decline in crop yields, a decline in the nutrition content of food crops, a catastrophic decline in insect populations, desertification, monsoon failure and chronic water shortages, and conditions too hot for human habitation in significant food-growing regions. The lower reaches of the agriculturally-important river deltas such as the Mekong, Ganges and Nile are inundated, and significant sectors of some of the world’s most populous cities — including Chennai, Mumbai, Jakarta, Guangzhou, Tianjin, Hong Kong, Ho Chi Minh City, Shanghai, Lagos, Bangkok and Manila — are abandoned. Some small islands become uninhabitable. Ten percent of Bangladesh is inundated, displacing 15 million people. According to the Global Challenges Foundation’s Global Catastrophic Risks 2018 report, even for 2°C of warming, more than a billion people may need to be relocated due to sea-level rise, and In high-end scenarios “the scale of destruction is beyond our capacity to model, with a high likelihood of human civilisation coming to an end”. 22--XT – Bill K2 Solve WarmingThe bill’s various green energy measures are directly tied to fighting climate change Pike ’21; [Lili Pike; climate reporter, writes about climate and energy issues for Vox. Previously, she worked for Inside Climate News and China Dialogue where she covered Chinese climate policy; 2/24/21; Vox; “3 popular policies Democrats can use to fight climate change and boost the economy”; ; accessed: 7/16/21; YS]From his first day in office, President Joe Biden has been under tremendous pressure to swiftly address three immediate crises: the pandemic, unemployment, and climate change.If all goes according to his plans, Congress will pass a $1.9 trillion Covid-19 rescue bill as early as next week, helping to stem the first two crises. Next, Biden hopes to further tackle unemployment along with climate change through Build Back Better, a $2 trillion infrastructure plan he outlined last summer after Covid-19 hit. On Wednesday, the Senate kicked off the process of turning that vision into a bill.One of the theories of Build Back Better is to cut emissions by pouring federal dollars into projects like high-speed rail and tax incentives for clean energy installation. At the same time, the Biden plan envisions that these green infrastructure projects will yield millions of good-paying jobs to help recover the nearly 10 million jobs the country has yet to regain since the beginning of the pandemic.The Biden administration has been hammering home the connection between climate policy and jobs in recent weeks. In a CNN op-ed earlier this month, White House National Climate Adviser Gina McCarthy wrote that “climate will play an integral role in economic growth and job creation in the months and years ahead.”Because climate change is such a pressing, existential threat, addressing it will undoubtedly require difficult trade-offs. But Biden has a huge opportunity here to invest in popular programs. Several options on the table can help connect fighting climate change with job growth, cost savings, and better quality of life — by upgrading to electric cars, for instance, and building out the infrastructure to support them.President Barack Obama’s first term offers some lessons. In the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Congress directed $90 billion toward clean energy. Some of these investments did produce immediate economic benefits, but significant job growth started four years after the bill passed, according to one study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.Build Back Better is different, Sam Ricketts, co-founder of Evergreen Action and former climate director for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee’s presidential campaign, argued. “It is going to be bigger this time around,” he said. “It is going to be more diverse when it comes to the types of investments both in clean energy and sustainable infrastructure.” These features will lead to faster job growth, he said.Specifically, to make climate policy good for the economy on the immediate horizon, Congress will have to push forward the policies that experts say can quickly deliver on both fronts. Some of those double-edged proposals include building out the nation’s electric vehicle charging infrastructure, reinstating the Cash for Clunkers program to boost clean car sales, and launching the Civilian Climate Corps, an updated version of a New Deal program that employed people directly in conservation jobs during the Great Depression.Actually shepherding a bill with such strong climate measures through a divided Senate will likely be a challenge. Infrastructure is ostensibly bipartisan, and $35 billion in energy investment made it into December’s stimulus. But if Democrats face opposition, they have ways to move ahead without Republican support.How Congress navigates this process has implications not just for climate change and the economy, but also for Democrats’ political viability. In a January op-ed in the New York Times, Ezra Klein wrote that Democrats must find a way to cut through gridlock and deliver tangible benefits to Americans reeling from the pandemic; otherwise, they deserve to lose in the midterms.With climate set to play such a big role in the economic recovery, let’s look at some of the key policies that can concretely help Americans in the coming years while reducing emissions.It’s now or never – with infrastructure the U.S. has an opportunity to lead other nations through NDCs, solving internationallyMazria ’21; [Edward Mazria; FAIA, founder and CEO of the nonprofit Architecture 2030, is an internationally recognized architect, author, researcher, and educator. Over the past four decades, his seminal research into the sustainability, resilience, energy consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions of the built environment has redefined the role of architecture, planning, design, and building in reshaping our world. He is the 2021 recipient of AIA's Gold Medal; 3/23/21; Architect Magazine; “CarbonPositive: This Is the Make-or-Break Year for the Planet”; ; accessed: 7/16/21; YS]In the Feb. 26 release of the interim United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change report, Secretary-General António Guterres boldly declared 2021 the “make or break year” for the planet. The report found the 2030 Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) emissions-reduction pledges of 75 countries to be wholly inadequate. Global greenhouse gas emissions would only be cut by about 1%, far short of the 65% cut in carbon emissions from January 2020 levels needed by 2030 to have a 67% probability of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and to meet the goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement.The science and global carbon budget for limiting warming to 1.5°C are clear. The remaining budget at the beginning of 2020 was 340 gigatons of carbon dioxide, which means that if the world achieves a 65% reduction of CO? emissions by 2030 and zero emissions by 2040, we can expect warming to be kept at about 1.5°C.The time to act is now. The most significant climate event since the 2015 Paris Agreement—when all parties agreed to pursue efforts to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5°C—will take place this November. At the 2021 U.N. Climate Change Conference (COP26), countries must submit their updated 2030 NDCs. To date, only the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Denmark have committed to significant 2030 emissions reductions from 1990 levels: 55%, 68%, and 70%, respectively. Much, much more is needed to reach the critical goals.Fortunately, the U.S. is now poised to lead in this endeavor, as COP26 will be the first U.N. climate change conference the country will attend since rejoining the Paris Agreement. All eyes will be on its updated NDC pledge. This figure should be announced before April 22, when President Biden will host world leaders for a summit “aimed at raising climate ambition.” The country must persuade other nations to follow suit by setting a minimum 2030 NDC of a 65% emissions reduction from 2005 levels, in line with the 1.5°C carbon budget. Additionally, the U.S. must work with the EU, China, and India to be similarly ambitious, as these four entities are responsible for 58% of global CO? emissions.The U.S. can lead other nations with confidence and the knowledge that a 65% reduction is achievable. Why? U.S. carbon emissions today are already down 23% from 2005 levels. The building sector, the country’s largest energy consumer, continues to reduce its emissions and is now 30% below 2005 levels, ahead of the U.S. Paris Agreement’s NDC of a 26% to 28% reduction by 2025. The Biden pledge of a clean electricity grid by 2035 should further cut emissions from the building sector, surpassing the targeted 65% reduction, and also drive emissions down in other sectors.Prior to COP26, the world’s largest professional planning, design, and construction organizations will meet to demonstrate the significant actions our industry is taking to work within the 1.5°C carbon budget. With urban environments responsible for more than 75% of all annual global emissions—predominantly generated by day-to-day building and infrastructure operations, the manufacture of materials, and construction—we can show what is practically possible and embolden all governments to do the same.Infrastructure is key to speeding up the transition to clean energy – it’s the best opportunity for combating climate change Bordoff ’21; [Jason Bordoff; a columnist at Foreign Policy, the co-founding dean of the Columbia Climate School, the founding director of the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, a professor of professional practice in international and public affairs, and a former senior director on the staff of the U.S. National Security Council and special assistant to President Barack Obama; 3/15/21; Foreign Policy, “The Time for a Green Industrial Policy Is Now”; ; accessed: 7/16/21; YS]Now that U.S. President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion plan for economic stimulus and pandemic relief has become law, his administration will turn its attention to a multitrillion-dollar plan to rebuild the United States’ ailing infrastructure. Its scope goes far beyond roads and bridges. Viewed in combination with other parts of Biden’s economic agenda, it reflects a new openness on both sides of the aisle to what has traditionally been known as industrial policy. Critics deride industrial policy as protectionist and as the government picking “winners,” but when it comes to clean energy—a top priority for Biden—a push by his administration to build new and innovative clean energy sectors using industrial policy may actually be the greatest contribution it can make to combating climate change.Industrial policy, long anathema to mainstream economic policymakers in Washington, is back in vogue. The Biden administration’s Build Back Better economic plan includes targeted support for specific industries to make them more competitive with Asia and Europe and government procurement provisions to boost domestic manufacturing with “Buy America” requirements. As White House economist Jared Bernstein wrote in Foreign Policy, “the rationale for industrial policy is as strong as ever.” Biden’s national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, similarly wrote in Foreign Policy that “advocating industrial policy … should be considered something close to obvious.” Even Republicans, such as Sen. Marco Rubio, have been willing to deviate from the free-market’s gospel by endorsing industrial policy.The push for industrial policy has been particularly strong for clean energy—as a way to combine battling climate change with building strategically important parts of the economy. The Green New Deal in 2019 drew the link between achieving net-zero emissions and creating millions of jobs by investing in the “industry of the United States.” Biden’s top economic advisor, Brian Deese, said, “some of the biggest opportunities” in climate policy right now are “what some people would call straight-out industrial policy.”Industrial policy is a phrase used to mean different things. Broadly speaking, it refers to government intervention in the economy to promote and protect targeted sectors, often those considered strategically important. The term is therefore instinctively distasteful to those schooled in the laissez-faire, free-market orthodoxy of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand.” They worry about a creeping state capitalism that favors well-connected companies, stifling innovation and competition.In reality, of course, the energy sector has never been free of government intervention. Nearly every source of energy receives some degree of favorable tax treatment. Nuclear energy receives government liability protection. Government investment and research gave rise to the shale revolution. As Robert McNally points out in his book, Crude Volatility: The History and the Future of Boom-Bust Oil Prices, the Texas Railroad Commission was the most successful oil cartel in history in setting prices, and even a Republican president like Dwight D. Eisenhower protected the domestic oil industry from the threat of imported oil.To be fair, there are good reasons for government intervention in the energy market. Energy use and production can impose harm on others, such as through air pollution and carbon emissions. Energy innovation delivers benefits to all of us beyond the economic gains the innovator can capture. Energy infrastructure investment, such as pipelines, transmission lines, and electric vehicle chargers, may be hampered if any one firm’s investments benefit all their competitors or if it risks monopolistic market power of energy delivery mechanisms.The argument for government’s role in the energy sector is even stronger today. First, the world faces an existential threat from climate change. With time running short to begin sharply curbing emissions, market forces will not deliver the pace of transition needed without robust government intervention. Second, the scale of that transition creates enormous economic opportunity to build new energy sectors. With the economy in a deep hole from the pandemic, leading in these new sectors can spur significant job growth. Finally, given the strategic importance of energy—critical to every citizens’ economic and physical well-being and safety, as the recent crisis in Texas reminded us—there is a strong national security rationale to develop these technologies and capabilities in the United States. As the energy system transitions to cleaner alternatives, there will be new risks associated with the critical minerals’ supply chains required for renewable energy and batteries, cybersecurity, and global trade chokepoints, which argues for reinforcing the domestic U.S. industrial base in these technologies.Infrastructure is Biden’s best and only hope of mitigating climate change and regaining influence internationally The Economist ’21; [The Economist; has been published since September 1843 to take part “in a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress”. This mission continues to guide our coverage: we publish it every week in the newspaper; “How America can rid itself of both carbon and blackouts”; ; accessed: 7/16/21; YS]Plans to overhaul American energy will come before Congress in the next few months. President Joe Biden has said that he wants fossil-fuel emissions from power generation to end by 2035 and the economy to be carbon-neutral by 2050. America is not just the world’s second-largest emitter, but also a source of climate-related policy, technology and, potentially, leadership. What is about to unfold in Washington will set the course in America for the next decade—and quite possibly beyond.Time is pressing. Neither Mr Biden nor his successors may get a second chance to recast policy on such a scale. Global emissions from fossil fuels and cement production in 2019 were 16% higher than in 2009. It will be even harder to limit climate change to less than 2°C above the pre-industrial level, the global threshold from which America’s target for 2050 comes. To be carbon neutral, the world must curb emissions by 7.6% a year for a decade, a steeper decline than in 2020, when covid-19 cut demand for oil and coal. For America, delaying action to 2030 would nearly double the cost of reaching net zero or, more likely, mean it overshoots its targets.Yet there are grounds for hope. Although the Republican Party is against almost all action, voters are increasingly alarmed by climate change. Two-thirds of them think the federal government is doing too little about it, and that share includes plenty of younger Republicans. Although the fossil-fuel lobby remains powerful, many Republican business donors want more action—partly because asset managers are urging firms to align their strategies with the net-zero world Mr Biden envisions.Most encouraging of all, the costs of power from wind and solar have plunged by 70% and 90% over the past decade. Along with cheap gas, this has already helped America decarbonise at an impressive rate, despite Donald Trump’s rolling back of fossil-fuel regulations. Price has not been the only factor; more than half of the states have some sort of clean-energy mandate, a device that Mr Biden wants to introduce on a national scale.This involves a regulatory framework that favours renewable-energy developments and grid connections to hook them up. It will take a lot of extra investment—about $2.5trn in the coming decade, say researchers at Princeton (see Briefing). In a new book, Bill Gates, a billionaire philanthropist, argues that research is needed into a host of areas such as energy storage, advanced nuclear reactors to complement renewables and technologies for clean concrete-making and other activities that are hard to decarbonise (see article). Without these, even if a clean grid is powering electric cars and light trucks, it will displace only around half of emissions.America is good at innovation, but new ideas need to be deployed at scale, not languish in the lab. One tool is a carbon price which, if it were high enough and if investors believed it would last, would signal what improvements were needed where. But for all its attractions, carbon pricing failed in Congress in 2009. Although many economists and opinion-makers on the right favour it, Republican politicians do not. And even if a carbon price were in place, public-private co-operation would still be needed for America to act as fast as Mr Biden proposes.For all those reasons, an ambitious climate-oriented infrastructure bill looks like Mr Biden’s best chance of getting new policy on climate through the Senate. Unfortunately such a plan will be lucky to attract any Republican votes. Yet, if mustering the 60 needed to see off a Senate filibuster is improbable, a plan could be stripped of some measures, including a clean-energy standard, and passed with a simple majority through the parliamentary manoeuvre known as reconciliation. The bill must still be of a scale and ambition that matches America’s challenge.Failure to act would bring big risks. For a start, it would make America less competitive in the new clean-energy economy. China is the dominant producer of solar panels and batteries; it has also invested in foreign mines to secure minerals needed for them. Europe has its own “green deal” to boost its clean-energy industries. It plans to tax imports from countries that do not pledge to lower their emissions.America would also be deprived of global influence over climate. It has direct control over only about 10% of the world’s greenhouse-gas effluvia. If it wants the benefit of a stabler climate—and with it a stabler world economy, stabler geopolitics and much avoided suffering—it needs to influence the other 90%, too. Mr Biden has appointed John Kerry, a former secretary of state, to spearhead that effort (see Lexington). America is to rejoin the Paris agreement on February 19th, making it a full participant in the un conference to be held in Glasgow, in Scotland, in November, when countries will be able to lodge new and more ambitious pledges to cut emissions. If America tables goals and gives evidence that it will back them with domestic policy, it will gain influence. China’s two big development banks have doled out $51bn for foreign coal plants since 2008. America should be part of a push against such subsidies.Enough driftingUnfortunately, America brings little credibility to action on climate. Mr Trump took pleasure in subverting it, but his country’s poor record precedes him. George W. Bush declined to implement the Kyoto protocol. Congress has not considered serious climate legislation since 2009. Today must be different. There will never be a better chance for Mr Biden to show real ambition. If the blackouts in Texas are any guide, it would not just be the world that would thank him, but Americans, too.--Warming = ExtinctionCurrent warming trajectory makes Earth uninhabitableSpratt 19 – Research Director for Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration, Melbourne, and co-author of Climate Code Red: The case for emergency actionDavid, with Ian Dunlop, May. “Existential climate-related security risk: A scenario approach.” : By 2050, there is broad scientific acceptance that system tipping-points for the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and a sea-ice-free Arctic summer were passed well before 1.5°C of warming, for the Greenland Ice Sheet well before 2°C, and for widespread permafrost loss and large-scale Amazon drought and dieback by 2.5°C. The “hothouse Earth” scenario has been realised, and Earth is headed for another degree or more of warming, especially since human greenhouse emissions are still significant. While sea levels have risen 0.5 metres by 2050, the increase may be 2–3 metres by 2100, and it is understood from historical analogues that seas may eventually rise by more than 25 metres. Thirty-five percent of the global land area, and 55 percent of the global population, are subject to more than 20 days a year of lethal heat conditions, beyond the threshold of human survivability. The destabilisation of the Jet Stream has very significantly affected the intensity and geographical distribution of the Asian and West African monsoons and, together with the further slowing of the Gulf Stream, is impinging on life support systems in Europe. North America suffers from devastating weather extremes including wildfires, heatwaves, drought and inundation. The summer monsoons in China have failed, and water flows into the great rivers of Asia are severely reduced by the loss of more than one-third of the Himalayan ice sheet. Glacial loss reaches 70 percent in the Andes, and rainfall in Mexico and central America falls by half. Semi-permanent El Nino conditions prevail. Aridification emerges over more than 30 percent of the world’s land surface. Desertification is severe in southern Africa, the southern Mediterranean, west Asia, the Middle East, inland Australia and across the south-western United States. Impacts: A number of ecosystems collapse, including coral reef systems, the Amazon rainforest and in the Arctic. Some poorer nations and regions, which lack capacity to provide artificially-cooled environments for their populations, become unviable. Deadly heat conditions persist for more than 100 days per year in West Africa, tropical South America, the Middle East and South-East Asia, which together with land degradation and rising sea levels contributes to 21 perhaps a billion people being displaced. Water availability decreases sharply in the most affected regions at lower latitudes (dry tropics and subtropics), affecting about two billion people worldwide. Agriculture becomes nonviable in the dry subtropics.Most regions in the world see a significant drop in food production and increasing numbers of extreme weather events, including heat waves, floods and storms. Food production is inadequate to feed the global population and food prices skyrocket, as a consequence of a one-fifth decline in crop yields, a decline in the nutrition content of food crops, a catastrophic decline in insect populations, desertification, monsoon failure and chronic water shortages, and conditions too hot for human habitation in significant food-growing regions.The lower reaches of the agriculturally-important river deltas such as the Mekong, Ganges and Nile are inundated, and significant sectors of some of the world’s most populous cities — including Chennai, Mumbai, Jakarta, Guangzhou, Tianjin, Hong Kong, Ho Chi Minh City, Shanghai, Lagos, Bangkok and Manila — are abandoned. Some small islands become uninhabitable. Ten percent of Bangladesh is inundated, displacing 15 million people. According to the Global Challenges Foundation’s Global Catastrophic Risks 2018 report, even for 2°C of warming, more than a billion people may need to be relocated due to sea-level rise, and In high-end scenarios “the scale of destruction is beyond our capacity to model, with a high likelihood of human civilization coming to an end”. 22Warming causes extinction.McKibben 19 – Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury College; fellow of the American Academy of Arts and SciencesBill, 4/9. "This Is How Human Extinction Could Play Out." Rolling Stone. 4-9-2019. , it could get very bad.In 2015, a study in the Journal of Mathematical Biology pointed out that if the world’s oceans kept warming, by 2100 they might become hot enough to “stop oxygen production by phyto-plankton by disrupting the process of photosynthesis.” Given that two-thirds of the Earth’s oxygen comes from phytoplankton, that would “likely result in the mass mortality of animals and humans.”A year later, above the Arctic Circle, in Siberia, a heat wave thawed a reindeer carcass that had been trapped in the permafrost. The exposed body released anthrax into nearby water and soil, infecting two thousand reindeer grazing nearby, and they in turn infected some humans; a twelve-year-old boy died. As it turns out, permafrost is a “very good preserver of microbes and viruses, because it is cold, there is no oxygen, and it is dark” — scientists have managed to revive an eight-million-year-old bacterium they found beneath the surface of a glacier. Researchers believe there are fragments of the Spanish flu virus, smallpox, and bubonic plague buried in Siberia and Alaska.Or consider this: as ice sheets melt, they take weight off land, and that can trigger earthquakes — seismic activity is already increasing in Greenland and Alaska. Meanwhile, the added weight of the new seawater starts to bend the Earth’s crust. “That will give you a massive increase in volcanic activity. It’ll activate faults to create earthquakes, submarine landslides, tsunamis, the whole lot,” explained the director of University College London’s Hazard Centre. Such a landslide happened in Scandinavia about eight thousand years ago, as the last Ice Age retreated and a Kentucky-size section of Norway’s continental shelf gave way, “plummeting down to the abyssal plain and creating a series of titanic waves that roared forth with a vengeance,” wiping all signs of life from coastal Norway to Greenland and “drowning the Wales-sized landmass that once connected Britain to the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany.” When the waves hit the Shetlands, they were sixty-five feet high.There’s even this: if we keep raising carbon dioxide levels, we may not be able to think straight anymore. At a thousand parts per million (which is within the realm of possibility for 2100), human cognitive ability falls 21 percent. “The largest effects were seen for Crisis Response, Information Usage, and Strategy,” a Harvard study reported, which is too bad, as those skills are what we seem to need most.I could, in other words, do my best to scare you silly. I’m not opposed on principle — changing something as fundamental as the composition of the atmosphere, and hence the heat balance of the planet, is certain to trigger all manner of horror, and we shouldn’t shy away from it. The dramatic uncertainty that lies ahead may be the most frightening development of all; the physical world is going from backdrop to foreground. (It’s like the contrast between politics in the old days, when you could forget about Washington for weeks at a time, and politics in the Trump era, when the president is always jumping out from behind a tree to yell at you.)But let’s try to occupy ourselves with the most likely scenarios, because they are more than disturbing enough. Long before we get to tidal waves or smallpox, long before we choke to death or stop thinking clearly, we will need to concentrate on the most mundane and basic facts: everyone needs to eat every day, and an awful lot of us live near the ocean.FOOD SUPPLY first. We’ve had an amazing run since the end of World War II, with crop yields growing fast enough to keep ahead of a fast-rising population. It’s come at great human cost — displaced peasant farmers fill many of the planet’s vast slums — but in terms of sheer volume, the Green Revolution’s fertilizers, pesticides, and machinery managed to push output sharply upward. That climb, however, now seems to be running into the brute facts of heat and drought. There are studies to demonstrate the dire effects of warming on coffee, cacao, chickpeas, and champagne, but it is cereals that we really need to worry about, given that they supply most of the planet’s calories: corn, wheat, and rice all evolved as crops in the climate of the last ten thousand years, and though plant breeders can change them, there are limits to those changes. You can move a person from Hanoi to Edmonton, and she might decide to open a Vietnamese restaurant. But if you move a rice plant, it will die.A 2017 study in Australia, home to some of the world’s highest-tech farming, found that “wheat productivity has flatlined as a direct result of climate change.” After tripling between 1900 and 1990, wheat yields had stagnated since, as temperatures increased a degree and rainfall declined by nearly a third. “The chance of that just being variable climate without the underlying factor [of climate change] is less than one in a hundred billion,” the researchers said, and it meant that despite all the expensive new technology farmers kept introducing, “they have succeeded only in standing still, not in moving forward.” Assuming the same trends continued, yields would actually start to decline inside of two decades, they reported. In June 2018, researchers found that a two-degree Celsius rise in temperature — which, recall, is what the Paris accords are now aiming for — could cut U.S. corn yields by 18 percent. A four-degree increase — which is where our current trajectory will take us — would cut the crop almost in half. The United States is the world’s largest producer of corn, which in turn is the planet’s most widely grown crop.Corn is vulnerable because even a week of high temperatures at the key moment can keep it from fertilizing. (“You only get one chance to pollinate a quadrillion kernels of corn,” the head of a commodity consulting firm explained.) But even the hardiest crops are susceptible. Sorghum, for instance, which is a staple for half a billion humans, is particularly hardy in dry conditions because it has big, fibrous roots that reach far down into the earth. Even it has limits, though, and they are being reached. Thirty years of data from the American Midwest show that heat waves affect the “vapor pressure deficit,” the difference between the water vapor in the sorghum leaf’s interior and that in the surrounding air. Hotter weather means the sorghum releases more moisture into the atmosphere. Warm the planet’s temperature by two degrees Celsius — which is, again, now the world’s goal — and sorghum yields drop 17 percent. Warm it five degrees Celsius (nine degrees Fahrenheit), and yields drop almost 60 percent.It’s hard to imagine a topic duller than sorghum yields. It’s the precise opposite of clickbait. But people have to eat; in the human game, the single most important question is probably “What’s for dinner?” And when the answer is “Not much,” things deteriorate fast. In 2010 a severe heat wave hit Russia, and it wrecked the grain harvest, which led the Kremlin to ban exports. The global price of wheat spiked, and that helped trigger the Arab Spring — Egypt at the time was the largest wheat importer on the planet. That experience set academics and insurers to work gaming out what the next food shock might look like. In 2017 one team imagined a vigorous El Ni?o, with the attendant floods and droughts — for a season, in their scenario, corn and soy yields declined by 10 percent, and wheat and rice by 7 percent. The result was chaos: “quadrupled commodity prices, civil unrest, significant negative humanitarian consequences . . . Food riots break out in urban areas across the Middle East, North Africa, and Latin America. The euro weakens and the main European stock markets lose ten percent.”At about the same time, a team of British researchers released a study demonstrating that even if you can grow plenty of food, the transportation system that distributes it runs through just fourteen major choke-points, and those are vulnerable to — you guessed it — massive disruption from climate change. For instance, U.S. rivers and canals carry a third of the world’s corn and soy, and they’ve been frequently shut down or crimped by flooding and drought in recent years. Brazil accounts for 17 percent of the world’s grain exports, but heavy rainfall in 2017 stranded three thousand trucks. “It’s the glide path to a perfect storm,” said one of the report’s authors.Five weeks after that, another report raised an even deeper question. What if you can figure out how to grow plenty of food, and you can figure out how to guarantee its distribution, but the food itself has lost much of its value? The paper, in the journal Environmental Research, said that rising carbon dioxide levels, by speeding plant growth, seem to have reduced the amount of protein in basic staple crops, a finding so startling that, for many years, agronomists had overlooked hints that it was happening. But it seems to be true: when researchers grow grain at the carbon dioxide levels we expect for later this century, they find that minerals such as calcium and iron drop by 8 percent, and protein by about the same amount. In the developing world, where people rely on plants for their protein, that means huge reductions in nutrition: India alone could lose 5 percent of the protein in its total diet, putting 53 million people at new risk for protein deficiency. The loss of zinc, essential for maternal and infant health, could endanger 138 million people around the world. In 2018, rice researchers found “significantly less protein” when they grew eighteen varieties of rice in high–carbon dioxide test plots. “The idea that food became less nutritious was a surprise,” said one researcher. “It’s not intuitive. But I think we should continue to expect surprises. We are completely altering the biophysical conditions that underpin our food system.” And not just ours. People don’t depend on goldenrod, for instance, but bees do. When scientists looked at samples of goldenrod in the Smithsonian that dated back to 1842, they found that the protein content of its pollen had “declined by a third since the industrial revolution — and the change closely tracks with the rise in carbon dioxide.”Bees help crops, obviously, so that’s scary news. But in August 2018, a massive new study found something just as frightening: crop pests were thriving in the new heat. “It gets better and better for them,” said one University of Colorado researcher. Even if we hit the UN target of limiting temperature rise to two degrees Celsius, pests should cut wheat yields by 46 percent, corn by 31 percent, and rice by 19 percent. “Warmer temperatures accelerate the metabolism of insect pests like aphids and corn borers at a predictable rate,” the researchers found. “That makes them hungrier[,] and warmer temperatures also speed up their reproduction.” Even fossilized plants from fifty million years ago make the point: “Plant damage from insects correlated with rising and falling temperatures, reaching a maximum during the warmest periods.”Warming triggers civilizational collapse and turns every impact.Ahmed 19 – investigative journalist, founding editor and chief writer for INSURGE intelligence, and ‘System Shift’ columnist at VICE’s science magazine Motherboard; cites report from the Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration Nafeez, 6/3. “New Report Suggests ‘High Likelihood of Human Civilization Coming to an End’ Starting in 2050.” harrowing scenario analysis of how human civilization might collapse in coming decades due to climate change has been endorsed by a former Australian defense chief and senior royal navy commander.The analysis, published by the Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration, a think-tank in Melbourne, Australia, describes climate change as “a near- to mid-term existential threat to human civilization” and sets out a plausible scenario of where business-as-usual could lead over the next 30 years.The paper argues that the potentially “extremely serious outcomes” of climate-related security threats are often far more probable than conventionally assumed, but almost impossible to quantify because they “fall outside the human experience of the last thousand years.”On our current trajectory, the report warns, “planetary and human systems [are] reaching a ‘point of no return’ by mid-century, in which the prospect of a largely uninhabitable Earth leads to the breakdown of nations and the international order.”The only way to avoid the risks of this scenario is what the report describes as “akin in scale to the World War II emergency mobilization”—but this time focused on rapidly building out a zero-emissions industrial system to set in train the restoration of a safe climate.The scenario warns that our current trajectory will likely lock in at least 3 degrees Celsius (C) of global heating, which in turn could trigger further amplifying feedbacks unleashing further warming. This would drive the accelerating collapse of key ecosystems “including coral reef systems, the Amazon rainforest and in the Arctic.”The results would be devastating. Some one billion people would be forced to attempt to relocate from unlivable conditions, and two billion would face scarcity of water supplies. Agriculture would collapse in the sub-tropics, and food production would suffer dramatically worldwide. The internal cohesion of nation-states like the US and China would unravel.“Even for 2°C of warming, more than a billion people may need to be relocated and in high-end scenarios, the scale of destruction is beyond our capacity to model with a high likelihood of human civilization coming to an end,” the report notes.The new policy briefing is written by David Spratt, Breakthrough’s research director and Ian Dunlop, a former senior executive of Royal Dutch Shell who previously chaired the Australian Coal Association.--Warming Turns Case – Nuclear WarWarming turns every impact and makes nuclear war more likely. Torres 16 – author, Affiliate Scholar @ Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, founder of the X-Risks Institute, published articles for Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Salon, Journal of Future Studies, and the Journal of Evolution and TechnologyPhil, 7/22. “Op-ed: Climate Change Is the Most Urgent Existential Risk." example, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the effects of climate change will be “severe,” “pervasive,” and “irreversible.” Or, as a 2016 study published in Nature and authored by over twenty scientists puts it, the consequences of climate change “will extend longer than the entire history of human civilization thus far.” Furthermore, a recent article in Science Advances confirms that humanity has already escorted the biosphere into the sixth mass extinction event in life’s 3.8 billion year history on Earth. Yet another study suggests that we could be approaching a sudden, irreversible, catastrophic collapse of the global ecosystem. If this were to occur, it could result in “widespread social unrest, economic instability and loss of human life.” Given the potential for environmental degradation to elevate the likelihood of nuclear wars, nuclear terrorism, engineered pandemics, a superintelligence takeover, and perhaps even an impact winter, it ought to take precedence over all other risk concerns — at least in the near-term. Let’s make sure we get our priorities straight.AFFUQ – Won’t Pass – 2ACInfrastructure won’t pass now---too many outstanding issues.Levine 7/15/21 – reporter for POLITICO, where she covers the SenateMarianne, with Burgess Everett, “Senate nears pivotal vote on bipartisan infrastructure deal that’s still unwritten.” Senate left town Thursday with the fate of a bipartisan infrastructure package uncertain, despite Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's attempt to force it forward by advancing a floor vote next week.Schumer has scheduled the vote for next Wednesday, a hardball tactic Democrats hope will allow them to pass President Joe Biden’s domestic agenda before the August recess. But negotiators face several outstanding issues, both on funding mechanisms and spending priorities.On Thursday evening, the proposal to increase IRS enforcement as a way to raise new revenues was on the way out, according to sources with direct knowledge of the matter. A third source said the group of senators haggling over the bill had begun discussing alternatives.Members of the bipartisan group said they planned to work through the weekend, after a Thursday afternoon huddle with White House officials.“I don’t know if we’ll make anybody’s arbitrary timeline,” said Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), the lead Republican negotiator. “I appreciate the fact that the Majority Leader wants us to have a vote on this and to have a vote as soon as possible. I don’t disagree with that. But as soon as possible means when it’s ready.”Among the proposed funding sources that could change is a provision related to IRS enforcement, a controversial subject for Republicans. The idea of plowing $40 billion into increased tax enforcement had become increasingly toxic in the Senate GOP, and its demise leaves negotiators with a gaping revenue hole.One Senate Democrat suggested that money from increased IRS enforcement could instead be used to pay for Democrats’ $3.5 trillion package.In addition, negotiators need to resolve details related to water infrastructure, as well as how to allocate the broadband provisions in the package.Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) suggested Thursday he had no problem with Schumer holding a vote next week."It gives you a goal to set,” he said. “And you give it everything you got. Is it going to be drop-dead? I don't think. I haven't heard that.”Although Democrats expressed optimism about the timetable, Republicans were less sure. At the moment, it’s not clear whether 10 Republicans will vote to advance the bipartisan bill.When asked whether he was confident the bipartisan group would meet Schumer’s deadline, Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a member of the group, had a blunt response: “No.”Several Senate Republicans read Schumer’s Wednesday vote as an effort to sink the bipartisan talks, given the absence of legislative text and the likelihood that members will not yet have a score from the Congressional Budget Office by Wednesday.“Why in the world would you vote for something that hasn’t been written yet,” asked Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a McConnell confidante. “I don’t know whether Sen. Schumer is just setting this all up to fail so he can then move to the budget. That may part of his Machiavellian scheme.”Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), who attempted to negotiate a bipartisan infrastructure package but failed, interpreted Schumer’s move as an attempt “to put pressure on the group to either put up or shut up.”Schumer’s timetable comes as the Senate's bipartisan infrastructure negotiators failed to meet their self-imposed Thursday deadline to resolve outstanding issues among members. As he left the Capitol Thursday, Schumer said negotiators still had “plenty of time” to finish the package.Schumer will take the first steps toward moving the bipartisan physical infrastructure proposal Monday, using a House bill as a legislative vehicle that would later be amended to reflect the Senate’s bipartisan infrastructure deal. Even if a deal is clinched and the Senate votes to move ahead on the bill next week, it will likely take days or even weeks to finish its work on the bipartisan legislation because of intense desire to vote on amendments to a bill likely to win Biden's signature.In addition to Wednesday's vote on the bipartisan package, Schumer imposed a deadline that same day for Democrats to coalesce around a budget resolution setting up the $3.5 trillion plan. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, meanwhile, has vowed that the House will not move forward on the bipartisan infrastructure package until the Senate passes a budget setting up the $3.5 trillion social spending package. Senior Democrats do not expect that calculation to change based on the Senate’s latest moves.With Democrats just starting to hash out the details of that party-line spending package, it could be weeks, if not months, before the House takes up the bipartisan bill.Both the physical infrastructure and social spending bills are top priorities for Biden, who attended a Senate Democratic caucus lunch Wednesday.Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has withheld judgment so far on the bipartisan plan, encouraging his members to view it as a separate effort from Democrats’ $3.5 trillion bill. Several Republicans have expressed concerns about its financing and are waiting for an official score from the Congressional Budget Office once the bill's text is completed.UQ – Won’t Pass – 1ARWon’t pass – timing is too tightWehrman 7/14/21 – staff writer @ Roll CallJessica, with Joseph Morton and Lindsey McPherson, “Senators aim to settle bipartisan infrastructure text as clock ticks.” a bipartisan group of senators works to flesh out a $579 billion infrastructure framework that they and President Joe Biden agreed upon before the July Fourth recess, they are bumping up against the clock.Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., has signaled he wants the full Senate to vote on the bill before it leaves for the August recess.But the calendar is tight — especially given the simultaneous, partisan push by Democrats on a broader package using the budget reconciliation process. And after a meeting of the bipartisan group Tuesday, it became clear the lawmakers are still ironing out differences and are not yet drafting legislative language.Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, who has teamed with Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., to lead the bipartisan group, said after the meeting that while many issues had been resolved, a couple dozen or more remained outstanding.If the group is able to meet its goal of resolving all disputes by Thursday, Portman suggested staff members are prepared to work through the weekend drafting legislative text. Still, he described as “very ambitious” the idea that the measure would be ready for floor consideration next week. “I’d like to do it as soon as we can, but do it in a way that’s careful and cautious and consistent with what we’ve done from the start, which is get it right,” Portman said.Others shared his skepticism about floor action next week.“I think it’s really unlikely” that a written bipartisan infrastructure deal will be released by the end of this week, said Senate Minority Whip John Thune, R-S.D. “I don’t see any way possible that this is on the floor next week. There’s just too many things left to do, and scores to get and pay-fors for us to explain and vet and then even some of the policy itself.”Won’t pass – no agreement on fundingWilkie 7/17/21 – the White House Reporter at CNBCChristina, “Funding for Biden’s infrastructure plan is still up in the air ahead of crucial tests.” -- Nearly a month after a bipartisan group of senators announced a landmark infrastructure deal with the White House to provide $579 billion of new funding for the nation’s highways, ports and rail lines, lawmakers will spend this weekend trying to answer a question that has vexed them from the start: How to pay for it. Republicans have so far refused to raise any corporate or individual taxes to offset the new funding, which will be added to an existing transportation bill for a total of $1.2 trillion. The White House, in turn, has refused to impose user fees on the improved highways and rails. Without these reliable sources of funding available to them, the group of senators, which now numbers 22, 11 from each party is working to cobble together offsets from across the federal government.The list of funding sources includes repurposed pandemic relief funds, revenue from new public-private partnerships, proceeds from 5G spectrum auctions and savings from crackdowns on tax evasion and unemployment insurance fraud.Yet as of Friday night, that list was still just a list. It was not an agreed-upon plan for how to pay for the new spending. And it was certainly not a final piece of legislation. But the fact that there is no legislation written yet is not stopping Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer from moving forward with the package.The New York Democrat revealed Thursday that he plans to hold an initial litmus test vote next week on the House bill that will eventually contain the Senate’s infrastructure legislation once it’s agreed to. Schumer is under intense pressure to advance both of President Joe Biden’s domestic spending packages in the coming weeks: The infrastructure plan and a separate, $3.5 trillion Democrats-only budget resolution. Biden visited Senate Democrats on Capitol Hill Wednesday to pitch the two-track plan, and he pledged that if they could pass the bills, he would sell them to the public.But Schumer’s surprise announcement that he would hold a vote this coming week spooked key Republicans, who balked at the idea of being asked to vote in favor of a placeholder bill before they know what the final infrastructure legislation contains. “I will not be voting for a bill that isn’t drafted yet, so we’ll draft as soon as we can and that’ll mean resolving the issues that are outstanding,” said Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, a member of the coalition.Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, another Republican in the group, said the Schumer deadline meant the group “has a lot of work to do.”“The good news is that we are all still talking,” Murkowski said after a meeting Thursday between White House negotiators and key senators.“The good news-bad news is we’ve got a pretty tight timeframe,” she said.Yet even with all the time in the world, it’s difficult to see how the proposed offsets can be made to add up to the $579 billion in new spending that senators and the White House agreed to in late June. Pay-fors that don’t quite pay Experts say the proposed ways to pay for the package in the working list are optimistic at best, and are, at worst, smoke and mirrors.One such item is a proposed $100 billion in offsets to the cost from public-private partnerships and bonds from an infrastructure bank. This $100 billion represents nearly 20% of the total offsets.But despite scant details released so far, economists say these kinds of public-private partnerships aren’t designed to bring in revenue. If anything, they typically cost the government money.Won’t pass and all of their links are nonunique.Cornwell 7/15/21 – Capitol Hill correspondent for ReutersSusan, with David Morgan. “U.S. Senate scrambles to finish infrastructure bill ahead of vote.” U.S. Senate majority leader pressed lawmakers on Thursday to make progress on President Joe Biden's agenda, setting up a vote on a $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill and demanding Democrats back a larger $3.5 trillion budget blueprint.Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who like Biden is a Democrat, told the Senate the bipartisan infrastructure bill would face an initial procedural floor vote on Wednesday, but some Republicans working on the bill raised doubts they could meet the deadline.Biden has billed both efforts as essential. In March, an engineers' group said the United States could use a $2.59 trillion boost in government spending to address crumbling roads, water systems and other programs.Lawmakers said they would work over the weekend to try to get it done. More than 20 lawmakers from both parties have haggled for weeks over details.Biden on Wednesday sought to rally Senate Democrats behind the bipartisan bill as well as the separate $3.5 trillion budget initiative which includes climate change and social spending measures. Senators present said he told them it was time to "go big" and help Americans who are hurting.Sixty votes will be needed to advance the bipartisan proposal, which means at least 10 Republicans have to join all 50 Democrats in backing the legislation in the evenly split 100-seat Senate.Signs of difficulty emerged on Thursday when the Republican leader of the group, Senator Rob Portman, said he would not vote to advance the measure next week unless the legislation was ready.Portman vowed to finish the job but said he would not shortchange the process. "I'm not going to vote yes if we don't have a product ... We’re going to get it right," he said.Schumer dismissed such concerns. "There is no reason why we can't start voting next Wednesday. That's what we're going to do," he told reporters.Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, another member of the bipartisan group, called Schumer's time frame "pretty aggressive," but added: "My goal this weekend is to make sure that we can get there."Among the sticking points was whether to raise revenue to pay for infrastructure by stepping up the tax-collecting Internal Revenue Service's pursuit of tax cheats. "We want to be able to collect the taxes that are due, but we also don't want to harass individuals. And in between is a fine line," said Senator Mike Rounds, a Republican member of the bipartisan group.Schumer's other deadline, getting all Senate Democrats to agree by Wednesday to move forward on the additional $3.5 trillion budget blueprint, stirred unease among some moderate Democrats.Not all of them have given their blessing to the framework. Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat from coal country, said it would be a "challenge" to decide by Wednesday.The $3.5 trillion outline covers large chunks of Biden's economic and social agenda, including spending on child care, healthcare and education. Democrats want to raise taxes on the wealthy and for corporations to pay for it. They also hope to provide legal status to some immigrants.Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell told Fox News on Thursday that all Republicans would vote "no" on the $3.5 trillion measure. He said a day earlier that with higher inflation, the proposed amount of spending is "wildly out of proportion to what the country needs right now."Infrastructure won’t pass – The infrastructure plan won’t get the remaining votes that are needed.Lopez 6/29/21 – Vox writer German Lopez, Vox, “Biden’s infrastructure deal proves bipartisanship can’t deliver,” Vox, 6-29-2021, ,] *AP*Then things got complicated. Biden said he wouldn’t sign the deal if congressional Democrats didn’t also pass a separate reconciliation bill enacting the rest of his agenda. That invited a Republican revolt, as previous backers like Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Jerry Moran (R-KS) threatened to pull support. Though Biden has walked back his remarks, it’s still not clear if the infrastructure deal can now get the 10 Republican votes it needs to overcome a filibuster in the Senate.The episode exposed the fine line that Biden has walked not just on infrastructure but through his brief time as president so far. Biden ran as a moderate and defeated challenges from more transformative candidates like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) — vowing that, as an institutionalist who had been in Congress for decades, he could get Congress to work together, across the aisle, again.But as president, Biden’s legislative ambitions have been expansive. And while he has tried to get bipartisan support for his ideas, the biggest bill passed under his leadership — a $1.9 trillion economic relief package — relied on Democrats passing it through razor-thin, party-line margins.The infrastructure deal exemplifies the contradictions. Last week’s news was about a $1 trillion deal that some Senate Democrats and Republicans are working to get through the 60-vote threshold required overcome the filibuster. But, as Biden has said, Democrats are also working on another measure, ranging anywhere from $2 trillion to $6 trillion, that could pass Congress with only Democratic support by using the reconciliation process. Biden is promising and working toward bipartisanship but already planning to sign a partisan bill to fill the void the bipartisan measure leaves in place.It’s still not clear if this will all pan out. The infrastructure agreement so far is only on the thinnest of frameworks. As people like Graham and Moran question their support, it’s less likely that the final measure could get the 10 Republican votes it needs to pass the Senate. It’s also not clear if Democrats can get the votes they need to pass the bigger infrastructure measure, with moderates like Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) voicing support for a reconciliation bill but also skepticism toward a partisan bill that’s too large.UQ – Won’t Pass – No Bipartisan BillNo chance of a bipartisan billSegers 7/14(Grace Segers, political reporter at CBS news with a focus on Congress; “Biden huddles with Senate Democrats at Capitol on infrastructure bills”, published 7-14-21; )Schumer had announced after a lengthy meeting on Tuesday that Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee had reached an agreement on the bill. The measure will include Mr. Biden's "human" infrastructure priorities not covered by a bipartisan proposal, such as child care, health care, education and additional provisions related to climate change. Democrats will attempt to pass the measure in the Senate through reconciliation, a process that will allow the legislation to be approved without any Republican votes."There is a long road ahead of us. But the fact that we were able to come together last night with diverse views on the budget committee was a strong shot out of the gate," Schumer said in a speech on the Senate floor on Wednesday. The bill will also include an expansion of Medicare benefits to cover dental, hearing and vision, and contain a provision expanding the child tax credits established by the American Rescue Plan.As this larger bill is unlikely to garner any Republican votes, it must receive support from all 50 Democrats, meaning that it will need support from both ideological ends of the party. Senator Mark Warner, considered the most moderate Democrat on the Budget Committee, backed the $3.5 trillion deal on Tuesday night. Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the key Democratic swing vote, said he "anxious to review" the proposal, and seemed open to the bill if it is fully funded. "They worked hard, they should have the proposal, the president is going to come today and explain," Manchin told reporters at the Capitol on Wednesday. "We'll listen to that, we'll look at the proposal, look at the priorities they have for our country, and then basically look at how we're going to pay for it."The bill must also maintain support from progressives in the party in order to pass, meaning that it is unlikely the price tag can go any lower. Budget Committee Chair Bernie Sanders, who had previously supported a $6 trillion reconciliation bill, threw his support behind the $3.5 trillion deal on Tuesday, calling it "the most significant piece of legislation passed since the Great Depression." Progressives seemed to fall in line on Wednesday. Senator Ed Markey, who has repeatedly called for any reconciliation bill to have robust climate provisions, told reporters at the Capitol that the bill is "a good start." Senator Elizabeth Warren called it a "strong step forward.""Would I have liked to get an even larger number? Yes I would, but there are 50 members in the Democratic caucus. We're getting zero support from Republicans," Sanders told reporters. However, he also suggested that progressive priorities on immigration and cutting prescription drug costs would be included in the bill, and said he hoped the House "can even do better" with their own resolution.UQ O/W L---ReconciliationWon’t pass---reconciliation is leveraged for concessions by Dems.Grim 6/24/21 [Ryan Grim is The Intercept’s D.C. Bureau Chief. He was previously the Washington bureau chief for HuffPost, where he led a team that was twice a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize, and won once., 6-24-2021, "No, the Biden Agenda Isn’t Dead Yet," Intercept, accessed 7-16-2021, ] //BYDemocrats have zero margin for error, or senatorial morbidity, in a Senate divided evenly 50-50. In the House, a four-seat majority gives the party barely more room. But Democrats, including their leadership and rank and file, are unusually motivated for a party that flinched at its own shadow for the past 40 years. There is broad recognition within the party that Democrats are likely to lose one or both chambers of Congress in the midterm elections and that 2022 is unlikely to yield significant legislative opportunities. It’s now or never. By enacting major spending bills before that happens, Democrats will be able to continue governing and investing in public infrastructure over the next six years even without control of Congress. This marks a departure from the Obama administration, whose final six years were a tangle of economic stagnation and congressional confrontations over austerity, culminating in the election of President Donald Trump. And so it is no coincidence that the bipartisan agreement has only been reached after progressive Democrats in the House and Senate insisted loudly that no bipartisan deal could happen without a simultaneous pledge to push through the transformative, multitrillion-dollar agenda using reconciliation, which requires just 50 votes in the Senate.OVER THE PAST WEEK, as Congress negotiated the bipartisan infrastructure package that would include less than $600 billion in new spending, a slew of Democrats in the House and Senate said that they won’t vote for any bill that lacks sufficient funding for climate-related projects and social investments. The White House announced that the bipartisan bargain had been agreed to Wednesday night, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Thursday morning that the House would not pass the bipartisan bill without a reconciliation package, endorsing a so-called two-track strategy.“There ain’t gonna be no bipartisan bill unless we’re going to have a reconciliation bill,” Pelosi told reporters at her weekly press conference. “We will not take up a bill in the House until the Senate passes the bipartisan bill and a reconciliation bill. If there is no bipartisan bill, then we’ll just go when the Senate passes a reconciliation bill.”President Joe Biden echoed her strategy. “If this [bipartisan deal] is the only thing that comes to me, I’m not signing it,” he said.Schumer said Thursday he had proposed the strategy to them both. “About a month ago I laid out a two-track strategy to move the whole process forward. I talked to both President Biden and Speaker Pelosi and they agree with that strategy so now all three of us are on that page. Today was a big step forward for the two-step strategy,” he said.The latter package could add up to another $6 trillion over the next decade; it carries with it the fate of the Biden administration and will significantly shape how the United States emerges from the crisis produced by the collapse of the neoliberal order.The world order ushered in during the late 1970s and early 1980s involved the destruction of the capacity to govern; the deregulation of finance as well as a hands-off approach to corporate concentration; the crushing of organized labor; and the privatization of public assets, all of it fueling runaway wealth and income inequality, driving millions into poverty, and eroding civic and democratic norms. Upending that order requires a reassertion of the public’s role in the economy. It requires a government willing and able to govern. Essential, though not entirely sufficient, to that projection is the $2.3 trillion package dubbed the American Jobs Plan and the $1.8 trillion American Families Plan.Biden’s first move, a $1.9 trillion rescue package that included direct checks and sizable child tax credits that began rolling out this month, has been followed by months of legislative stagnation. The most celebrated element of that initial package was the advent of child tax credits that deliver between $300 and $360 per month, per child to all but the wealthiest families. Those checks began arriving this month, and the main criticism of the project has been that it lasts only one year. The new measure would extend it well into 2025, with some Democrats pushing to make it permanent. The American Jobs Plan also includes the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, sweeping labor reform, much of which can be enacted through reconciliation. Immigration reform advocates have pushed to include elements of their agenda that can go through under reconciliation as well. That’s on top of the hundreds of billions in climate-related infrastructure investments included in the American Jobs Plan.News of the bipartisan deal was a blow to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who has been working to string out talks as long as possible, with the hopes of running out the clock. But the fact that he has dragged the process along as long as he has is a win, with Democrats now up against the July 4 recess. On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters that the bipartisan bill and the first phase of the reconciliation package would be passed in July. The reconciliation bill is a complex process, first requiring a Senate floor vote to set a top-line number and refer work to various committees to fill in details. Once the committees have done their work, they will send the package to the Budget Committee, chaired by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who will then move it back to the floor, where it will undergo what’s called a “vote-a-rama” — a night or two of amendments — followed by a final vote. Congressional sources in both chambers said this week that the work on the reconciliation package is far advanced and on target for July.SOME DEMOCRATS HAVE argued that the entire process must be complete before the House votes on the bipartisan bill, while others have said that as long as it is underway, it’s OK to move. “I think we need more than evidence. I think they need to be moved pretty much at the same time,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., told The Intercept earlier this week, echoing a strategy she’d first promoted earlier in the month. “I don’t think they can hold the House vote and keep the caucus together unless we have both.”Two weeks ago, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., deputy whip of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), insisted publicly that no package would pass if it did not robustly address climate change. The CPC surveyed its members to see how many would hold firm, and found strong appetite. “A recent poll of our 95-member Caucus showed overwhelming support for the House not passing a bipartisan infrastructure bill unless a larger reconciliation package containing our progressive priorities moved simultaneously,” said CPC Chair Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash. Those results were relayed to the White House and leadership, an aide said.Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., a member of the Budget Committee, said Monday that Senate committee staff and House Budget Committee staff had been in talks about that very strategy. “The House is the ultimate backstop. My view is that we should get the commitments here,” he said, meaning that all 50 members of the caucus must be committed to doing a reconciliation package before he and other holdouts would vote for a bipartisan bill. Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., told The Intercept earlier this week that he’d refuse to vote for a bipartisan bill without a promise of a reconciliation package. “We’d need to be in caucus, look these members in the eye, and get a commitment not only that we are going to do reconciliation but some guarantee on the substance of that reconciliation package,” said Murphy. “I think we’ll have to have some tough conversation in the caucus before there are enough votes to proceed on this package.” “We just have to have an ironclad commitment that we’re going to go big,” said Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., used the same phrase. “Ironclad,” she said, when asked what type of assurance she needed that both would get done. Asked what that meant specifically, she said, “It may mean the order of votes. And remember, we’re going to have two key votes around reconciliation, and getting those top-line votes through in July will be a big step toward getting all of the Democrats committed to a reconciliation package that will ensure that what we do on infrastructure meets the problems that are out there.”“We have two tracks,” said Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., “but ultimately the two tracks all have to meet in the end to make sure we actually have a climate infrastructure package that dramatically lowers emissions, that has environmental justice at its heart, and that it creates millions of new union clean energy jobs.” (On Thursday, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., started sounding like Markey, telling NBC News, “It’s the only strategy we have — is two track.”“I think it’s politically close,” Schatz said, adding that the details still needed to be worked out. “It’s a pretty realistic pathway. Everyone has their incentives in line.”Republicans, meanwhile, have said they won’t support a package that has too much in the way of climate. But they recognize that they don’t have the numbers to stop Democrats if they remain united. Asked if his support for a bipartisan infrastructure package hinged on Democrats committing not to use reconciliation for a second package, Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., said it did not. “It hinges on getting a good infrastructure [bill],” he said. “I don’t have any control over what they do next.” Link UQ – No PC/Other Issues ThumpBiden has no political capital – Senate is not passing anything on Biden’s agenda – other issues thump the link. Sahil Kapur 21 [(Sahil Kapur, ) “Where does Joe Biden's agenda stand in Congress? Here's a rundown,” NBC News, 7-11-2021, ,] *AP*Biden's agenda is imperiled on policies that are subject to the 60-vote threshold in the Senate, where Democrats have 50 members and continue to struggle to achieve GOP cooperation.Biden's call for a $15-an-hour minimum wage hit a dead end in March, when eight Democratic senators joined all Republicans to vote it down.More recently, equal pay legislation fell to a Republican-led filibuster. And the prospects for beefing up LGBTQ protections don't look good.Prospects for gun control are grim after bipartisan talks to expand background checks for firearm sales broke down.Biden's immigration bill to grant a path to citizenship for millions of people in the U.S. illegally and to link green cards to the economy is going nowhere fast. Republicans roundly reject it, and Democrats are split. An updated Dream Act for young undocumented people passed the House but faces an uphill climb in the Senate.Biden's push to bolster voting rights has hit a brick wall in Congress after Senate Republicans filibustered debate on the House-passed For the People Act to set a minimum standard of voting access in every state and overhaul campaign finance laws. The separate John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act could pass the House, but it is also unlikely to clear the Senate.Most Republicans say that the issue should be left to states and that the federal government needn't weigh in. Conservative have been inflamed by fabricated claims by former President Donald Trump that the 2020 election was stolen from him, which has fueled a push in GOP-led states to tighten voting laws.Negotiations between the parties continue on police reform, but they have repeatedly missed their deadlines, and Democrats worry that a split within the law enforcement community over police accountability measures could derail a deal.2AC – PC Thumper – Voting RightsPC is thumped – Biden is using it to push controversial voting rights legislation Memoli 7/13 Mike Memoli is an NBC News White House correspondent based in the network's Washington Bureau, covering national politics and the Biden administration. ["Biden to raise stakes on voting rights as his party pushes for more," 7-13-2021, NBC News, Accessed 7-14-2021, URL: ] klyThe goal is to raise the stakes not just in House and Senate races next year but also in the kinds of local and state legislative races that ultimately have bigger impacts on voting laws. That's why, when Biden was meeting with civil rights leaders at the White House about voting issues last week, Vice President Kamala Harris was firing the starting gun on what Democrats say will be a major electoral push on voting."Remember, this is not only about a national election," Harris said. "This is also about state and local elections. It's about who's going to be your sheriff or your mayor or your school board member — the folks who get elected and then make decisions that impact your everyday life."She announced a $25 million initial investment by the Democratic National Committee — which the party says is its biggest and earliest ever — to register, educate and turn out voters while fighting voter suppression efforts at every level.Democratic National Committee Chairman Jaime Harrison said in an interview: "I think the president wanted to see what was going to happen in terms of Congress' movement on this. But what you're about to see is a dramatic increase in terms of pushing from this administration and the Democratic Party to make sure that people understand that this is our most sacred right and it's something that is worth investing in and fighting for.A White House official said Biden will call Tuesday for "a new coalition, made up of advocates, activists, students, faith leaders, labor leaders and business executives, to overcome this un-American trend and meet the moment as far as turnout and voter education."But some key Democrats are concerned that a strategy with an eye toward the midterm elections in 16 months could be ineffective if voter suppression tactics continue to sail through Republican-led states and counties before then.Clyburn, whose efforts helped put the administration in office, is pushing Biden to support changes to the Senate filibuster that would allow voting-related bills to pass with simple majority votes."If we do what is necessary to allow people to cast an unfettered vote, we won't have to worry about that, because we'll win big-time in off-year elections," he said. "But if we don't, we're going to lose big-time in off-year elections. First things first."Biden has thus far voiced support only for making it more difficult to mount filibusters, for instance by requiring senators to remain on the floor and speaking. Officials wouldn't reveal whether advocating that kind of change would factor into Biden's public case. Richmond said Biden speaks regularly with Manchin, among other lawmakers whose support for any major voting change would be critical.Even as the White House lays the groundwork for a political fight over voting issues next fall, officials maintain that they are working closely with legislative leaders to find a path forward on another key voting rights measure that has yet to be fully written: a renewal of the Voting Rights Act named for the late civil rights icon John Lewis."Our goal is to sign something in this Congress sooner rather than later," Richmond said.1AR – Voting Rights Thump Biden burned PC on voting rights.Jaffe 6/1/21 [Alexandra Jaffe, AP reporter. 6-1-21, "Biden calls out 2 Democratic lawmakers for blocking agenda," Press Herald, accessed 7-16-2021, ] //BYWASHINGTON — President Biden called out two fellow Democrats on Tuesday in explaining why he hasn’t enacted some of the most ambitious elements of his agenda, noting that slim majorities in the House and evenly divided Senate have hamstrung legislative negotiations around key issues like voting rights.Biden, speaking during an event marking the 100th anniversary of the Tulsa race massacre, responded to critics who question why he hasn’t been able to get a wide-reaching voting rights bill passed.“Well, because Biden only has a majority of effectively four votes in the House, and a tie in the Senate — with two members of the Senate who voted more with my Republican friends,” he lamented.It appeared to be a veiled reference to Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, both of whom have frustrated Democrats with their defense of the filibuster – the rule requiring most legislation to win 60 votes to pass, making many of Democrats’ biggest priorities like voting rights and gun control bills dead on arrival in the 50-50 Senate. While Sinema is a sponsor of the voting rights bill that passed the House, known as the For the People Act, Manchin has refused to sign on, calling the measure “too broad.”Despite the logjam in Congress, Biden promised further action to address what he described as “a tireless assault on the right to vote,” comments that came in response to the latest effort by a state legislature to pass a law restricting voting access, this time in Texas. He said he would “fight like heck, with every tool at my disposal” to ensure the passage of the For the People Act when the Senate takes it up this month. He tasked Vice President Kamala Harris with leading the administration’s efforts to defend voting rights.Biden also called on voting rights groups to “redouble” their efforts to register and educate voters and said June should be a “month of action” on Capitol Hill.Voting rights thump PC – Dem pressure and Republican resistance are forcing Biden’s hand on key SenatorsBerman 7/13 Ari Berman is a senior reporter at Mother Jones, covering voting rights. He’s the author of Give Us the Ballot: The Modern Struggle for Voting Rights in America. ["Biden pushes for voting protections, but not for ending the filibuster that blocks them," 7-13-2021, Mother Jones, Accessed 7-14-2021, URL: ] klyTop Democrats have been rallying behind the idea of a carve-out for voting rights legislation for months. In the same way that Democrats can pass budget bills and confirm judges and Cabinet members with a simple majority, legislation protecting voting rights should also be exempt from the 60-vote requirement, Stacey Abrams told me in March. “The judicial appointment exception, the Cabinet appointment exception, the budget reconciliation exception are all grounded in this idea that these are constitutionally prescribed responsibilities that should not be thwarted by minority imposition,” Abrams said. “And we should add to it the right to protect democracy. It is a foundational principle in our country. And it is an explicit role and responsibility accorded only to Congress in the elections clause in the Constitution.”When asked how she’d persuade centrist Democrats like Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, who have steadfastly supported the filibuster, to go along with a “democracy exception” to the filibuster, Abrams responded, “I would say to Democrats who are hesitant that short of completely revising the filibuster, we have to make certain that a minority of people cannot be in power in the Senate, and therefore deny the basic principles of citizenship to millions of Americans.”In March, Biden said the filibuster was being “abused in a gigantic way” and said he supported a “talking filibuster,” whereby Senators actually have to hold the floor continuously to block pieces of legislation. He said he was “open” to further reform of the filibuster, including a voting rights exception to the filibuster, but he has not endorsed the Clyburn-Abrams position. “Don’t just tell us you’re open to it,” says Cliff Albright, co-founder of Black Voters Matter, a voting rights group that recently retraced the 1961 Freedom Rides to draw attention to the attack on voting rights. “Give us a proposal, in the same way that you told us what it is that you want in the infrastructure plan. Tell it to Joe Manchin, tell it to Sinema, tell them exactly what you want in a filibuster reform proposal.”When Republicans filibustered the For the People Act on June 22, Biden did not speak in favor of the bill before the vote, nor did he call for reforming the filibuster after it was blocked. During his speech to a joint session of Congress in April, Biden didn’t mention voting rights until the end of the speech, despite the fact that GOP-controlled states like Georgia had already passed sweeping voter suppression laws.“If I was Mitch McConnell at that point, the message I would get is, oh, this president isn’t really serious about trying to get voting rights legislation passed,” said Albright. “He’s not willing to use his political capital on getting voting rights passed. And that has emboldened the Republicans. They have not seen an aggressive White House, not at the congressional level nor the state level.”That could change with Biden’s speech on Tuesday. But there are limits to what Biden can do through executive action or what he can accomplish through lobbying and public speaking. Voting rights may simply be a much heavier lift than infrastructure, where at least some Republicans are willing to negotiate. As for the portions of Biden’s infrastructure plan that Republicans won’t back, Democrats can pass them through the reconciliation process with 51 votes, without a fight over changing Senate rules.Historically, presidents have been pressured into supporting voting rights legislation rather than leading the way.Voting rights derail infrastructure – Biden’s “presidential megaphone” is pushing Dem agendaMemoli 7/13 Mike Memoli is an NBC News White House correspondent based in the network's Washington Bureau, covering national politics and the Biden administration. ["Biden to raise stakes on voting rights as his party pushes for more," 7-13-2021, NBC News, Accessed 7-14-2021, URL: ] klyPHILADELPHIA — President Joe Biden plans to blast the flurry of new Republican-backed voting law changes Tuesday as "the most egregious attempts to harm the integrity of our democracy since the Civil War" in the first part of what White House officials say will be a sustained effort to assemble a broad coalition to "overcome this un-American trend."Biden, who has faced growing pressure from Democratic activists and even close allies to make more aggressive use of the presidential megaphone on voting rights, is to argue in a long-promised major address that the sustained Republican effort to enact new stricter voting laws is "undemocratic, un-American and unpatriotic."Speaking steps from Independence Hall in Philadelphia, he plans to link the new voting laws to other historic voter disenfranchisement tactics, including poll taxes, literacy tests and voter intimidation tactics by groups like the Ku Klux Klan, a White House official said. And he is expected to single out changes that would threaten independent election administrators in favor of partisan actors as the most dire threat to America's democracy.As voting itself has become a partisan flashpoint, Biden's address will be closely scrutinized in both parties — perhaps most of all by his fellow Democrats. No area may better demonstrate the state of the increasingly uneasy truce between Biden and his party's activist base than the tactical divide between them over the issue.Leading progressives, and even some of Biden's traditional allies, have gone increasingly public with their frustration about what they see as Biden's inaction in making the case for federal legislation to counter Republican-led voting law changes.The White House defends Biden's efforts on behalf of the For the People Act and says he will once again call for its passage Tuesday. But officials have been careful about how he uses his political capital, seeing a better use in mobilizing Democrats to put voting rights front and center in next year's midterm elections."People consistently don't give President Biden credit for being strategic and knowing exactly what to do, how to do it and when to do it," White House senior adviser Cedric Richmond said in an interview.Many Democrats say voting rights are urgent in the near term but don't believe that view prevails in the White House, where Biden is taking a long view."What we emphasized to the president is that our backs are against the wall," Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, told reporters. "We must have legislation. We must have the president use his voice, use his influence, use his power."Progressive groups have been more overtly critical, demanding that Biden use his bully pulpit not to work toward electoral wins next fall but to make the case now for amending Senate filibuster rules and enacting the For the People Act."I don't think that the No. 1 crisis facing this country right now are our roads and bridges. I think the No. 1 crisis facing the country right now is rising fascism and a direct assault on democracy," said Ezra Levin, a co-founder of Indivisible, a grassroots progressive organization.Levin said Biden must offer more than just a stark warning about what's at stake and a "passing endorsement" of the For the People Act, calling for "the launch of a campaign led by the White House to rally public opinion for this popular idea."Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, the third-ranking Democrat in the House, offered this stark warning as he called for Biden to support changing the filibuster."We screw up this voting thing and [Raphael] Warnock ain't going to be in the Senate and we ain't going to win nothing in North Carolina and we won't have a chance down in Florida," Clyburn said in an interview, referring to three Senate battlefields in the midterm elections where he suggested that there are fears that Black turnout could suffer because of Republican voting changes.To Biden and his senior team, the kind of full-court public press activists wanted him to make ahead of a key Senate vote on voting rights last month wasn't going to move enough Republican senators to secure final passage, and it could have cost him precious political capital when he needs it to advance a fragile bipartisan infrastructure package.Instead, Biden focused on a more achievable task: working to ensure unanimity within the Democratic caucus — hardly a given, as Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., remained undecided until the last hours.Voting rights are a partisan must-pass – BUT PC is key to persuade centrists like ManchinFandos 6/22 Nicholas Fandos is congressional correspondent for The New York Times, based in Washington. He has covered Capitol Hill since 2017, chronicling two Supreme Court confirmation fights, two historic impeachments of Donald J. Trump, and countless bills in between. ["Biden Addresses Immigration, Voting Rights and More in His First Formal News Conference," 6-22-2021, New York Times, Accessed 7-14-2021, URL: ] klyDemocrats racing to enact the most significant federal election overhaul in a generation, including a major expansion of voting rights, ran into a familiar roadblock on Thursday: Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia.A day after Democratic leaders used the first Senate hearing on the overhaul to propel the nearly 900-page behemoth to the top of their legislative agenda, Mr. Manchin, the most conservative Democrat in the chamber, called for the proposal to be sharply pared back and renegotiated with Republicans. He said there were “legitimate” concerns over some of its provisions.“Pushing through legislation of this magnitude on a partisan basis may garner short-term benefits, but will inevitably only exacerbate the distrust that millions of Americans harbor against the U.S. government,” Mr. Manchin said in a lengthy statement. “We can and we must reform our federal elections together — not as Democrats and Republicans, but as Americans to restore the faith and trust in our democracy.”With Republicans uniformly opposed to the bill — which would end partisan gerrymandering, restructure the Federal Election Commission, neuter state voter identification laws, expand early and mail-in voting, and curb the influence of dark money in politics — Mr. Manchin’s statement spelled considerable peril for its advocates.The bill, called the For the People Act, already passed the House on party lines. Activists who have spent spending tens of millions of dollars lobbying Mr. Manchin and others for its adoption insist it cannot be broken up. One such group, Common Cause, said on Thursday that it would continue working with Mr. Manchin to address his concerns and that it was confident the bill’s backers would win his support.To pass it in the Senate, the bill’s proponents have increasingly concluded they must persuade all 50 Democrats in the chamber to set aside earlier opposition and jettison the legislative filibuster to overcome Republican opposition. With Republican statehouses across the country moving swiftly to clamp down on ballot access after the 2020 election, they argue the stakes for American democracy and Democrats’ ability to win future elections are simply too high.Mr. Manchin appeared to reject that thinking for now. A former West Virginia secretary of state, he indicated he shared concerns raised by state election administrators and Republicans in Washington that the bill’s requirements and changes would be too onerous to carry out and represented a misguided federal takeover of the election system currently overseen by states.“I know firsthand the importance of local decision-making around voter accessibility and election security,” he said.Mr. Manchin singled out several areas where he believed the two parties could find common ground, including ballot access, election security and campaign finance disclosure. He called for a national requirement that states hold at least 15 days of early voting to ease access to the ballot, said Congress should allocate more resources to make it easier for Native American and Alaska Natives to vote and mentioned a handful of modest election infrastructure and advertising transparency bills.But those proposals are a far cry from the scope of the plans Democrats have spent significant political capital selling as a necessary tonic for a badly ailing democracy. Mr. Manchin’s suggestions would do little to blunt restrictions put in place by Republican states, stop the drawing of partisan congressional districts or meaningfully cut back the influence of dark money.Nor was it clear, a day after a stinging partisan hearing over the For the People Act, that there was much room for the meaningful compromise he wants. Republicans flatly reject Democrats’ view of the election system, and their strategists have openly said their candidates suffer when more people vote.Voting rights thump—Biden is using all PC on voting rights controversyQuayle 7/14(Ewan Quayle, reporter for NewsWeek; “Voting Rights Row: Biden Will 'Use Every Lever' to Advocate for Voting Rights, White House Says”, published 7-14-21; )President Joe Biden labeled Republicans "bullies and merchants of fear" in a blistering attack on attempts to reform U.S. voting laws. He said in a speech the reforms were "threatening the very foundation of our country" and called on elected officials to "act to protect our democracy."Top GOP officials have been working across several states, most prominently Texas, to pass controversial new restrictions on how Americans vote in future elections.Proposals include the banning drive-thru polling stations, limiting mail-in ballots and restricting who can hand in ballot papers on behalf of others.Several Democrats are calling to end or tweak the filibuster in order for Congress to pass federal voting rights legislation like the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters in a press briefing Wednesday said the filibuster is a "legislative procedural process" and that it is "up to the Senate to determine the path forward on."Even if the filibuster remains, Psaki said Biden is confident he will "use every lever" to advocate for voting rights."We don't accept there isn't a path forward," she said.Other Republicans are debating them as the GOP continues to seize on former President Donald Trump's false claim of massive voter fraud in November as a justification for major changes to voting laws."In America, if you lose, you accept the results," Biden said at National Constitution Center. "You follow the Constitution, you try again. You don't call facts 'fake' and then try to bring down the American experiment just because you're unhappy. That's not statesmanship. That's selfishness."His remarks came after Texas Democrats fled for Washington D.C. in an attempt to delay a vote on a Republican-led bill that would restrict voting bills in their state.Psaki said that Biden applauds their "bold actions" in opposition to state laws that impose "restrictions on people's fundamental rights."Biden drains PC in voting rights—Democrats spur Biden into strong action against Republican voting law changes NBC News 7/13(NBC News; “Biden to push for federal voting rights reform in Philadelphia speech”, published 7-13-21; )President Joe Biden plans to blast the flurry of new Republican-backed voting law changes Tuesday as "the most egregious attempts to harm the integrity of our democracy since the Civil War" in the first part of what White House officials say will be a sustained effort to assemble a broad coalition to "overcome this un-American trend."Biden, who has faced growing pressure from Democratic activists and even close allies to make more aggressive use of the presidential megaphone on voting rights, is to argue in a long-promised major address that the sustained Republican effort to enact new stricter voting laws is "undemocratic, un-American and unpatriotic."Speaking steps from Independence Hall in Philadelphia, he plans to link the new voting laws to other historic voter disenfranchisement tactics, including poll taxes, literacy tests and voter intimidation tactics by groups like the Ku Klux Klan, a White House official said. And he is expected to single out changes that would threaten independent election administrators in favor of partisan actors as the most dire threat to America's democracy.As voting itself has become a partisan flashpoint, Biden's address will be closely scrutinized in both parties — perhaps most of all by his fellow Democrats. No area may better demonstrate the state of the increasingly uneasy truce between Biden and his party's activist base than the tactical divide between them over the issue.Leading progressives, and even some of Biden's traditional allies, have gone increasingly public with their frustration about what they see as Biden's inaction in making the case for federal legislation to counter Republican-led voting law changes.The White House defends Biden's efforts on behalf of the For the People Act and says he will once again call for its passage Tuesday. But officials have been careful about how he uses his political capital, seeing a better use in mobilizing Democrats to put voting rights front and center in next year's midterm elections."People consistently don't give President Biden credit for being strategic and knowing exactly what to do, how to do it and when to do it," White House senior adviser Cedric Richmond said in an interview.Many Democrats say voting rights are urgent in the near term but don't believe that view prevails in the White House, where Biden is taking a long view."What we emphasized to the president is that our backs are against the wall," Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, told reporters. "We must have legislation. We must have the president use his voice, use his influence, use his power."Voting rights thump—Supreme Court’s ruling in Republicans’ favor should’ve already triggered Biden’s use of PCClayton and Ritter 21(Cornell William Clayton, C.O. Johnson Distinguished Professor of Political Science, Washington State University; and Michael Ritter, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Washington State University; ELECTORAL CONSEQUENCES: SUPREME COURT MAKES CONTROVERSIAL RULING THAT FURTHER ERODES VOTING RIGHTS ACT, published 7-2-21; )Arizona may keep two voting laws that Republicans say protect election integrity and Democrats believe will make it harder for some residents to cast ballots.That was the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, one of the decade’s most important voting rights cases.One Arizona law challenged in the case, H.B. 2023, makes it a felony for anyone other than a family member, caregiver or postal worker to collect and deliver ballots. The other requires ballots to be cast in the assigned precinct where a voter lives. If a person votes at the wrong polling place, Arizona election officials will reject their ballot.The Democratic National Committee argued at the Supreme Court that both Arizona rules disproportionately hurt minority voters. The majority of justices, split 6-to-3 along ideological lines, disagreed.“Voting necessarily requires some effort and compliance with some rules,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court’s majority on July 1, 2021. Merely making it more “inconvenient” for certain groups to vote does not violate federal law, according to the court.The ruling will have national consequences. Arizona is one of 14 states restricting third-party ballot collection. It is one of 26 that require in-precinct voting.The Supreme Court’s decision makes it more difficult to legally challenge such laws, which, according to our research on elections, significantly affect voting, particularly among racial minorities and the poor.2AC – Thumper – Gas TaxesPC is thumped – Biden’s using it to block gas taxesKnight 7/6 Chris Knight reports on the regulations and policies affecting the energy sector and the environment. ["Biden learning how to walk the line," 7-6-2021, No Publication, Accessed 7-14-2021, URL: ] klySuch actions should ease industry concerns that Biden would align himself too closely with climate activists who have waged a years-long legal campaign targeting the closure of midstream infrastructure. They also show that after the gasoline shortages and negative headlines caused by May's ransomware attack on the 2.5mn b/d Colonial Pipeline, the pressure to keep energy prices affordable that has guided White House policy for decades is alive and well. Biden has already devoted considerable political capital to blocking increases in gasoline taxes as part of negotiations on infrastructure spending. "There is no gas tax," he says. "Working families have already paid enough."But energy price considerations, and the risk of being blamed by Republicans for price shocks, are less of an issue for pipelines still at the planning stage or not yet operational. That has freed Biden to deliver on campaign promises to apply more scrutiny on new lines designed to operate well past 2050 — the year when he says the US economy should be achieving net zero carbon emissions.Biden blocked the 830,000 b/d Keystone XL crude pipeline on his first day in office, and is starting to pursue more extensive federal reviews of other planned lines.2AC – Thumper – Water Bill**Alternate tag – Winners win – water bill created political exuberance in the SenateWater bill already passed – should’ve thumped PCMascaro 21 Lisa Mascaro, ["Water bill may open spigot for Biden infrastructure plan," 4-29-2021, AP NEWS, Accessed 7-14-2021, URL: ] klyWASHINGTON (AP) — Rarely has a routine water resources bill generated so much political buzz, but as senators hoisted the measure to passage Thursday the bipartisan infrastructure legislation served as a potential template for building consensus around President Joe Biden’s ambitious American Jobs Plan.The Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act of 2021 authorizes about $35 billion over five years to improve leaky pipes and upgrade facilities, and is widely supported by lawmakers and their states back home. This time, though, it could be so much more — a building block in Biden’s broader $2.3 trillion proposal to invest in roads, bridges and other infrastructure.Senators overwhelmingly approved the measure, 89-2, in what Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called “a great example” of what’s possible in Congress.Still, the day after Biden’s address to a joint session of Congress outlining his sweeping proposals to reinvest in America infrastructure the path ahead is expected to be long and politically daunting.With Congress essentially split, and Democrats holding only slim majorities in the House and Senate, Biden and the congressional leaders will soon have to decide how they plan to muscle his priority legislation into law.The White House is reaching out to Republicans, as Biden courts GOP lawmakers for their input on the package and to win over their votes.Biden spoke by phone Thursday with Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., a leader on the water bill who is also working on a Republican alternative to Biden’s infrastructure plan.They had a warm, friendly conversation, reiterating their willingness to negotiate, the White House said. They also discussed having another potential in-person meeting in the near future.“We both expressed our mutual desire to work together and find common ground,” said Capito, the top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, in a statement.Capito called it “a constructive and substantive call” and said she stands ready to “be a partner in advancing infrastructure legislation in a bipartisan way—just as we’ve done in the past.”But most Republicans are opposing Biden’s overall agenda as big government overreach. Together the American Jobs Plan and the American Families Plan, a robust investment in free pre-school, community college and child tax breaks, sum an eye-popping $4 trillion.The water bill is an example of what’s possible, but also the gaping divide.The $35 billion effort falls far short of what the president has proposed, $111 billion over eight years, for water projects in his big infrastructure plan. But it is in line with what Capito and the Republican senators proposed last week as their counter offer to Biden’s package, and could serve as a piece of that or starting point in talks.“We know the next couple of weeks and months are going to be tough,” said Capito, in a speech before the vote. But she said she was hopeful colleagues would “remember this moment.”The water bill is the kind of routine legislation that has been a mainstay on Capitol Hill, but that lawmakers have struggled to pass in recent years amid the partisanship and gridlock, and the power that party leaders exert over the legislative process.Part of the exuberance among senators this week was over the very act of legislating, carrying the bill through the give-and-take of the committee process and onto the Senate floor for amendments and debate.“I say, the more of these we can do, the better,” said Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va.“Maybe we can take the Biden infrastructure plan and do the pieces of it,” he said. “Where we can get some agreement, do those together. And then the remaining things that we think need to be done, that price tag shrinks a little bit, because we’ve done some other stuff.”1AR – Thumper – Water BillThumper – DWWI was a huge water investment Polozova 6/17 Zhenya Polozova – reporter at the Illinois Times ["Get the lead out of drinking water," 6-17-2021, Illinois Times, Accessed 7-14-2021, URL: ] klyBipartisanship might seem like a quaint notion, but every so often we see it in real life. Late last month, the Senate voted 89-2 to pass Senator Tammy Duckworth's Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act (DWWIA) of 2021, which authorizes five years of funding for our public water systems and expands programs to address lead remediation in homes and schools.Rightly, this bill will not further the control of private water companies like Aqua Illinois and Illinois American Water, which already gouge customers with rates 20-60 percent higher than publicly managed water systems that provide Lake Michigan Water, according to a 2017 Tribune investigation.Passing DWWIA is a good first step towards a desperately needed, large investment in our water systems to ensure that every single person in communities across Illinois (and the country) has access to clean, safe, affordable, public drinking water. With President Biden pushing a comprehensive infrastructure bill, we have a huge opportunity in front of us to fully and permanently fund our water systems.Thumper – Water Affordability Bill should’ve caused partisan fightsLakhani 21 Nina Lakhani is environmental justice reporter for Guardian US. ["Biden urged to back water bill amid worst US crisis in decades," 2-25-2021, Accessed 7-14-2021, URL: ] klyDemocratic lawmakers and advocates are urging Joe Biden to back legislation proposing unprecedented investment in America’s ailing water infrastructure amid the country’s worst crisis in decades that has left millions of people without access to clean, safe, affordable water.Boil advisories, leaky lead pipes, poisonous forever chemicals, bill arrears and raw sewage are among the urgent issues facing ordinary Americans and municipal utilities after decades of federal government neglect, which has brought the country’s ageing water systems hurtling towards disaster.The majority of water and wastewater systems nationwide are also unprepared to cope with the climate crisis which is causing increasingly frequent unpredictable extreme weather events like the Arctic freeze that disrupted water and energy supplies across Texas last week.After decades of underinvestment, a water justice bill will be introduced on Thursday in Congress that proposes a massive injection of federal dollars over the next two decades in order to overhaul the ageing infrastructure, create decent jobs and address longstanding inequalities in access to water and sanitation.It’s clear we have a water crisis in every corner of the United States, and if we don’t act soon it will be a disaster.The Water Affordability, Transparency, Equity and Reliability (Water) Act, which will be introduced by Bernie Sanders in the Senate and Brenda Lawrence and Ro Khanna in the House, is backed by at least 70 other Democratic lawmakers and more than 500 advocacy, labor and faith-based organizations from almost every state.2AC – Thumper – Tribal WaterThumper – DWWI gave funding to tribes BUT isn’t enough to solve the plan’s structural harmsHerr 21, Alexandria Herr – News and Politics Fellow at Grist ["’Long overdue’: The Senate just passed $35 billion for clean drinking water.," 5-1-2021, Grist, Accessed 7-14-2021, URL: ] klyA massive, bipartisan clean water infrastructure bill passed the Senate 89-2 on Thursday. The Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act would create a $35 billion fund for states and tribes to improve water systems — 40 percent of which would go to underserved, rural, and tribal communities. The legislation would fund projects that address aging infrastructure and improve water quality, remove lead pipes from schools, and update infrastructure to be more resilient to the impacts of extreme weather and climate change. The bill, having passed the Senate, will now move to the House of Representatives. Such an influx in funding for America’s aging water systems is long overdue, policy experts, environmentalists, and urban planners argue. A 2018 study of 30 years of data found that in any given year, as many as 10 percent of community water systems in the United States have health-based violations, affecting up to 45 million people annually. In addition, more than 2 million Americans live without access to drinking water and sanitation services — such as safe drinking water, plumbing in the home, and wastewater removal and treatment — according to a 2019 report by the U.S. Water Alliance. Native American households are 19 times more likely to lack plumbing than white households; Black and Latino households are nearly twice as likely. Race is the strongest determinant of whether or not a household has access to water and sanitation services, the 2019 report found, the result of a history of racist policies in the planning and construction of water infrastructure. While federal funds for water systems were plentiful following the passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act in the 1970s, federal investment has declined dramatically, from 63 percent of capital spending in the water sector in 1977 to just 9 percent in 2017. This has produced a towering annual investment gap — one that is estimated to grow to $434 billion nationwide by 2029, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers. Tribal systems have been particularly underfunded: In 2016, the Indian Health Service estimated that $2.7 billion would be required to provide access to safe and adequate water and sanitation services. Nearly half of maintenance on American water systems is done reactively, meaning after they have already failed because of deferred maintenance or investment. The American Society of Civil Engineers’ 2021 report card gave the country’s water infrastructure a C grade overall. “Access to clean water is a human right,” said Senator Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, who introduced the new Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act. “Every American deserves access to clean water no matter the color of their skin or size of their income.”Investments in water infrastructure can often be a hard sell politically. “A lot of these are invisible investments. Distribution networks are underground, people can’t really see them,” said Maura Allaire, professor of urban planning at the University of California, Irvine. “It can be really hard to invest — until a catastrophe happens.” The Biden administration is aiming to fill some of the existing gap as a part of the American Jobs Plan, which promises $111 billion for water systems. The administration praised the new act, saying in a statement that the bill “aligns with the administration’s goals to upgrade and modernize aging infrastructure.”If approved by the House and signed into law, funding from the new bill would come in incremental increases to state water infrastructure budgets from 2022 to 2026. The bill also earmarked $50 million annually for tribal water systems and $100 million per year to remove lead drinking water pipes from schools. The bill also promotes investments in projects that would make drinking water systems resilient to extreme weather events and climate change.2AC – Thumper – ImmigrationBiden’s unpopular already---criticism for immigration policy.Reklaitis 21 [Victor Reklaitis is MarketWatch's Money & Politics reporter and is based in Washington, D.C. Prior to joining MarketWatch, he served as an assistant editor and reporter at Investor's Business Daily. Before IBD, he worked for several newspapers in Virginia. 4-29-2021, "What has Biden gotten wrong in his first 100 days? Done right? Analysts sound off.," MarketWatch, accessed 7-12-2021, ] //BYU.S.-Mexico border issues are the main thing that Biden is getting wrong or needs to work on, according to Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. The 46th president’s administration has struggled to handle increasing numbers of migrants arriving at the border, leading to plenty of criticism from Republicans as well as Democrats and independents.“It is the one major policy area where Americans already give him low grades,” Sabato told MarketWatch.The Biden White House has made an effort to avoid describing the situation at the border as a “crisis.” Skirmishing over terminology is “evidence that what’s happening on the border has definitely tripped up the Biden administration,” said Matthew Continetti, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank. Another problem has been Biden’s handling of former President Donald Trump’s cap on refugees, according to Sarita McCoy Gregory, who chairs the department of political science and history at Hampton University in Virginia. Biden eventually said after pressure from allies that he plans to increase the cap by May 15.“The Biden administration seemed to fumble by trying to sustain the low refugee ceiling put in place by the previous administration,” Gregory said.In addition, she said, the administration still needs to work on college-affordability issues such as forgiveness of student loans.On the foreign-policy front, AEI’s Continetti criticized Biden’s effort to convene talks with Iran about getting both countries back into, and into compliance with, a deal limiting Iran’s nuclear program, calling it a “rush into the negotiations” and warning the president could “give away too much.”Thursday marks the 100th day since Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20, though the milestone falls on Friday if counting full days on the job.L – Plan Popular – Water BillDWWI passed AND was bipartisan – water legislation bolsters infrastructure goalsBaur et al 21 Donald Baur -- partner in the Perkins Coie Environment, Energy and Resources practice, has over 35 years of experience in environmental and natural resources law. John Morris helps businesses navigate complex transactional, regulatory, and project development matters arising under federal, state, and local environmental?. Christian Termyn provides counsel in Perkins Coie in a wide range of energy, environmental, and natural resource areas, with a focus on energy and water infrastructure and. ["Senate Adopts Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act," 5-5-2021, JD Supra, Accessed 7-15-2021, URL: ] klyThe U.S. Senate passed the Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act of 2021 by a nearly unanimous vote in its first significant legislative step towards fulfilling the water infrastructure goals of the Biden administration’s American Jobs Plan.Drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure in many areas across the United States has deteriorated while public investment has lagged to support routine maintenance and restoration, adoption of innovative water infrastructure technologies, and sustainable water resource management and water supply planning. The American Jobs Plan promises to invest $111 billion in federal spending on water infrastructure priorities, including $45 billion towards the replacement of lead pipes in water systems and $56 billion towards other priorities, including addressing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water supplies and otherwise modernizing drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater systems. Translating these goals into policy will largely fall upon Congress.Bipartisan federal legislation is already taking shape. By an 89-2 vote, the Senate passed the Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act of 2021 (S. 914) to authorize $35 billion in new investment in water infrastructure. The Act both reauthorizes existing funds and creates new programs to support drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projects. Most funds are allocated to the existing Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-administered Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) and the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF). A significant proportion of authorized funds specifically target the water systems and infrastructure needs of disadvantaged populations, including low-income communities, rural areas, and tribal lands.L---Winners win—2AC Winners win over water specifically.Mascaro and Freking 21 [Lisa Mascaro, AP Chief Congressional Correspondent. Kevin Freking, AP Congressional reporter. 4-29-2021, "Water bill may open spigot for Biden infrastructure plan," AP NEWS, accessed 7-12-2021, ] //BYWASHINGTON (AP) — Rarely has a routine water resources bill generated so much political buzz, but as senators hoisted the measure to passage Thursday the bipartisan infrastructure legislation served as a potential template for building consensus around President Joe Biden’s ambitious American Jobs Plan.The Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act of 2021 authorizes about $35 billion over five years to improve leaky pipes and upgrade facilities, and is widely supported by lawmakers and their states back home. This time, though, it could be so much more — a building block in Biden’s broader $2.3 trillion proposal to invest in roads, bridges and other infrastructure.Senators overwhelmingly approved the measure, 89-2, in what Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called “a great example” of what’s possible in Congress.Still, the day after Biden’s address to a joint session of Congress outlining his sweeping proposals to reinvest in America infrastructure the path ahead is expected to be long and politically daunting.With Congress essentially split, and Democrats holding only slim majorities in the House and Senate, Biden and the congressional leaders will soon have to decide how they plan to muscle his priority legislation into law.The White House is reaching out to Republicans, as Biden courts GOP lawmakers for their input on the package and to win over their votes.Biden spoke by phone Thursday with Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., a leader on the water bill who is also working on a Republican alternative to Biden’s infrastructure plan.They had a warm, friendly conversation, reiterating their willingness to negotiate, the White House said. They also discussed having another potential in-person meeting in the near future.“We both expressed our mutual desire to work together and find common ground,” said Capito, the top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, in a statement.Capito called it “a constructive and substantive call” and said she stands ready to “be a partner in advancing infrastructure legislation in a bipartisan way—just as we’ve done in the past.”But most Republicans are opposing Biden’s overall agenda as big government overreach. Together the American Jobs Plan and the American Families Plan, a robust investment in free pre-school, community college and child tax breaks, sum an eye-popping $4 trillion.The water bill is an example of what’s possible, but also the gaping divide.The $35 billion effort falls far short of what the president has proposed, $111 billion over eight years, for water projects in his big infrastructure plan. But it is in line with what Capito and the Republican senators proposed last week as their counter offer to Biden’s package, and could serve as a piece of that or starting point in talks.“We know the next couple of weeks and months are going to be tough,” said Capito, in a speech before the vote. But she said she was hopeful colleagues would “remember this moment.”The water bill is the kind of routine legislation that has been a mainstay on Capitol Hill, but that lawmakers have struggled to pass in recent years amid the partisanship and gridlock, and the power that party leaders exert over the legislative process.Part of the exuberance among senators this week was over the very act of legislating, carrying the bill through the give-and-take of the committee process and onto the Senate floor for amendments and debate.“I say, the more of these we can do, the better,” said Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va.L---Winners Win—1AR Winners win---stimulus and early presidency proves.Kilgore 21 [Ed Kilgore is a political columnist for New York magazine and the managing editor of the Democratic Strategist, an online magazine. Kilgore is a former senior fellow at the centrist Progressive Policy Institute, and a contributor to the Washington Monthly where he wrote the Political Animal blog. He has also written for the New Republic, and served as policy director for the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. 3-15-2021, "Biden Builds Popularity by Focusing on COVID Relief Plan," Intelligencer, accessed 7-13-2021, ] //BYBut even within the narrow parameters set by increased partisanship, there are some interesting variations. Obama’s initial policy salvo was an economic stimulus package that, despite its “bipartisan” character, was less popular than Obama himself, according to a CNN survey at the time. Trump began his presidency with two immigration gestures (announcing initial construction of a southern border wall, and banning travel into the U.S. by citizens of Islamic countries) that were not very popular generally but elicited positive reactions from Trump’s base. Biden has focused almost exclusively on a COVID-19 relief and stimulus package, which is significantly more popular than he is.So despite perceptions that Biden is gambling political capital by promoting a large and ideologically liberal piece of legislation via the partisan budget reconciliation vehicle, the better way to understand it is that the 46th president is building political capital by so exclusively concentrating on doing something popular.Winners win---under-promising and over-delivering builds momentum.Kamarck 21 [Elaine Kamarck, Center for Effective Public Management Senior Fellow - Governance Studies. 3-11-2021, "Biden’s first address to the nation: Truth, empathy, and results," Brookings, accessed 7-13-2021, ] //BYBiden ended his speech promising a return to normal with our loved ones by July 4th—if we keep our guard up, wear masks and get vaccinated. Already pundits are saying the easy part is over and that Biden, due to Democrats’ slim margins in Congress, will have rough days ahead. No doubt there will be ups and downs, but If he keeps under-promising and over-delivering, he will build up the kind of political capital that presidents crave and need.Winners Win – builds momentum and support for more PCHirsh 13 (Michael, “There’s No Such Thing as Political Capital”). Yahoo News. former foreign editor, chief diplomatic correspondent and national economic correspondent for Newsweek. // BBBut the abrupt emergence of the immigration and gun-control issues illustrates how suddenly shifts in mood can occur and how political interests can align in new ways just as suddenly. Indeed, the pseudo-concept of political capital masks a larger truth about Washington that is kindergarten simple: You just don’t know what you can do until you try. Or as Ornstein himself once wrote years ago, “Winning wins.” In theory, and in practice, depending on Obama’s handling of any particular issue, even in a polarized time, he could still deliver on a lot of his second-term goals, depending on his skill and the breaks. Unforeseen catalysts can appear, like Newtown. Epiphanies can dawn, such as when many Republican Party leaders suddenly woke up in panic to the huge disparity in the Hispanic vote.Some political scientists who study the elusive calculus of how to pass legislation and run successful presidencies say that political capital is, at best, an empty concept, and that almost nothing in the academic literature successfully quantifies or even defines it. “It can refer to a very abstract thing, like a president’s popularity, but there’s no mechanism there. That makes it kind of useless,” says Richard Bensel, a government professor at Cornell University. Even Ornstein concedes that the calculus is far more complex than the term suggests. Winning on one issue often changes the calculation for the next issue; there is never any known amount of capital. “The idea here is, if an issue comes up where the conventional wisdom is that president is not going to get what he wants, and he gets it, then each time that happens, it changes the calculus of the other actors” Ornstein says. “If they think he’s going to win, they may change positions to get on the winning side. It’s a bandwagon effect.”Amid today’s atmosphere of Republican self-doubt, a new, more mature Obama seems to be emerging, one who has his agenda clearly in mind and will ride the mood of the country more adroitly. If he can get some early wins—as he already has, apparently, on the fiscal cliff and the upper-income tax increase—that will create momentum, and one win may well lead to others. “Winning wins.” Winners win – Prez can gain PC with victoriesKantz 16 (Evan, “Does Political Capital Matter”). Politics in Theory and Practice. Master of Public Policy Candidate at Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy. // BBIn political science, a president’s “political capital” refers to how much influence he/she can exert on lawmakers to produce desired legislative outcomes in Congress. Political capital can be understood more or less as an invisible “currency” that presidents can expend on lawmakers or the public to get them on board with particular items on their agendas. Presidents gain political capital with legislative or electoral victories and high favorability ratings with the public, and, inversely, lose it through poor showings by their parties in midterm elections, legislative (and other) gaffes, and low favorability ratings.I/L---PC Fake—2AC PC is fake---partisan politics is zero-sum.Roberts 20 [David Roberts, writer about energy and climate change @ Vox. 12-1-2020, "Joe Biden should do everything at once," Vox, accessed 7-12-2021, ] //BY ***edited for gendered languageTwo-party partisan politics really is a zero-sum gameThe theme of these stories is that Democrats relied on clever sequencing over and over again, imagining some amount of political capital (“credibility”) that they could husband [gather] and spend strategically to get assistance across the aisle, at every juncture underestimating the ferocity and unanimity of Republican opposition. They kept behaving as though they would find good-faith negotiating partners, as though they were still in the postwar American era of relatively low (or at least manageable) polarization.What too few of them realized was that they were already in a new era of near-total polarization, with the population sorted into like-minded enclaves, a bifurcated media ecosystem nurturing stacked (and diametrically opposed) “mega-identities,” and voters motivated primarily by “negative partisanship,” which is to say, hatred of the other side.A fully polarized two-party system really is a zero-sum game. Any victories or gains by one side come at the other side’s expense, even if the victory secures shared goals. The rational course for the party out of power is to fight with full intensity against everything, always, and that’s what Republicans did under Obama. With scarcely any exceptions, from 2010 through 2020, they pushed in every case for maximal partisan advantage, no matter the stakes or possible cost.PC Fake – 2ACPCT not True -- President’s PC to influence Congress is empirically disproven – Ideology, Party, Constituents, and Election trumpKantz 16 (Evan, “Does Political Capital Matter”). Politics in Theory and Practice. Master of Public Policy Candidate at Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy. // BBLet’s unpack some of these alternative explanations. First, ideology and partisan leanings: legislators have a far greater incentive to vote along ideological and partisan lines than they do based on presidential influence, either because they’re true ideologues that utterly refuse to compromise, or because they have an obligation to their constituents to represent their views. Either way, as I’ve meticulously outlined in a previous post, these legislators care too much about holding true to their ideologies and their parties to allow a president to sway them. For members of the opposite party, voting in line with a president’s stated position on an issue looks both like a concession and a betrayal, which resonates poorly with their constituents or the rest of their party. Just imagine the consequences of Republicans voting with Obama after being given a mandate to obstruct his agenda; they’d get primaried in the next election cycle. While it’s entirely possible that a president could win over a couple of moderate members from across the aisle to support a piece of legislation every now and then, on a vast majority of occasions one or two votes is not sufficient to ensure passage. For members of the president’s own party, many will toe the party line, but those that object generally refuse their support for ideological reasons (e.g. Elizabeth Warren and both the TPA and TPP), something presidential influence can’t overcome.As I mentioned above, most evidentiary support for political capital is anecdotal at best. Some political scientists might point to specific situations where Johnson’s intimidation tactics and intimate knowledge of Congressional nuts and bolts, Reagan’s communication skills, or even Bill Clinton’s schmoozing techniques affected legislative outcomes, but each can be explained away based on a few different factors. First of all, each benefited from big majorities in Congress, enabling them to easily get items on their agendas passed without applying real pressure on lawmakers. Even Obama, whose presidency has been marred by perpetual gridlock, had major legislative victories such as the Affordable Care Act early in his first term because his party had majorities in both houses. Johnson benefited from different times politically, as he could manipulate the Democratic machinery to produce desired legislative outcomes, a luxury Obama does not possess because party apparatuses no longer function how they did in the 1960’s. Johnson’s success also stemmed in part from a rally-around-the-flag effect of sorts in the wake of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Reagan, despite “working his will,” failed to change public opinion on specific issues and ultimately had to make major concessions, including tax increases, to the Democratic House majority to achieve any real progress on his agenda. Clinton’s gumption and smoothness couldn’t convince Republicans to sign on to his economic or healthcare plans, and when control of the House flipped to the GOP in 1994, legislation centered around the Contract with America, not Clinton’s agenda. Additionally, many of the policies Clinton did sign into law, like NAFTA, had bipartisan support in Congress. Under thorough investigation, there seems to be a lack of correlation between presidential influence and legislative outcomes.As always, simple theories with broad explanatory power generally catch on quickly in academia because they offer a catch-all mechanism through which to understand how certain phenomena work. However, political capital as a theory may be too simplistic, and virtually all empirical data disproves the idea that presidents have an invisible currency they can spend on influencing members of Congress to carry out their bidding. Presidents do have influence in legislation, but not to the extent that political capital theorists would have you believe. Other factors, such as ideology, party affiliation, constituents, and election cycles, more accurately explain legislative outcomes, but political capital conflates these with actual examples of presidential influence.PCT is unlikely and empty – no mechanism, overblown, and misinterpretedHirsh 13 (Michael, “There’s No Such Thing as Political Capital”). Yahoo News. former foreign editor, chief diplomatic correspondent and national economic correspondent for Newsweek. // BBThe real problem is that the idea of political capital—or mandates, or momentum—is so poorly defined that presidents and pundits often get it wrong. “Presidents usually over-estimate it,” says George Edwards, a presidential scholar at Texas A&M University. “The best kind of political capital—somesense of an electoral mandate to do something—is very rare. It almost never happens. In 1964, maybe. And to some degree in 1980.” For that reason, political capital is a concept that misleads far more than it enlightens. It is distortionary. It conveys the idea that we know more than we really do about the ever-elusive concept of political power, and it discounts the way unforeseen events can suddenly change everything. Instead, it suggests, erroneously, that a political figure has a concrete amount of political capital to invest, just as someone might have real investment capital—that a particular leader can bank his gains, and the size of his account determines what he can do at any given moment in history.Naturally, any president has practical and electoral limits. Does he have a majority in both chambers of Congress and a cohesive coalition behind him? Obama has neither at present. And unless a surge in the economy—at the moment, still stuck—or some other great victory gives him more momentum, it is inevitable that the closer Obama gets to the 2014 election, the less he will be able to get done. Going into the midterms, Republicans will increasingly avoid any concessions that make him (and the Democrats) stronger.But the abrupt emergence of the immigration and gun-control issues illustrates how suddenly shifts in mood can occur and how political interests can align in new ways just as suddenly. Indeed, the pseudo-concept of political capital masks a larger truth about Washington that is kindergarten simple: You just don’t know what you can do until you try. Or as Ornstein himself once wrote years ago, “Winning wins.” In theory, and in practice, depending on Obama’s handling of any particular issue, even in a polarized time, he could still deliver on a lot of his second-term goals, depending on his skill and the breaks. Unforeseen catalysts can appear, like Newtown. Epiphanies can dawn, such as when many Republican Party leaders suddenly woke up in panic to the huge disparity in the Hispanic vote.Some political scientists who study the elusive calculus of how to pass legislation and run successful presidencies say that political capital is, at best, an empty concept, and that almost nothing in the academic literature successfully quantifies or even defines it. “It can refer to a very abstract thing, like a president’s popularity, but there’s no mechanism there. That makes it kind of useless,” says Richard Bensel, a government professor at Cornell University. Even Ornstein concedes that the calculus is far more complex than the term suggests. Winning on one issue often changes the calculation for the next issue; there is never any known amount of capital. “The idea here is, if an issue comes up where the conventional wisdom is that president is not going to get what he wants, and he gets it, then each time that happens, it changes the calculus of the other actors” Ornstein says. “If they think he’s going to win, they may change positions to get on the winning side. It’s a bandwagon effect.”I/L—PC Fake—1AR PC is fake---especially true with Biden and republicans drag their feet regardless.Waldman 20 [Paul Waldman is an opinion writer for the Plum Line blog. Before joining The Post, he worked at an advocacy group, edited an online magazine, taught at university and worked on political campaigns. He has authored or co-authored four books on media and politics, and his work has appeared in dozens of newspapers and magazines. He is also a senior writer at the American Prospect. 12-2-2020, "Opinion: Joe Biden has to move fast," Washington Post, accessed 7-13-2021, ] //BYSlow-walking will absolutely be the Republican strategy, on both appointments and legislation. They won’t come out and say they’re going to stonewall every appointee and refuse to allow any legislation to pass; instead they’ll say that they just want to make sure Biden doesn’t stock his administration with radical leftists and propose far-out socialist laws. Send us the nominees and the bills, and we’ll consider them. It’ll just take some time.Weeks will then stretch into months, and the Biden agenda will languish. They’ve done it before — Obama himself describes how they endlessly dragged out negotiations on the Affordable Care Act by claiming they might support it — and they’ll do it again. That’s the Republican plan.The first step to getting around it is to understand that the public won’t blame gridlock on the ones who are causing it. They’ll just see a bunch of bickering in Washington with nothing getting done, and Biden will be the one who takes the blame.Once you realize that the public is neither aware of nor particularly concerned about process questions, you can stop worrying about whether Republicans will squawk at this appointment or that executive order — because they’ll squawk no matter what you do. If it’s a good idea and you think the results will be good, then just do it. As quickly and comprehensively as possible.As David Roberts of Vox observes: In 2009, Obama and his aides made the mistake of thinking that their major initiatives had to be rolled out one at a time in sequence, because he had a finite store of “political capital” that had to be spent carefully. But political capital is not something that exists apart from any particular issue; it isn’t a special sauce that has to be poured on a policy in order to make it palatable.And with the parties as polarized and unified as they are, political capital has become all but meaningless. There may have been a time when a popular president possessed so much capital that a senator from the opposition party would feel compelled to support him on part of that president’s agenda, but that time is long gone. There is no account Biden can draw on to turn Republican “no” votes into “yes.”So setting up a series of high-profile policy battles may be the opposite of what Biden should do. The unfortunate fact is that he may not have the opportunity to do much in the way of big legislation on health care or climate change or anything else, and if he has only executive power to work with, it makes it all the more urgent to move quickly.Which means getting staff in place immediately and then unleashing them. The Revolving Door Project argues that Biden should give as much authority as possible to the agencies to let them dismantle their particular corners of the Trump legacy on their own, because the task “simply will not happen if approached sequentially or micromanaged” by a White House staff with limited bandwidth.That means moving on every policy area all at once. There’s nothing to be gained by putting off any part of Biden’s agenda. Whatever he can do given the limits of his power, he should do as soon as possible, in a flood of policymaking.Even if Democrats win both Georgia races and control the Senate, Biden should acknowledge that he likely has two years until the 2022 midterm elections to pass whatever legislation he can. Not only will Democrats probably lose one or both houses in the inevitable backlash (as happens to most presidents in their first midterm), the only possible chance at forestalling that result is to get results, as many as possible, that he can show the voters.Republicans will complain that Biden is being partisan, uncompromising, taking a “my way or the highway” approach. It will be a strategy to convince everyone of the lie that Biden and Democrats might be able to find some way of winning them over, when in fact they’ll be implementing a strategy of total opposition.If Biden follows them on that fruitless quest, he’ll be running in circles while crucial time passes and nothing gets done. The only option for him is to decide not to care about Republican whining and do what he got elected to do with all haste. The alternative is failure.Political capital is bunk---it’s backwards, previous presidencies prove, and studies are false.Edwards 16 [George C. Edwards, University distinguished professor of political science and Jordan Chair in Presidential Studies at Texas A&M University and distinguished fellow at the Rothermere American Institute at the University of Oxford. “Predicting the Presidency: The Potential of Persuasive Leadership,” Princeton University Press, JSTOR, accessed 7-12-2021, stable/j.ctt1q1xssr] //BYPresidents invest heavily in leading the public in the hope of leveraging public support to win backing in Congress. Nevertheless, there is overwhelming evidence that presidents rarely move the public in their direction. Most observers view Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton as excellent communicators. Yet pluralities, and often majorities, of the public opposed them on most of their policy initiatives. Moreover, public opinion typically moved away from the positions they favored rather than toward them.1Despite the favorable context of the national trauma resulting from the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the long- term disdain of the public for Saddam Hussein, and the lack of organized opposition, George W. Bush made little headway in moving the public to support the war in Iraq, and once the war was over, the rally resulting from the quick U.S. victory rapidly dissipated.2 Notwithstanding his eloquence, Barack Obama could not obtain the public’s support for his initiatives that were not already popular. His health care reform lacked majority support even years after it passed, for example.3Even Franklin D. Roosevelt, the president often considered the greatest politician of the twentieth century, faced constant frustration in his efforts to move the public to prepare for entry into World War II, and his failure to persuade the public regarding his plan to pack the Supreme Court effectively marked the end of the New Deal.4 George Washington, who was better positioned than any of his successors to dominate American politics because of the widespread view of his possessing exceptional personal qualities, did not find the public particularly deferential.5Occasionally an experiment finds a positive impact of presidential leadership on the public. Unfortunately, the environment in which the president usually operates differs fundamentally from that found in experiments done to date. The president’s world is inhabited by committed, well-organized, and well-funded opponents. Experiments that only offer respondents one view and only seek their immediate reactions to presidential stimuli are simply irrelevant to presidential leadership.6PC is fake---lack of studies prove its existence.Edwards 16 [George C. Edwards, University distinguished professor of political science and Jordan Chair in Presidential Studies at Texas A&M University and distinguished fellow at the Rothermere American Institute at the University of Oxford. “Predicting the Presidency: The Potential of Persuasive Leadership,” Princeton University Press, JSTOR, accessed 7-12-2021, stable/j.ctt1q1xssr] //BYEvery president needs support in Congress to pass his legislative proposals. It is not surprising that someone who has emerged victorious after a long campaign for the presidency would conclude that he can persuade members of Congress to support his policies. As with leading the public, then, presidents may not focus on evaluating existing possibilities when they think they can create their own. Yet assuming party support in Congress or success in reaching across the aisle to obtain bipartisan support is fraught with danger. Not a single systematic study demonstrates that presidents can reliably move members of Congress, especially members of the opposition party, to support them.I/L---PC Fake---AT: Reputational PCReputational PC doesn’t exist either---no empirical basis and long-term forces.Edwards 16 [George C. Edwards, University distinguished professor of political science and Jordan Chair in Presidential Studies at Texas A&M University and distinguished fellow at the Rothermere American Institute at the University of Oxford. “Predicting the Presidency: The Potential of Persuasive Leadership,” Princeton University Press, JSTOR, accessed 7-12-2021, stable/j.ctt1q1xssr] //BYYet it is a mistake for presidents to assume they can change public opinion. There is nothing in the historical record to support such a belief, and there are long-term forces that work against presidential leadership of the public.1 Adopting strategies for governing that are prone to failure waste rather than create opportunities,2 so it is critically important for presidents to assess accurately the potential for obtaining public support.! – AT: Ag/Food – Bill Not SolveInfrastructure bill does nothing for the ag industry.Rook 21 – anchor of AgweekTVMichelle, 4/19. “Biden administration infrastructure bill gets mixed reaction from farm groups, farm state lawmakers.” Biden administration’s $2.25 trillion infrastructure package has received mixed reviews from farm groups and farm state lawmakers. Most have long been supportive of infrastructure investment and improvements to fix the nation’s aging infrastructure and keep U.S. farmers' competitive global edge. The catch is the high price tag and how to pay for the plan. However, farm state lawmakers are fighting against the price tag and the additions in the act that are not infrastructure related.Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., are both opposing the measure due to what they see as waste in the bill. They say President Joe Biden’s infrastructure plan should focus on core and traditional infrastructure projects like roads, bridges, ports, locks and dams, and rural broadband.“Only about a quarter of the $2.25 trillion program he put forth is actually infrastructure," Grassley said. "The rest is a wish list of items that they would not otherwise be able to get passed.”He said the money should be an investment in long-term projects that will have a long-term impact on the economy.The breakdown of the American Jobs Act includes $621 billion for repair and construction of the nation’s transportation system. $115 billion was allocated for roads and bridges, including upgrades on the worst 10,000 small bridges, and another $20 billion for road safety improvements. $80 billion is earmarked for passenger and freight rail upgrades and another $17 billion for inland waterways.Farm groups have had infrastructure investments on the top of their political wish list for many years as they have watched roads, bridges, and the nation’s locks and dams age and fall into disrepair. Townships and counties rarely have the money needed to maintain, let alone build new stretches of road or replace bridges, and the cost climbs every year. Farmers also understand that when there are failures in the transportation system, and they can’t get product to market, it hurts their bottom line and they get less for their goods. Jeff Thompson, immediate past president of the South Dakota Soybean Association, said, on face value, the investment is critical.“Infrastructure is huge, you know, it is just getting the stuff in you know, like the fertilizer coming up to our farms and getting the soybeans and the corn and the crops out,” he said.Chandler Goule, CEO of the National Association of Wheat Growers in Washington, D.C., said they want to make sure agriculture is a priority as the plan moves forward.“Highways are going to be there because people drive a lot, but rail and waterways — that is going to be agriculture's job to make sure that stays at the forefront,” he said.Biofuels groups are disappointed in the $174 billion that was carved out for electric vehicles and to support development of charging stations, while there was no mention of any infrastructure support for biofuels. The omission goes against the idea that biofuels are a ready solution to climate change and getting to carbon neutral status as a country. Meanwhile, other farm groups are concerned about the proposed hike in corporate taxes to pay for the infrastructure plan.Infrastructure insufficient to solve agTraci Bruckner, 5-21-2021, Sustainable Agriculture & Food Systems Funders Public Policy Director, "Infrastructure Investment in Climate and Ag," Sustainable Agriculture & Food Systems Funders, the end of the day, if the American Jobs Plan fails to deliver more funding to increase the conservation baseline, we will not make progress in driving more conservation, nor will we see progress toward climate change mitigation and agricultural resilience. Without additional funding, we are simply looking at modest tweaks that are budget neutral in the 2023 Farm Bill.We need so much more. Let’s not throw away our shot! – Ag/Food – Impact DefenseWars won’t go nuclear --- food conflicts are localized and don’t draw in external actors.Demarest 15—PhD Researcher at the Centre for Research on Peace and Development [Leila, “Food price rises and political instability: Problematizing a complex relationship,” The European Journal of Development Research, Vol. 27, No. 5, p. 650-671, Emory Libraries] Violent conflict and political instability cannot be equated easily. The form of conflict relates to how we evaluate political stability. With reference to a particular territory of the state, it seems logical that where violent (ethnic) clashes occur or armed rebels operate, there is local political instability. Yet, usually political instability is interpreted at the country-level, in terms of the central state (e.g. ‘the failed state’). Remote rural conflicts do not necessarily lead to the evaluation that a state is politically unstable, not even civil war if it is contained to a certain region and the conflict is not very active (see also The Polity IV manual, Marshall, Gurr & Jaggers, 2013). The Casamance in Senegal, for example, still hosts a rebellion of the local population, but the conflict simmers and does not lead to an instable evaluation of the country itself5 . When rebels are relatively successful and able to threaten the central government, there is clear political instability, however.! – AT: Broadband – Bill Not SolveThe bill won’t expand broadband access---but, status quo competition solves.Nabil 21 – research fellow at the Competitive Enterprise InstituteRyan, 4/13. “How to Expand Broadband Access Without Spending $100 Billion.” Biden administration thrust the issue of rural broadband into the spotlight when it released the $2 trillion “American Jobs Plan,” which seeks to upgrade America’s physical and digital infrastructure. Included in the White House’s plan is a provision spending $100 billion to ensure “100 percent high-speed broadband coverage.” Although the administration has not published the details of its spending proposals, a large sum of this money will likely be provided as subsidies to broadband providers. While the administration’s goals are laudable, past experience shows that subsidies are less effective than competition in expanding broadband access. More recent developments also suggest broadband access could be greatly expanded without wasting taxpayers’ money.Before providing another $100 billion in subsidies, the administration should review previous subsidy programs and the extent to which they have been successful in improving broadband connectivity. Citing poor profit-making incentives in rural America, telecommunications companies and ISPs have long sought federal financial support. In response, the U.S. government has provided substantial subsidies to broadband providers. Since 1995, the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) Connect America Fund (CAF) has provided $84 billion in assistance to ISPs and telecommunications companies serving rural areas. Likewise, the Department of Agriculture has also provided $7 billion in loans and grants for internet providers, while the National Telecommunications Agency has provided another $4 billion.Notwithstanding the scale of these subsidies, they have been largely ineffective at stimulating investments to improve broadband quality. Successive studies suggest that “Universal Service subsidies have had little to no effect on rural penetration.” Likewise, despite receiving CAF subsidies, telecommunications companies “have mostly avoided upgrading their copper networks to fiber, except in areas where they face competition from cable companies.” Such experience suggests that direct subsidies are unlikely to improve American internet infrastructure substantially unless broadband providers face increased competition.Due to growing competition and technological innovations, Americans’ access to the internet will likely improve without substantial intervention from the Biden administration. According to the FCC, the number of Americans without high-speed internet — defined as 25 megabytes per second — decreased from 26.3 to 21.3 million between the end of 2016 and 2017. Universal internet access will grow significantly due to increasing competition. First, telecommunications companies are steadily expanding internet coverage and becoming an alternative to broadband internet providers. As a condition of its merger with T-Mobile, Sprint committed to making its service available to 99 percent of Americans within the next six years. The competition from Sprint, AT&T, and Verizon will become more intense as they offer 5G internet and substantially increase broadband speed. Second, SpaceX and Amazon are launching satellite-based internet services — Starlink and Kuiper, respectively — which will expand high-speed internet access to rural areas out of reach for existing ISPs. Competition from these companies will act as an incentive for existing internet providers to install high-speed fiber networks instead of relying on slower copper- and DSL-based internet services. Instead of providing wasteful subsidies to these well-endowed companies, the administration only needs to ensure a level-playing field for competition amongst these companies.Final bill won’t include broadband --- there’s no agreement over the termsHeilweil 21 – reporter for Open Sourced, covering artificial intelligence, algorithms, and automation. She has written for Wired, Fortune, the Wall Street Journal, and the Philadelphia Inquirer, among other outlets. She has spoken on Marketplace and iHeartRadioRebecca, 5/28. “The bipartisan consensus on broadband is a mirage.” ’s a tense fight in Washington between Republicans and Democrats over President Biden’s infrastructure plan, from the amount of funding in it to the very definition of infrastructure. But on the question of addressing the internet and bridging the digital divide, there appears to be resounding agreement that broadband is very, very important and very, very bipartisan. This is a mirage.Earlier this week, Vice President Kamala Harris met with members of Congress from both parties to hammer out the logistics of funding broadband through the infrastructure package, saying the subject is one Americans see as nonpartisan. Sen. Amy Klobuchar told local media in Minnesota that discussion was just focused on “nuts and bolts.”While Republicans and the White House are still debating the cost of the overall infrastructure package, they have come to an agreement on how much the package should spend on broadband — $65 billion — after Biden agreed to compromise last week. The new figure represents a significant reduction from his original broadband proposal, which had a $100 billion price tag. White House press secretary Jen Psaki said the decision was “all in the spirit of finding common ground.” It appears the details are still being figured out.But even though the parties have settled on a number, there isn’t a consensus on how broadband should actually work and who should be prioritized through federal efforts. Coming to an agreement on funding broadband is just one piece of the puzzle, and there are deep fault lines and disagreements over what that funding should aim to accomplish that could significantly impact who gets connected and who really benefits. Republicans and Democrats alike have said that the pandemic highlighted the internet’s crucial role in everyday life, but they have fundamental disagreements on the share of the pie that traditional cable providers should have.One key disagreement is a long-simmering debate over the idea of municipal broadband. Throughout the United States, some local governments, nonprofits, and co-ops have made long-term investments to build their own broadband networks without relying on the private sector. Biden is a big fan of this approach. The White House calls these municipal broadband networks “providers with less pressure to turn profits and with a commitment to serving entire communities.” Notably, large cable companies that benefit from being the only provider in many areas don’t like this competition, and they have even lobbied for legislation banning them. Broadband Now, an internet provider website, says municipal broadband is now restricted in at least 18 states.Some efforts have succeeded anyway. The Electric Power Board of Chattanooga, Tennessee, managed to build its own gigabit broadband network, despite opposition, including from the cable provider Comcast (Comcast is an investor in Vox Media, which owns Recode). Biden wants efforts like Chattanooga’s to be eligible for funding from his infrastructure plan.But congressional Republicans are opposed, saying there are places where municipal hasn’t worked and has left taxpayers in debt, as the Senate’s Republican Policy Committee argued in a brief published earlier this month. Some House Republicans have even proposed national legislation limiting these kinds of networks. NCTA, a lobbying organization that represents a wide range of media and telecom companies, including Comcast, Charter, and Cox Communications, has said of Biden’s plan that “shared goals are not served by suggesting wrongly that the entire network is ailing and that the solution is either to prioritize government-owned networks or micromanage private networks.”“The cable and telephone lobbyists for a long time have argued that this is socialism, that it is harming American businesses,” Christopher Mitchell, who directs the community broadband program at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, told Recode. “The lobbyists who have wanted to stop broadband competition have recognized that the ideology of the Republican Party is one that is deeply skeptical of public investments.”Public versus private investment is not, however, the only fault line in the recent bipartisan consensus over funding broadband. There’s also long and ongoing disagreement between Republicans and Democrats over what kind of technology should be deployed to facilitate these internet connections. Right now, many get their internet routed to their homes through coaxial cable networks, while some are still dependent on DSL-copper phone lines, which are even slower. Biden thinks that should change, and that US broadband should be high-speed and “future proof,” a term Republicans have interpreted as code for fiber. Fiber, advocates have argued, would last for decades and could be easily adjusted to account for higher and higher speed demands.But Republicans have said that the Biden definition of high-speed and “future proof” would make too many households eligible for subsidies that could go to people who don’t necessarily need internet updates. They’ve also accused Democrats of trying to subsidize “faster speeds [that] allow more lavish internet uses,” like streaming content in 4K, which could close off innovation, putting their “thumb on the scale” by prioritizing one type of technology: fiber. Back in February, Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee proposed a suite of 28 bills focused on deregulation, and during one March hearing, Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH) called focusing on building up high-speed internet as the “exact opposite of what needs to happen,” and would leave rural Americans behind.There are companies that are moving ahead with fiber on their own or that will need it in order to build out 5G networks. But legacy cable providers likely benefit if the government doesn’t prioritize this type of connection. (NCTA, the lobbying group, has argued, for instance, that federal money should focus instead on areas with very bad internet connectivity or none at all.) Traditional cable providers, who can be the only internet providers for some consumers, don’t necessarily want to have to compete with new options based on fiber, explains Ernesto Falcon, senior legislative counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, pointing to companies like Comcast and Charter.But Biden and those who support his plan say that focusing on these more advanced systems is important because demand for internet is only going to increase and that the country needs to invest in technology that can last for decades.“This is a once-in-a-lifetime investment that we can make,” says Greg Guice, the government affairs director at Public Knowledge. “If you rely on some of these older technologies, like copper, then you simply can’t get the speed out of them that you need to really, as you think down the road, for the kinds of demands that are going to be on the network.”Underlying the tensions between Republicans and Democrats are differing opinions on the scope of the challenge. Republicans and cable companies want to concentrate the broadband discussion on areas and communities that have very little connectivity at present. Moving to high-speed and fiber, they argue, shouldn’t be the focus. But Democrats, along with some Republicans, have said the country should have a higher standard for internet speeds. That approach, Guice explains, would lend more support for building out fiber, and also frame the broadband question in a way that includes suburban and urban communities where internet connection is lacking.While the Federal Communications Commission has estimated that about 30 million Americans don’t have access to broadband, that doesn’t include the people who might technically have access to the internet but can’t afford it, a problem exacerbated in areas where there’s just one internet provider. There’s also the process that’s called “digital redlining,” where internet providers have left communities of color and lower-income communities with worse internet access.It’s not clear whether these tensions will be resolved in this latest infrastructure debate. After all, the pandemic has made abundantly clear that being connected isn’t just about having internet access. It’s crucial to have internet that’s good enough to support multiple people using multiple devices at the same time, and who might need that connection to do anything from work to learn to attend a medical appointment. Advocates for future-proofing say fiber not only will last longer but acknowledges that demand for internet won’t decline or stay stagnant. It will only grow.Broadband provisions don’t solve.Kerpen 21 – the president of American Commitment and the author of Democracy DeniedPhil, 6/29. “Biden’s infrastructure plan ignores success of broadband.” sensible infrastructure policy would look to broadband as a model to bring more private management and investment into other types of infrastructure. The Biden administration is doing precisely the opposite — massively funding a government takeover of broadband.The justification for government-run broadband keeps changing. As recently as 2010, Obama National Economic Council member Susan Crawford warned “consumers will have just one provider to choose from: their local cable monopoly.” Wireless couldn’t compete. Telco Internet — with the exception of Version FIOS — didn’t count as broadband. “This is the central crisis of our communications era,” she wrote.The exact opposite happened. Competition kept increasing — every year, more Americans have more options for Internet access. Today, it’s not just cable and telecommunication companies competing, it’s 5G providers, fixed wireless providers, and low-Earth orbit satellite companies all vying for broadband dollars.So now, just one Democratic administration later, the primary justification for government-run networks is that private networks are great at downloading, but don’t upload fast enough. Really?The U.S. Treasury is proposing a redefinition of broadband to symmetrical 100 megabit upload and download speeds that would instantly make 58 percent of all households unserved — surprise, even your gigabit cable Internet isn’t broadband anymore!The idea is absurd on the merits. Broadband consumers in 2019 used 14 times more downstream than upstream. Asymmetrical networks were deployed not just for technical reasons, but to serve actual usage patterns. Zoom’s posted technical requirements only call for 0.6 to 3.8 Mbps of upstream capacity. While video conferencing increased due to COVID, this asymmetrical usage barely budged.Meanwhile, we have more evidence than ever that government-owned networks are boondoggles. A recent report from Citizens Against Government Waste found:“From Bristol, Virginia to Provo, Utah, GON projects have proven to be costly, unsustainable, and anti-competitive, while they divert taxpayer resources from higher priorities and fail to solve connectivity issues. … Proposals by members of Congress and the Biden administration to preclude private sector participation in up to $100 billion in broadband funding will stifle innovation and cripple investment in new technology.”The Obama stimulus spent $7.2 billion on broadband — and almost all of it ended up going to well-populated areas (more votes there) that were already served. Even with the advantage of free tax dollars, these systems were, the report found, “ineffective or failed, loans became delinquent, and borrowers defaulted. The NTIA project completion rate was abysmal.”Now states are sitting on $350 billion of so-called COVID relief funding. They will be tempted to again spend it in on government-owned networks in vote-rich areas rather than reaching sparsely populated areas without broadband, or figuring out why some low-income consumers don’t subscribe to even cut-rate or free Internet plans. And Congress looks poised to add yet another pot of broadband money in the pending infrastructure bill.All of this gets infrastructure exactly backwards. Congress should repeal the restrictions on the $350 billion they have already sent states that ban it from being used for roads and bridges, and target broadband spending narrowly to the few remaining truly unserved.! – AT: Broadband – Impact DefenseNo impact uniqueness---equality is declining.Schneider 20 – Federal Reserve reporter for ReutersHoward, with Jonnelle Marte, 9/28. “U.S. income inequality narrowed slightly over last three years: Fed.” Income inequality in the United States narrowed in the first three years of the Trump administration as rising wages and a low unemployment rate fueled gains for lower-income and less educated families, according to U.S. Federal Reserve data released on Monday.Wealth inequality was largely unchanged, with the top 10% of families holding about 71% of family wealth in 2019, roughly the same as in 2016, the Fed found in its latest Survey of Consumer Finances, conducted every three years.The survey provides a snapshot of how income, assets and debt are distributed across the population, and in this case how the benefits of the final years of a decade-long economic expansion had begun flowing to typically less advantaged parts of the population.Median family net worth by race:[figure omitted]Most of the survey was conducted last year, before the coronavirus pandemic ended that expansion and pushed the United States into a recession that may endanger some of the very gains documented in the report.But the data did reflect a pause at least in the long trend toward wealth and income becoming more concentrated in the upper end. Overall, for example, average incomes fell, but that was driven by a decline in incomes among the top earners.! – AT: China – Bill Not Solve** you can also insert the Halbert 21 card from answers to economy if neededInfrastructure bill doesn’t solve China competitionWhite 21 - Ben White, POLITICO Pro's chief economic correspondent and author of the “Morning Money” column covering the nexus of finance and public policy. 4-6-2021, "Corporate America tears down Biden's infrastructure plan," POLITICO, America has loudly complained for years about the crumbling state of the U.S. infrastructure and demanded that Washington invest heavily to catch up to the rest of the developed world. But now that President Joe Biden has proposed a massive $2 trillion-plus spending package, the collective response from big business is basically: “No thanks, try again.” Corporate America has loudly complained for years about the crumbling state of the U.S. infrastructure and demanded that Washington invest heavily to catch up to the rest of the developed world. But now that President Joe Biden has proposed a massive $2 trillion-plus spending package, the collective response from big business is basically: “No thanks, try again.” “This plan would make America less competitive, which would mean less U.S. economic growth and less job creation,” said Neil Bradley, chief policy officer at the Chamber of Commerce. “The benefits of infrastructure would be offset by punitive tax increases. And if they move ahead with only Democratic votes, the concept of doing anything on a bipartisan basis would be over and it would just reinforce the kind of gridlock that has prevented progress on every other issue.” Executives at some of America’s largest companies complain much more bitterly in private about the White House approach, arguing that raising the top corporate rate to 28 percent from 21 percent — without restoring deductions eliminated in then-President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax cut bill — would damage hiring and the economy. And they say instituting a global minimum tax that other countries may not adopt would drive more jobs and profits out of the U.S. They also complain about a lack of sufficient outreach to the business community before the infrastructure plan was rolled out and worry that Biden is forsaking his campaign promises to work on a bipartisan basis on such sweeping legislation. Executives often say they could live with a corporate tax rate of around 25 percent — which groups like the Business Roundtable previously supported — but only with deductions restored and without much of the international reform. “I didn’t think 21 percent was the right number when we did tax reform. And 25 percent is a spot where you could probably get a lot of consensus,” the CEO of one of the world's largest financial firms said on condition that they not be named. “It’s not the rate, it’s all the other stuff that would make us less competitive around the world. And jobs will go if we do this stuff.” The CEO added that the business community generally won’t get behind any bill being pushed with only Democratic support through the budget reconciliation process — a maneuver that allows legislation to clear the Senate with a simple majority — that the White House used to pass its $1.9 trillion stimulus bill. “It really does matter if this is totally partisan. It sounds cliché but business people really do want to sit in the middle and get behind stuff that has bipartisan support,” the CEO said. “Biden made a lot of promises to do this stuff differently. But while it has a shinier veneer, a lot of it seems just like Trump doing everything his way.” A leading executive at a Fortune 100 technology company said it’s easy for Amazon and other companies to nod at their willingness to pay a higher overall corporate rate. But the executive said the corporate world would fight much of the rest of the proposal. “None of these guys can realistically with a straight face oppose a 25 percent rate,” the executive said. “That’s not where the fight is. At all.” Both executives say that outside of a couple of hastily arranged conference calls shortly before Biden introduced his “American Jobs Plan,” there has not been much outreach to the business community, a complaint that dogged former President Barack Obama throughout his two terms. The White House largely rejects these complaints. Administration officials note that many executives including JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon previously backed a top corporate rate of 25 percent, only slightly shy of the 28 percent Biden is proposing. ! – AT: China – Impact DefenseNuke war is highly unlikely – empirics proveRatner 19 - Sam Ratner writes Inkstick Media's Critical State newsletter. He is also a contributing editor Zitamar News and graduate a of Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs., 12-12-2019, "Analysis: Is a US-China nuclear conflict likely?," World from PRX, it comes to the nightmare scenario of two nuclear powers becoming embroiled in an escalatory spiral resulting in mutual, increasingly destructive nuclear strikes, the historical record is bare. The only time any country has launched a nuclear attack — the United States attacking Japan in 1945 — it did so with the impunity that came with knowing it was the only nuclear power on earth. It’s hard to draw conclusions about the likelihood of something that’s never happened. On the other hand, there are ways in which it’s quite straightforward. Control over how nuclear crises play out is shared by a very small group of people around the world. There are only a few countries that have nuclear weapons, and within those countries only a few people with meaningful power over whether and how nuclear arsenals are deployed, which means it’s relatively easy to know who you’re actually studying. Not only that, but to the extent that those people desire stability in their relationships with nuclear decision makers in other countries, they have an interest in speaking publicly about their approach to potential nuclear crises. When people are eager to tell you about their decision-making processes, you can learn a lot. In an article published in the latest edition of International Security, political scientists Fiona Cunningham and M. Taylor Fravel dug into how the Chinese government thinks about potential nuclear confrontations. They spoke to 24 members of China’s nuclear strategy community and read a range of official and unofficial documents to understand how likely Chinese strategists think it is that a conventional war between China and the US will escalate into a nuclear war. The message from Chinese experts was clear: They don’t think it’s very likely at all. Their confidence comes from their belief that limited nuclear war is basically impossible. Once one country uses one nuclear weapon, no matter the circumstance, the mainline Chinese view is that both countries will have strong incentives to escalate quickly, to avoid being caught in a position where their strategic nuclear arsenals would be destroyed. That quick escalation would mean mass destruction on both sides, making any nuclear use unlikely. Buttressing that belief is a confidence in both China and America’s ability to manage escalation of conventional conflicts, to ensure they don’t produce a move to nuclear strikes. Even in instances where nuclear powers have lost conventional wars, Chinese General Pan Zhenqiang wrote, “they still do not dare to use nuclear weapons to reverse a [losing] war situation.” If both sides believe that any nuclear escalation would be extremely dangerous, the mainline Chinese view is that both sides have every reason to seek deescalation in even the most dire conventional conflict situations.! – AT: Competitiveness – Bill Not SolveInfrastructure irrelevant to competitiveness, and there’s no impact Meyer 20 – Senior writer at Fortune Magazine.David Meyer, “The U.S. economy has become less competitive in the past couple of years. Here’s why,” Fortune, 16 June 2020, the past three decades, the U.S. has been listed as one of the world’s top five most competitive economies, in rankings produced by the International Institute for Management Development (IMD) in Switzerland. Just two years ago, the U.S. topped the list.Those days are over, at least for now.In the 31st edition of the ranking, released Tuesday, the U.S. had fallen to 10th place, just behind the United Arab Emirates. As it was last year, the list is led by Singapore, now directly followed by Denmark and Switzerland.IMD’s closely watched ranking is based on a mix of hard data, from sources such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, and qualitative data gleaned from a survey of over 6,300 mid- and upper-level executives across 100 countries. The results take into account everything from trade and investment to countries’ educational systems and technological infrastructure.So why has the U.S. dropped so noticeably? It’s largely owing to the Trump administration’s trade policies, according to Christos Cabolis, the chief economist at IMD’s World Competitiveness Center and one of the authors of this year’s report.“One of the pillars of competitiveness is how open an economy is, and we measure that in different ways, from the perceptions of executives, to trade [statistics],” Cabolis told Fortune. President Donald Trump’s ignition of a trade war with China over the past of couple years “brings some of the results we see in how the numbers of the U.S. went down,” he said.In terms of IMD’s methodology, Trump’s Chinese-tariff broadside actually provided a double whammy. Not only did the measures reduce the U.S.’s openness to international trade, but they also had a negative impact on U.S. public expenditure—think of all those billions that went to bail out American farmers who had been hit by China’s retaliatory tariffs, shortly after the administration had also cut corporate taxes.“We see the countries that performed better this year are also the ones that have much better structure and discipline with relation to public finance,” said Cabolis, who also noted that successful countries were those with a strong societal framework and effective governments. Social cohesion was not an area where the U.S. was doing well recently, he warned.According to Cabolis, Singapore topped the rankings because of its ability to acquire international talent and the quality of its educational system. In Denmark, infrastructure and business efficiency were factors in the country’s strong performance.Respondents to IMD’s Executive Opinion Survey were most likely to cite the U.S.’s economic dynamism and easy access to financing as the country’s “key attractiveness factors.” Competent government and effective labor relations were the least-cited factors.One quirk of IMD’s rankings is that the quantitative data, which enjoys much heftier weighting in the list’s compilation, comes from the preceding year, while the survey data is gathered in the year of publication. So in this case, the hard data comes from 2019, before the novel coronavirus became a pandemic, but the questionnaire responses came from February to April of 2020—a period in which the urgency of the situation became apparent and countries started locking down their economies.That means next year’s rankings will be heavily affected by this year’s pandemic: GDP levels and growth will likely be down in most places, as will consumption, while unemployment will rise. “How well a particular government will deal with these tremendous issues will actually affect the position of next year’s ranking,” Cabolis said.However, he suggested, the qualities described in this year’s report could provide a good indicator of what is to come.“Some of the elements that we capture are related to the adaptability of governments to business cycles—how resilient a particular government is with everything that has happened,” Cabolis said. This year’s high-ranked countries “are the economies where both individuals and governments adapt and are flexible, and businesspeople are able to navigate the economy.”Nonetheless, he added, the effectiveness of countries’ health care systems will likely play an important role in the 2021 rankings—as will the issue of inequality.“Even though in exposure to the virus all of us are in the same position, in terms of the effects of the virus it is undoubtedly a fact that we are not,” Cabolis said. “If exacerbating inequalities exist, this may have a negative effect next year.”The bill doesn’t solve competitiveness Hedlund 21 – Chief Economist at the Show-Me Institute, associate professor with tenure in the economics department at the University of Missouri-Columbia, research fellow at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. LouisAaron, 4/1. “The Biden Infrastructure Bungle.” combination of flat spending and rising costs means less actual new infrastructure. Worse yet, costs vary widely across states. From 1956 to 1993, high-cost states spent more than $8.8 million more per mile of interstate than low-cost states, and $3.3 million of this differential is due to factors under policymaker control. Thus, rather than measuring the ambition of a bill by the sticker shock of its price tag, a superior metric is to evaluate the quantity and quality of infrastructure it is likely to produce and what spillovers it will generate for economic productivity. On both counts, the Biden Administration’s plan falls far short.First, the composition of spending in the bill appears not to have gone through any credible cost–benefit analysis to determine where best to allocate scarce (or not so scarce, given the size of the bill) dollars. For example, the American Society of Civil Engineers reports that 20 percent of the more than 4 million miles of roads in the United States are in poor condition; the same report estimates a nearly $800 billion backlog of maintenance and repair needs. Why, then, does only 5 percent of the bill (see Figure 1) go to roads and bridges, only promising to fix 20,000 miles worth of road? Moreover, why spend nearly the same amount on public transportation even though only 5 percent of people rely on it to get to work? The bill also includes Medicaid expansion of home and community-based services (HCBS) masquerading as “infrastructure.” The administration every right to make its case for a “care economy” agenda, but simply calling it infrastructure to piggyback off of the popularity of spending on roads and bridges does not make it so.Secondly, and more egregiously, the American Jobs Plan’s prevailing wage, project labor agreement, and PRO Act provisions are a huge giveaway to unions that would likely raise costs, reduce growth, tilt the playing field, and overturn the will of voters in states that passed right-to-work laws to safeguard worker freedoms. The practical effect of these measures will be to reduce the number of infrastructure projects that can get completed for a given amount of spending and to needlessly harm economic performance through the elimination of worker freedom protections.Lastly, the Biden plan partly finances the eye-popping $2.3 trillion price tag by raising the corporate income tax, thereby undermining the very competitiveness that infrastructure investment is supposed to enhance. Even the administration tacitly admits the harm such a tax hike will cause for the economy, offering only to beg other countries to raise their own taxes to prevent them from attracting companies looking for friendlier business environments in what the Biden administration misleadingly calls a “race to the bottom.” It’s hard to imagine any countries taking us up on the offer. In all fairness, the American Jobs Plan does promise workers whose jobs are displaced counseling and case management services, though many will unsurprisingly prefer to keep their job instead.In sum, America’s infrastructure could use a jolt of investment, but the spending priorities in the bill are off target and in many cases unrelated to true infrastructure. The bill is littered with union giveaways that will raise costs and reduce the quantity of new infrastructure that could otherwise be produced, and the promised corporate tax hikes counteract the same economic growth that infrastructure spending aims to ignite. But it’s not too late. The Biden administration should learn from previous mistakes, when the Obama stimulus failed to improve the nation’s highways, and instead refocus on a pro-growth and fiscally responsible approach to solving America’s pressing infrastructure needs.! – AT: Competitiveness – OffenseInfrastructure bill hurts competitivenessDitch 21 – policy analyst in the Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget at The Heritage FoundationDavid, 5/7. “4 Big Problems With Biden’s “Infrastructure” Plan.” Biden administration is promoting its American Jobs Plan as an “infrastructure” proposal. In reality, it’s a gargantuan tax-and-spend package that would expand federal power and control in a wide variety of areas.Although the plan is hyped as a path toward shared goals such as “jobs” and “global competitiveness,” a closer look reveals that it suffers from four core problems that completely undermine those goals.Problem 1: Destructive tax hikes.Just as the economy is pulling out of the pandemic recession, the plan would slam businesses with $2.7 trillion in tax increases over the next 15 years.This would reduce incentives for businesses to take risks in hiring new employees and make entrepreneurs less likely to take the biggest risk of all: starting a new enterprise. Over time that would have the effect of reducing economic growth, which means fewer jobs and lower wages.In addition, the tax hike would cause America to have the second-highest rate for corporations among major economies after accounting for federal and state taxes. That would hamstring our economic competitiveness, directly contradicting one of the plan’s goals.Problem 2: Federal infrastructure spending that fails to create jobs.In order to create jobs, the plan would have to overcome the number of jobs destroyed by the tax increase. It would fall well short of just breaking even.The infrastructure part of the plan follows the same failed path as the 2009 stimulus bill signed by President Barack Obama. A 2013 analysis of the Obama stimulus showed that the infrastructure-spending bump served to divert construction workers from private-sector projects to federal projects, meaning there was a minimal amount of job creation.Further, federal regulations mean that these projects would have inflated costs for materials and labor, reducing the total number of projects and jobs tied to the spending.Problem 3: Economically harmful central planning.The plan would lead to more federal involvement in local infrastructure such as schools and water systems, and more micromanagement of private-sector concerns such as energy, manufacturing, housing and more.In total, this would mean taking a huge amount of money (more than $20,000 per household) from the private economy and redistributing it toward politically favored interests.History has repeatedly proven that greater government control of the economy leads to worse outcomes. The Heritage Foundation’s annual Index of Economic Freedom shows that countries with freer markets experience higher quality of life for metrics ranging from wages to personal health to the environment.The health of America’s democracy would also take a turn for the worse if Washington gains even more say over local decisions. Local officials are more accountable to voters and more in tune with local needs and preferences than federal bureaucrats are.Meanwhile, increasing the number of things Congress is responsible for overseeing would be a recipe for disaster regardless of who holds the reins of power. It would make federal elections even more bitter and winner-takes-all than they already are.Problem 4: Wasteful infrastructure priorities and false advertising.When federal officials reference infrastructure investments, the first thing that usually comes to mind is the quality of the nation’s highways and bridges, which carry countless amounts of both people and goods from coast to coast and border to border.However, the Biden plan would only dedicate about 4% of its spending to highways and bridges. It would spend more on mass transit, which carries less than one-tenth as much passenger traffic as highways, and about as much on Amtrak, which was responsible for a microscopic 0.1% of travel in 2019.Infrastructure projects grow the economy based only on how useful they are. The administration’s decision to prioritize transportation modes that aren’t a fit for America’s geography would lead to a tremendous amount of wasteful spending.On top of the misguided infrastructure choices, the plan also includes massive amounts of spending that have nothing to do with infrastructure.This includes hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare, “green” slush funds, big subsidies for electric vehicles that will overwhelmingly benefit wealthy households, and a Medicaid benefit expansion. These provisions should stand or fall on their own, not hide behind popular terms like “infrastructure.”In short, the “American Jobs Plan” would destroy rather than create jobs, harm rather than enhance global competitiveness, and waste huge sums on infrastructure. Congress would be better off using the proposal as a guide for what not to do.Infrastructure bill wrecks competitiveness---it over-emphasizes government investment at the expense of effective private-sector innovation Schrager 21 – senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City JournalAllison, 4/19. “Industrial Policy Is a Bad Bet.” a society spends on innovation is the key to its future growth and prosperity. America’s remarkable economy, as with Great Britain’s in the eighteenth century, has come from its innovations, and those have come mostly from the private sector.President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion Covid-19 stimulus and the $2 trillion American Jobs Plan aim to change that, by funneling corporate earnings to the government, so that it, rather than the private sector, can choose what to invest in—either directly or via subsidies to favored industries. In other words, this is industrial policy. If history is any guide, the result will be lower growth and more risk.Innovation sparks economic growth, but it is also inherently risky. Many new ideas fail or cannot find a market. In the private sector, founders and investors shoulder the burdens of failure, but they also reap the benefits of success. When the government takes on innovation directly, however, we often assume that no risk exists; when government subsidizes the private sector, we assume that investors face less downside risk. But transferring risk to the government doesn’t make it disappear. Unlike investors, government officials don’t realize the risks that they have incurred. Instead, future taxpayers bear those risks, in the form of higher debt.True, future generations might get potential upsides: better roads and bridges, modernized airports, perhaps a cleaner environment. But they’ll only enjoy this upside if government chooses the right projects that enhance growth. That’s the hard part. If it were easy, no one would ever lose money in the private sector. And just like the private sector, sometimes the government makes the wrong bets (such as Solyndra).In the private sector, moreover, a multitude of investors and participants determines how capital is invested, but when government gets involved, those decisions become concentrated in fewer hands. For private actors, the risk of failure encourages discipline, forcing companies to respond quickly to information about what products work and what the market will pay. Government decision-makers largely lack these incentives, and in the case of government-subsidized markets, prices convey less information about which investments are really working. That’s why industrial policy has failed more often than it has succeeded.We can see evidence of the market distortions that government subsidies cause in the market capitalization of electric-car maker Tesla—currently about $650 billion, or more than five times that of General Electric. Tesla benefits from many subsidies already, and the Biden infrastructure plan aims to divert even more to the electric-car industry. And by increasing the corporate tax rate to pay for part of these subsidies, the Biden plan will further distort the market by making the unsubsidized private sector even less attractive to investors.The pandemic forced many businesses to adopt new technologies that could boost productivity for decades. Productivity gains don’t always come so fast. It took more than 100 years for the steam engine, a transformative technology, to show up in productivity estimates, for example. The pandemic’s acceleration of this process of technological adoption means that we could be poised for a big burst of follow-on growth and innovation. But government interventions on the scale of the Covid stimulus and infrastructure bill threaten to divert these energies into less productive investments.True, the added government spending will provide short-term benefits to workers in the form of new jobs building roads, bridges, and airports or retrofitting buildings with green technology. But using industrial policy to create jobs can also generate long-term risks for those workers, by steering them away from gaining the skills and experience the market may need in the future. Research has shown that workers for the Depression-era Works Progress Administration were less likely to take higher-paying private-sector jobs when they became available because they preferred the security of a government guarantee. In the long term, that can lead to wage stagnation and a population less competitive in the global market.! – AT: Competitiveness – Impact DefenseCompetitiveness isn’t a thingKrugman 11 --- Paul Krugman, distinguished professor in the Graduate Center Economics Ph.D. program and distinguished scholar at the Luxembourg Income Study Center at the City University of New York, “The Competition Myth”, NYT, Jan 23rd 2011, the new buzzword, same as the old buzzword. In advance of the State of the Union, President Obama has telegraphed his main theme: competitiveness. The President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board has been renamed the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. And in his Saturday radio address, the president declared that “We can out-compete any other nation on Earth.”This may be smart politics. Arguably, Mr. Obama has enlisted an old cliché on behalf of a good cause, as a way to sell a much-needed increase in public investment to a public thoroughly indoctrinated in the view that government spending is a bad thing.But let’s not kid ourselves: talking about “competitiveness” as a goal is fundamentally misleading. At best, it’s a misdiagnosis of our problems. At worst, it could lead to policies based on the false idea that what’s good for corporations is good for America.About that misdiagnosis: What sense does it make to view our current woes as stemming from lack of competitiveness?It’s true that we’d have more jobs if we exported more and imported less. But the same is true of Europe and Japan, which also have depressed economies. And we can’t all export more while importing less, unless we can find another planet to sell to. Yes, we could demand that China shrink its trade surplus — but if confronting China is what Mr. Obama is proposing, he should say that plainly.Furthermore, while America is running a trade deficit, this deficit is smaller than it was before the Great Recession began. It would help if we could make it smaller still. But ultimately, we’re in a mess because we had a financial crisis, not because American companies have lost their ability to compete with foreign rivals.But isn’t it at least somewhat useful to think of our nation as if it were America Inc., competing in the global marketplace? No.Consider: A corporate leader who increases profits by slashing his work force is thought to be successful. Well, that’s more or less what has happened in America recently: employment is way down, but profits are hitting new records. Who, exactly, considers this economic success?Still, you might say that talk of competitiveness helps Mr. Obama quiet claims that he’s anti-business. That’s fine, as long as he realizes that the interests of nominally “American” corporations and the interests of the nation, which were never the same, are now less aligned than ever before.Take the case of General Electric, whose chief executive, Jeffrey Immelt, has just been appointed to head that renamed advisory board. I have nothing against either G.E. or Mr. Immelt. But with fewer than half its workers based in the United States and less than half its revenues coming from U.S. operations, G.E.’s fortunes have very little to do with U.S. prosperity.! – AT: Economy – Bill Not SolveNo economic impact – infrastructure bill won’t aid in COVID economic recoveryMichel 21 - Adam N. Michel, PhD,?is Senior Analyst for Fiscal Policy in the Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget, of the Institute for Economic Freedom, at The Heritage Foundation. 1-25-2021,"Why Infrastructure Spending Will Not Help the Pandemic Recovery," Heritage Foundation, spending as an economic stimulus is an inappropriate response to the economic downturn. Stimulus programs have historically failed to jump-start economic recovery—and likely make economic recovery more difficult. Infrastructure spending is an especially ineffective stimulus because it can take years to deploy the funds, does not create new jobs, and state governments compensate for new federal grants by shrinking their own spending. Many projects are ultimately wasteful spending. 1. Congress has already provided nearly $4.5 trillion in response to the pandemic. Spending trillions more risks stunting economic recovery and wasting taxpayer money. 2. “Shovel-ready” jobs are anything but, often taking years to execute, and such stimulus jobs are ripe for abuse and corruption—at the expense of American workers. 3. Congress should prioritize removing unnecessary restrictions and regulations that prevent the private sector and state governments from meeting constituents’ needs. In February, President Joe Biden plans to outline an infrastructure plan intended to help America “build back better.” Congress has already provided nearly $4.5 trillion in response to the coronavirus outbreak. Spending more—possibly trillions more—risks stunting the economic recovery and wasting taxpayer money. Many arguments are made for expanded infrastructure spending: Low interest rates make investment now cheaper than ever; federal investments in new energy technologies will help to aid certain politically favored industries while curbing others; American infrastructure is crumbling and needs to be rebuilt by the federal government; the American economy needs a stimulus plan that can create jobs and boost the recovery. While none of these arguments for new federal spending is fact-based or convincing, this?Issue Brief?focuses on the final claim. Economic stimulus programs have generally failed to jump-start economic recovery. The spending can make economic recovery more difficult because individuals and businesses react to new government programs by scaling back their private spending and shifting—rather than expanding—production, canceling out any theoretical benefits of additional government expenditures. The historical evidence is clear that increased infrastructure spending is an especially inappropriate response to economic downturns. The theory of infrastructure spending as an effective economic stimulus requires the money to be deployed and create jobs while the economy is struggling. Infrastructure and energy investments are notoriously slow-moving projects that take years to plan and execute. In a review of the 2009 stimulus, the Congressional Research Service explains that “infrastructure spending was slower than other types of stimulus.”?In 2011, President Barack Obama acknowledged this fact, quipping that “shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected.” Large new projects require design, engineering, permitting, and environmental reviews before construction can begin. Few projects are ready to break ground and start the labor-intensive construction phase quickly. Those that are ready can be delayed by federal involvement. In September 2009, the?Federal Emergency Management Agency?(FEMA) awarded San Antonio, Texas, $7.3 million to build two new fire stations, which the city had previously been planning to fund with local revenue sources. After receiving the federal grants, the “shovel ready” projects were delayed by a year due to federal environmental and historical regulatory reviews, which forced layoffs as the contract was rebid and construction waited for federal approval.4 One federal environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires a report that averages 669 pages and a process that takes four and a half years to complete.5 The Trump Administration attempted to clarify and streamline some of these requirements, but the process still substantially slows down the deployment of federal funds.6 Years of delays mean that the bulk of federal funding on projects authorized by Congress in 2021 will not be substantially deployed until the economy is multiple years into the recovery. Most jobs, especially infrastructure construction jobs, require skills specialization and training to be effective, safe, and efficient. The temporary influx of government money does not induce an expansion of the construction industry, because training unemployed workers without prior construction experience to expand payrolls temporarily is often not worth the time investment and high cost. For example, a commercial paving contractor requires an average of 508 days of government-mandated training and licensing.7 The government money crowds out existing projects as federal contractors hire skilled workers from private-sector contractors at inflated wages. Additionally, construction unemployment rates are almost half the rates of the harder-hit service-sector industries that have been most negatively affected by the pandemic restrictions.8 After the large influx of federal funds from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), research from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis found that “the number of workers on highway and bridge construction did not significantly increase.”9 Fieldwork by Garett Jones and Daniel Rothschild confirms that stimulus funding “went to firms that were already busy, not those that suffered the most from the downturn.”10 Several surveyed firms turned down private-sector non-ARRA-funded work, highlighting the fact that government spending was directly competing with private activity. The same researchers found that “rehiring of laid-off workers was rare,” with only 4.4 percent of their surveyed workers being rehired after a layoff. The plurality (47 percent) of the measured ARRA-created jobs were filled from the ranks of the already employed at other competing firms.?Temporary stimulus programs are more successful at shifting resources within industries than at expanding the industry. Federal dollars also crowd out state and local project funding by allowing recipient governments to decrease own-source funding on infrastructure and reduce debt issuances or fund other priorities.12 Following the 2009 ARRA federal infrastructure package, total spending on infrastructure across state and federal sources remained relatively unchanged as states cut their own-source funding: Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley (D) cut spending and raided the state’s infrastructure trust fund for other priorities following the receipt of ARRA infrastructure money so that net state funding for transit infrastructure decreased by $90 million.13 The St. Louis Fed study also found the total amount of highway spending “barely budged” in the years after the ARRA’s passage and that “the highway system saw little improvement.”14 Stanford economists John Cogan and John Taylor find that ARRA grants have “not increased [state and local government] purchases of goods and services. Instead they reduced borrowing and increased transfer payments,” almost entirely offsetting the increased federal spending.15 In California, $54 million in stimulus funds were used to renovate railroad tracks, bridges, and a station, all exclusively used by a private Napa California wine train. The mayor of a local town that the train runs through noted that the money would have been better spent repaving roads that everyone used.17 Stimulus money was also sent to California’s high-speed rail project, which, after more than a decade of delays, is currently not estimated to wrap up until 2033.18 Malinvestments in the energy sectors include the infamous $535 million loan to the failed solar manufacturer Solyndra and a similarly sized grant to Abound Solar, which subsequently filed for bankruptcy. Following a large federal investment, First Solar laid off workers and paid out large sums to its executives.19?A Nevada biomass electricity plant shut its doors after the federal stimulus funds dried up.20 Infrastructure spending is not unique in its failure to provide a meaningful boost to the economy. 23 When it comes to paying for large spending programs, the new taxes and bigger debt impose additional costs that more than cancel out any short-run boost from fiscal stimulus. Most economic estimates show that tax increases reduce the economy’s size by two or three times the increase in revenue, and large government debts also diminish growth.24 The historical record clearly shows that stimulus spending is ineffective across countries and implementation strategies, making it a wasteful use of public funds.25 Rather than spending additional billions or trillions of dollars on a federal infrastructure package, Congress should first remove unnecessary restrictions and regulations that prevent the private sector and state governments from meeting their constituents’ needs.26 If history is any guide, federal infrastructure spending will not significantly boost employment or improve the quality of the nation’s energy infrastructure, trains, roads, or bridges.Bill can’t boost the economy – major shortages of everythingDmitrieva 6/5/21 – economics reporter for BloombergKatia, with Joe Deaux, “Biden’s infrastructure plan endangered by big shortages of everything.” biggest threat to President Joe Biden's vision of energizing the U.S. economy with the largest infrastructure program in decades may not be its challenging path through Congress, but a dire shortage of everything from workers to cement mills. While weeks or months of negotiations will be needed to enact legislation, Republicans and Democrats are united in their support for hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending on infrastructure in coming years. Yet the companies that will be relied on to pave the roads, build the bridges, lay the water pipes and assemble the trains aren't yet planning to meet those needs, economists and industry insiders say.And that's even as they face immediate shortages - from steel and cement to the supply of labor - stemming from the unprecedented difficulties of a sudden reopening of the economy after last year's shutdowns."There's already a labor shortage in construction so you can't throw a trillion-dollar nuclear bomb of money into the industry," said Bassem Hamdy, chief executive officer of Briq, a company that runs cost estimates for construction firms. "If you don't have workers, how will this ever happen?"Infrastructure bill not key to growth – multiple problemsDitch 21 – policy analyst in the Institute for Economic Freedom at The Heritage FoundationDavid, 5/9. “Opinion: Four big problems exist in Biden’s infrastructure plan.” Biden administration is promoting its American Jobs Plan as an “infrastructure” proposal. In reality, it’s a gargantuan tax-and-spend package that would expand federal power and control in a wide variety of areas.Although the plan is hyped as a path toward shared goals such as “jobs” and “global competitiveness,” a closer look reveals that it suffers from four core problems that completely undermine those goals.Problem 1: Destructive tax hikes.Just as the economy is pulling out of the pandemic recession, the plan would slam businesses with $2.7 trillion in tax increases over the next 15 years.This would reduce incentives for businesses to take risks in hiring new employees and make entrepreneurs less likely to take the biggest risk of all: starting a new enterprise. Over time that would have the effect of reducing economic growth, which means fewer jobs and lower wages.In addition, the tax hike would cause America to have the second-highest rate for corporations among major economies after accounting for federal and state taxes. That would hamstring our economic competitiveness, directly contradicting one of the plan’s goals.Problem 2: Federal infrastructure spending that fails to create jobs.In order to create jobs, the plan would have to overcome the number of jobs destroyed by the tax increase. It would fall well short of just breaking even.The infrastructure part of the plan follows the same failed path as the 2009 stimulus bill signed by President Barack Obama. A 2013 analysis of the Obama stimulus showed that the infrastructure-spending bump served to divert construction workers from private-sector projects to federal projects, meaning there was a minimal amount of job creation.Further, federal regulations mean that these projects would have inflated costs for materials and labor, reducing the total number of projects and jobs tied to the spending.Problem 3: Economically harmful central planning.The plan would lead to more federal involvement in local infrastructure such as schools and water systems, and more micromanagement of private-sector concerns such as energy, manufacturing, housing and more.In total, this would mean taking a huge amount of money (more than $20,000 per household) from the private economy and redistributing it toward politically favored interests.History has repeatedly proven that greater government control of the economy leads to worse outcomes. The Heritage Foundation’s annual Index of Economic Freedom shows that countries with freer markets experience higher quality of life for metrics ranging from wages to personal health to the environment.The health of America’s democracy would also take a turn for the worse if Washington gains even more say over local decisions. Local officials are more accountable to voters and more in tune with local needs and preferences than federal bureaucrats are.Meanwhile, increasing the number of things Congress is responsible for overseeing would be a recipe for disaster regardless of who holds the reins of power. It would make federal elections even more bitter and winner-takes-all than they already are.Problem 4: Wasteful infrastructure priorities and false advertising.When federal officials reference infrastructure investments, the first thing that usually comes to mind is the quality of the nation’s highways and bridges, which carry countless amounts of both people and goods from coast to coast and border to border.However, the Biden plan would only dedicate about 4% of its spending to highways and bridges. It would spend more on mass transit, which carries less than one-tenth as much passenger traffic as highways, and about as much on Amtrak, which was responsible for a microscopic 0.1% of travel in 2019.Infrastructure projects grow the economy based only on how useful they are. The administration’s decision to prioritize transportation modes that aren’t a fit for America’s geography would lead to a tremendous amount of wasteful spending.On top of the misguided infrastructure choices, the plan also includes massive amounts of spending that have nothing to do with infrastructure.This includes hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare, “green” slush funds, big subsidies for electric vehicles that will overwhelmingly benefit wealthy households, and a Medicaid benefit expansion. These provisions should stand or fall on their own, not hide behind popular terms like “infrastructure.”In short, the “American Jobs Plan” would destroy rather than create jobs, harm rather than enhance global competitiveness, and waste huge sums on infrastructure. Congress would be better off using the proposal as a guide for what not to do.Economic benefits are zeroed out by the effects of corporate tax hikesEstes 21 – legislative manager with the Center for State Fiscal Reform at the American Legislative Exchange Council, Masters of Public Policy from the College of William & MarySkip, 4/13. “President Biden’s Infrastructure Plan Brings Suspect Benefits at High Costs.” than trimming waste to reduce the proposal’s cost, President Biden has drafted a plan to fund infrastructure through corporate tax increases, including raising the federal corporate income tax rate from 21% to 28%. While specific legislation has not yet been proposed, the proposed corporate tax rate increases are bad news for businesses and workers, especially as the U.S. economy claws its way out of the pandemic.Making matter worse, current projections reveal that the corporate tax rate increase is estimated to generate only $640 billion on a dynamic basis over 10 years, roughly $1.4 trillion short of the tax revenue needed to fully fund the American Jobs Plan.In 2021 thus far, the federal government has spent $2 trillion on the American Rescue Plan Act, and President Biden recently unveiled a $1.5 trillion discretionary spending budget for the 2022 fiscal year (FY). If Congress enacts President Biden’s proposed infrastructure plan and budget, discretionary spending for FY 2021-2022 will approach $6 trillion. To give a sense of scale, that is 140% more spending than FY 2018 and 2019 combined.President Biden’s proposed tax hikes will also negatively impact the livelihood of many Americans, present and future. The economic literature reviewed by the Tax Foundation finds workers bear anywhere from 50% to 100% of the costs arising from corporate tax increases. The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) found that 1 million workers would lose their jobs under President Biden’s corporate tax plan.According to the Tax Foundation, increasing the federal corporate income tax rate to 28% would raise the average combined state and federal corporate income tax rate to 32.34% – the highest of any OECD country. Additionally, the US would fall from 21st to 30th in international tax competitiveness and from 19th to 33rd in corporate tax competitiveness.This has serious implications for long term economic growth, as businesses will have fewer resources to reinvest in capital. NAM estimates capital investment will decrease by $83 billion in 2023, or a 2.1% decline against the baseline according to Tax Foundation. This decrease in capital stock will set American economic growth on a much slower pace and cost Americans greatly in the long run.The massive increase in spending included in the American Jobs Plan will cost future generations of Americans dearly as spendthrift practices in the federal government only appear to be increasing. America does need revamped infrastructure, but ideas like the American Jobs Plan come with dubious infrastructure benefits and a steep price tag.! – AT: Economy – Offense The passage of the infrastructure bill hurts the economy and jeopardizes our ability in global competition Gary Halbert 21, 4-8-2021, "Biden Infrastructure Plan Will Hurt, Not Help, Economy," No Publication, president says his unprecedented infrastructure plan would create millions of new jobs, stimulate the economy and substantially increase spending on climate change, among others. Yet rather than stimulate American jobs and our economy, President Biden’s infrastructure plan could?cripple our economy?and substantially harm our ability to compete internationally. To pay for its initial $2.25 trillion in spending, the White House’s plan raises the federal corporate tax rate to?28%?from the current 21%. This change puts us above even notoriously entrepreneurship unfriendly countries like England (at 19%) and nations fallaciously hailed by the left as positive examples of socialist tendencies, including Finland (20%), Sweden (21.4%), Norway (22%), Denmark (22%) and even China at 25%. In fact, the US corporate tax rate will be?the highest?of the 37 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) once France implements their reduction to 25.83% over the next year. Sweden and the Netherlands are likewise reducing their tax rates further on businesses to help them recover from COVID-19 difficulties. These dramatic increases to corporate income taxes may help provide funding for the infrastructure bill’s provisions in the short term but will hinder the economy’s growth and therefore the government’s long-term ability to accrue revenue. The United States holding so relatively high a corporate tax rate will be?detrimental to entrepreneurship and investment.Infrastructure increases the nation’s unemployment rate, hurting businesses and threatens the economyGary Halbert 21, 4-8-2021, "Biden Infrastructure Plan Will Hurt, Not Help, Economy," No Publication, huge tax increase on American corporations will undoubtedly negatively affect their rate of job creation but also increases the likelihood they could actually?cut jobs. With so many foreign governments reducing their corporate tax rates, we also run the risk that US companies could move their operations?offshore. Obviously, higher corporate taxes are bad for business. Worsening business conditions usually mean lower stock prices. While corporations like to pass along price increases to consumers, I don’t believe they will be able to pass along all of this big tax increase, at least not all at once. This will likely mean a hit to profits and thus, will?not be bullish?for stocks. As I discussed in my?March 4 Blog, stocks are very overbought and thus quite vulnerable to a?trend reversal. Take a moment to look at my March 4 posting and the charts therein, if you haven’t already. While most market forecasters have turned more bullish on equities over the last month or so, it won’t surprise me if we see a correction (or worse) if the president gets his massive infrastructure bill passed just ahead. The correction over the infrastructure bill could then be intensified with the passage of Mr. Biden’s tax increases on those individuals or couples making over $400,000 a year, which could sail through the Democrat-controlled Congress. Things could then get even worse for the stock markets if Biden gets his way on?increasing the capital gains tax?to the level of ordinary income, which can rise to?35%?for individuals or couples making just over $400,000 a year. This could be quite bearish for stocks.Guaranteed future disaster -- a long term negative impact on the economyMichel 21 - Adam N. Michel, PhD,?is Senior Analyst for Fiscal Policy in the Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget, of the Institute for Economic Freedom, at The Heritage Foundation. 1-25-2021,"Why Infrastructure Spending Will Not Help the Pandemic Recovery," Heritage Foundation, the economic crisis of 2008, the United States and governments around the world enacted fiscal stimulus programs, guided by economists predicting large benefits and promising shorter, less painful recessions. In the years that followed, a new cohort of fiscal researchers reinvestigated historic examples of fiscal action and found that government spending does not boost private activity and likely crowds it out, resulting in a smaller private sector.21 Instead of boosting private economic activity as predicted by proponents, government stimulus spending artificially increases short-term output measures by inefficiently stealing resources from the future. Economists communicate the effect of stimulus programs using a “multiplier,” which is the ratio of the expected change in output (gross domestic product) over the proposed government outlay. A multiplier below one means that additional government spending would shrink private activity and could slow down total economic output over time. The Congressional Budget Office reports a wide range of multipliers for infrastructure spending, ranging from 0.4 to 2.2, indicating a disagreement among economists about the effects of new spending.22 The more plausible lower-end estimates come from more data-driven time series and narrative methods, while the upper bounds are the outputs of more complicated calibrated models. However, the calibration effectively builds in the desired result because strong assumptions about how the real world works are necessary for the model to identify the fiscal policy effect. The bulk of fiscal stimulus multiplier estimates from the leading methods are well below one.! – AT: Economy – Impact DefenseFor answers to the China scenario, see answers to competitiveness impact Economic decline doesn’t cause war Clary 15Christopher Clary, PhD in political science from MIT, MA in national security affairs, postdoctoral fellow, Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University, “Economic Stress and International Cooperation: Evidence from International Rivalries”, 4/25/15, , MIT political science departmentDo economic downturns generate pressure for diversionary conflict? Or might downturns encourage austerity and economizing behavior in foreign policy? This paper provides new evidence that economic stress is associated with conciliatory policies between strategic rivals. For states that view each other as military threats, the biggest step possible toward bilateral cooperation is to terminate the rivalry by taking political steps to manage the competition. Drawing on data from 109 distinct rival dyads since 1950, 67 of which terminated, the evidence suggests rivalries were approximately twice as likely to terminate during economic downturns than they were during periods of economic normalcy. This is true controlling for all of the main alternative explanations for peaceful relations between foes (democratic status, nuclear weapons possession, capability imbalance, common enemies, and international systemic changes), as well as many other possible confounding variables. This research questions existing theories claiming that economic downturns are associated with diversionary war, and instead argues that in certain circumstances peace may result from economic troubles. I define a rivalry as the perception by national elites of two states that the other state possesses conflicting interests and presents a military threat of sufficient severity that future military conflict is likely. Rivalry termination is the transition from a state of rivalry to one where conflicts of interest are not viewed as being so severe as to provoke interstate conflict and/or where a mutual recognition of the imbalance in military capabilities makes conflict-causing bargaining failures unlikely. In other words, rivalries terminate when the elites assess that the risks of military conflict between rivals has been reduced dramatically. This definition draws on a growing quantitative literature most closely associated with the research programs of William Thompson, J. Joseph Hewitt, and James P. Klein, Gary Goertz, and Paul F. Diehl.1 My definition conforms to that of William Thompson. In work with Karen Rasler, they define rivalries as situations in which “[b]oth actors view each other as a significant politicalmilitary threat and, therefore, an enemy.”2 In other work, Thompson writing with Michael Colaresi, explains further: The presumption is that decisionmakers explicitly identify who they think are their foreign enemies. They orient their military preparations and foreign policies toward meeting their threats. They assure their constituents that they will not let their adversaries take advantage. Usually, these activities are done in public. Hence, we should be able to follow the explicit cues in decisionmaker utterances and writings, as well as in the descriptive political histories written about the foreign policies of specific countries.3 Drawing from available records and histories, Thompson and David Dreyer have generated a universe of strategic rivalries from 1494 to 2010 that serves as the basis for this project’s empirical analysis.4 This project measures rivalry termination as occurring on the last year that Thompson and Dreyer record the existence of a rivalry. Economic crises lead to conciliatory behavior through five primary channels. (1) Economic crises lead to austerity pressures, which in turn incent leaders to search for ways to cut defense expenditures. (2) Economic crises also encourage strategic reassessment, so that leaders can argue to their peers and their publics that defense spending can be arrested without endangering the state. This can lead to threat deflation, where elites attempt to downplay the seriousness of the threat posed by a former rival. (3) If a state faces multiple threats, economic crises provoke elites to consider threat prioritization, a process that is postponed during periods of economic normalcy. (4) Economic crises increase the political and economic benefit from international economic cooperation. Leaders seek foreign aid, enhanced trade, and increased investment from abroad during periods of economic trouble. This search is made easier if tensions are reduced with historic rivals. (5) Finally, during crises, elites are more prone to select leaders who are perceived as capable of resolving economic difficulties, permitting the emergence of leaders who hold heterodox foreign policy views. Collectively, these mechanisms make it much more likely that a leader will prefer conciliatory policies compared to during periods of economic normalcy. This section reviews this causal logic in greater detail, while also providing historical examples that these mechanisms recur in practice. Economic Crisis Leads to Austerity Economic crises generate pressure for austerity. Government revenues are a function of national economic production, so that when production diminishes through recession, revenues available for expenditure also diminish. Planning almost invariably assumes growth rather than contraction, so the deviation in available revenues compared to the planned expenditure can be sizable. When growth slowdowns are prolonged, the cumulative departure from planning targets can grow even further, even if no single quarter meets the technical definition of recession. Pressures for austerity are felt most acutely in governments that face difficulty borrowing to finance deficit expenditures. This is especially the case when this borrowing relies on international sources of credit. Even for states that can borrow, however, intellectual attachment to balanced budgets as a means to restore confidence—a belief in what is sometimes called “expansionary austerity”—generates incentives to curtail expenditure. These incentives to cut occur precisely when populations are experiencing economic hardship, making reductions especially painful that target poverty alleviation, welfare programs, or economic subsidies. As a result, mass and elite constituents strongly resist such cuts. Welfare programs and other forms of public spending may be especially susceptible to a policy “ratchet effect,” where people are very reluctant to forego benefits once they have become accustomed to their availability.6 As Paul Pierson has argued, “The politics [of welfare state] retrenchment is typically treacherous, because it imposes tangible losses on concentrated groups of voters in return for diffuse and uncertain gains.”7 Austerity Leads to Cutbacks in Defense Spending At a minimum, the political costs of pursuing austerity through cutbacks in social and economic expenditures alone make such a path unappealing. In practice, this can spur policymakers to curtail national security spending as a way to balance budgets during periods of economic turmoil. There is often more discretion over defense spending than over other areas in the budget, and it is frequently distantly connected to the welfare of the mass public. Many militaries need foreign arms and foreign ammunition for their militaries, so defense expenditures are doubly costly since they both take up valuable defense budget space while also sending hard currency overseas, rather than constituencies at home. Pursuing defense cuts may also conform to the preferences of the financial sector, which shows a strong aversion to military conflict even if that means policies of appeasement and conciliation.8 During periods of economic expansion, the opportunity costs associated with defense expenditure—the requirement for higher taxes or foregone spending in other areas—are real but acceptable. Economic contraction heightens the opportunity costs by forcing a choice between different types of spending. There is a constituency for defense spending in the armed services, intelligence agencies, and arms industries, but even in militarized economies this constituency tends to be numerically much smaller than those that favor social and economic expenditures over military ones. Defense Cutbacks Encourage Rapprochement An interest in defense cutbacks can lead to conciliatory behavior through two paths. First, the cutbacks themselves serve as a concrete signal to adversaries that the military threat posed by the economically distressed state is declining. This permits the other state to halt that portion of defense spending dedicated to keeping up, breaking the back of ongoing arms races through reciprocated, but non-negotiated moves. Unilateral conventional force reductions were a major element of Gorbachev’s foreign policy in the late 1980s, alongside negotiated strategic arms control, and diplomatic efforts to achieve political understandings with the United States.9 Gorbachev similarly used force reductions in Afghanistan, Mongolia, and the Soviet Far East to signal to China in 1987 that he was serious about political negotiations.10 Elsewhere, non-negotiated, tit-for-tat military redeployments facilitated Argentina-Brazil rapprochement.11 Second, leaders may believe cutbacks are necessary, but would be dangerous in the absence of negotiated improvements with traditional foes. Economic downturns can serve as motivation to pursue arms control or political settlement. During periods of normalcy, such outcomes would be positives, but are viewed as “too hard” by political leaders that move from one urgent problem to the next. During periods of economic crisis, however, arms control or political improvements might allow for much needed cuts in defense spending, and are pursued with greater vigor. The Johnson administration attempted both unilateral and negotiated arms limitations because of budgetary concerns as President Johnson and Secretary McNamara struggled to pay for the “Great Society” domestic programs and the increasingly costly Vietnam War. They first attempted unilateral “caps” on costly nuclear forces and anti-ballistic missile defenses and when this failed to lead to a reciprocal Soviet response they engaged in formal arms control talks. Détente continued in the Nixon administration, accelerating in 1971 and 1972, simultaneous with rising budget deficits and inflation so serious that Nixon instituted price controls. Nixon’s decision to sharply limit anti-ballistic missile defenses to enable arms control talks was contrary to his strategic views, but necessitated by a difficult budgetary environment that made paying for more missile defense emplacements unrealistic.12 As Nixon told his national security advisor Kissinger in an April 1972 discussion of ballistic missile and anti-ballistic missile developments: “You know we've got a hell of a budget problem. We've got to cut it down, we've got to cut 5 billion dollars off next year's defense budget. So, I don't want to [inaudible: do it?] unless we've got some settlement with the Russians.”13 In practice, unilateral defense cuts and force reductions are frequently combined with negotiated political agreements in a sequential, iterative fashion, where a unilateral reduction will signal seriousness that opens the way for political agreement, which in turn permits even deeper reductions. Defense cuts and force reductions are not only a means to achieve rivalry termination, but also a goal in and of themselves that rivalry termination helps secure. Leaders are seeking resources from defense they can use elsewhere. Thus when Argentine leader Raul Alfonsín campaigned for the need for drastic budgetary austerity, his specific “platform was the reduction of military spending to use it for the other ministries, connected with the concept of eliminating the hypothesis of conflict” with Argentinian rivals, according to Adalberto Rodri?guez Giavarini, who served in Alfonsín’s ministry of defense (and later was Argentina’s foreign minister).14 Similarly, Gorbachev was motivated to reduce arms in the late 1980s because he determined it was necessary to cut Soviet defense spending and defense production, and repurpose part of the defense industry to make consumer and civilian capital goods, according to contemporary U.S. Central Intelligence Agency classified assessments.15 Thus the “main reason” why strategic arms control breakthroughs occurred from 1986 to 1988 and the Soviet Afghan intervention concluded in 1989 was a realization within the Politburo of “excessively high expenditures on defense,” according to Nikolai Ryzhkov, Gorbachev’s prime minister.16 Economic Downturns Provoke Strategic Reassessment: Threat Deflation and Prioritization Economic downturns encourage leaders to seek new ideas to use to frame their policy problems. During periods of economic difficulty, elites can come to realize that their problems are not amenable to old solutions, and search for new ideas.17 During an economic crisis, politics and policy are “more fluid,” as old answers seem stale and insufficient.18 An ideational entrepreneur that can link economic lemons to foreign policy lemonade can find a patron when leaders are casting about for ways to reframe the world in acceptable ways to their peers and publics. The behavior of an old foe is often ambiguous, and can be viewed as either injurious to one’s interests or neutral toward them. During periods of normalcy, the motivation of defense establishments is tilted toward threat and danger. During periods of economic crisis, national leaders have a counteracting motivation to downplay such dangers, so that the threats faced by a nation are manageable through available resources. Economic difficulties provide a motivation for leaders to view equivocal signals from the international system in a way that is benign. To the extent that rivalries are perpetuated because of threat inflation, economic downturns provide incentives to deflate the threat, potentially disrupting cycles of competition and enmity. South Korean president Kim Dae-jong came to power in the aftermath of the 1998 Asian economic crisis, pursued a “sunshine policy” toward the North, cut South Korean defense spending in nominal and real terms, and pursued a policy toward North Korea that political scientist Dong Sun Lee called “threat deflation” despite the growing North Korean nuclear weapons threat.19 Economic crises can also spur strategic reassessment through another channel. If leaders view economic problems as structural, rather than a temporary gale, they may come to question whether available national resources are sufficient to confront all of the national threats identified in the past. This creates incentives to economize threats, seeking political settlements where possible in order to focus remaining resources on competitions that can be won. A concrete example: in 1904, the chancellor to the Exchequer wrote his cabinet colleagues: “[W]e must frankly admit that the financial resources of the United Kingdom are inadequate to do all that we should desire in the matter of Imperial defense.”20 The result was a British decision to minimize political disagreement with the United States and focus on other defense challenges. While such a decision is in line with realist advice, it occurred not when the power trajectories were evident to British decisionmakers but when the budget situation had reached a crisis that could no longer be ignored. Economic Downturns Increase Incentives for International Economic Cooperation Economic downturns not only create incentives to cut spending, they encourage vigorous pursuit of opportunities for economic cooperation. This, too, can engender conciliatory behavior. Economic downturns can increase motives to pursue trade and investment. Rivalries with old foes often directly impinge on trade and investment with the adversary and may indirectly impinge on trade and investment with third parties, especially if the rivalry is viewed as being likely to generate disruptive military conflict. Additionally, economic aid is sometimes used as an inducement for adversaries to set aside a political dispute. This aid can either serve as a side payment from one rival to another, or it can be offered by a third party to one or both rivals as an incentive to set aside lingering disputes. Such aid is more attractive during periods of economic turmoil than during periods of comparative normalcy. In South Asia, India and Pakistan struggled from 1947 to 1960 with how to manage water resources in the Indus Rivers basin, inheriting a canal system meant to service pre-partitioned India. Pakistan, suffering an economic downturn, and India, reliant on foreign aid to avert economic crisis, agreed to an Indus Waters Treaty in 1960 to resolve the lingering dispute, made possible in substantial part because of World Bank financing that was especially attractive to the struggling economies. In the Middle East, Egypt and Israel made the hard choices necessary for the Camp David accord in 1979 precisely because the Sadat and Begin governments faced difficult economic situations at home that made the U.S. aid guarantee in exchange for a peace agreement especially attractive.21 In 1982, the Yemen’s People’s Republic agreed to stop its attempts to destabilize Oman, because otherwise Yemen would not receive economic assistance from Arab oil producing states that it desperately needed.22 In the late 1990s, El Ni?o-induced flooding devastated Ecuador and Peru, spurring reconciliation as leaders sought to increase trade, secure investment, and slash military expenditures so they could be used at home.23 As one Western diplomat assessed at the time, Ecuador and Peru “have decided it's better to see reason…. They see foreign companies eager to invest in South America, and if Peru and Ecuador are in conflict, it makes them less attractive than, say, Argentina or Brazil or Chile for investment purposes. That's the last thing either country wants.”24 Economic Downturns Can Cause Meaningful Leadership Change The above mechanisms have identified how economic difficulties can alter the preferences of an incumbent leader. Additionally, economic crises can lead to leadership turnover and, during periods of difficulty, the selection process that determines new leadership can loosen ideological strictures that relate to extant rivalries. Leaders may be selected based on judgments about their ability to cope with economic problems, with greater elite acceptance of ideological heterogeneity in foreign policy beliefs than in periods of normalcy.25 In Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth’s words, “If everything is going well or is stable, then why select leaders who might subvert the triedand-true identity? But if that identity is leading to increased material difficulties, pressure for change will likely mount. In these circumstances, those who are willing to alter or adjust the hallowed precepts of the existing identity and its associated practices are more likely to assume power.”26 Economic crisis, then, can spur incumbent leaders to either abandon the “baggage” of rivalry or facilitate the selection of new leaders that do not carry such baggage. The most well-known example of an incumbent selectorate looking for a reformer, even one without much foreign policy experience, involves Mikhail Gorbachev’s ascension to the Soviet premiership.! – AT: Grid – Bill Not SolveBill can’t solve grid – funding falls shortKass 21 D. Howard Kass – Author at MSSP Alert ["Biden Infrastructure Plan Lacks Cybersecurity Budget," 4-6-2021, MSSP Alert, Accessed 7-15-2021, URL: ] klyCybersecurity takes a backseat in President Biden’s proposed $2.25 trillion infrastructure package with no money allocated to defend the country from cyberattacks on critical infrastructure targets, analysis shows.Considering the proposal, which is unlikely to garner bipartisan support, calls for roughly $100 billion to create new jobs and develop more clean electricity, the White House has doubtless set itself up for some hefty criticism from legislators for its absence of additional cybersecurity-designated funding.On the upside: $650 million was included in the recent COVID-19 relief legislation to support the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and Biden reportedly will soon sign an executive order that is said to include about a dozen actions to improve federal cybersecurity.Still, those moves may fall short of cyber needs. Acting CISA Director Brandon Wales recently said that the $650 million won’t be enough to guard against current and prepare for future threats, calling it in testimony to the House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee a “down payment.And, Jim Cunningham, the executive director of Protect Our Power, told The Hill that “the [electric] grid is attacked millions of times per day.” The organization is pressing the Biden administration and Congress to invest between $20 billion and $25 billion to secure it. “I think it is absolutely an essential part of any infrastructure plan,” Cunningham reportedly said.Fresh warnings of the electric grid’s vulnerability has illuminated the lack of funds in the infrastructure bill, with the recent extended and destructive weather-induced outage in Texas the latest example of what disruption a break can bring. That one wasn’t caused by hackers but gave vivid proof of what can happen should foreign adversaries attack the grid.Can’t solve cyberMiller 21 Maggie Miller – Staff writer at The Hill ["Lack of cyber funds in Biden infrastructure plan raises eyebrows," 4-2-2021, TheHill, Accessed 7-16-2021, URL: ] klyPresident Biden's $2.25 trillion infrastructure plan does not include any funds to protect critical infrastructure against cyberattacks, even as the threat grows against targets such as the electric grid.Experts say it was disappointing to see there were no funds set aside to defend systems critical to everyday life from hackers, particularly as the proposal calls for things like $100 billion for improving grid resiliency, the creation of new jobs and developing more clean electricity.“It is a bit of an eyesore of not seeing a more prominent listing of cybersecurity in this, but I think there will be more to come,” said Tobias Whitney, vice president of energy security solutions at Fortress Information Security, which works with grid operators.The cybersecurity of the grid has become an area of increasing concern in recent years as hackers have ratcheted up efforts to target critical systems. Those efforts accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic.Officials on Capitol Hill warned last year that foreign adversaries had the ability and were actively attempting to disrupt the grid during the pandemic. The 2019 Worldwide Threat Assessment compiled by former Director of Intelligence Dan Coats found that Russia, China and Iran were all capable of launching cyberattacks that “cause localized, temporary disruptive effects on critical infrastructure.”The Government Accountability Office, in a report last month, highlighted how distribution systems within the U.S. grid are increasingly vulnerable to cyberattacks.Bill not key to the gridLeah Rubin Shen, 7/7/21, Leah Rubin Shen leads federal legislative and political engagement on advanced energy infrastructure and wholesale markets. She also supports AEE’s advanced energy manufacturing work and legislative and regulatory engagement in western states. Prior to joining AEE, Leah advised U.S. Senator Chris Coons on energy and environmental policy and studied new materials for fuel cells. “How to Turn $1 in Infrastructure Investment into $6 of Economic Impact? Spend It on Advanced Energy”Last month, President Biden and a bipartisan group of senators announced an agreement around the framework of?an infrastructure deal. This comes after several rounds of bipartisan negotiations between the White House and the Senate – first with Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), the ranking member of the committee taking the lead on?surface transportation reauthorization?in the Senate, and then with a bipartisan coalition led by Senators Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) and Rob Portman (R-OH). While there is much to debate in what is – and isn’t – included in the package, what is clear, from a new AEE study, is that the way to get the biggest bang for the federal infrastructure buck is investing in advanced energy.The $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure deal has much to commend it. It includes $7.5 billion for electrifying school and transit buses and another $7.5 billion for building a nationwide network of electric vehicle (EV) chargers. It also includes $73 billion for power infrastructure and $47 billion for resilience, important investments in the wake of the stresses the grid is seeing just this year, such as?in Texas during winter storm Uri?or right now amidst a heat wave and severe drought conditions in the west. The dollar amounts for these priorities are not particularly impressive, but a bipartisan consensus that EVs and the grid should be part of a federal infrastructure package, and not just traditional roads and bridges, is noteworthy.Just as noteworthy are the many items that could have been included in the infrastructure package, but weren’t. There is no money for retrofitting buildings to make them more energy efficient – one of the best ways to save money, manage electricity demand, and stretch the benefits of grid investment even further. There is no agreement to invest in manufacturing or workforce development, two significant categories of spending proposed in the?American Jobs Plan. And there is no agreement to prioritize advanced energy as part of the proposed funding for the grid, which is important for delivering affordable and reliable energy while also meeting the administration’s target of decarbonizing the power sector by 2035.?! – AT: Grid – Impact DefenseGrid is resilientNiiler 19 – Science and technology writer for Wired and National Geographic.Eric Niiler, “The Grid Might Survive an Electromagnetic Pulse Just Fine,” Wired, 30 April 2019, THE PAST few years, speculation has risen around whether North Korea or any other nation could detonate a nuclear weapon over the United States that would create an electromagnetic pulse and knock out all electricity for weeks or months. This doomsday hypothesis has been promoted by a former CIA director, a commission set up by Congress, and a book by newsman Ted Koppel. But a sober new engineering study by industry experts finds that key equipment on the grid can be protected from any such EMP. Even if it could happen, the resulting blackouts would affect a few states but wouldn't turn the US into a backdrop for The Walking Dead.The study, by the Electric Power Research Institute, a utility-funded research organization, finds that existing technology can protect various components of the electric grid to buffer it from the effects of solar flares, lightning strikes, and an EMP from a nuclear blast all at the same time: a three-for-one surge protector. “We have a strong technical basis for what the impacts [of an EMP] might be,” says Randy Horton, EPRI project manager and author of the report being released today. “That is one thing that didn’t exist before.”Horton says that EPRI technicians worked with experts at the Department of Energy labs at Los Alamos and Sandia to simulate some effects of an EMP on substations and distribution systems. They also did real-world testing of electrical equipment at an EPRI laboratory in Charlotte, North Carolina. The study, which took three years to complete, looks at the effects of three kinds of energy spawned by a nuclear detonation.The first high-energy wave occurs in just a few nanoseconds and is called an E1. The second wave, called an E2, lasts up to a second and can fry electric systems the way a lightning strike does, unless they are properly grounded. Effects of an E2 wave on the grid are expected to be minimal. The third kind of wave can last for tens of seconds and is similar to what utility operators might expect from a low-frequency, long-duration solar flare or geomagnetic storm. The report says that the combination of an E1 and E3 would cause the most damage over the widest area.Horton says simulations and testing by EPRI contradicts earlier findings that an EMP would wipe out the US grid. “You could have a regional voltage collapse, but you wouldn’t damage a large number of bulk power transformers immediately,” Horton says. “That was the difference in our finding. There were some studies that said you could damage hundreds of transformers. We just didn’t find it.”Some members of an EMP commission have argued for the past decade that an attack would destroy the electric grid, and kill 90 percent of the US population through disease or starvation. That panel shut down in 2017 after the Department of Homeland Security did not request more funds from Congress to keep it going.Apart from the electric power industry, the Pentagon has been conducting its own classified tests about potential effects from such an event on military installations. A group of experts is meeting this week at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama, says Air Force lieutenant-general Steven Kwast, who is coordinating the event.Kwast says the threat is much more real than the public believes. “You don’t need to have a nuclear detonation in space to do this,” he said. “You could have a hot-air balloon rising above a city with a tactical electromagnetic weapon. You could do one over an airfield of F-35s or one Army post so none of the tanks work or over a shipyard so that none of the ships sail. Our enemy is clever and adaptive. They see our soft underbelly is our electricity.”But other nuclear weapons experts say the technical study by EPRI brings scientific rigor to a field that has been dominated by hype and fearmongering. “When you are doing documented research on physical systems, it is still solid evidence, no matter who paid for it,” says Sharon Burke, a senior adviser at the Foundation for a New America and a former assistant secretary of defense for operational energy in the Obama administration. “This is not someone’s opinion.”! – AT: Warming – Bill Not SolveInfrastructure Bill does not help Climate Change. Week 21 [“Biden is still not taking climate change seriously,” 3-31-2021, ,] *AP*President Biden has released the details of his infrastructure plan. It's a big bill — priced at roughly $2.8 trillion over a decade, with tons of money for repairs, maintenance, trains, green investment, and more (as well as a lot of other stuff). It would be paid for with hikes in income and corporate tax rates.A main objective of the plan is supposed to be tackling climate change. Judging by the standards of American politics, it is quite aggressive. But judged by the standards of Biden's campaign platform, and more importantly, by the standards of what is needed to combat climate change, the proposal falls far short of the mark. America will need bolder action than this to do its part in the global fight to preserve a livable climate.First, the good. Biden would invest $85 billion in public transit agencies, $80 billion in Amtrak, and $174 billion in electric vehicles. That's a doubling of federal funding for transit and a quadrupling for intercity rail. He would invest $35 billion in green research directly, and another $155 billion in general research, including advanced energy technology. Most importantly, there are $400 billion in clean energy tax credits for things like wind farms, rooftop solar, home insulation upgrades, and so forth, which will have a climate impact in the trillions. (These credits were mysteriously not included in the administration's headline price tag.) All that is a great stuff.But in terms of climate, this proposal is a substantial downgrade from Biden's campaign pledge — the overall size is about the same, but the priorities are different. The $180 billion in research is welcome, but he previously promised $400 billion focused entirely on climate. There is also $400 billion in elder care, which is welcome of course but has little to do with climate or even infrastructure. The $115 billion for road maintenance, and money to replace every lead water pipe in the country, is similarly vital but largely unrelated to climate. The electric vehicle spending will help, but it lamentably ignores the far greater promise of electric bicycles (though the focus on electric buses and Post Office vehicles is good).At bottom, it isn't really a climate bill — it's a grab bag of some infrastructure stuff, some climate stuff, and some elder care stuff. Despite the large headline price, it isn't that big either — just one percent of GDP.Neither does Biden address the biggest missing element of his campaign's climate plan — international cooperation. Climate change is a global problem, and the U.S. is not even close to the biggest greenhouse gas emitter in the world now. China emits fully twice as much as the U.S., and India emits nearly as much as the entire European Union. The key tasks for global climate policy will be to help or coax China into slashing its emissions, and to prevent the rest of the developing world from following China's coal-powered model.Bill doesn’t solve warming --- too lengthy, pricey, and uncertaindoes nothing for the demand side of emissions, which is critical to slashing them fast enough Friedman 21 – reports on federal climate and environmental policy from Washington for the New York TimesLisa, with Jim Tankersley, 3/23. “Biden’s Recovery Plan Bets Big on Clean Energy.” climate activists say the plan suffers from a lopsided approach that would increase the supply of clean-energy projects and products while doing little to spur demand by forcing reductions in fossil fuel consumption.Republicans, who unanimously opposed Mr. Biden’s $1.9 trillion coronavirus stimulus package, and even some independent analysts recoil at wrapping climate policy in the widely popular mantle of infrastructure, which raises old arguments against government-driven industrial policy.Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, said in a statement that Mr. Biden should focus on working with Republicans “to fix America’s crumbling roads and bridges,” rather than “raise taxes while also spending trillions on a bill that includes the punishing regulations of the Green New Deal.”But Mr. Biden is not straying from his recent positions. He promised during his campaign to “build a more resilient, sustainable economy” that puts the United States on a path to achieve net-zero emissions by midcentury, while creating “millions of good paying jobs.” He has continued to hit the theme since his inauguration.“Today is climate day at the White House, which means that today is jobs day,” the president said in January before signing a suite of executive orders to combat warming.Along with more than $600 billion for the construction of roads, bridges, rail lines, and electric vehicle charging stations, the infrastructure package will incorporate some form of a rebate program championed by Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, to replace millions of gas guzzling cars in the next decade with electric vehicles.Some environmental groups on Monday criticized Mr. Biden for not proposing an even bigger package for climate change. But Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, who has championed the Green New Deal, an aggressive plan to address climate change and revamp the economy, called reports of the infrastructure package “encouraging.”“One of the big goals we had when we introduced the Green New Deal was to shift climate change from being a billion dollar problem to a trillion dollar opportunity,” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said in an interview.“The fact that climate and infrastructure is seen as part of the same endeavor is, I think, highly reflective of that shift,” she said.So far, the package excludes the one thing that economists agree is the most efficient way to draw down planet-warming emissions: taxing or otherwise putting a price on the carbon dioxide emissions that cause it. Instead of a gasoline tax, for instance, the president plans to greatly raise fuel efficiency standards for cars, forcing automakers toward electric vehicles through regulation, not legislation. Similarly, Mr. Biden plans to reimpose strict emissions regulations on electric power plants to move the sector away from coal.“Biden never made a carbon tax the center of his proposal,” said John Podesta, a former adviser to President Barack Obama on climate change. “I think he believed that the combination of investments and standards with a focus on equity was a winning formula both for the economy and was more politically viable.”Others, though, said they worried that Mr. Biden’s strategy — long-term projects and regulation that could take years to finalize — was too lengthy, too pricey and too uncertain to cut enough emissions.“The scale of the climate problem demands the most economically efficient response, and because it’s politically difficult to talk about pricing carbon we’re drifting toward a really expensive way of addressing climate,” said Alex Flint, executive director of the Alliance for Market Solutions, a conservative nonprofit group that supports a carbon tax.“A carbon tax at least has to be part of the discussion,” Mr. Flint added.Mr. Stavins of Harvard University cautioned that using government spending to achieve both job creation and climate change, while popular, isn’t always compatible. Quick boosts to the economy rely on so-called “shovel-ready” projects — and those aren’t necessarily the ones that will lead to deep decarbonization.The bill can’t solve warming – no carbon pricingTooze 21 – professor of history and director of the European Institute at Columbia University, as well as a columnist at Foreign PolicyAdam, 6/3. “Can Elites Start the Climate Revolution?” Biden administration came in promising that climate was key to its entire agenda. But the one big spending plan it has actually delivered, the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, contained next to nothing on climate. The much-hailed infrastructure program is struggling in the U.S. Congress. There can be no proliferation of electrically powered trucks unless charging stations are rolled out. And the power they deliver has to be green. A fleet of megatrucks powered by coal- or gas-burning power plants would be utterly counterproductive. President Joe Biden’s team promises to introduce a clean energy standard that will ensure that all electricity utilities are carbon-neutral by 2035, but they have to walk a tightrope in Congress. And even in the best case, if the Biden administration gets all it wants, that still leaves the United States without a carbon pricing system.In the United States right now, neither the right nor the left likes the idea of carbon pricing: the right because it threatens what they regard as the American way of life, and the left because it is seen as a license to pollute for the most affluent. But there is no plausible scenario for comprehensive decarbonization without carbon pricing. Regulations can tackle the most egregious sources of pollution. Investment can help lower the cost of green energy. The problem is that it can also encourage an offsetting increase in energy consumption. A carbon tax will help to squeeze dirty energy consumption out of the entire system. A cap-and-trade system, like the European Emissions Trading System, is even better, because it sets an upper limit to total emissions.Doesn’t solve warming – gets watered down Osaka 6/2/21 – Grist reporterShannon, “Biden’s only climate plan is in jeopardy.” President Joe Biden unveiled his $2.25 trillion “American Jobs Plan” in early April, many climate activists breathed a (small) sigh of relief. Although the plan was smaller than the $10 trillion progressive Democrats had proposed spending on revamping the country’s infrastructure, it was, in many ways, a Green New Deal in miniature. It included huge spending on clean energy, a civilian jobs program known as the “climate corps,” and a push to get electric cars on the road all across America. It was without question Biden’s primary plan to cut carbon emissions. The only one. The big one.Now, however, there is rising concern that the “big one” may not be so big after all. Key features of the bill — like a requirement to produce electricity from clean sources, or hundreds of billions of dollars in support for electric vehicles — are in contention as Republicans and Democrats tussle over the price tag. And without them, the country’s chance of cutting carbon emissions 50 percent by 2030 — as Biden recently promised at his international climate summit — is basically zero.“We need the full American Jobs Plan,” said Lena Moffitt, campaigns director at Evergreen Action, a climate-focused policy group. Over the past couple of weeks, progressives and climate activists have watched with dismay as the Biden administration and key Democratic leaders have engaged in a protracted back-and-forth with Congressional Republicans. Biden’s original plan was for $2.25 trillion in spending; after negotiations, he slimmed it down to $1.7 trillion. (A lot of money, but still probably not enough to address the 6.5 billion metric tons of CO2 emissions the U.S. spews into the atmosphere every year.) Republicans came back with a counteroffer that they claimed included $928 billion in funding for highways, roads, and public transit; Democrats, frustrated, protested that only about a quarter of that would be actual new spending. If this all seems like a lot of hullabaloo over numbers, it is … and isn’t. The result of these negotiations — layered though they are in political posturing — might very well determine whether the U.S. can come even close to Biden’s carbon-cutting target. The U.S. Congress has not passed anything that could remotely be called a “climate bill” since 2009; it has never passed anything with as many clean energy provisions as have been promised in the American Jobs Plan.! – AT: Warming – Impact DefenseClimate change is inevitable, multiple studies proveJensen Li 20, 7-15-2020, "Climate Change is Inevitable," Medium, humans we have conjured up many different end of the world scenarios, from aliens to AI taking over, which is possible, but none of them is as likely as climate change. There are sources that vary on how severe the issue is and what adjustments need to be made. But the majority of scientist believe that climate change is happening, and to make it worse, we might be beyond the point of return. The 2015 Paris Agreement saw signatories pledge to make ever change to help prevent the earth’s temperature to rise higher than 1.5 degrees Celsius above per-industrial levels. In 2018,?the UN?reported that we only had 12 years to act until the temperature will rise above the goal. Basically we have until 2030 to drastically change the way we emit CO2 into the earths atmosphere, or we are likely going to face the consequences. Some scientists think it may be even faster, suggesting that these forecast aren’t pressing enough, and the truth being much more frightening. Some view the Paris Agreement dates are not taking into account various “tipping points”, which are points of no return when climate change effects go beyond what is still manageable. For example of a potential “tipping point”, there’s a situation in the amazon rainforest, where it is feared that massive deforestation would transform the entire region into a arid savanna. Not only having a devastating effect locally, but also globally. For another example the findings presented at March 2019, UN summit reveal the melting of permafrost. As arctic region are melting faster than ever with more and more ice disappearing each year. This isn’t because we’re reaching a “tipping point”. The ice is melting from the already high number of CO2 in atmosphere. When all the frost melts away, the release of methane would trigger global temperature rising, as much as five degrees. As many know, climate change may not only be a man-made problem, the earth is naturally warming and while our lifestyles can effect the rate, it isn’t just us. But even without any human action, the earth has seen many different climate catastrophes. Even if we manage to keep the earth at the right temperature, clean the skies and suck up all CO2 in the sky, we may still encounter a climate catastrophe somewhere in the future. We see all these stories, news articles and warning about seemingly isolated cases, yet we still underestimate the danger climate change poses. The studies we often read about are often the “best case scenario” rather than the worse. The 1.5 Celsius we are trying to achieve is most likely impossible, but now we need to think about the effects of pass that. A net 3.5 degrees increase would dramatically change the face of the earth. All of this isn’t just to frighten people, as the situation isn’t hopeless, it’s only that action is urgently required. Various nations have all agreed to change to more eco-friendly solutions, becoming carbon neutral by certain dates. In the UK it’s by 2050. But now there are many that believe carbon neutrality isn’t enough anymore; rather we should be trying to achieve carbon negative, by retracting existing CO2 from the atmosphere already. According to the?2017 CDP Carbon Major Report, more than 50% of all industrial emissions were all generated by just 25 companies alone. Most of all being fossil fuel providers. These same emissions-producing companies are also the richest in the world, meaning that they are unlikely to change their business models. However the biggest polluter on this planet is the US military, which reportedly produces more emissions than some countries do in total. With this continue, we may need to stop thinking about how to stop it, but now start to think about how to survive it. We would need housing off the shoreline and larger settlements away from the equator. While there is still uncertainty revolving around the shape our future would take, it’s clear that climate change isn’t an issue we can resolve overnight. There is no quick fixes but it is still action vs inaction. Whether you are actively trying to help or just making small changes like working to work. Everyone can do something.No impact – low chance of extinction as a result of climate change even in most extreme scenarios Ord 20 - Dr. Toby Ord, Senior Research Fellow in Philosophy at Oxford University, DPhil in Philosophy from the University of Oxford, 3-3-2020, The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity, Hachette Books, Kindle Edition, p. 110-112But the purpose of this chapter is finding and assessing threats that pose a direct existential risk to humanity. Even at such extreme levels of warming, it is difficult to see exactly how climate change could do so. Major effects of climate change include reduced agricultural yields, sea level rises, water scarcity, increased tropical diseases, ocean acidification and the collapse of the Gulf Stream. While extremely important when assessing the overall risks of climate change, none of these threaten extinction or irrevocable collapse. Crops are very sensitive to reductions in temperature (due to frosts), but less sensitive to increases. By all appearances we would still have food to support civilization.85 Even if sea levels rose hundreds of meters (over centuries), most of the Earth’s land area would remain. Similarly, while some areas might conceivably become uninhabitable due to water scarcity, other areas will have increased rainfall. More areas may become susceptible to tropical diseases, but we need only look to the tropics to see civilization flourish despite this. The main effect of a collapse of the system of Atlantic Ocean currents that includes the Gulf Stream is a 2°C cooling of Europe—something that poses no permanent threat to global civilization. From an existential risk perspective, a more serious concern is that the high temperatures (and the rapidity of their change) might cause a large loss of biodiversity and subsequent ecosystem collapse. While the pathway is not entirely clear, a large enough collapse of ecosystems across the globe could perhaps threaten human extinction. The idea that climate change could cause widespread extinctions has some good theoretical support.86 Yet the evidence is mixed. For when we look at many of the past cases of extremely high global temperatures or extremely rapid warming we don’t see a corresponding loss of biodiversity.87 We don’t see such biodiversity loss in the 12°C warmer climate of the early Eocene, nor the rapid global change of the PETM, nor in rapid regional changes of climate. Willis et al. (2010) state: “We argue that although the underlying mechanisms responsible for these past changes in climate were very different (i.e. natural processes rather than anthropogenic), the rates and magnitude of climate change are similar to those predicted for the future and therefore potentially relevant to understanding future biotic response. What emerges from these past records is evidence for rapid community turnover, migrations, development of novel ecosystems and thresholds from one stable ecosystem state to another, but there is very little evidence for broad-scale extinctions due to a warming world.” There are similar conclusions in Botkin et al. (2007), Dawson et al. (2011), Hof et al. (2011) and Willis & MacDonald (2011). The best evidence of warming causing extinction may be from the end-Permian mass extinction, which may have been associated with large-scale warming (see note 91 to this chapter).So the most important known effect of climate change from the perspective of direct existential risk is probably the most obvious: heat stress. We need an environment cooler than our body temperature to be able to rid ourselves of waste heat and stay alive. More precisely, we need to be able to lose heat by sweating, which depends on the humidity as well as the temperature. A landmark paper by Steven Sherwood and Matthew Huber showed that with sufficient warming there would be parts of the world whose temperature and humidity combine to exceed the level where humans could survive without air conditioning.88 With 12°C of warming, a very large land area—where more than half of all people currently live and where much of our food is grown—would exceed this level at some point during a typical year. Sherwood and Huber suggest that such areas would be uninhabitable. This may not quite be true (particularly if air conditioning is possible during the hottest months), but their habitability is at least in question. However, substantial regions would also remain below this threshold. Even with an extreme 20°C of warming there would be many coastal areas (and some elevated regions) that would have no days above the temperature/humidity threshold.89 So there would remain large areas in which humanity and civilization could continue. A world with 20°C of warming would be an unparalleled human and environmental tragedy, forcing mass migration and perhaps starvation too. This is reason enough to do our utmost to prevent anything like that from ever happening. However, our present task is identifying existential risks to humanity and it is hard to see how any realistic level of heat stress could pose such a risk. So the runaway and moist greenhouse effects remain the only known mechanisms through which climate change could directly cause our extinction or irrevocable collapse. This doesn’t rule out unknown mechanisms. We are considering large changes to the Earth that may even be unprecedented in size or speed. It wouldn’t be astonishing if that directly led to our permanent ruin. The best argument against such unknown mechanisms is probably that the PETM did not lead to a mass extinction, despite temperatures rapidly rising about 5°C, to reach a level 14°C above pre-industrial temperatures.90 But this is tempered by the imprecision of paleoclimate data, the sparsity of the fossil record, the smaller size of mammals at the time (making them more heat-tolerant), and a reluctance to rely on a single example. Most importantly, anthropogenic warming could be over a hundred times faster than warming during the PETM, and rapid warming has been suggested as a contributing factor in the end-Permian mass extinction, in which 96 percent of species went extinct.91 In the end, we can say little more than that direct existential risk from climate change appears very small, but cannot yet be ruled out.No climate impact – adapted studies are flawed LINK Word.Document.12 "Document4" "OLE_LINK1" \a \r \* MERGEFORMAT Gleditsch 21 - Nils Petter Gleditsch, Research Professor at the Peace Research Institute Oslo, “This time is different! Or is it? NeoMalthusians and environmental optimists in the age of climate change,” Journal of Peace Research, pg. 5-6, 2021, SAGE. clarification denoted with brackets.The most extreme contrarian position is, of course, to deny one or both key conclusions of the IPCC: the reality of global warming or the human contribution to it. However, most environmental optimists accept these two key conclusions but raise other problems with the panel’s discussion of the social effects of climate change and even more so with popular interpretations of the panel reports. For instance, Hausfather & Peters (2020), by no means ‘climate deniers’, decry the common use of choosing the high-risk [scenario] RCP8.59 to illustrate ‘business as usual’ as misleading.The causal chains from climate change to the proposed effects on human beings are long and complex, and the uncertainty increases every step of the way. In the literature on the social effects of climate change, including the IPCC reports, statements abound that something ‘may’ lead to something else, or that a variable ‘is sensitive to’ another, without any guidelines for how to translate this into probabilities (Gleditsch & Nord?s, 2014: 87f). Uncritical use of the precautionary principle, where any remotely possible calamity unwittingly becomes a probable event, is not helpful.Gleditsch & Nord?s (2014: 85) note that while AR5 (IPCC, 2014) did not find strong evidence for a direct link between climate change and conflict, it b that climate change is likely to impact known conflict-inducing factors like poverty and inconsistent political institutions and therefore might have an indirect effect on conflict. But this assumes that correlations are transitive, which is not generally the case. If A correlates with B and B with C, we know nothing about how A relates to C unless both correlations are extremely high. The strongest case for the climate–conflict link is the effect of interaction between climate change and factors like poverty, state failure, or ethnic polarization. It may be more cost-effective to try to deal with these other risk factors than with global warming itself if the goal is to reduce the ‘risk multiplier’ effect of climate change on armed conflict. The articles in this special issue do not generally see scarcity by itself as necessarily resulting in strongly negative outcomes. Factors like development, state failure, and previous overload on ecosystems continue to play an important role in that they interact with climate change to produce conflict and other social outcomes. For instance, Ide, Kristensen & Bartusevic?ius (2021) conclude that the impact of floods on political conflict are contingent on other factors such as population size and regime type. Moreover, most of the articles do not assume that scarcities are likely to arise at the global level. They may be regional (mostly in Africa), national, or local. Urban and rural areas may be affected by different scarcities. Climate change may also affect particularly strongly groups that are already at an economic or political disadvantage. The effects can be alleviated and adaptations constructed at these levels.The argument about how climate change may indirectly impact conflict leans heavily on the negative economic consequences of climate change, but with little or no reference to the research that explicitly deals with this topic. In fact, the relevant chapter in AR5 concluded that for most sectors of the economy, the impact of climate change was likely to be dwarfed by other factors. Tol (2018) finds that the long-term global economic effects are likely to be negative, but that a century of climate change will have about the same impact on the economy as the loss of one year of economic growth. Other economists are more cautious, but the dean of climate change economics, William Nordhaus (2018: 345, 359), estimates that ‘damages are 2.1 percent of global income at 3C warming and 8.5 percent of income at 6C’, while also warning that the longer the delay in taking decisive action, the harsher the necessary countermeasures. Stern (2006) is more pessimistic, based mainly on a lower discount rate (the interest rate used to calculate the present value of future cash flows) as are Wagner & Weitzman (2015). Heal (2017) argues that the Integrated Assessment Models generally used in the assessment of the economics of climate change are not accurate enough to provide quantitative insights and should not be taken as serious forecasts. Yet, all these economists take the basically optimistic view that climate change is manageable with appropriate policies for raising the price on the emission of greenhouse gases. With a chapter heading from Wagner & Weitzman (2015: 17): ‘We can do this’.This more optimistic assessment of climate change does not assume that the challenge will go away by itself or can be left to the market. A plausible approach, favored by most economists,10 is the imposition of a robust and increasing price on carbon emissions (whether as a carbon tax or through a cap and trade scheme) high enough to reduce the use of fossil fuels and encourage the search for their replacement. More than 25 countries had such taxes by early 2018 (Metcalf, 2019), but generally not at a level seen as necessary for limiting global warming to, say, 2C. This approach relies on the use of the market mechanism, but with targets fixed by public policy. Income from a carbon tax can be channeled back to the citizens to avoid increasing overall taxation. To speed up the transition, funds can also be allocated to the research and development of cheaper and more efficient production of various forms of fossil-free energy, including nuclear power (Goldstein & Qvist, 2019). The response of the environmental optimists continues to emphasize the role of innovations; technological innovations, such as improvements in battery technology, the key element in the 2019 Nobel Prize in chemistry,11 but also social innovations, as exemplified by the experimental approach to the alleviation of poverty, rewarded in the same year by the Nobel Prize in economics.12 While the most important countermeasures will be directed at the mitigation of climate change, there is also a strong case for adaptation. If sea-level rise cannot be totally prevented, dikes and flood barriers will be cost-effective and necessary, at least in high-value urban areas. If parts of Africa suffer from drought, there will be increased use for new crops that are more suitable for a dry climate, possibly developed in part by GMO technology. Industrialization in Africa can decrease the one-sided reliance on rain-fed agriculture, as it has in other parts of the world, which have moved human resources from the primary sector to industry (and then to services). Continuing urbanization will move millions out of the most vulnerable communities (Collier, 2010). While structural change failed to produce economic growth in Latin America and Africa after 1990, Africa has experienced a turnaround in the new millennium (McMillan & Rodrik, 2014) and there are also potentials for increasing productivity by structural change within agriculture in Africa (McCullough, 2017).Climate change wont lead to extinction, totally out of proportionMichael Shellenberger, 11-25-2019, Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong," Forbes, , Accessed: 7-16-2021, /Kent Denver-ITSometimes, scientists themselves make apocalyptic claims. “It’s difficult to see how we could accommodate a billion people or even half of that,” if Earth warms four degrees, said one earlier this year. “The potential for multi-breadbasket failure is increasing,” said another. If sea levels rise as much as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts, another scientist said, “It will be an unmanageable problem.” Apocalyptic statements like these have real-world impacts. In September, a group of British psychologists said children are increasingly suffering from anxiety from the frightening discourse around climate change. In October, an activist with Extinction Rebellion (”XR”) — an environmental group founded in 2018 to commit civil disobedience to draw awareness to the threat its founders and supporters say climate change poses to human existence — and a videographer, were kicked and beaten in a London Tube station by angry commuters. And last week, an XR co-founder said a genocide like the Holocaust was “happening again, on a far greater scale, and in plain sight” from climate change.Climate change is an issue I care passionately about and have dedicated a significant portion of my life to addressing. I have been politically active on the issue for over 20 years and have researched and written about it for 17 years. Over the last four years, my organization, Environmental Progress, has worked with some of the world’s leading climate scientists to prevent carbon emissions from rising. So far, we’ve helped prevent emissions increasing the equivalent of adding 24 million cars to the road. I also care about getting the facts and science right and have in recent months corrected inaccurate and apocalyptic news media coverage of fires in the Amazon and fires in California, both of which have been improperly presented as resulting primarily from climate change. Journalists and activists alike have an obligation to describe environmental problems honestly and accurately, even if they fear doing so will reduce their news value or salience with the public. There is good evidence that the catastrophist framing of climate change is self-defeating because it alienates and polarizes many people. And exaggerating climate change risks distracting us from other important issues including ones we might have more near-term control over.I feel the need to say this up-front because I want the issues I’m about to raise to be taken seriously and not dismissed by those who label as “climate deniers” or “climate delayers” anyone who pushes back against exaggeration.With that out of the way, let’s look whether the science supports what’s being said.First, no credible scientific body has ever said climate change threatens the collapse of civilization much less the extinction of the human species. “‘Our children are going to die in the next 10 to 20 years.’ What’s the scientific basis for these claims?” BBC’s Andrew Neil asked a visibly uncomfortable XR spokesperson last month.“These claims have been disputed, admittedly,” she said. “There are some scientists who are agreeing and some who are saying it’s not true.! – AT: PovertyOnly privileges profit from infrastructureAFP 21. Americans for Prosperity, 6-9-2021, "How the new "infrastructure" plan hurts our health care," president’s proposal contains a multitude of health care provisions, but they wouldn’t help Americans in need. The largest beneficiaries of this spending are insurance companies and the highest earners. Insurance companies are lobbying strongly in favor of this package. Why? The proposal would deliver?tens of billions?of dollars in additional subsidies to them each year, as part of Affordable Care Act expansion. We’ve seen the effects of ACA expansion. These benefits are often directed toward the highest earners. The recent $1.9 trillion COVID-19 “relief” package, for example, made 3.5 million people in the top two income quintiles — 1.1 million of whom had incomes above 600 percent of the federal poverty level — eligible for subsidized insurance. These expansions, we are told, are meant to help low-income Americans first and foremost. That isn’t the case. People in the top two income quintiles would collect the largest average premium subsidies.! – Infrastructure Bad – HealthcareThe infranstructure bill damage health care, millions of American will sufferAFP 21. Americans for Prosperity, 6-9-2021, "How the new "infrastructure" plan hurts our health care," ’s a consistent theme running through the president’s “infrastructure” plan: The spending of mind-boggling sums of taxpayer money for partisan pet projects seems only to benefit politically connected interests at the expense of the average American. Here’s a breakdown of how this rings true for our health care.? President Joe Biden’s proposed “infrastructure” package has little to do with infrastructure. Less than 5 percent of the package would go toward roads and bridges — out of over $4 trillion in spending. Hundreds of billions of dollars would be directed toward corporate welfare and other partisan giveaways. Politically connected companies and other interests see a windfall in this deal. The average American should not.The president’s proposal would represent one of the largest spending sprees in our history, paid for by one of the largest tax increases. That would be a disaster for America’s taxpayers and those relying on a strong recovery after the COVID-19 pandemic. But?this “infrastructure” proposal has another victim: Your health care. Americans don’t typically think of government growing its power over medicine when they think of infrastructure, but that’s exactly what this plan would do. Most just want access to quality, affordable care and would like greater control of their health care decisions. Washington’s “infrastructure” proposal would hurt our health care by: Putting your family’s medical decisions in the hands of the government, Kicking millions of Americans off their insurance plans, Making care less accessible. In turn,?politically connected interests – including insurance companies and unions – would reap the benefits. To protect Americans’ health care, Congress must?end Washington waste?and reject this proposal. The president’s proposal contains a multitude of health care provisions, but they wouldn’t help Americans in need. These ACA expansion subsidies are unfair, of course, but they are also destructive. The insurance tax credit for ACA premiums would be much higher than the credit available for employer-sponsored insurance premiums. In effect,?Americans would be penalized for sticking with the insurance they get through their employers?and would likely be pushed onto ACA plans. The result? Millions of employees would?lose their employer coverage. That would endanger the health benefits that millions of Americans have earned through their employers. There’s a consistent theme running through the president’s plan:?The spending of mind-boggling sums of taxpayer money for partisan pet projects seems only to benefit politically connected interests at the expense of the average American. Take the proposal’s $400 billion expense for home-based care, a plan marketed by the White House primarily as a way to benefit unions with?collective bargaining mandates and other perks. This isn’t an investment in infrastructure. It’s not even an investment in the average American. Lawmakers should reject the president’s “infrastructure” proposal. It would spend trillions for politicians’ favorite companies and unions — and it would leave taxpayers holding the bag, especially when it comes to their health care. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download