1NC



1NCUQInfrastructure bill is on the brink – bipartisan support is keyPramuk and Frank 7/22 [(Jacob, politics reporter for CNBC BA from Harvard) (Thomas, BA in journalism and political sciences, CNBC economics and policy writer) “Bipartisan infrastructure plan could get another chance after Senate setback,” CNBC, July 22, 2021, ] TDIA failed Senate test vote dealt a blow to the bipartisan infrastructure framework, but the plan could have a chance to move forward again as soon as Monday. The Republicans working to craft the $1.2 trillion proposal voted Wednesday against advancing it as they draft final legislation. Despite the setback, the 22 Democratic and GOP senators drawing up the plan said they hope to release and push ahead with a bill “in the coming days.” The vote leaves President Joe Biden’s top legislative priority in flux. If the bipartisan deal to revamp transportation, broadband and utilities falls apart, Democrats will have to consider whether to pair physical infrastructure plans with their separate $3.5 trillion package to address climate change, child care and health care. Biden considers both plans critical to boosting the economy and preparing the country to face a warming planet. Asked Wednesday during a CNN town hall, Biden said he believes the Senate will vote Monday to advance the bipartisan framework he negotiated with senators. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has said he wants to make progress on both fronts before the chamber leaves Washington in August. He aims to pass the bipartisan infrastructure plan and approve the budget resolution that would allow Democrats to get their bill through the evenly split Senate with a simple majority. “My colleagues on both sides should be assured: as majority leader I have every intention of passing both major infrastructure packages: the bipartisan infrastructure framework, and a budget resolution with reconciliation instructions, before we leave for the August recess,” he said Thursday. Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, the lead Republican negotiator in the bipartisan group, has said Democrats’ plans to move forward with the reconciliation measure will not affect his support for the infrastructure bill. “Well, it’s not linked, not just with regard to the negotiators, but with regard to the White House and with regard to our leadership over here,” he told CNBC on Wednesday. “It’s totally unlinked. It has nothing to do with one another. They’re going to go ahead with reconciliation no matter what, Joe. And they always were, and we understand that.”Portman said he thinks “we’ll be ready to go” with the bipartisan plan on Monday.Infrastructure bill is on the brink – bipartisan support is keyBolton 7/23 [(Alexander, Staff Writer at the Hill, BA in Philosophy from Princeton) "Frustration builds as infrastructure talks drag," The Hill, July 23, 2021,?] TDITempers are starting to flare on both sides of the aisle as bipartisan infrastructure talks drag on and negotiators face the prospect of missing an informal self-imposed deadline of Monday for getting a deal. Some Democrats are accusing Republicans of slow-walking the negotiations and reopening negotiating items that were believed to be solved. Republicans say Democrats are being unreasonable in some of their demands, such as an insistence on tens of billions of dollars in new funding for transit and broad authority for local governments to decide how to spend infrastructure funds. Brown accused Republicans of?drawing out the talks to derail?President Biden’s agenda, which Senate Majority Leader?Charles Schumer?(D-N.Y.) says will move as a bipartisan infrastructure package and a budget reconciliation bill planned for the fall. Schumer said he will set up the reconciliation process by scheduling a vote on a budget resolution after the bipartisan infrastructure bill passes the Senate. But negotiators haven’t finished work on their bipartisan framework, holding the whole process up. Brown said there is strong skepticism among Democrats about whether Senate Minority Leader?Mitch McConnell?(R-Ky.) will allow any major bipartisan infrastructure deal to pass the Senate, which would be a major win for President Biden. Some Democrats in the bipartisan group have privately complained to colleagues that their Republican counterparts are reopening some issues that they thought had been sewn up. The majority leader suffered a setback for his schedule Wednesday when every Senate Republican voted to block a motion to begin the infrastructure debate. A group of 11 Republicans have signed a letter to Schumer pledging to vote to begin the debate next week if the bipartisan infrastructure deal comes together over the weekend.LinkThe plan’s partisan nature splits the Senate down the middle – wrecks any shot at bipartisanship on infrastructure Graham 21 [Jennifer: Reporter at Deseret News; “The Optics of Billionaires in space”; July 15, 2021; ] TDICritics have slammed Branson and Bezos for “not reading the room,” saying that this is an especially cringeworthy time to be joyfully cavorting in space as income inequality rises, the West is burning, the Taliban is advancing, and COVID-19 cases are edging upward again. And predictably, there is a partisan divide on the subject, with Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in March chiding Tesla founder Elon Musk for pledging to help make human life “multiplanetary.” (Musk’s SpaceX wants to colonize Mars.) Calling today’s income inequality “obscene,” Sanders said on Twitter, “Space travel is an exciting idea, but right now we need to focus on Earth and create a progressive tax system so that children don’t go hungry, people are not homeless and all Americans have health care.” However, essayists in the conservative website National Review Online have lauded private ventures into space, saying that they have already brought the cost of space exploration down. Before SpaceX, the U.S. was paying Russia $90 million to get one American astronaut to the International Space Station, Andrew Follett wrote for NRO. Reusable rockets developed by SpaceX can do that for $55 million, he said, adding “Musk has demonstrated that the American private sector can do what its government cannot.” Richard Branson hovers weightlessly inside Virgin Galactic’s VSS Unity space plane during its flight into space on Sunday, June 11, 2021. Richard Branson hovers weightlessly inside Virgin Galactic’s VSS Unity space plane during its flight into space on Sunday, June 11, 2021. Virgin Galactic And Brandon J. Weichert argued in NRO that that the privatization of space is a critical component of American competition with China. “Whichever nation wins the new space race will determine the future of the earth below,” Weichert wrote. He added, “Whatever one’s opinion about Bezos or Musk, the fact is that their private space companies are inspiring greater innovation today in the space sector after years of its being left in the sclerotic hands of the U.S. government.” In a recent survey about Americans’ views of space exploration, Pew found that Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say the government should be involved in space ventures. “Conversely, Republicans (41%) are more likely than Democrats (28%) to say private companies will ensure that enough progress is made.”Push back against budget cuts prove – restrictions on space exploration upset Republicans Foust 15 [(Jeff Foust - writes about space policy, commercial space, and related topics for SpaceNews, Ph.D. in planetary sciences from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, bachelor’s degree with honors in geophysics and planetary science from the California Institute of Technology) “Senators, Bolden Clash over the “Core Mission” of NASA” Space News, March 12, 2015] TDIWASHINGTON — Members of the Senate Commerce space subcommittee used a March 12 hearing on the NASA budget to debate with each other, and the head of the agency, about what the agency’s priorities should be.Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), chairman of the subcommittee, expressed concern that NASA was spending too much money on Earth science and not enough on exploration programs.“Since the end of the last administration, we have seen a disproportionate increase in the amount of federal funds that have been allocated to the Earth science program, at the expense of, and in comparison to, exploration and space operations, planetary science, heliophysics, and astrophysics,” he said in his opening remarks.To illustrate his point, Cruz displayed a chart showing that NASA’s request for Earth science funding had increased 41 percent between the 2009 and the 2016 budget proposals, while other NASA programs saw either decreases or far smaller increases. “In my judgment, this does not represent a fair or appropriate allocation of resources,” he said. “It is shifting resources away from the core functions of NASA.”NASA Administrator Charles Bolden“Essentially, our core mission from the very beginning has been to investigate and explore space and the Earth environment, and to help us make this place a better place,” NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said responding to a question from Sen. Ted Cruz. Credit: NASA/Joel KowskyBolden, asked by Cruz to define the “core mission” of NASA, defended the agency’s work by citing language in the National Aeronautics and Space Act that created the space agency. “Essentially, our core mission from the very beginning has been to investigate and explore space and the Earth environment, and to help us make this place a better place,” he said.Cruz disagreed. “I would suggest that almost any American would agree that the core function of NASA is to explore space,” he said. “It’s what sets NASA apart from any other agency.”Another Republican on the subcommittee, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), also said NASA was investing too much in Earth science over exploration. “It seems to me that NASA has perhaps drifted away from its core mission, and I’m concerned about that,” he said.Democratic members, however, defended the agency’s work in Earth science as part of its overall scope of missions. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), who was named the ranking member of the space subcommittee March 3, argued that an increase in Earth science funding was a recovery from past cuts.“We must avoid false choices between robotic exploration, human exploration, the study of the universe, or the study of our own planet,” he said in his opening statement. “We must avoid the temptation to view NASA’s mission as a set of competing priorities.”“In some quarters, it seems to be fashionable to say that Earth science is not part of the exploration program,” said Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), ranking member of the full committee. Work on Earth science, he said, was linked to all of the agency’s initiatives.Bolden made a similar argument, arguing that NASA’s exploration program was dependent on a variety of other NASA programs, including Earth science. “We can’t go anywhere if the Kennedy Space Center goes underwater and we don’t know it,” he said.Cruz indicated at the end of the hearing that he planned to revisit the issue in a future authorization bill. “It is my hope that this committee will work in a bipartisan manner to help refocus those priorities where they should be: to get back to the hard sciences, to get back to space, to focus on what makes NASA special,” he said.Impact – Tech LeadershipInfrastructure investment beats China in the tech-raceAnderson 2/22 [(Norman, 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 in the U.S. and around the world) “The Biden Infrastructure Plan - 5 Actions To Jolt Us Awake, Now,” Forbes, 2-22-2021, ] TDIThe Focus Needs to be on Creating Project Results. Producing immediate results is necessary for our political system - how does this work, when the average highway project takes 9.5 years to move through the approval process, and 4.5 years after that for results - say cars, or autonomous trucks, zipping down the freeway? Lucky for us we are not starting from scratch - we have an enormous pent-up backlog of projects that can start showing results… this year. By results I don’t just mean creating new and well-paying jobs, or saving the thousands of struggling professional service firms that are in danger of turning off their computers, rather what I mean is addressing the Administration’s priorities in the way that infrastructure professionals think about investment (yes, these people exist - and they are as smart as economists!):Brownfield projects - you can revitalize Army Corps reservoirs, or put 5G on interstate highways, or authorize the Gateway tunnel, or make rural broadband really fast, right now, tomorrow,Greenfield projects - infrastructure is a ‘thinking short, thinking long’ business, so while you are speeding up investment in ultra high voltage transmission lines, you can also get moving on the Brent Spence Bridge, and by the end of 2024 you can get butts in seats on the Dallas/Houston high speed rail project, and the Great Lakes Basin highway project, and New Infrastructure - this is the low-hanging fruit, and the battlefield between China and the U.S. for global influence, period. Largely private, and almost wholly environmentally friendly, this is where our economy has tremendous strengths that we are not seeing. It’s also the battlefield - AI, Machine Learning, 5G, Autonomy, High Voltage Transmission, along with high speed rail - that is critical to the achievement of every single goal that our country can set for the future.Every infrastructure person - and every citizen - across the country can tell you the five projects that they’d like to see happen. The map above is a 500 project stimulus map that my firm, CG/LA infrastructure, created by polling people around the country. Why not engage citizens now, and show results this year, picking up steam in 2022 and in 2023? Infrastructure is 5G/AI and Electrification, and it Needs a Budget. The infrastructure of the future is going to be as different as cellular is from fixed line telephony, and that future is coming at us extremely fast… The 2020’s will be a decade of disruption - the greatest period of disruption in 100 years or more. We can either continue our course, and try and weather the storm, or we can make the kind of strategic investments that will allow us to lead - with enormous environmental and equity benefits, coupled with the kind of productivity increases that come from rapid innovation. There couldn’t be a bigger difference between the way that China is going about new infrastructure creation, with their top down, devil may care about the individual approach, and our celebration of the individual. The problem - in democracies around the world - is that we are absent, and so China is winning. Leaders Set Goals, Achieve Goals - and Create Trust. Who is in charge of infrastructure? Without an infrastructure office it is hard to tell, and this is a fatal flaw problem. The presidency needs to to bring everyone together to discuss what world we want to create, what our infrastructure vision going forward will look like. This needs to happen fast - and then we need to set goals that we all agree to: projects completed, time to project approvals, life expectancy, reduction of traffic congestion, reduction in carbon by sector, even increases in infrastructure equity. I am a business guy - everything is opportunity. Then we (all of us) need to row hard in the same direction, and achieve those goals. Action This Day. If we can get this right, the results for all of us will be extraordinary - domestic growth, environmental leadership and an injection of strength into the global democratic model. Unimaginable things can quickly be envisioned, and developed, including the return of manufacturing (advanced and distributed manufacturing) to our newly digitized and electrified heartland. Infrastructure can bring us together, but it is a very heavy lift - as in war, the first thing a president things about in the morning, and the last thing he thinks about before going to bed at night.Chinese tech leadership leads to nuclear warKroenig 18 (Matthew, Deputy Director for Strategy, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security Associate Professor of Government and Foreign Service, Georgetown University) “Will disruptive technology cause nuclear war?” BAS, Nov 12, 2018, , 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.Impact – Econ Dominance Comprehensive infrastructure investment is key to all facets of the economyCondon 2/21 [(Christopher, overing the Treasury and U.S. economic policy at Bloomberg News, with Erik Wasson) “Biden’s Economic Legacy at Stake as Next Package Takes Shape,” Bloomberg, 2-21-2021, ] TDIThe next phase of President Joe Biden’s legislative agenda is fast taking shape, with an economic-recovery package that will potentially far surpass his $1.9 trillion virus-relief plan in size, complexity and overall ambition. The White House and congressional Democrats are busy plotting strategy for the proposal, which could be unveiled next month, kicking off a legislative process that may culminate by August. The centerpiece will be possibly the biggest infrastructure-spending commitment since the New Deal -- including roads, bridges and rural broadband internet. Progressives are eyeing much more, such as an expansion of Obamacare and a public-sector jobs program, along with tax measures including an increase in the capital-gains levy. But stuffing it with too many controversial proposals could threaten its approval or force it to be broken up, and put in peril the Democrats’ thin majorities in the 2022 midterm elections. Still, Democrats see a narrow opening to forge Biden’s legacy: not just restoring the U.S. economy to its pre-pandemic state, but reversing the trend of sluggish growth in recent years with the most far-reaching measures in decades. U.S. economy has put up more moderate growth in the 2000s versus heydays Biden’s virus-relief package is “going to help us get us back on the growth pattern we were on before,” said Virginia Representative Don Beyer, who, as incoming chair of the Joint Economic Committee, is a leading Democratic macroeconomic-policy voice. “The genius of the second plan is that it gives us the opportunity to punch GDP up above the long-term trend,” he said in an interview. During his campaign, Biden proposed $2 trillion for economic rebuilding, a step up from the $1.5 trillion level proposed in the House last year, which Democrats are now calling a “floor.” China Card Biden is aiming to succeed where Donald Trump and other predecessors have failed, when funding disputes stymied measures that economists say are vital to boosting long-term productivity. The president is selling the package as a way to counter China, which has deployed public investment not only to boost its own growth but to build global influence as well. As challenging as it may be to enact, such arguments may make the core infrastructure piece likely to be the easiest component to get through Congress. Bipartisan support for improved highway, transit, waterway and flood-mitigation work is strong, while deficit concerns are at the lowest level in decades. There’s also a Sept. 30 deadline in Congress for reauthorizing surface-transportation funding -- offering a ready-made vehicle for pursuing infrastructure measures. “Much of our infrastructure is nearing the end of its useful design life,” said Thomas Smith, executive director of the American Society of Civil Engineers, which will issue its latest quadrennial report card on U.S. infrastructure on March 3. “We’ve neglected it for far too long, and we’ve watched other countries continue to invest and continue to move ahead of the United States.” The ASCE’s last assessment, in 2017, was a D+. Back then, it estimated the U.S. needed $4.5 trillion in infrastructure spending over the following 10 years. With about $2.5 trillion in estimated outlays already in train, that left a $2 trillion gap -- which Biden’s proposal could largely fill. Congressional Budget Office figures indicate that a $1.5 trillion package would be equivalent to all federal spending on transportation and water infrastructure in the 14 years through 2017. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee plans a hearing on transportation investment on Wednesday, when Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, and Maryland Governor Larry Hogan, a Republican, are scheduled to testify. But infrastructure could become ensnared by a push among liberal lawmakers to tack on a raft of other items, from creating a government-run health insurance plan and making unionization easier, to a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and a carbon tax. Political Risk Meanwhile, House moderates in swing districts are facing the perils of redistricting ahead of the midterms, and could insist on limiting the scope of the bill to rein in its cost and limit partisan battles. Fights could also emerge over formulas for divvying up the money among states and cities. Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal said Thursday her large cohort of House Democrats will decide in the coming weeks which elements to advocate in the package -- including whether to use it as an opportunity to roll back Trump’s tax cuts for the wealthy. Jayapal’s group was instrumental in attaching to the pandemic-relief plan an increase in the hourly minimum wage to $15, something that’s become easily the most controversial potential holdup for that bill. The progressive caucus has proposed a $2 trillion infrastructure bill, and is already advocating that it include expanded child and elder care. The question of funding, whether by raising taxes or issuing more debt, also looms large, and many Republicans are set to be vociferous in opposing much of the plan. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden is expected to propose tax hikes, including equalizing ordinary income and capital-gains levies for those making more than $1 million a year and ending the deferral of capital gains. He’d also change international tax provisions in the 2017 tax law and close the carried-interest loophole, according to a Democratic aide. Some lawmakers favor raising the federal gasoline tax -- now 18.4 cents a gallon and 24.4 cents for diesel -- for the first time since 1993, though Wyden in 2019 expressed opposition to the idea, calling it regressive. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who argues that deficit spending makes more sense with interest rates historically low, said on CNBC last week that “certainly part of the package, the parts that are permanent, will be paid for in order to not raise long-term deficits.” While the yield on 10-year Treasury notes has risen markedly in recent weeks, Friday’s level of 1.34% is far below the 50-year average of about 6.16%. U.S. government's borrowing costs are historically low “There’s a lot of appetite to do something this year,” said Jeff Davis, a senior fellow at the Eno Center for Transportation. “But there seems to be no appetite to pay for it.” Despite all the hurdles, Biden has a strong hand. Upgrading and maintaining infrastructure acts as its own stimulus, unleashing real demand for equipment makers, materials suppliers and, most importantly, workers. Nucor Corp., Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. and U.S. Steel Corp., the country’s three largest steel producers, have been lobbying through their industry groups since the election to persuade lawmakers to back whatever infrastructure package the Biden administration puts forth. Productivity Potential Such spending would also be a huge boon for Caterpillar Inc., one of the world’s largest machinery makers, which attributed a drop in North American construction-equipment sales to weaker demand for pipelines and road construction. There’s also the potential for a long-term payoff, if investments translate into productivity gains -- such as savings on shipping and commuting costs when roads, rails and ports are improved, or avoiding the kind of power-grid failures on display this month in Texas. “We cannot throw all fiscal discipline to the wind, but the standards for fiscal prudence have indeed changed in light of the global decline in the normal structure of interest rates,” said David Wilcox, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and a former Federal Reserve and Treasury official. “If the rate of return on an investment exceeds your borrowing cost, it makes sense to do that investment, and with lower borrowing costs, more investments today can clear that bar.”Post-COVID economic rebound secures geopolitical dominance---the alternative is global conflict, EU collapse and Chinese authoritarian dominanceKempe 20 [(Frederick, best-selling author, prize-winning journalist and president & CEO of the Atlantic Council, one of the United States’ most influential think tanks on global affairs. He worked at The Wall Street Journal for more than 25 years as a foreign correspondent, assistant managing editor and as the longest-serving editor of the paper’s European edition.) “Op-ed: How the US can win the post-coronavirus race for global dominance,” CNBC, 4-18-2020, ] TDIPlace your bets for the coming race to growth. It will be an epic contest among the world’s most significant economies, with generational and geopolitical consequences. For context, think back to what the United States accomplished after World War II, when it rose as an economic power to shape a better world. The post-COVID19 race could determine whether the U.S. rebounds in a manner that allows it to retain the mantle of global leadership. More likely for the moment, Beijing could leverage its first-mover advantage – alongside a faster economic recovery across Asian markets – accelerating the trend toward a Chinese-centric globalization. Elsewhere, as President Macron argued this week to the Financial Times, the coming months could determine whether the European Union collapses as a political and economic project. The days ahead also could trigger a dangerous widening of the economic gap between emerging markets and the developed world – with escalating conflict and surging migration. It may seem premature to reflect on which of the globe’s economies is likely to have the most robust and lasting economic comeback – and with what geopolitical impact. After all, this was a week in which the International Monetary Fund projected a 3% contraction in global GDP for 2020, the most dramatic drop since the Great Depression. Yet it is the details behind that dismal forecast that should raise concerns within the U.S. and Europe. Their steeper economic decline and slower recovery could lay the seeds for a long-lasting shift of global tectonic plates to China’s advantage. The IMF projected a U.S. economic decline of about 6% in 2020 and a contraction of the eurozone of 7.5%. That compares to projected Chinese economic growth for 2020 of 1.2% after a first quarter real decline of 6.7% – far less than the 10%-plus dip many experts had expected. The only group of countries in the world projected to be in positive territory are East Asian, at roughly 1%. Even if one accepts that Chinese coronavirus fatalities likely are greater than their public figures and that the growth decline is likely larger, that doesn’t change the potential for a scenario that Deloitte and Salesforce this week referred to as “Sunrise in the East.” Describing this scenario, as one of four possibilities they list, they write, “The global center of power shifts decisively east as China and other East Asian nations take the reigns as primary powers on the world stage and lead global coordination of the health system and other multilateral institutions.” That comes with the broader acceptance of greater surveillance mechanisms as part of the public good, a faster recovery of East Asian countries with less economic impact from COVID19, and a significant ramping up of Chinese foreign direct investment to burnish its global reputation. Still, the U.S. has a host of incumbent advantages that could serve it well if it uses its economic recovery to also strengthen its infrastructure, if it reverses runaway unemployment quickly, if it can tame political polarization and, most significantly, if it rediscovers its taste for collaborative global leadership. In the economic race, no advantage is greater than the dollar. China may be the world’s second largest economy, but the Chinese yuan makes up only 2% of global payments and reserves while the dollar accounts for roughly two thirds of foreign exchange reserves. The dollar underpins four-fifths of global supply chains. The Economist reckons China could chip away at U.S. economic advantages through three underestimated strengths of its own: as a trusted debtor, an attractive creditor, and increasingly as a tech partner. As a debtor, China’s $13 trillion bond market is the world’s second largest and has weathered the crisis well. Chinese debt returned 1.3% in the first quarter, vastly better than the 15.5% decline for other emerging market bonds. Over the same period, the Chinese market added $8.5 billion (60 billion yuan) in net inflows. As a creditor, China has remained willing and generous, an approach that served the U.S. well after World War II. For example, it declared its willingness to back a G20 deal to suspend bilateral loan repayments by poorer countries, a sizable benefit also at its own cost. On the tech front, few countries were as ready as China for money and people to go entirely online. Tencent and Ant Financial have more than a billion users each for their digital wallets, and they are expanding rapidly throughout Asia. OneConnect, an offshoot of China’s largest insurer, provides financial institutions in sixteen Asian countries with cloud-based services. So, what other advantages can the United States leverage in this race? Never underestimate the brittleness of an authoritarian country under stress. Its broad censorship, it’s opaque legal system, and the nature of its surveillance state are hardly models to emulate. Beyond that, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is not alone in proposing that his country relocate high-value supply chains from China. If many countries do the same, the manufacturing foundation of China’s economy could erode. The Financial Times’ Gideon Rachman adds that the global trust in the dollar is just one of two built-in U.S. advantages that are difficult to dislodge. The other? “Where, outside your home country, would you most like your children to go to university or to work?” he writes. Most significant in this race would be if the United States regained its appetite for political and economic leadership as the world’s premier “convening power.” That need not be done at the cost of China – or anyone else. The race still can be won if U.S. leaders see it as a marathon and recall that much of the world long embraced their global leadership because partners learned they were more likely to win as American partners. This economic rebound from COVID19 will be patchy and uneven. Being first out the gate will be significant, and that is likely to be China. Yet history has taught the United States that it’s victory will be longest lasting if it can achieved alongside partners and allies.Nuclear warHenricksen 17, emeritus senior fellow at the Hoover Institution (Thomas, “Post-American World Order,” Hoover Institution, )The tensions stoked by the assertive regimes in the Kremlin or Tiananmen Square could spark a political or military incident that might set off a chain reaction leading to a large-scale war. Historically, powerful rivalries nearly always lead to at least skirmishes, if not a full-blown war. The anomalous Cold War era spared the United States and Soviet Russia a direct conflict, largely from concerns that one would trigger a nuclear exchange destroying both states and much of the world. Such a repetition might reoccur in the unfolding three-cornered geopolitical world. It seems safe to acknowledge that an ascendant China and a resurgent Russia will persist in their geo-strategic ambitions. What Is To Be Done? The first marching order is to dodge any kind of perpetual war of the sort that George Orwell outlined in “1984,” which engulfed the three super states of Eastasia, Eurasia, and Oceania, and made possible the totalitarian Big Brother regime. A long-running Cold War-type confrontation would almost certainly take another form than the one that ran from 1945 until the downfall of the Soviet Union. What prescriptions can be offered in the face of the escalating competition among the three global powers? First, by staying militarily and economically strong, the United States will have the resources to deter its peers’ hawkish behavior that might otherwise trigger a major conflict. Judging by the history of the Cold War, the coming strategic chess match with Russia and China will prove tense and demanding—since all the countries boast nuclear arms and long-range ballistic missiles. Next, the United States should widen and sustain willing coalitions of partners, something at which America excels, and at which China and Russia fail conspicuously. There can be little room for error in fraught crises among nuclear-weaponized and hostile powers. Short- and long-term standoffs are likely, as they were during the Cold War. Thus, the playbook, in part, involves a waiting game in which each power looks to its rivals to suffer grievous internal problems which could entail a collapse, as happened to the Soviet Union.1ARUQUQ overwhelms – infrastructure has enough supportPramuk 6/22 [(Jacob Pramuk, Politics Reporter at CNBC – BA in journalism and political sciences at Syracuse University) “Senate may work into August to pass infrastructure plan, set the stage for huge spending bill,” CNBC, 6-22-2021, ] TDIThe Senate may work into its August recess to pass both a bipartisan infrastructure plan and a budget resolution that would allow Democrats to enact a range of priorities without Republican support, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Friday. In a letter to his caucus, the New York Democrat said senators are working with the White House to turn the $1.2 trillion infrastructure framework into legislation. The Senate Budget Committee is also crafting a measure that would allow Democrats to pass a sprawling child-care, health-care and climate policy plan without a GOP vote. “My intention for this work period is for the Senate to consider both the bipartisan infrastructure legislation and a budget resolution with reconciliation instructions, which is the first step for passing legislation through the reconciliation process,” Schumer wrote ahead of the chamber’s return to Washington next week. “Please be advised that time is of the essence and we have a lot of work to do. Senators should be prepared for the possibility of working long nights, weekends, and remaining in Washington into the previously-scheduled August state work period,” he continued. The Senate is scheduled to leave Washington from Aug. 9 to Sept. 10. The coming weeks will shape the agenda Democratic leaders President Joe Biden, Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi can pass before next year’s midterm elections. They aim to create a stronger social safety net, jolt the post-coronavirus economy and set the groundwork to curb climate change. The Democratic leaders have to balance competing interests within their party to push both huge proposals through Congress. Some liberals have criticized the lack of funding in the bipartisan plan to address the climate crisis and transition to green energy. A few centrist Democrats, led by Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, have questioned spending trillions of dollars on a Democrats-only bill. Senate Democrats cannot lose a single vote on the reconciliation bill in a Senate split 50-50 by party. Pelosi, a California Democrat, also has to navigate a slim majority in the House. Pelosi reiterated Thursday that she wants the Senate to pass both the infrastructure plan and budget reconciliation measure before the House takes up either proposal. “I have said that I really cannot take up the reconciliation, until we see the infrastructure and — cannot take up the infrastructure until we see infrastructure and reconciliation addressed by the Senate,” she said. Eleven Republican senators have supported the bipartisan plan, enough for it to pass if all Democrats get on board. However, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has not yet endorsed the framework. About two dozen business and labor groups backed the infrastructure proposal Thursday, potentially giving it a boost as the Senate tries to bring it to a vote. The organizations, including the Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO, said they “urge Congress to turn this framework into legislation that will be signed into law,” adding they are “committed to helping see this cross the finish line.”Non UQ – infrastructure failsChait 6/25 [(Jonathan Chait, His writing has also appeared in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Slate, and Reason. He took over The New Republic's TRB column from Peter Beinart in March 2007. Chait was named a finalist for the 2009 Ellie (National Magazine Award) in the Columns and Commentary category for three of his 2008 columns.) "The Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal Is Probably Doomed, Alas," Intelligencer, 6-25-2021, ] TDIThursday afternoon at the White House was a beautiful moment of golden nostalgia. Republicans and Democrats who negotiated a bipartisan infrastructure deal stood side by side, basking in mutual respect. “This reminds me of the days when we used to get an awful lot done up in the United States Congress,” President Biden said. “What we’re showing and demonstrating through this big breakthrough is that bipartisanship is possible,” exulted Senator Kyrsten Sinema. “We can achieve good outcomes that actually meet the needs of our country.” Well, maybe. But in the cold light of morning, it seems more likely that the deal will ultimately fail, because bipartisanship, for the most part, isn’t possible. (I should note that I think the bill funds some important priorities, and I hope it passes, but I have difficulty believing it actually will.) Within hours of the White House press conference, conservatives began registering bitter opposition. The source of their anger is that Biden promised progressive Democrats he would pass another measure, increasing social spending and raising taxes on the rich, along with the infrastructure deal. “That’s extortion! I’m not going to do that,” cried Lindsey Graham. “The Dems are being told you can’t get your bipartisan work product passed unless you sign on to what the left wants, and I’m not playing that game.” Mitch McConnell immediately began pouring cold water on the deal, and the conservative media expressed unremitting opposition. Why would McConnell and most of the party have sat back largely in silence while allowing members of their caucus to negotiate a popular deal, only for them to denounce it afterward? The reason many of them tolerated the bill in the first place is that they believed it would reduce the odds of Congress passing a second bill. “Some Republicans,” explains the Wall Street Journal editorial page, “hope the bipartisan deal will make it harder to pass a reconciliation bill by taking away the popular infrastructure bits.” (The Journal’s editorial page tends to closely echo McConnell’s beliefs, and has come out hard against the deal.) That tactic made perfect logical sense for them. McConnell has strong policy preferences on taxing the rich — he would never accept even a single penny more on the tax bill of the richest person in the country — and weak policy preferences on infrastructure, which he can take or leave. A strategy of letting Democratic moderates sate their need for spending on an infrastructure bill that isn’t financed by taxing the rich, in the hopes that they would no longer feel the need to support Democratic social spending financed by tax hikes, was a shrewd play. Democrats have blown up that strategy by sequencing the 50-vote Democratic social spending bill before the bipartisan infrastructure bill. Now infrastructure has to stand on its own, and can’t be used as a wedge to pry Manchin and Sinema away from their colleagues. Sure enough, Republican Senator Jerry Moran, formerly a supporter of the bill, now says he won’t back it unless Manchin and Sinema give assurances they won’t support a separate bill – a result Moran was obviously hoping would occur as a result of the bipartisan deal, but clearly was not part of the original negotiation. The Republican public argument is that tying the two bills together represents a betrayal. The position that the parties can work together only if the majority party refuses to pass partisan bills is not one Republicans supported when they held majorities. Nor, for that matter, did Democrats ever make such a demand when they were in the minority. During Donald Trump’s first two years, Republicans worked on partisan legislation to cut taxes for the wealthy and repeal Obamacare, while Democrats negotiated (unsuccessful) deals on immigration reform, and then successful bills to provide COVID relief. The Democratic Party view was that bipartisan dealmaking could operate on a separate track from partisan legislation. The parties would fight on issues they disagree on, and cooperate where they agreed. McConnell has always treated Democratic partisan legislation as a kind of offense that compels total warfare in retaliation. McConnell’s calculation may be cold, but it is probably not wrong. He has been admirably clear about his strategy in the past. “It was absolutely critical that everybody be together because if the proponents of the bill were able to say it was bipartisan, it tended to convey to the public that this is okay, they must have figured it out,” he told the New York Times in 2010. “We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals,” he told The Atlantic in 2011, “because we thought — correctly, I think — that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the ‘bipartisan’ tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there’s a broad agreement that that’s the way forward.” The rule is that public displays of bipartisanship help the incumbent president. The exception to this rule is private bipartisanship, which explains why McConnell has gone along with “Secret Congress” deals between the two parties, which work almost entirely behind the scenes and attract little media attention. A bipartisan Rose Garden ceremony was a price he would be willing to pay if it brought the benefit of slimming down or possibly killing off Biden’s social agenda. But now that bipartisan ceremony is all cost, no benefit. His incentive is to kill it off. He doesn’t need to bring every Republican senator along with him, as long as he can hold defections below ten. The fate of this bill seems to pit the can-do cooperative spirit of Washington proving the system still works against McConnell’s calculation that his incentive is to make it fail. I would bet on McConnell.Laundry list of thumpersFox et. al 6/8, (Lauren Fox, Jessica Dean, Daniella Diaz, Clare Foran and Ted Barrett, “Democrats confront reality of narrowly split Congress as Biden’s agenda faces major obstacles,” CNN Politics, )(CNN)President Joe Biden's legislative agenda faces a critical month ahead as he and congressional Democrats work to secure agreements with Republicans on several key items -- including a far-reaching infrastructure bill and a policing overhaul -- and gear up for action on voting legislation they believe must pass to overcome efforts in GOP-led states to restrict voting rights. But major obstacles for Democrats lie ahead. The two parties remain far apart on key aspects of an infrastructure package, leading some Democrats to argue that time is running out to secure a deal. And there is no clear path to passing the voting rights bill in the Senate that the House has already passed. Republicans remain stiffly opposed, while divisions even persist among some Democrats over the legislation and how to secure its passage. West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin reiterated his opposition to the bill in a Sunday oped, making it clear he would not support changes to Senate rules to push through much of Biden's agenda. Also being weighed this month are enhanced regulations on guns and next steps on investigating the January 6 insurrection at the US Capitol after Senate Republicans blocked the formation of an independent investigation. Many Democrats are anxious to weaken the filibuster and push these measures through without any GOP support, but Manchin is insisting his colleagues in the evenly divided Senate press forward with bipartisan talks, believing the partisan approach would destroy the character of the chamber. Pressure on him will pick up, including a meeting Tuesday with civil rights groups who are trying to convince him to back the voting bill and gut the filibuster that Republicans are using to block it. But his Sunday op-ed was Manchin's strongest declaration yet. "I believe that partisan voting legislation will destroy the already weakening binds of our democracy, and for that reason, I will vote against the For the People Act. Furthermore, I will not vote to weaken or eliminate the filibuster," the moderate West Virginia Democrat wrote in the Charleston Gazette-Mail. Infrastructure As lawmakers returned to Washington this week, pressure is mounting from the left for the White House to walk away from negotiations with Republicans, go it alone and pass a massive infrastructure plan with just Democratic votes. But, despite the fact that the talks between Biden and Republicans have dragged on past the initial Memorial Day deadline without a significant breakthrough, there are political risks in pulling the plug on the talks too soon. For one, Manchin has signaled he's not ready to give up the talks. Without him, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer can't pass an infrastructure bill along party lines. Biden on Friday rejected the GOP's latest counteroffer, despite a $50 billion increase in spending, telling Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, the Republican negotiator, that the new offer did not meet his policy goals, according to the White House. The two are expected to speak again Monday. But with the slow pace of talks, it's unclear if the gap between Democrats and Republicans can be bridged. While both sides have moved closer to the middle, their contrasting proposals, which amount to $1 trillion in new spending from the White House and roughly $300 billion in new spending from Republicans, remain miles apart. A bipartisan group of senators could emerge as the next key negotiating partners with Biden on infrastructure. Whether they can reach a deal remains to be seen but the group has been working on a proposal that it could unveil as soon as this week, according to sources familiar with the effort. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm told CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union" Sunday that the President would be willing to meet with the group. "He is willing to meet with anyone who will help to move this forward, you know the clock is ticking. There is an end point to this discussion," she said. Meanwhile, if Democrats are going to move alone, they'll need weeks -- if not months -- to get a bill ready to go to the floor. The House this week will mark up its $547 billion surface transportation bill, a piece that could serve as a cornerstone of a Democratic-only infrastructure plan. Voting legislation Democrats are facing intense pressure to enact federal voter protections amid state-level efforts to pass restrictive voting bills, but as of now, the votes aren't there for the party to pass one of its signature priorities in the Senate. Schumer has pledged to bring the Democrats' sweeping voting rights, campaign finance and ethics reform bill, entitled the For the People Act, to the floor by the end of the month. But Manchin made it official last month that he can't back the bill in its current form and instead would prefer to pursue the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which is narrower in scope and aims to restore enforcement provisions of the Voting Rights Act. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday that the chamber, which is in a committee work period this week, will discuss the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, though it also faces little chance at advancing through the Senate. The next several days will be a key test for Schumer and Democrats as to whether they will make changes to the more sweeping legislation to garner Manchin's vote. But the West Virginia Democrat is not the only one who has expressed concerns about the current version of the bill. Other Democrats, including Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, have said they need to see changes in order to ensure the bill can be successfully implemented. The bill was first introduced back in 2019 as House Democrats' first piece of legislation after they won the majority. "We cannot fail on key things to our democracy like S.1," Schumer said at a recent press conference, adding, "Everything is on the table and we're going to continue to discuss it as we move forward." But even if Senate Democrats got every member in line to vote "yes" on the bill, there still wouldn't be the 10 Republican votes needed to pass it. And with Manchin and others clear that they will not gut the filibuster to pass the bill, Democrats can't get around the need for GOP support. Meanwhile, Sen. Angus King, an independent from Maine who caucuses with Democrats, said Sunday that while he's generally opposed to getting rid of the filibuster, he would consider changing it in order to pass the For the People Act. "If it comes down to voting rights and the rights of Americans to go to the polls and select their leaders versus the filibuster, I'll choose democracy," he told Tapper on "State of the Union." Police reform Key negotiators in the bipartisan effort to overhaul policing are targeting June as the month to finalize a deal. The talks between Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Democratic Rep. Karen Bass of California represent one of the best chances for bipartisan action on Capitol Hill, as the three negotiators share deep respect and trust among one another. They and their staffs have been working through weekends and recess to find a bipartisan way forward. This month will test whether they can close the deal. "June is the month," Bass, the lead negotiator for House Democrats, said last week. "We understand that we have got to get this done, and we can't have it linger," the California Democrat continued. "We know that we're getting ready to go into the summer months, and so I say that in good spirit, because we have been working together very well. So, we are holding each other to June." Before the recess, Scott, the lead negotiator for Senate Republicans, told reporters it's "June or bust" when it comes to closing the deal. Negotiators have been working through key sticking points, including qualified immunity. Some House progressives have balked at any compromise that falls short of eliminating the legal doctrine that protects police officers from being sued in civil court. Scott, who's the only Black Republican in the Senate, has floated a compromise that would place the responsibility on police departments, but some Senate Republicans have expressed concern over any changes to qualified immunity. Investigations into January 6 Not even hours after Senate Republicans blocked the creation of an independent panel to investigate the January 6 insurrection, Democrats began plotting how to proceed with a probe to investigate the attack that left five people dead and more than 140 police officers injured. In a call with her caucus, Pelosi outlined possible options to investigate the insurrection after she was asked a question about the next steps. Those options included giving the Senate a chance for another vote on the legislation to create the commission, creating a new select committee in the House to do the investigation and allowing the standing committees to continue their existing probes into the January 6 riot, or designating one preexisting committee, such as Homeland Security, to take charge of an investigation. However, the House isn't back in session until June 14, with only committee work happening this week, so it's unclear whether Pelosi will make moves on these options before then. Meanwhile, the Senate Rules and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committees released their findings on the security failures that led to the January 6 attack this week. The 100-plus-page report includes a detailed look at how security failures, poor planning, slow response time from law enforcement and lackluster sharing of intelligence and communications all contributed to the deadly insurrection, according to sources familiar with the effort. The Senate investigation has been conducted in a bipartisan manner by Democratic and Republican leaders of the two committees, but it will undoubtedly spawn a fierce battle between the two parties about what else should be done to investigate the Capitol attack. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday that the Senate joint committee report made him confident that the existing Senate committee inquiries will be able "to uncover all actionable facts about the events of January 6" and said he'll continue to support these probes "over any that seek to politicize the process." China bill and other agenda items The Senate is expected to pass rare bipartisan legislation this week aimed at combating China's influence. A final vote was delayed until after the Memorial Day recess after the bill advanced following an hours-long fight over amendments that threatened to derail the legislation. To move the legislation forward, Schumer reached a deal with GOP Sen. Ron Johnson and several Senate Republicans to push the votes on the China competition bill until the Senate returned this week, and move directly to voting on advancing the January 6 commission legislation, which failed last month after Republicans blocked the bill. As a result of the agreement that was reached, Schumer said there will be a series of votes that could culminate in final passage of the bill, which would invest more than $200 billion in American technology, science and research, as soon as Tuesday. The sweeping legislation aims to confront China's influence on multiple fronts and "will supercharge American innovation and preserve our competitive edge for generations to come," Schumer said. The bill was the product of multiple Senate committees, making it one of the few areas of successful bipartisan cooperation in the chamber. If the bill does pass, it would amount to a major bipartisan win for Schumer, who co-wrote and strongly backed the measure, as well as for Biden, who made reaching across the aisle a central component of his strategy but has faced criticism for moving unilaterally on his largest agenda items to this point. The Senate is grappling with several other items after returning from recess as well. Schumer said at a recent press conference that when the Senate reconvenes, Democrats will "force a vote on HR 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act, equal pay for women," which he described as "a long overdue piece of legislation." The majority leader went on to say that the Senate will also "begin to confirm President Biden's judicial nominees," and said that he may "ask the Senate to consider gun legislation and LGBTQ equality legislation during the June work period."Link TurnLink turn – decking privatization is bipartisanRubin 6/18 [(Gabriel, Gabriel T. Rubin?is a politics reporter and author of the Washington Wire column. He previously reported on financial regulation for the Journal and before that for Morning Consult.) “Funding for Bezos Space Company Fails to Launch in House,” Wall Street Journal, 6/18/21, ] TDIHOUSE THROWS UP ROADBLOCKS to funding for Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin space exploration company that was approved as part of the Senate’s bipartisan China competition legislation last week. Members from both parties made clear the $10 billion authorization, pushed by Washington Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell, for a second moon lander contract ( Elon Musk’s SpaceX won the first contract earlier this year, while Blue Origin was one of two runners-up) was a nonstarter for the House’s version of science and innovation legislation. Blue Origin filed a complaint with the Government Accountability Office after SpaceX won the contract, urging the government to reassess and award a second contract. Senate progressives like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have urged their House colleagues to remove the measure. House Science Committee Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson and top Republican Frank Lucas this week put out a bill that takes a markedly different approach to U.S.-China competition and technological innovation, principally by spending much less, and it doesn’t include additional authorization for moon lander funds. Johnson has been skeptical of NASA’s goal of returning to the moon by 2024. NASA head Bill Nelson is supportive of the Senate measure, saying it “sets us on a path to execute many landings on the Moon in this decade.” Beyond the expense and wisdom of pursuing another moon landing, House opponents of the measure take aim at its likely beneficiary: Bezos, whose primary company, Amazon, is in the House’s antitrust crosshairs. Rep. Ken Buck, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Antitrust subcommittee, flatly said “no” to whether he would consider funds for Blue Origin in China competition legislation. The top Republican on the Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Michael McCaul, said he expected the legislation to “change a lot” from what the Senate passed, and that he was giving priority to funding for semiconductor production over space exploration. Rep. Pramila Jayapal, whose Seattle district is full of Amazon employees, told The Wall Street Journal she didn’t think Blue Origin needed a “handout.” “If Jeff Bezos wants to explore space, that’s great, but I don’t think he needs federal dollars.” Blue Origin didn’t respond to requests for comment. TEXAS LEADERS set up clash over the limits of state power. Texas Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett, who leads the Ways and Means Health subcommittee, unveiled legislation to go around Republican-led states (like Texas) that haven’t expanded Medicaid by giving money directly to “willing” local governments under the Affordable Care Act. His bill has the support of the vast majority of Democratic representatives from states that haven’t expanded Medicaid. The bill would allow city, county and other local governments to apply directly to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to provide coverage through demonstration projects with 100% funding for the first three years and eventually phased down to 90%. It would strip states of some administrative Medicaid funds if their legislatures tried to bar localities from accepting funds. Doggett hopes to include the measure in a budget-reconciliation package. The bill is the latest clash between Republican Texas state authorities and the Democratic-majority Congress and Biden White House. Gov. Greg Abbott signed a resolution this week that “notifies the President & Congress to cease acts of encroaching upon the powers of states.” “Their whole attitude about state sovereignty doesn’t apply to local sovereignty,” Doggett said in an interview. A spokeswoman for Abbott didn’t respond to requests for comment on Doggett’s bill. The Texas House held a vote on Medicaid expansion in April, rejecting it mostly along party lines. It is one of 13 states that hasn’t implemented the expansion.Link turn – public space ex is bipartisanAnderson 15 [Monica; Monica Anderson is associate director of research at Pew Research Center primarily studying internet and technology issues. Much of her recent work has focused on the impact of the digital divide, the role of technology in the lives of teenagers, and activism in the age of social media. She has a master’s degree in media studies from Georgetown University, where her work focused on the intersection of race, politics and media; “America’s divided on government’s role in space exploration”; December 16, 2015; ] TDIUnlike other areas where public opinion varies greatly by political leanings, there is little partisan difference on whether the federal government should play a major role in space exploration and only a modest partisan gap in how Americans evaluate the government’s performance in this area.Overall, 51% of U.S. adults believe the federal government is doing a very or somewhat good job in advancing space exploration, while 36% say the government is doing a very or somewhat bad job. Democrats and those who lean to the Democratic Party are somewhat more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to give the government positive ratings on advancing space exploration (58% vs. 45%).Public consistently gives NASA positive ratingsDespite mixed views on government performance and involvement in space exploration, the public is supportive of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the International Space Station.NASA is one of the most popular federal agencies — 70% of U.S. adults rate the agency favorably versus 17% who hold an unfavorable view. This popularity has been consistent across several Pew Research Center surveys. In comparison, fewer than half of Americans hold favorable opinions of the Justice Department, the Department of Education, the IRS or Veterans Affairs.There is also broad support for the International Space Station, according to a 2014 Pew Research Center survey. Nearly two-thirds (64%) of U.S. adults said the space station has been a good investment for the country, while 29% said it was not.Politics are not a big factor when it comes to views about NASA or the space station. Republicans and Democrats are equally likely to hold favorable views of NASA, while a majority of both parties said the space station has been a good investment for the country. Some 65% of Republicans and Republican leaners thought the country’s investment in the space station has been positive, a similar share (67%) as their Democratic counterparts.Link turn – centering NASA in space is bipartisan – economic incentives flow affFeldscher 4/10 [(Jacqueline, Jacqueline Feldscher is a defense reporter at POLITICO, where she covers the defense industry and space issues. She’s an alumna of Boston University and holds a masters in journalism from the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University.) “Democrats and Republicans Find Common Ground – in Mars,” Politico, 4/10/21, ] TDIAfter decades of partisan battles, there’s finally something that can unite Washington — and it’s 150 million miles away. Democrats and Republicans alike are giddy for NASA’s Ingenuity helicopter, which is expected to take off on Mars as early as Wednesday for the first powered flight on another planet. And some of the top space supporters on Capitol Hill are hopeful this excitement among their colleagues and the broader American public will translate into bigger budgets for NASA to pursue its most ambitious missions, including sending people to the moon and Mars, getting Martian soil samples back to Earth and exploring further into our solar system with robots. “Sometimes my friends on the hard left and the hard right don’t want to spend money on NASA, on space exploration and on advancing into the off world,” said Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), the ranking member of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. “Fortunately ... there’s overwhelming support from what I define as the rational center in Congress to continue to do this.” POLITICO spoke to more than half a dozen lawmakers in both parties who were optimistic that the energy around the lightweight helicopter’s first flight, as well as the broader rover mission whose long-term goal is to bring Martian soil back to Earth for study, will ultimately mean a boost for future budgets. That doesn't mean securing the funding will be easy, even with support from both parties. Lawmakers are contending with a growing to-do list of top priorities to fund on Earth, including repairing the nation's infrastructure and boosting the post-Covid economy, while the nation's debt looms large. “I know there are skeptics out there who think we can do a lot more uncrewed [missions], but the prospect of taking human beings back to the moon and on to Mars excites people across politics and religion and age,” said Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), the chair of the House space and aeronautics subcommittee. “Struggles in Washington and the government writ large are not fun. It’s difficult to get unity. But with NASA, especially with going to other planets, there’s a great sense of bipartisanship.” Made-for-TV moments There’s a lot to be excited about on the Ingenuity mission. The four-pound helicopter’s super lightweight blades must spin five times faster than a normal helicopter's to allow it to fly in an atmosphere so thin that it’s equivalent to 100,000 feet on Earth. And it all must happen autonomously because of the 30-minute round trip communications lag. Ingenuity, which arrived on Mars in February attached to the underside of the Perseverance rover, is a technology demonstration mission that will last only 31 days. For the first flight, officials designated an "airfield" on Mars, a flat area with enough texture that the helicopter can use its camera to keep track of where it is. Ingenuity will climb at roughly three feet per second, hover for up to 30 seconds, make a turn in mid-air and then land. The flight may seem short, but the Wright Flyer's first flight lasted only 12 seconds and changed the world. The helicopter even includes a nod to that history: A postage-stamp sized piece of cloth from the Wright Brothers' aircraft is attached to Ingenuity. If the helicopter lands safely from the first flight, engineers are expected to conduct several other test flights during the 31-day mission. NASA is hopeful that, if successful, the technology will allow the agency to use future aircraft to explore new parts of the Red Planet, help rovers plot their best route to a position, act as scouts for humans on future missions and even to explore other planets. "If we can do this on Mars, we can do it other places, perhaps on Venus," Bobby Braun, the director for planetary science at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, said in a recent press conference. There's a long communications lag, so there will be no live video. But engineers are hopeful the Perseverance rover nearby will be able to capture photo and video of the helicopter in flight. And Ingenuity has cameras that will capture the first aerial imagery of Mars. The helicopter cost about $80 million to build, and it’s expected to cost $5 million to operate during its month-long test mission, according to data from the Planetary Society. The Perseverance rover project overall is expected to cost nearly $3 billion. The majority of that was spent developing and building the spacecraft, while operating costs during its two-year mission will be about $300 million. That’s just a fraction of what Congress will need to appropriate if the U.S. wants to send people to Mars. A trip to Mars is expected to cost about $500 billion to design and build a spacecraft, plus extra money to support humans for the duration of the mission. The cost for any sort of sustained Mars program beyond a single mission would easily soar into the trillions. “I think this is going to be something very, very valuable to mankind, and although I am a conservative Republican, I believe we need to have funding and a reauthorization for NASA programs … so we can answer questions that man has been asking for thousands of years,” said Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas), the ranking member of the House space subcommittee who represents the Houston suburbs close to NASA's astronaut training headquarters. “We’re on the verge of really great things.” NASA’s budget has a long way to go to catch up to that. Congress appropriated $23.3 billion for the space agency in fiscal 2021, and the Biden administration’s fiscal 2022 plan released Friday inches the agency up to $24.7 billion. At the current level, NASA would have to devote its entire budget for more than 20 years to the Mars program to make a mission happen — a task that will take support from both parties. NASA has not set a timeline to send people to Mars. Some space boosters on Capitol Hill have pushed for the first crewed mission to happen in 2033, but, while the Biden administration has been supportive of reaching Mars, it has not spoken about a timeline to do so. Uphill battle NASA will have to make the case for spending this huge amount of money when there are so many other critical priorities on Earth and a growing deficit. When the federal government is faced with strengthening the economy, controlling the pandemic, increasing the number of jobs and defending against foreign threats, it's not hard to imagine space getting shortchanged. Polling also consistently finds that the American people want NASA to focus on monitoring Earth's climate and protecting the planet from asteroids. While human exploration generates a lot of excitement when it happens, support for those programs is always at the bottom of the list compared to the space agency's other priorities including conducting scientific research and developing new technology that can be adapted for use on Earth. Still, America has historically been able to accomplish great things in space when it prioritized that spending, such as at the peak of the race to the moon, when NASA's funding was more than 4 percent of the federal budget. “Look at Apollo. That wasn’t a Democratic or Republican program, it was an American program and really a global program,” said Rep. Ami Bera (D-Calif.), a member of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. “Space really should be nonpartisan. … I think you’ve seen that. We live in a partisan environment, but you haven’t seen the Biden administration rush to undo things Trump did in space.” In fact, the Biden White House has voiced support for three of Trump’s top space initiatives: the Space Force, the National Space Council and the Artemis program to return astronauts to the moon. White House press secretary Jen Psaki even acknowledged recently that space is one of the only areas where Biden and Trump agree. One reason might be because debating space programs that will happen years or decades into the future is different from debating how much your neighbors will be taxed or what the federal government’s budget should be next year. “It’s exhilarating, it’s thrilling, but it’s also a different kind of debate than most committees have,” Lucas said. “When you’re looking past the horizon of anybody alive … that’s just different." Space is also one of the few areas where nearly every member of Congress has a parochial interest, whether that’s major launch infrastructure or aerospace suppliers contributing pieces to NASA programs. “Most of us … have businesses in our states that … either are contracting with NASA … or they are part of the aerospace industry. That’s another reason why there's a great deal of interest. People understand potential economic opportunities,” said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), who chairs the Senate appropriations subcommittee that funds NASA. “There’s still this idea on the part of a lot of people that it’s an industry that’s mainly in Florida or Texas or Alabama. That’s not true at all. It’s all across the country.” The bipartisan relationships built on the space committee means lawmakers can come together in this narrow area, despite drastic differences in other areas. “I have a good relationship with Brian Babin, who is the ranking member on the space subcommittee,” Beyer said. “I don’t like everything he does. He voted not to impeach the president and not to accept the Pennsylvania election results, but we’re very much on the same page when it comes to NASA and certainly Ingenuity.” UPDATE: After this story was published, NASA delayed the flight until at least Wednesday. The story has been updated.Impact – TechNo US-China war---nukes, interdependence, and power disparityNorrl?f 3-23-21 [(FIIA Visiting Professor at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs in Helsinki, Senior Fellow at The Atlantic Council and at Massey College, Associate Professor at the University of Toronto, and Research Associate at The Graduate Institute of Geneva) Carla Norrl?f (2021) The Ibn Khald?n Trap and Great Power Competition with China, The Washington Quarterly, 44:1, 7-28, DOI: 10.1080/0163660X.2021.1893022]However, the analogy mismatches international hierarchy and regime type. In classical times, the incumbent land power, Sparta, was the authoritarian power who feared the rise of the democratic maritime power, Athens.3 This incongruity is not even the biggest problem with the analogy. In order for the Thucydides Trap to apply, China would have to significantly narrow the power gap with the United States. While China has caught up with the United States in important respects, it has not caught up with the United States in terms of the logic and networks that inform dominance in the key economic and security areas required for power transition.4 Apart from the obvious inhibiting factors of nuclear weapons and economic interdependence, the United States and China are nowhere close to the power parity likely to spark a major power war between them. The Thucydides Trap is a powerful analogy for bellicose dynamics between a hegemonic power and a rising power, but in the near term, war between the United States and China for the reasons proposed in the Thucydidean analogy is highly unlikely.Chinese tech leadership is key to solving all global problemsShen Yamei 18, Deputy Director and Associate Research Fellow of Department for American Studies, China Institute of International Studies, 1-9-2018, "Probing into the “Chinese Solution” for the Transformation of Global Governance," CAIFC, the world is in a period of great development, transformation and adjustment, the international power comparison is undergoing profound changes, global governance is reshuffling and traditional governance concepts and models are confronted with challenges. The international community is expecting China to play a bigger role in global governance, which has given birth to the Chinese solution. A. To Lead the Transformation of the Global Governance System. The “shortcomings” of the existing global governance system are prominent, which can hardly ensure global development. First, the traditional dominant forces are seriously imbalanced. The US and Europe that used to dominate the global governance system have been beset with structural problems, with their economic development stalling, social contradictions intensifying, populism and secessionism rising, and states trapped in internal strife and differentiation. These countries have not fully reformed and adjusted themselves well, but rather pointed their fingers at globalization and resorted to retreat for self-insurance or were busy with their own affairs without any wish or ability to participate in global governance, which has encouraged the growth of “anti-globalization” trend into an interference factor to global governance. Second, the global governance mechanism is relatively lagging behind. Over the years of development, the strength of emerging economies has increased dramatically, which has substantially upset the international power structure, as the developing countries as a whole have made 80 percent of the contributions to global economic growth. These countries have expressed their appeal for new governance and begun policy coordination among themselves, which has initiated the transition of global governance form “Western governance” to “East-West joint governance”, but the traditional governance mechanisms such as the World Bank, IMF and G7 failed to reflect the demand of the new pattern, in addition to their lack of representation and inclusiveness. Third, the global governance rules are developing in a fragmented way, with governance deficits existing in some key areas. With the diversification and in-depth integration of international interests, the domain of global governance has continued to expand, with actors multiplying by folds and action intentions becoming complicated. As relevant efforts are usually temporary and limited to specific partners or issues, global governance driven by requests of “diversified governance” lacks systematic and comprehensive solutions. Since the beginning of this year, there have been risks of running into an acephalous state in such key areas as global economic governance and climate change. Such emerging issues as nuclear security and international terrorism have suffered injustice because of power politics. The governance areas in deficit, such as cyber security, polar region and oceans, have “reversely forced” certain countries and organizations to respond hastily. All of these have made the global governance system trapped in a dilemma and call urgently for a clear direction of advancement. B. To Innovate and Perfect the International Order. Currently, whether the developing countries or the Western countries of Europe and the US are greatly discontent with the existing international order as well as their appeals and motivation for changing the order are unprecedentedly strong. The US is the major creator and beneficiary of the existing hegemonic order, but it is now doubtful that it has gained much less than lost from the existing order, faced with the difficulties of global economic transformation and obsessed with economic despair and political dejection. Although the developing countries as represented by China acknowledge the positive role played by the post-war international order in safeguarding peace, boosting prosperity and promoting globalization, they criticize the existing order for lack of inclusiveness in politics and equality in economy, as well as double standard in security, believing it has failed to reflect the multi-polarization trend of the world and is an exclusive “circle club”. Therefore, there is much room for improvement. For China, to lead the transformation of the global governance system and international order not only supports the efforts of the developing countries to uphold multilateralism rather than unilateralism, advocate the rule of law rather than the law of the jungle and practice democracy rather than power politics in international relations, but also is an important subject concerning whether China could gain the discourse power and development space corresponding to its own strength and interests in the process of innovating and perfecting the framework of international order. C. To Promote Integration of the Eastern and Western Civilizations. Dialog among civilizations, which is the popular foundation for any country’s diplomatic proposals, runs like a trickle moistening things silently. Nevertheless, in the existing international system guided by the “Western-Centrism”, the Western civilization has always had the self-righteous superiority, conflicting with the interests and mentality of other countries and having failed to find the path to co-existing peacefully and harmoniously with other civilizations. So to speak, many problems of today, including the growing gap in economic development between the developed and developing countries against the background of globalization, the Middle East trapped in chaos and disorder, the failure of Russia and Turkey to “integrate into the West”, etc., can be directly attributed to lack of exchanges, communication and integration among civilizations. Since the 18th National Congress of CPC, Xi Jinping has raised the concept of “Chinese Dream” that reflects both Chinese values and China’s pursuit, re-introducing to the world the idea of “all living creatures grow together without harming one another and ways run parallel without interfering with one another”, which is the highest ideal in Chinese traditional culture, and striving to shape China into a force that counter-balance the Western civilization. He has also made solemn commitment that “we respect the diversity of civilizations …… cannot be puffed up with pride and depreciate other civilizations and nations”; “facing the people deeply trapped in misery and wars, we should have not only compassion and sympathy, but also responsibility and action …… do whatever we can to extend assistance to those people caught in predicament”, etc. China will rebalance the international pattern from a more inclusive civilization perspective and with more far-sighted strategic mindset, or at least correct the bisected or predominated world order so as to promote the parallel development of the Eastern and Western civilizations through mutual learning, integration and encouragement. D. To Pass on China’s Confidence. Only a short while ago, some Western countries had called for “China’s responsibility” and made it an inhibition to “regulate” China’s development orientation. Today, China has become a source of stability in an international situation full of uncertainties. Over the past 5 years, China has made outstanding contributions to the recovery of world economy under relatively great pressure of its own economic downturn. Encouraged by the “four confidences”, the whole of the Chinese society has burst out innovation vitality and produced innovation achievements, making people have more sense of gain and more optimistic about the national development prospect. It is the heroism of the ordinary Chinese to overcome difficulties and realize the ideal destiny that best explains China’s confidence. When this confidence is passed on in the field of diplomacy, it is expressed as: first, China’s posture is seen as more forging ahead and courageous to undertake responsibilities ---- proactively shaping the international agendas rather than passively accepting them; having clear-cut attitudes on international disputes rather than being equivocal; and extending international cooperation to comprehensive and dimensional development rather than based on the theory of “economy only”. In sum, China will actively seek understanding and support from other countries rather than imposing its will on others with clear-cut Chinese characteristics, Chinese style and Chinese manner. Second, China’s discourse is featured as a combination of inflexibility and yielding as well as magnanimous ---- combining the internationally recognized diplomatic principles with the excellent Chinese cultural traditions through digesting the Chinese and foreign humanistic classics assisted with philosophical speculations to make “China Brand, Chinese Voice and China’s Image get more and more recognized”. Third, the Chinese solution is more practical and intimate to people as well as emphasizes inclusive cooperation, as China is full of confidence to break the monopoly of the Western model on global development, “offering mankind a Chinese solution to explore a better social system”, and “providing a brand new option for the nations and peoples who are hoping both to speed up development and maintain independence”. II.Path Searching of the “Chinese Solution” for Global Governance Over the past years’ efforts, China has the ability to transform itself from “grasping the opportunity” for development to “creating opportunity” and “sharing opportunity” for common development, hoping to pass on the longing of the Chinese people for a better life to the people of other countries and promoting the development of the global governance system toward a more just and rational end. It has become the major power’s conscious commitment of China to lead the transformation of the global governance system in a profound way. A. To Construct the Theoretical System for Global Governance. The theoretical system of global governance has been the focus of the party central committee’s diplomatic theory innovation since the 18th National Congress of CPC as well as an important component of the theory of socialism with Chinese characteristics for a new era, which is not only the sublimation of China’s interaction with the world from “absorbing and learning” to “cooperation and mutual learning”, but also the cause why so many developing countries have turned from “learning from the West” to “exploring for treasures in the East”. In the past 5 years, the party central committee, based on precise interpretation of the world pattern today and serious reflection on the future development of mankind, has made a sincere call to the world for promoting the development of global governance system toward a more just and rational end, and proposed a series of new concepts and new strategies including engaging in major power diplomacy with Chinese characteristics, creating the human community with common destiny, promoting the construction of new international relationship rooted in the principle of cooperation and win-win, enriching the strategic thinking of peaceful development, sticking to the correct benefit view, formulating the partnership network the world over, advancing the global economic governance in a way of mutual consultation, joint construction and co-sharing, advocating the joint, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security concept, and launching the grand “Belt and Road” initiative. The Chinese solution composed of these contents, not only fundamentally different from the old roads of industrial revolution and colonial expansion in history, but also different from the market-driven neo-liberalism model currently advocated by Western countries and international organizations, stands at the height of the world and even mankind, seeking for global common development and having widened the road for the developing countries to modernization, which is widely welcomed by the international community. B. To Supplement and Perfect the Global Governance System. Currently, the international political practice in global governance is mostly problem-driven without creating a set of relatively independent, centralized and integral power structures, resulting in the existing global governance systemcharacterized as both extensive and unbalanced. China has been engaged in reform and innovation, while maintaining and constructing the existing systems, producing some thinking and method with Chinese characteristics. First, China sees the UN as a mirror that reflects the status quo of global governance, which should act as the leader of global governance, and actively safeguards the global governance system with the UN at the core. Second, China is actively promoting the transforming process of such recently emerged international mechanisms as G20, BRICS and SCO, perfecting them through practice, and boosting Asia-Pacific regional cooperation and the development of economic globalization. China is also promoting the construction of regional security mechanism through the Six-Party Talks on Korean Peninsula nuclear issue, Boao Forum for Asia, CICA and multilateral security dialog mechanisms led by ASEAN so as to lay the foundation for the future regional security framework. Third, China has initiated the establishment of AIIB and the New Development Bank of BRICS, creating a precedent for developing countries to set up multilateral financial institutions. The core of the new relationship between China and them lies in “boosting rather than controlling” and “public rather than private”, which is much different from the management and operation model of the World Bank, manifesting the increasing global governance ability of China and the developing countries as well as exerting pressure on the international economic and financial institution to speed up reforms. Thus, in leading the transformation of the global governance system, China has not overthrown the existing systems and started all over again, but been engaged in innovating and perfecting; China has proactively undertaken international responsibilities, but has to do everything in its power and act according to its ability. C. To Reform the Global Governance Rules. Many of the problems facing global governance today are deeply rooted in such a cause that the dominant power of the existing governance system has taken it as the tool to realize its own national interests first and a platform to pursue its political goals. Since the beginning of this year, the US has for several times requested the World Bank, IMF and G20 to make efforts to mitigate the so-called global imbalance, abandoned its commitment to support trade openness, cut down investment projects to the middle-income countries, and deleted commitment to support the efforts to deal with climate change financially, which has made the international systems accessories of the US domestic economic agendas, dealing a heavy blow to the global governance system. On the contrary, the interests and agendas of China, as a major power of the world, are open to the whole world, and China in the future “will provide the world with broader market, more sufficient capital, more abundant goods and more precious opportunities for cooperation”, while having the ability to make the world listen to its voice more attentively. With regard to the subject of global governance, China has advocated that what global governance system is better cannot be decided upon by any single country, as the destiny of the world should be in the hands of the people of all countries. In principle, all the parties should stick to the principle of mutual consultation, joint construction and co-sharing, resolve disputes through dialog and differences through consultation. Regarding the critical areas, opening to the outer world does not mean building one’s own backyard, but building the spring garden for co-sharing; the “Belt and Road” initiative is not China’s solo, but a chorus participated in by all countries concerned. China has also proposed international public security views on nuclear security, maritime cooperation and cyber space order, calling for efforts to make the global village into a “grand stage for seeking common development” rather than a “wrestling arena”; we cannot “set up a stage here, while pulling away a prop there”, but “complement each other to put on a grand show”. From the orientation of reforms, efforts should be made to better safeguard and expand the legitimate interests of the developing countries and increase the influence of the emerging economies on global governance. Over the past 5 years, China has attached importance to full court diplomacy, gradually coming to the center stage of international politics and proactively establishing principles for global governance. By hosting such important events as IAELM, CICA Summit, G20 Summit, the Belt and Road International Cooperation Forum and BRICS Summit, China has used theseplatforms to elaborate the Asia-Pacific Dream for the first time to the world, expressing China’s views on Asian security and global economic governance, discussing with the countries concerned with the Belt and Road about the synergy of their future development strategies and setting off the “BRICS plus” capacity expansion mechanism, in which China not only contributes its solution and shows its style, but also participates in the shaping of international principles through practice. On promoting the resolution of hot international issues, China abides by the norms governing international relations based on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, and insists on justice, playing a constructive role as a responsible major power in actively promoting the political accommodation in Afghanistan, mediating the Djibouti-Eritrea dispute, promoting peace talks in the Middle East, devoting itself to the peaceful resolution of the South China Sea dispute through negotiations. In addition, China’s responsibility and quick response to international crises have gained widespread praises, as seen in such cases as assisting Africa in its fight against the Ebola epidemic, sending emergency fresh water to the capital of Maldives and buying rice from Cambodia to help relieve its financial squeeze, which has shown the simple feelings of the Chinese people to share the same breath and fate with the people of other countries. D. To Support the Increase of the Developing Countries’ Voice. The developing countries, especially the emerging powers, are not only the important participants of the globalization process, but also the important direction to which the international power system is transferring. With the accelerating shift of global economic center to emerging markets and developing economies, the will and ability of the developing countries to participate in global governance have been correspondingly strengthened. As the biggest developing country and fast growing major power, China has the same appeal and proposal for governance as other developing countries and already began policy coordination with them, as China should comply with historical tide and continue to support the increase of the developing countries’ voice in the global governance system. To this end, China has pursued the policy of “dialog but not confrontation, partnership but not alliance”, attaching importance to the construction of new type of major power relationship and global partnership network, while making a series proposals in the practice of global governance that could represent the legitimate interests of the developing countries and be conducive to safeguarding global justice, including supporting an open, inclusive, universal, balanced and win-win economic globalization; promoting the reforms on share and voting mechanism of IMF to increase the voting rights and representation of the emerging market economies; financing the infrastructure construction and industrial upgrading of other developing countries through various bilateral or regional funds; and helping other developing countries to respond to such challenges as famine, refugees, climate change and public hygiene by debt forgiveness and assistance.Impact – EconInfrastructure can’t save the economyHodge 3/21 [(Scott, Scott A. Hodge has been president of the Tax Foundation in Washington, D.C., since 2000, and is recognized as one of Washington’s leading experts on tax policy, the federal budget, and government spending.), “CBO Study: Benefits of Biden’s $2 Trillion Infrastructure Plan Won’t Outweigh $2 Trillion Tax Hike”, Tax Foundation, 3/21/2021, ] TDICBO Study: Benefits of Biden’s $2 Trillion Infrastructure Plan Won’t Outweigh $2 Trillion Tax Hike March 31, 2021 Scott A. Hodge Twitter Logo This has been updated based on new information. President Joe Biden is preparing to roll out an eight-year, $2 trillion infrastructure plan paid for by $2 trillion in tax increases on U.S. corporations spread out over 15 years. Setting aside the questionable mix of math and years, the premise is that the economic benefits of government infrastructure spending outweigh the economic harm from an increase in corporate taxes. The Biden administration has yet to make that case, and economic studies—including those by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)—indicate that the benefits of the Biden infrastructure plan won’t outweigh the cost to the economy of the tax increases. As I wrote about last year when presidential candidates were discussing infrastructure spending, CBO determined in a June 2016 report, The Macroeconomic and Budgetary Effects of Federal Investment, that: Federal investments deliver only half the economic returns as private sector investments, 5 percent versus 10 percent. A dollar of federal spending results in only $0.67 worth of actual investment because state, local, and private sector entities reduce their spending in response to the federal dollars. Federal investment financed by debt or taxes could do more economic harm than good because federal borrowing and taxes crowd out private investment. To avoid harming the economy, federal investments should be financed by cuts in other discretionary programs. Let’s review these points one by one. Returns to federal investment are only half the returns to private investment CBO reviewed the academic literature on the economic returns to public investments and found that they are relatively modest and about half the returns to private investments. “CBO estimates that the average rate of return on private sector investment is currently about 10 percent—that is, that a $1 increase in private investment, all else being equal, increases output by 10 cents over a year. As a result, the average rate of return on federal investment in the illustrative policies examined in this report is about 5 percent.” In other words, a $100 million federal investment would increase GDP by $5 million, whereas the same private investment would boost GDP by $10 million. Moreover, “In CBO’s view, returns on federal investment accrue more slowly than returns on private investment do, on average. That is because most private-sector investment is for physical capital, whereas the majority of federal nondefense investment—56 percent from 1985 through 2012—is for education and R&D.” So if lawmakers are looking for policies to boost the economy quickly, they should aim to incentivize private investments, not launch new federal projects. This would mean preventing research and development (R&D) expenses to be amortized, as is scheduled to happen in 2022, and preventing full expensing of capital investments to begin phasing out after 2025. $1 of federal investment spending nets only $0.67 of actual investment CBO’s analysis of the economic literature found that federal investment spending tended to crowd out or disincentivize investment by states, localities, and private entities, which dampens the effect of federal investment. The net effect is “that $1 increase in federal investment reduces investment by states, localities, and private entities by one-third of a dollar.” In other words, when the federal government invests $1, nonfederal sources reduce their investment by $0.33, which leaves a net investment of $0.67, not the full $1. In a separate analysis of federal highway spending, CBO found, “For an increase of $1 in federal grants, most estimates suggest, state and local governments would reduce spending on highways from their own funds by between $0.20 and $0.80.” How you finance federal investment matters There are three basic ways of covering the cost of federal investment: increased borrowing, raising taxes, or reducing other spending in the budget. CBO finds that the only option that does not lead to negative economic consequences is to offset the cost of investment by reducing other noninvestment discretionary spending in the federal budget. The Biden administration has chosen the most economically harmful method of financing infrastructure spending. CBO modeled two investment scenarios funded through increased federal borrowing. The first scenario illustrated a onetime $100 billion increase in federal investment, and the second scenario illustrated a 10-year, $500 billion investment program paid out in $50 billion annual increments. In both scenarios, the federal investment did increase productivity. However, following an initial boost to GDP, the long-term economic benefits of both investment plans were swamped by the negative effects of the federal borrowing needed to fund the investment. Over the long term, the $100 billion plan resulted in a very small increase in GDP while the $500 billion plan actually reduced the level of GDP because of the harmful economic impact of the federal borrowing. By contrast, CBO modeled two identical scenarios but with the assumption that the cost of the new federal investment was offset by cuts in other discretionary spending. Each of these scenarios led to sustained productivity and economic growth because the investment was not encumbered by the higher federal borrowing. Moreover, the higher levels of productivity and economic output resulted in a smaller federal deficit. With regard to taxpayer financing, CBO determined that “if an increase in federal investment was financed by an increase in marginal tax rates…people’s after-tax wages would fall, reducing their incentive to work—and thus reducing labor supply and output.” In a more recent CBO study of large infrastructure spending financed by either a labor tax, a flat tax on all income (both labor and capital income), or a progressive tax on all income, CBO found that to varying degrees, these taxes would result in “declines in the supply of capital and labor and, therefore, in GDP and private consumption.” For example, a flat income tax sufficient enough to finance a 5 percent increase in spending would reduce GDP in 2030 by 3.0 percent, the capital stock by 5.8 percent, labor supply by 0.9 percent, and the after-tax wage rate by 11.3 percent. CBO determined that the long-term consequences of such policies would most impact the next generation of Americans. CBO’s overlapping generations tax model determined that younger Americans would see the biggest declines in their lifetime consumption, or standard of living. For example, it found that a flat income tax large enough to fund a 5 percent increase in spending would reduce the lifetime consumption of Americans born from 1980 to 1999 by 9.1 percent and those born from 2000 to 2019 by 11.6 percent. By contrast, baby boomers would see a drop in lifetime consumption of only 0.6 percent. Of course, Biden’s “Made in America Tax Plan” is much more narrowly focused on corporate taxes than CBO modeled, and since the corporate income tax is the most harmful for economic growth, the economic consequences could be much more severe than what these results show. When Tax Foundation economists modeled a stylized package of infrastructure spending financed by an increase in the corporate tax rate, the result was economic growth would drop. In other words, the economic harm of the corporate rate hike alone was enough to overwhelm the benefits of the new infrastructure spending. (Tax Foundation economists are currently updating this 2017 study.) Conclusion The Biden administration is making a big bet that the economic benefits of $2 trillion in “one-time” government infrastructure spending will outweigh the economic harm of permanently taking $2 trillion out of the private sector. Based on CBO’s assessment of the economic and budgetary effects of federal investment, there is no reason to believe that the economy will be better off with such a trade. Since CBO found that $1 of government infrastructure spending nets just $0.67 of actual investment, Biden’s $2 trillion worth of spending will likely net roughly $1.3 trillion in actual investment, one-third less than the headline amount. And since $1 in government investment delivers only half of the returns of $1 in private investment, the economy would be better off if the $2 trillion in taxes that President Biden wants to finance his package were left in the hands of the private sector. The economics is clear: If Biden wants to maximize the economic benefits of his $2 trillion in new infrastructure spending, he should cut $2 trillion in other (wasteful) government spending to pay for it.Econ decline doesn’t cause warWalt 20 [(Stephen, Stephen M. Walt is a columnist at Foreign Policy and the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.) “Will a Global Depression Trigger Another World War?”, Foreign Policy, 2020/05/13, ] TDIOn balance, however, I do not think that even the extraordinary economic conditions we are witnessing today are going to have much impact on the likelihood of war. Why? First of all, if depressions were a powerful cause of war, there would be a lot more of the latter. To take one example, the United States has suffered 40 or more recessions since the country was founded, yet it has fought perhaps 20 interstate wars, most of them unrelated to the state of the economy. To paraphrase the economist Paul Samuelson’s famous quip about the stock market, if recessions were a powerful cause of war, they would have predicted “nine out of the last five (or fewer).” Second, states do not start wars unless they believe they will win a quick and relatively cheap victory. As John Mearsheimer showed in his classic book Conventional Deterrence, national leaders avoid war when they are convinced it will be long, bloody, costly, and uncertain. To choose war, political leaders have to convince themselves they can either win a quick, cheap, and decisive victory or achieve some limited objective at low cost. Europe went to war in 1914 with each side believing it would win a rapid and easy victory, and Nazi Germany developed the strategy of blitzkrieg in order to subdue its foes as quickly and cheaply as possible. Iraq attacked Iran in 1980 because Saddam believed the Islamic Republic was in disarray and would be easy to defeat, and George W. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003 convinced the war would be short, successful, and pay for itself. The fact that each of these leaders miscalculated badly does not alter the main point: No matter what a country’s economic condition might be, its leaders will not go to war unless they think they can do so quickly, cheaply, and with a reasonable probability of success. Third, and most important, the primary motivation for most wars is the desire for security, not economic gain. For this reason, the odds of war increase when states believe the long-term balance of power may be shifting against them, when they are convinced that adversaries are unalterably hostile and cannot be accommodated, and when they are confident they can reverse the unfavorable trends and establish a secure position if they act now. The historian A.J.P. Taylor once observed that “every war between Great Powers [between 1848 and 1918] … started as a preventive war, not as a war of conquest,” and that remains true of most wars fought since then. The bottom line: Economic conditions (i.e., a depression) may affect the broader political environment in which decisions for war or peace are made, but they are only one factor among many and rarely the most significant. Even if the COVID-19 pandemic has large, lasting, and negative effects on the world economy—as seems quite likely—it is not likely to affect the probability of war very much, especially in the short term. To be sure, I can’t rule out another powerful cause of war—stupidity—especially when it is so much in evidence in some quarters these days. So there is no guarantee that we won’t see misguided leaders stumbling into another foolish bloodletting. But given that it’s hard to find any rays of sunshine at this particular moment in history, I’m going to hope I’m right about this one.---OtherEcon high and resilientCox 3-2-2021, economics analyst @ CNBC (Jeff, “10% GDP growth? The U.S. economy is on fire, and is about to get stoked even more,” CNBC, )The U.S. economy has roared back to life in 2021, with first-quarter growth set to defy even the rosiest expectations as another fresh influx of cash looms. Manufacturing data Monday showed the sector at its highest growth level since August 2018. That report from the Institute for Supply Management in turn helped confirm the notion among economists that output to start the year is far better than the low single-digit growth many had been predicting in late 2020. The Atlanta Federal Reserve, which tracks data in real time to estimate changes in gross domestic product, now is indicating a 10% gain for the first three months of the year. The GDPNow tool generally is volatile early in the quarter then becomes more accurate as the data rolls in through the period. That comes on the heels of a report Friday showing that personal income surged 10% in January, thanks largely to $600 stimulus checks from the government. Household wealth increased nearly $2 trillion for the month while spending rose just 2.4%, or $340.9 billion. Those numbers, along with a burst of nearly $4 trillion in savings, pointed to an economy not only growing powerfully but also one that is poised to continue that path through the year. “The V-shaped recovery in real GDP will remain V-shaped during the first half of this year and probably through the end of the year,” Ed Yardeni of Yardeni Research wrote in his daily note Tuesday. “However, it will no longer be a ‘recovery’ beyond Q1 because real GDP will have fully recovered during the current quarter. Thereafter, GDP will be in an ‘expansion’ in record-high territory.”Infrastructure not keyDitch 3-18-2021 (David, “Democrats Ready to Railroad Huge Infrastructure Boondoggle,” Heritage, )Since rhetoric in support of the infrastructure package will revolve around universally beloved buzzwords such as “jobs” and “schools,” it’s important to understand the problems with what is being proposed. First, big spending comes with a big cost. Whether that cost takes the form of tax hikes, adding to the national debt, or both, that must be taken seriously rather than blithely dismissed. Second, federal infrastructure spending has a terrible track record when it comes to creating jobs. Further, unemployment has fallen rapidly from where it was last spring, and the federal government is on course to spend more than $45,000 per household on COVID-19 relief and stimulus. The idea that America needs yet more spending to stimulate the economy has no basis in reality. Third, the proposal goes against many key principles that have served America well since its founding. State and local governments tend to have responsibility for infrastructure projects that are local in nature, such as water lines and construction work at public schools. ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download