1NC Shell .com



1NC Shell1NC ShellObama will win nowSilver, 6/7 (Nate, chief pollster for New York Times’ 538 election polling center. Regarded as top-level pollster based on distinct mathematical models)The first look at the 2012 FiveThirtyEight presidential forecast has Barack Obama as a very slight favorite to win re-election. But his advantage equates to only a two-point lead in the national popular vote, and the edge could easily swing to Mitt Romney on the basis of further bad economic news. Mr. Obama remains slightly ahead of Mr. Romney in most national polls, and he has had a somewhat clearer advantage in polling conducted at the state level. Mr. Obama would be about 80 percent likely to win an election held today, according to the model. However, the outlook for the Nov. 6 election is much less certain, with Mr. Obama having winning odds of just over 60 percent. The forecast currently calls for Mr. Obama to win roughly 290 electoral votes, but outcomes ranging everywhere from about 160 to 390 electoral votes are plausible, given the long lead time until the election and the amount of news that could occur between now and then. Both polls and economic indicators are a pretty rough guide five months before an election.Plan is political suicide – perception of wasteful spending and lack of public supportOrski ‘12Ken Orski is editor and publisher of Innovation NewsBriefs, an influential and widely read transportation newsletter, now in its 20th year of publication. Orski has worked professionally in the field of transportation for close to 40 years. He served as Associate Administrator of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration under President Nixon and President Ford. He is a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard College and holds a J.D. degree from Harvard Law School. NewGeography – 02/05/2012 – the resources to keep transportation infrastructure in good order is a more difficult challenge. Unlike traditional utilities, roads and bridges have no rate payers to fall back on. Politicians and the public seem to attach a low priority to fixing aging transportation infrastructure and this translates into a lack of support for raising fuel taxes or imposing tolls. Investment in infrastructure did not even make the top ten list of public priorities in the latest Pew Research Center survey of domestic concerns. Calls by two congressionally mandated commissions to vastly increase transportation infrastructure spending have gone ignored. So have repeated pleas by advocacy groups such as Building America’s Future, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the University of Virginia’s Miller Center. Nor has the need to increase federal spending on infrastructure come up in the numerous policy debates held by the Republican presidential candidates. Even President Obama seems to have lost his former fervor for this issue. In his last State-of-the-Union message he made only a perfunctory reference to "rebuilding roads and bridges." High-speed rail and an infrastructure bank, two of the President’s past favorites, were not even mentioned. Why pleas to increase infrastructure funding fall on deaf ears There are various theories why appeals to increase infrastructure spending do not resonate with the public. One widely held view is that people simply do not trust the federal government to spend their tax dollars wisely. As proof, evidence is cited that a great majority of state and local transportation ballot measures do get passed, because voters know precisely where their tax money is going. No doubt there is much truth to that. Indeed, thanks to local funding initiatives and the use of tolling, state transportation agencies are becoming increasingly more self-reliant and less dependent on federal funding Another explanation, and one that I find highly plausible, has been offered by Charles Lane, editorial writer for the Washington Post. Wrote Lane in an October 31, 2011 Washington Post column, "How come my family and I traveled thousands of miles on both the east and west coast last summer without actually seeing any crumbling roads or airports? On the whole, the highways and byways were clean, safe and did not remind me of the Third World countries. ... Should I believe the pundits or my own eyes?" asked Lane ("The U.S. infrastructure argument that crumbles upon examination"). Along with Lane, I think the American public is skeptical about alarmist claims of "crumbling infrastructure" because they see no evidence of it around them. State DOTs and transit authorities take great pride in maintaining their systems in good condition and, by and large, they succeed in doing a good job of it. Potholes are rare, transit buses and trains seldom break down, and collapsing bridges, happily, are few and far between. Even tiny shifts matter – our link is low threshold and linearSilver, 12 (Nate, 5/15, chief pollster for New York Times’ 538 election polling center. Regarded as top-level pollster based on distinct mathematical models)The last thing to remember is that when an election is quite close, it does not take very much to shift the race from one candidate being a 60/40 favorite to it being about even. At the betting market Intrade, Mr. Obama’s odds of re-election have consistently been around 60 percent. While, on the one hand, it is good not to overreact to new data at this early stage of the race, it is also worth remembering that even a one-point shift in a president’s approval ratings, or a modest change in the economic forecasts, can move a president’s re-election odds at the margin.GOP wins makes strikes against Iran inevitableDilek 9-20-11 (Emine, addicting info, “All Republican Candidates Favor War with Iran” )Prepare yourself my fellow Americans. If you elect a Republican President in the 2012 elections, more than likely we will be at war with Iran before his or her Presidency is over. In a disturbing HYPERLINK "" \o "GOP and Iran" \t "_blank" new article written by Trita Parsi, a columnist for , he expertly connects the dots on which single foreign policy issue is uniting all GOP candidates: Iran. He writes that when it comes to Arab Spring and all other foreign policy issues, GOP candidates are all over the place. But when it is about Iran, they all agree; USA must be tougher. Parsi asserts that “Republicans will present a narrative that diplomacy was tried and failed, sanctions are tough but insufficient, and the only remaining option is some form of military action. As the memory of the Iraq invasion slowly fades away, Republican strategists calculate, the American public will return to rewarding toughness over wisdom at the ballot boxes.” Although I agree with Parsi’s claim that Iran is the only foreign policy matter that unites all GOP candidates, I do not believe the memory of Iraq invasion is slowly fading. Contrary to his assertion, I believe Americans are fed up with the unending wars. As more information flows through the independent media about the staggering costs of war, uncontrollable waste by the military contractors and Pentagon, devastating number of human lives lost, their direct effect on American economy and psyche is becoming more palpable. The Obama administration has proven effectively when and how intervention needs to be pursued when it comes to rogue States. We have successfully eliminated bin Laden with a Navy SEAL team and ousted Qaddafi in a few months, with minimum casualties and cost by collaborating with NATO. The administration has the astuteness and the capability of understanding the intricacies of the diplomacy and international relations. Maybe it is about time the GOP wakes up to the new realities of the 21st Century foreign policy making and learn that being a ‘hawk’ is not always the right answer to every international challenge. Iran strikes causes multiple scenarios for nuclear war, CBW use and terrorist attacks.Russell -09 (James A. Russell, managing editor of Strategic Insights, the quarterly ejournal published by the Center for Contemporary Conflict at the Naval Postgraduate School, Spring 2009, Strategic Stability Reconsidered: Prospects for Escalation and Nuclear War in the Middle East, Security Studies Center)Iran’s response to what would initially start as a sustained stand-off bombardment (Desert Fox Heavy) could take a number of different forms that might lead to escalation by the United States and Israel, surrounding states, and non-state actors. Once the strikes commenced, it is difficult to imagine Iran remaining in a Saddam-like quiescent mode and hunkering down to wait out the attacks. Iranian leaders have unequivocally stated that any attack on its nuclear sites will result in a wider war81 – a war that could involve regional states on both sides as well as non-state actors like Hamas and Hezbollah. While a wider regional war need not lead to escalation and nuclear use by either Israel or the United States, wartime circumstances and domestic political pressures could combine to shape decision-making in ways that present nuclear use as an option to achieve military and political objectives. For both the United States and Israel, Iranian or proxy use of chemical, biological or radiological weapons represent the most serious potential escalation triggers. For Israel, a sustained conventional bombardment of its urban centers by Hezbollah rockets in Southern Lebanon could also trigger an escalation spiral. Assessing relative probability of these scenarios is very difficult and beyond the scope of this article. Some scenarios for Iranian responses that could lead to escalation by the United States and Israel are: Terrorist-type asymmetric attacks on either the U.S. or Israeli homelands by Iran or its proxies using either conventional or unconventional (chemical, biological, or radiological) weapons. Escalation is more likely in response to the use of unconventional weapons in populated urban centers. The potential for use of nuclear retaliation against terrorist type attacks is problematic, unless of course the sponsoring country takes official responsibility for them, which seems highly unlikely. Asymmetric attacks by Iran or its proxies using unconventional weapons against U.S. military facilities in Iraq and the Gulf States (Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar); ? Long-range missile strikes by Iran attacking Israel and/or U.S. facilities in Iraq and the Gulf States: ? Conventional missile strikes in and around the Israeli reactor at Dimona ? Airbursts of chemical or radiological agents in Israeli urban areas; ? Missile strikes using non-conventional weapons against US Gulf facilities such as Al Udeid in Qatar, Al Dhafra Air Base in the UAE, and the 5th Fleet Headquarters in Manama, Bahrain. Under all scenarios involving chemical/biological attacks on its forces, the United States has historically retained the right to respond with all means at its disposal even if the attacks come from a non-nuclear weapons state.82 ? The involvement of non-state actors as part of ongoing hostilities between Iran, the United States, and Israel in which Hezbollah and/or Hamas became engaged presents an added dimension for conflict escalation. While tactically allied with Iran and each other, these groups have divergent interests and objectives that could affect their involvement (or non-involvement in a wider regional war) – particularly in ways that might prompt escalation by Israel and the United States. Hezbollah is widely believed to have stored thousands of short range Iranian-supplied rockets in southern Lebanon. Attacking Israel in successive fusillades of missiles over time could lead to domestic political demands on the Israeli military to immediately stop these external attacks – a mission that might require a wide area-denial capability provided by nuclear weapons and their associated PSI overpressures, particularly if its conventional ground operations in Gaza prove in the mid- to longterms as indecisive or strategic ambiguous as its 2006 operations in Lebanon. ? Another source of uncertainty is the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – referred to here as “quasi-state” actor. The IRGC manages the regime’s nuclear, chemical and missile programs and is responsible for “extraterritorial” operations outside Iran. The IRGC is considered as instrument of the state and reports directly to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. So far, the IRGC has apparently refrained from providing unconventional weapons to its surrogates. The IRGC also, however arms and funds various Shiite paramilitary groups in Iraq and Lebanon that have interests and objectives that may or may not directly reflect those of the Iranian supreme leader. Actions of these groups in a wartime environment are another source of strategic uncertainty that could shape crisis decision-making in unhelpful ways. ? The most likely regional state to be drawn into a conflict on Iran’s side in a wider regional war is Syria, which is widely reported to have well developed missile and chemical warfare programs. Direct Syrian military involvement in an Israeli-U.S./Iranian war taking the form of missile strikes or chemical attacks on Israel could serve as another escalation trigger in a nuclear-use scenario, in particular if chemical or bio-chem weapons are used by the Syrians, technically crossing the WMD-chasm and triggering a retaliatory strike using any category of WMD including nuclear weapons. ? The last – and perhaps most disturbing – of these near-term scenarios is the possible use by Iran of nuclear weapons in the event of conventional strikes by the United States and Israel. This scenario is built on the assumption of a U.S. and/or Israeli intelligence failure to detect Iranian possession of a nuclear device that had either been covertly built or acquired from another source. It is possible to foresee an Iranian “demonstration” use of a nuclear weapon in such a scenario in an attempt to stop an Israeli/U.S. conventional bombardment. A darker scenario would be a direct nuclear attack by Iran on Israel, also precipitated by conventional strikes, inducing a “use them or lose them” response. In turn, such a nuclear strike would almost certainly prompt an Israeli and U.S. massive response – a potential “Armageddon” scenario.UniquenessObama WinObama Wins – Laundry ListObama wins now- swing states, Latinos, and womenLiptak, CNN Associate Producer, 6/27(Kevin, 6/27/12, CNN, Poll: Obama has edge in three battlegrounds, , Accessed 7/7/12, Azimi)(CNN) – Polls released Wednesday showed President Barack Obama narrowly edging his Republican rival Mitt Romney in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio – three battlegrounds that went for Obama in 2008 but will be toss ups in November.The polls from Quinnipiac University showed Obama with a razor-thin four point advantage in Florida, 45%-41%. That was within the poll's 2.8% sampling error. In Pennsylvania, Obama's led Romney 45%-39%, and in Ohio, the Democratic incumbent was ahead 47%-38%."President Barack Obama has decent margins over Gov. Mitt Romney in Ohio and Pennsylvania and a smaller advantage in Florida. If he can keep those leads in all three of these key swing states through election day he would be virtually assured of re-election," Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, wrote in a statement accompanying the poll's release.In Florida, Obama's small advantage is bolstered by strong backing from Florida Latinos, who support Obama over Romney 56%-32%.Ohio, which the CNN Map rates a "Toss Up," also showed a marked gender gap on presidential preference. Men were split, with 45% backing Obama and 42% backing Romney. Women, however, were more likely to back Obama, with 50% saying the support the president and 35% backing Romney.Obama wins now- multiple reasonsMorici, U.S International Trade Commission Chief Economist, 7/9(Peter, CNBC, 7/9/12, Obama Wins, Even With High Unemployment: Morici, , ACCESSED 7/9/12, AZIMI)Unemployment hangs stubbornly above 8 percent. Yet, defying election history, President Obama would handily win a second term if voters went to the polls ernor Romney has not capitalized on the stagnant economy, because after sewing up the GOP nomination, he failed to move quickly on issues critical to key demographic groups, and act on the challenger’s imperative to offer a better alternative to the President’s policies.No surprise! President Obama leads Governor Romney in Florida—a must win state for any Republican candidate, along with Texas, given the Democrat’s lock on California and New York. And the President enjoys a significant lead among women in battleground states.Voters recognize President Obama inherited a bigger mess than any president since FDR, managed to stabilize the economy and created more than 3.6 million jobs since the recovery began in October 2009.At Bain Capital, Governor Romney earned his fortune reorganizing troubled companies—often shutting facilities, outsourcing jobs and firing employees.The President leads Governor Romney in the polls in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, andWisconsin.Obama Win- LatinosObama wins now- Latino Marinucci, San Francisco Chronicle's senior political writer, 6/25(Carla, 6/25/12, SAN FRANSISCO CHRONICLE, Immigration ruling may fire up Obama's Latino base, , Accessed 7/7/12, Azimi)The Supreme Court decision Monday upholding the "show me your papers" provision of Arizona's controversial immigration law could have an unintended effect - firing up Latino voters and immigrant advocacy groups who make up a key part of President Obama's base, political observers say."In a very cynical way, it's the best of all worlds for Obama," Michael Yaki, the former San Francisco supervisor who sits on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, said Monday. "It takes away a position that (Mitt) Romney has been bandying - that laws like this are constitutional."That, coupled with Obama's executive order on deportation earlier this month "is a one-two punch" for Republican attempts to woo Latino voters, Yaki said, referring to Obama's order, which allows undocumented immigrants under age 30 to apply for a two-year stay from deportation if they have attended high school or college and have no criminal record. "It's not good news for them in swing states like Nevada and Colorado," Yaki said.Obama wins now- Latino Ramsey, Arizona Public New Service producer, 7/2(Doug, ARIZONA PUBLIC NEWS SERVICE, 7/2/12, Poll Shows Democrats Lead Growing Among Latino Voters, , Accessed 7/7/12, Azimi)PHOENIX - President Obama has received a bump in support from Latino voters as a result of recent events. That's one finding of a new poll taken in five potential battleground states, including Arizona. The poll also found Arizona Latinos putting immigration above the economy as the issue they most want Congress and the President to address. The poll, carried out by Latino Decisions and America's Voice, gives President Obama a 74-to-18 percent lead over Mitt Romney among Latino voters in Arizona. A strong majority of those polled say they are more enthusiastic about supporting the President because of his decision to protect DREAM Act students from deportation, and less enthusiastic about Romney because of his previous support for so-called "self-deportation.""These are those battleground states where Mitt Romney's previous statements on immigration, and Latino voters' concerns about those statements, could make the difference."Obama wins now- young votersGersten, Money morning assoc. editor, 7/5/12 (Ben money morning, 7/5/12, Election 2012: Battling for the Youth Vote, , Accessed: 7/7/12, Azimi)Face it Republicans, President Obama is just more "hip" to younger people than Romney.Just as everyone -- Democrats included -- would have rather had a beer with George W. Bush than Al Gore or John Kerry, President Obama comes off as the "cooler candidate." This image has been helped by appearances on Jimmy Fallon's late night talk show, singing at the Apollo, and numerous ESPN interviews.Another factor helping President Obama is his popularity in social media, a key way to reach younger voters. The president's Twitter feed has 17 million followers - compared with 590,000 for Romney's. His Facebook page has 27 million subscribers; Romney's has 2 million.The social media influence on Election 2012, however, is still not as powerful as policies that the nation's youth overwhelmingly support.President Obama has championed a freeze on the interest rate for federally subsidized student loans, endorsed gay marriage, and has allowed roughly 6.6 million Americans 26 and under to stay on their parents' healthcare under Obamacare.Obama Win- IndependentsObama wins now- Independents Burns, POLITICO writer, 6/19(Alexander, 6/19/12, POLTICO, Poll: Independents like immigration move, , ACCESSED 7/9/12, Azimi)Bloomberg News is out this morning with a poll confirming that the Obama administration's new policy on deportation isn't just a winner with Latinos; voters in general approve, including a big majority of independents. Lisa Lerer:President Barack Obama is winning the opening round in the battle over immigration, according to a Bloomberg poll released today, putting Republicans on the defensive with his decision to end the deportations of some illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children,Sixty-four percent of likely voters surveyed after Obama’s June 15 announcement said they agreed with the policy, while 30 percent said they disagreed. Independents backed the decision by better than a two-to-one margin. ...A majority -- 56 percent -- of likely Republican voters opposed the decision, while almost nine in 10, or 86 percent, of Democrats supported it. Sixty-six percent of independents backed the policy change, while 26 percent disagreed.Romney, the presumed Republican presidential nominee, has refused to say whether he would reverse the decision if he’s elected.The poll goes a long way toward explaining why the Obama team seems to be on offense this week for the first time in a couple weeks. It's hard to imagine that Romney's current posture on the issue could last all the way to November, or even past this week, given that he's slated to address the National Association of Latino Elected Officials on Thursday.Obama Win- Swing StatesObama wins because of Romney lack of commitment in PennsylvaniaHanna and Rohrer Let Freedom Ring USA President and House Representative of Pennsylvania, 7/5/12(Colin and Sam, 7/5/12, Pittsburg Post Gazette, Pennsylvania may undo Obama, , Accessed: 7/7/12, Azimi)The Obama-Biden campaign bus tour rolling through Pennsylvania this week, about four months before Election Day, illustrates that the road to re-election runs through the Keystone State.Many political analysts believe that President Barack Obama cannot win without Pennsylvania, so it would seem self-evident that the state should get considerable attention from both campaigns in the upcoming election. Instead, Pennsylvania has been downgraded by some pundits and may have been dropped from the list of top-priority swing states by the Romney campaign.We believe that's a mistake, and that Pennsylvania instead is poised to become the Ohio or Florida of 2012 -- the battlefield that decides the outcome of the presidential race.A recently released Quinni- piac poll found Mr. Obama leading by a comfortable 6 points in a head-to-head matchup in Pennsylvania, while also showing that he has only a 46 percent job-approval rating. That's in the danger zone for any president seeking re-election, and the fact that it's exactly the same number as his support base suggests that he may not have much upward room in which to move.Obama wins –Florida and OhioCassidy, New Yorker Writer, 7/3(John, 7/3/12, NEW YORKER, In Close Race, Obama’s Plan B Is Paying Off, , ACCESSED: 7/9/12, AZIMI) A survey by Quinnipiac University of voters in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania showed Obama ahead in all three states—by four points, nine points, and six points, respectively. If Obama wins all three states in November, he will be virtually assured of victory. Even if he wins two out of three, he will be very well placed.In Florida in particular, Obama’s recent gambit on immigration policy appears to be paying off. Among Hispanic voters, his lead over Romney has increased from ten points before the immigration announcement to twenty-four points, according to the Quinnipiac poll. This surge in Hispanic support is enough to give Obama a four-point lead in the head-to-head matchup, despite the fact that his approval rating among Floridians as a whole (forty seven per cent) is still lower than his disapproval rating (forty nine per cent).In Ohio, meanwhile, which is a must-win state for Romney, Obama’s hefty lead is based on his strong support among women, blacks, and independents. According to Quinnipiac, the gender gap is a stunning fifteen points. Among female voters, Obama leads Romney fifty per cent to thirty-five per cent. He is also doing a good job of attracting support from independents, where he leads by nine points. These are alarming figures for Romney. If he loses Ohio, the electoral-college math becomes forbidding. Obama’s support among Ohio women and independents is so strong that it almost makes up for his chronic weakness among white men, which has always been his biggest vulnerability. Among white voters of both sexes, he is now trailing Romney by just four points: forty-five per cent to forty-one per cent.Obama Win- Electorates Obama wins now- assumes the electoral outlookWalter, ABC’s Political Director, 7/6/12Amy, 7/6/12, ABC NEWS, ABC’s Latest Electoral College Estimates: Obama Vulnerable in Midwest, But Still Leading Overall, , Accessed: 7/7/12, Azimi)Overall, however, President Obama leads Mitt Romney in the race to the 270 Electoral Votes needed to capture the White House. We list 247 electoral votes as either “leaning” or “solid” for Obama, compared to 191 for Romney.Of the 100 electoral votes that we consider toss-ups, over half (57) are from fast-growing states that are demographically diverse — such as Nevada, Colorado, Virginia and North Carolina. That should help Obama, who continues to poll well among Latino and African-American voters. Of those toss-ups, North Carolina will be the toughest for Obama to hold, while Colorado and Virginia will probably be the toughest for Romney to pick up.Obama Win- Approval RateObama win now- approval ratingWitt, Examiner Political writer, 6/26(Ryan, EXAMINER, 6/26/12, President Obama’s job approval goes up in latest polls, , ACCESSED 7/9/12, Azimi)President Obama’s job approval rating is back into positive territory according to an average of the most recent polls. The uptick in support for the President can be attributed to the release of a Bloomberg poll last week, as well as a slight increase in support for the President in the Rasmussen Reports and Gallup tracking polls.A Real Clear Politics average of six polls from the last two weeks currently has 48.2% of Americans approving of the President’s handling of his job, compared to 47.8% who disapprove. In last week’s update President Obama’s approval rating was at 47.3%, compared to 48.6% who disapproved.Obama Win- Misc.Obama wins now- Third party takes Romney’s votesSherfinski, Washington Times staff writer, 7/8(David, WASHINGTON TIMES, 7/8/12, Goode’s third-party run: Bad news for Romney in Virginia?, , accessed: 7/9/12, Azimi)Former Virginia Rep. Virgil H. Goode Jr.’s bid for the White House as the Constitution Party’s nominee could help resuscitate a political career cut short by a razor-thin loss in 2008 — but it also carries the risk of tipping the scales toward President Obama in the all-important swing state.The latest Real Clear Politics average of polls has Mr. Obama with a two-point lead in the state over Mr. Romney — 47 percent to 45 percent. But figures released in May by the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling raised the eyebrows of many poll-watchers and pundits.Mr. Obama topped Mr. Romney by eight points in Virginia, 51 percent to 43 percent, in the PPP poll. If Mr. Goode was on the ballot, however, Mr. Obama’s lead over Mr. Romney increased to 12 points, at 50 percent to 38 percent, with Mr. Goode taking 5 percent of the vote.“There is clearly an opening for a third-party challenge on Romney’s right,” said Stephen Farnsworth, a political-science professor at the University of Mary Washington. “In Southside Virginia, [Goode is] a living institution. The problem for the Goode campaign is, he’s not that well-known outside his old congressional district, much less outside Virginia.Obama wins now- advertisementCillizza, Washington Post Political Blogger, 7/9/12(Chris, WASHINGTON POST, 7/9/12, President Obama’s massive swing state spending edge, , Accessed 7/9/12, Azimi)President Obama has spent more than $91 million on television ads in eight swing states as of July 6, a massive sum that dwarfs the $23 million former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has disbursed on campaign commercials in those same places. Only heavy spending by Republican super PACs is keeping Romney within financial shouting distance of the incumbent on television at this point.The data, which was provided to the Fix by a Republican media buyer, paints a fascinating picture of Obama’s overwhelming ad advantage in each of the states — Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Virginia — where both campaigns are spending.The spending disparity between the campaigns is particularly pronounced in three of the swingiest states: Florida, Ohio and Virginia.In Florida, Obama has spent $17 million on TV ads as compared to $2 million for Romney. In Ohio, it’s $22 million for Obama to $6.5 million for Romney; and in Virginia, Obama has spent $11 million on TV ads to less than $3 million for Romney.Obama wins now- advertisementLevy, Talking Points Memo writer, 7/8(Pema, TALKING POINTS MEMO, 7/8/12, New Poll Shows Obama’s Ads Having Greater Influence In Battleground States, , ACCESSED 7/9/12, Azimi)In the new poll of voters in 12 battleground states — where the dozens of campaign ads are running — one out of 12 voters said that they had changed their minds about the candidates. Among that small number of voters, a whopping 76 percent now support President Obama while just 16 percent now prefer Romney.Romney WinRomney wins - FundraisingRomney wins now-FundraisingSiddiqui, Huffington Post Political Reporter, 7/9/12(Sabrina, HUFFINGTON POST, 7/9/12, Mitt Romney, RNC Raise $106.1 Million In June, , 7/9/12, Azimi)Mitt Romney, the Romney Victory Fund and the Republican National Committee raised $106.1 million in June, according to the Romney campaign. Together, they have approximately $160 million in cash on hand.The final amount was announced on Monday, after reports surfaced last week indicating that the Romney campaign and RNC had surpassed $100 million for June -- their highest total yet this cycle.The amount is almost $30 million higher than what the Romney campaign and the RNC raised in May. The Romney campaign also said that 94 percent of donations were $250 or less, but those donations only represented $22.3 million out of the total haul.President Barack Obama's reelection campaign has not yet announced its fundraising total for June, but it has repeatedly cautioned that Obama will not succeed in November if he is significantly outspent by his opponent.Obama Losing now- FundraisingEggan and Farnam, Washington Post staff writers, 7/9(Dan and T.W, 7/9/12, WASHINGTON POST, Romney outpaces Obama in June fundraising, , 7/9/12, Azimi)President Obama has fallen behind Republican Mitt Romney in monthly fundraising totals and may now be the underdog in the 2012 money race, given the juggernaut he faces of conservative groups with unlimited contributions at their disposal.The trend has set off at least a mild sense of panic at the Obama campaign, which warned donors on Monday: “We will get beat if this continues.“We had our best fundraising month yet, and we still fell about $35 million short,” Ann Marie Habershaw, the Obama campaign’s chief operating officer, wrote in a fundraising plea to supporters. “We can win while being outspent — but we need to keep it close.”GOP wins now- voter turnout strategy and fundraisingArmao, Global Grind Staff Writer, 7/6/12(Anthony, 7/6/12, GLOBAL GRIND, Yes, He Can! Romney CAN Beat Obama In The Presidential Race: Here's How! (LIST), , ACCESSED 7/9/12, Azimi)The Republican Party always has the advantage in gaining donations from rich corporations and businesses, as shown by Donald Trump's support of Romney above. With the aid of Super PAC's, and an effective money-raising strategy, Romney can use this to his advantage.At this point, nearly all voters have decided who they will vote for. The real battle is using the campaign funds to communicate to the people, getting them to vote. Democrats have been great with their get-out-the-vote operation. However; the Republicans showed in Wisconsin that they too have an impressive voter turnout strategy. Romney win- Swing StatesRomney wins now- Florida and North CarolinaArmao, Global Grind Staff Writer, 7/6/12(Anthony, 7/6/12, GLOBAL GRIND, Yes, He Can! Romney CAN Beat Obama In The Presidential Race: Here's How! (LIST), , ACCESSED 7/9/12, Azimi)Florida and North Carolina are two of the biggest swing states necessary to win a presidential election. Romney has tremendous strength in the South and many sources say these two key states will swing in Romney's favor in the end.Obama Lose- Econ.Obama lose now- economyArmao, Global Grind Staff Writer, 7/6/12(Anthony, 7/6/12, GLOBAL GRIND, Yes, He Can! Romney CAN Beat Obama In The Presidential Race: Here's How! (LIST), , ACCESSED 7/9/12, Azimi)According to the Washington Post, Romney has an advantage by a large margin, of 58 to 32 percent, for white voters that are financially struggling or have lost their jobs. These are middle-class whites struggling to maintain their financial position that believe that Romney will do more to help their families' economic interests.This, combined with Obama potentially losing minority voters, could be extremely harmful to the Obama campaign.Romney win - Laundry listRomney has lead now- multiple warrantsDinan, staff writer for Washington times, 7/9/12(Stephen, 7/9/12, WASHINGTON TIMES, Obama loses ground to Romney in key measures of poll, , ACCESSED: 7/9/12, Azimi)Mitt Romney continues to hold a whisker-thin 1-percentage-point lead over President Obama in a head-to-head election match-up, but the former Massachusetts governor is eating into the president’s air of inevitability, according to the latest The Washington Times/JZ Analytics poll released Monday night.The poll found Mr. Romney leading 43 percent to 42 percent - about the same margin as the poll in May, but Mr. Obama slipped on several key measures, including fewer voters who say they expect him to win, and fewer who say they are voting for him because he’s the best candidate.Voters, who by a small margin say they agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding health care, still seem in a mood to punish Mr. Obama for it - particularly among independents. The poll found 45 percent of self-identified independents said they are less likely to support the president now after the ruling, compared with 20 percent who said the ruling made them more likely to back him.Romney wins now- healthcare, fundraising, unions, young votersStowell, Utah university teacher, Kosovo public affiars specialist, 6/13(Rich, 6/13/12, , accessed on 7/9/12, EW)WASHINGTON, 14 June, 2012 — President Obama has not made a huge blunder in a few days, so the news has been relatively slow.Nevertheless, several themes have emerged, clarifying themselves as of late.In no particular order:1. Mitt Romney and HealthcareIt seems that Mitt Romney is in the best position of all to argue the healthcare issue, no matter how the Supreme Court rules later this month on Obamacare. The conventional wisdom on the right is that the Affordable Care Act will be overturned, a wisdom that is bolstered by worry on the left.If the Supremes declare it unconstitutional in whole or in part, Romney is in a comfortable positions, since he can fairly say that such was his argument all along. The Republican nominee-to-be will certainly make hay out of it, claiming that the law represented an overreach of the federal government, and that he would never test the limits of federal power the way Obama has.You can believe it or not, but that's what he'll say, which is consistent with what he has been saying for the past three years.Perhaps the Court will let the law stand, in which case Romney can make the argument that he, among all prominent politicians, is in the best position to craft a replacement to the overwhelmingly unpopular law, since he enacted a state version of a similar variety. Among independents, Romney will come off as pragmatic, since he was able to develop a bipartisan solution in his own, liberal state.2. Money and Political WinsMoney signals enthusiasm in elections. Democrats are convulsing about the amount of money spent on Gov. Scott Walker's behalf, trying desperately to cast their looming defeats as natural features of a newly sinister Citizens United landscape.Hogwash.The concept of money operating as political speech has a long tradition in American politics, and the Roberts Court rightly restored the freedom to contribute dollars to all associations, including corporations and unions.That Wisconsin Democrats were unable to raise as much as Walker's allies says a lot about why they are complaining, and even more about their viability. Money flows to winners, not as an access point to influence, but as a way to show support. "Put your money where your mouth is" means exactly that. Democrats didn't.In that light, monetary contributions are an indicator of enthusiasm for a particular candidate or cause.Recall that candidate Obama rejected public financing four years ago, eventually raking in $750 million as compared to the $84 million that his rival took in through the public system. In justifying his decision to break an earlier promise, Obama declared "independence from a broken system," and pledged to "run the type of campaign that reflects the grassroots values that have already changed our politics and brought us this far." In other words, then-Senator Obama preferred to allow individuals to speak through their small-dollar contributions.He was right then. But he's wrong now about large-dollar contributors (though he has no problem taking in big money from wealthy Hollywood donors). If a wealthy individual is particularly enthusiastic about a candidate, she should be free to express that enthusiasm with a larger contribution. Again, put your money where your mouth is. Some people have big mouths, others have big wallets.Perhaps Democrats are just a little bitter that their candidates, including the president, aren't bringing in the kind of money that they did in 2008.3. The Decline of the Unions and Other Unpopular PositionsUnions aren't that popular. In fact, most of what Obama supports isn't popular. If Scott Walker's re-win is any indication (and it is), then public approval of unions is on the decline, and particularly of unions of government workers.It is fine that the president supports something that is unsupported by a majority of Americans. President Bush, for example, stood by the virtue of the Iraq War until the bitter end, even when public opinion had gone underwater. But President Obama is on the losing side of many big issues: his healthcare bill, oil drilling, fracking, the Keystone pipeline, taxes, the deficit, another stimulus, and gay marriage, to name a few.Again, perhaps he has taken principled stands on all these issues, though it seems like a remarkably misfortunate coincidence that he is, on nearly every major issue, out of sync with the electorate that he hopes will grant him another term in a few months.4. Obama loses the Youth VoteYoung people won't deliver for Obama in 2012. First, those who showed up for him last time are four years older now. With age comes different voting patterns, at least on the margins. Others will have wised up, or maybe they have become disengaged or disenchanted.More importantly, their replacements (the new young) have come of age in a terrible economic time, and are a lot less likely than their forebears to be enraptured by the thought of an Obama presidency.5. Campaigns at OddsIt has become political dogma that the 2012 election will be a nail biter, coming down to a few states. How does anybody know? Bill Kristol asked just such a question several weeks ago. It might not be close. Romney might open up a healthy lead and run away with it.Sean Trende of Real Clear Politics has made the point that if Romney can build a significant, but not implausible, lead over Obama in national polls, then states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Colorado, and Wisconsin will go into play. Under that scenario, Romney could accumulate up to 320 electoral votes or more, making it a rout.One thing is certain: if Obama wins, it will be close. Nobody is suggesting that the president can come remotely close to replicating his 2008 victory map. For Romney, however, it is wide open.Romney win - HealthcareRomney win now- Healthcare fired up GOP baseArmao, Global Grind Staff Writer, 7/6/12(Anthony, 7/6/12, GLOBAL GRIND, Yes, He Can! Romney CAN Beat Obama In The Presidential Race: Here's How! (LIST), , ACCESSED 7/9/12, Azimi)One thing that ObamaCare has done is made nearly every American positive about who they will vote for in November. This piece of legislation is extremely polarizing, and has divided the American people as Obama or bust, or Romney or bust. Additionally, the new health care law has fired up all Republicans to do everything and anything possible in order to be able to repeal the health care law. To sum up, there are very few undecided voters due to ObamaCare. Those that were moderates on either side now will most likely not shift to vote for the other side. And the Obama campaign is dealing with a much more formidable Republican opposition than 2008's McCain-Palin team that did not have nearly as much on the line.Lastly, Romney will continue to blame Obama for not doing enough to get the economy on track. The struggling economy has spread all around the world, including Europe, so this obviously cannot be at the fault of Obama. Nonetheless, Romney will use the struggling economy as a tool to bash Obama. Once again, a President has never been re-elected in a severely struggling economic state.Obama loses now- healthcareBartlett, former Joint Economic Committee of Congress, 7/6(Bruce, Staff Director, former Reagan White House senior policy analyst, former Treasury Department deputy assistant secretary, Columnist for Forbes Magazine, Creators Syndicate, The Fiscal Times, 7/6/12, , accessed on 7/8/12, EW)Now that a divided Supreme Court has ruled that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional, it appears that it will be implemented on schedule. The cost, however, has been considerable—politically, constitutionally, and economically.To begin with, we must recall the circumstances of 2009, when health reform was first put on the table. An economic stimulus package had been enacted in February, but the economy was still very weak, suffering negative growth for the year.We now know two things about Barack Obama’s economic policy his first year in office. First, the economy was in far worse shape than the administration’s public economic forecast projected. Below is the unemployment forecast published on January 9, 2009. As one can see, in a worst-case scenario where no action was taken to stimulate the economy, the national unemployment rate was expected to peak at 9 percent. With stimulus, it was only expected to peak at 8 percent.In fact, even with the stimulus unemployment reached 10 percent in October 2009 and was 9 percent or better throughout the Obama administration until October 2011. Republicans assert that this is proof that the stimulus failed; better we should have done nothing, as they proposed. The truth is that the stimulus was too small and improperly designed to cope with the problems it was designed to address. Obama’s economists favored a stimulus package twice as large as the $780 billion program that was enacted based on a forecast that was much too optimistic. Had the severity of the downturn been anticipated properly, they might well have advocated a stimulus package twice as large as that—4 times greater than the one enacted.At the time, I was concerned that the stimulus was inadequate, but it was clear that nothing larger than $780 billion was going to pass the Senate. However, I was certain that if the economy worsened that additional stimulus could be enacted through the normal appropriations process.This is where I think health reform imposed a heavy cost. By turning his attention away from the economy and pivoting toward health, Obama did two things. First, he gave the impression, valid or not, that he was not very focused on the economy. Second, he lost the opportunity to enact additional stimulus.The White House line is that additional stimulus was a nonstarter. But that is because Obama didn’t press the issue. If he had been focused monomaniacally on the economy—talking about it daily, pressing his advisers for better forecasts and better ideas, and demanding swifter actions from the departments and agencies—I think the political situation might have been very different and more stimulus might have been possible.At a minimum, being far more focused on the economy would have helped Obama politically. Even when there is nothing he can do, people need to know that their president cares and is giving them his best. That is why Franklin D. Roosevelt’s popularity rose during his first term and he won easy reelection in 1936 despite a continuation of the Great Depression.Intentionally or not, the shift toward health gave the impression that Obama was not sufficiently focused on the economy. And knowing how precious the president’s time is, I believe he was deprived of briefings from his economic advisors and missed opportunities to speak out on the economy and other ways that he could have if he hadn’t been preoccupied with health reform.Romney Win Now-LatinoObama lose now- lack of minority support.Armao, Global Grind Staff Writer, 7/6/12(Anthony, 7/6/12, GLOBAL GRIND, Yes, He Can! Romney CAN Beat Obama In The Presidential Race: Here's How! (LIST), , ACCESSED 7/9/12, Azimi)A key factor determining Obama's chances of re-election will be the minority voter turnout - particularly the Hispanics - because Obama is nearly certain to inspire a strong black voter turnout.However; the poor economy has forced many low-income families to move, and this group is heavily disproportionately represented by minorities. Changing addresses means these people must re-register to vote, and there is no guarantee that everyone possible will do so in order to bring Obama the same support he had in the 2008 election.Romney win- IndependentsRomney wins- IndependentsSchwabs, Examiner Writer, 7/8(Charles L. Schwawbs Jr., 7/8/12, EXAMINER, Obama's poll numbers reflect a growing weakness with independents, , Accessed 7/9/12, Azimi)Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is leading Barack Obama by a healthy overall margin with independents. Those surprising poll numbers come from none other than “formerly” liberal CNN last week.Among independents Romney is in a virtual tie with the president on their most important issue - the economy. It should be noted the poll was conducted days before the latest dismal economic numbers were released by the labor department last Friday.Obama lose now independentsGandelman, Moderate Voice Editor and Chief, 6/16(Joe, 6/16/12, MODERATE VOICE, Obama could lose independent voters this time, , ACCESSED: 7/9/12, Azimi)Yet another bad piece of emerging news for President Barack Obama: many analysts are now concluded there is a real chance he could lose indpendendent voters this time — which would mean losing the ball game. Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift looks at a Colorado focus group set up by a respected columnist and finds many of them have given up on the idea of political “hope” and concluded Obama doesn’t deliver:How tough an uphill climb does President Obama face with independent voters?If the findings of a focus group conducted this week are any indication, a steep one indeed.Nine of the 12 people gathered in Denver on Tuesday voted for Obama in ’08, but only three lean toward him at this point. They are a cross-section of America, working in real estate, health care, IT, and sales, and they’re torn between a president whose performance they say has been underwhelming and who doesn’t deserve reelection, and a challenger they know very little about beyond the fact that he’s a rich and successful businessman.Internal LinksJobs KeyJobs top priority for votersZeiler, Money Morning Associate Editor, 6-27-12(David, Money Morning, “Election 2012: President Obama at the Mercy of U.S. Economy,” , accessed 7-7-12, KGH)One thing that's clear from the polls is that voters consider economic issues by far the most important in the Election 2012 race.In the Pew poll, jobs was named the top concern by 35% of the respondents. Coming in second was the federal budget deficit at 23%. Healthcare was third (19%), Social Security fourth (11%) and immigration fifth (5%). Voters also hold a very bleak view of the overall U.S. economy. In a recent Associated Press-Gfk poll, two out of three described the economy as "poor." That should be an opportunity for both candidates to win votes by selling their visions to fix the economy. Admittedly that's a bit more of a challenge for an incumbent president who has struggled to do just that for more than three years. But as a Republican, Romney is saddled with the legacy of President George W. Bush, under whom the economic crisis began. What's more, after years of partisan bickering and inaction in Washington, many Americans are skeptical either man can fix the U.S. economy."I think we are on the wrong track," Doss Comer, an independent voter who lives in Jacksonville, NC, told the Associated Press. "We're not getting anywhere. We're not growing. The unemployment rate just spiked up again."But he went on: "I don't trust Romney because of what he's doing. He's telling his business experience, that he was an investor in business. ... I don't think he has the right background any more than Obama."Unemployment key in swing statesCBS, second largest television broadcaster, 6-10-12(CBS, “Florida’s Jobless Rate to Impact Obama’s Re-Election Campaign,” , accessed 7-7-12, KGH)The nation’s unemployment rate of 8.2 percent may sink President Barack Obama’s re-election bid, but one detail brightens his hopes. About 10 battleground states will decide the election, and seven of them have employment levels that beat the U.S. average.That doesn’t guarantee a second term, of course. But it’s a reminder that the national rate, from a purely political standpoint, is not necessarily the be-all, end-all statistic.Florida’s unemployment rate has dropped steadily for nearly a year, but at 8.7 percent still tops the national average. North Carolina’s rate is even worse, and Nevada has the highest, 11.7 percent.If Obama were to carry all the competitive states where the employment rate is brighter than the national average — New Hampshire, Iowa, Virginia, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Colorado — he would win re-election handily. But if he loses the battleground states where the rate now exceeds 7 percent, an oft-cited threshold that may mean nothing, Romney would prevail because he would take Ohio, Pennsylvania and Colorado, plus Florida, North Carolina and Nevada.Jobs foundational issueSweet, Chicago Sun-Times Bureau Chief, 6-2-12(Lynn, Sun Times, “Obama’s job: Creating jobs before November election,” , accessed 7-10-12, KGH)If there are more jobs in each of the next five months, Obama's chances of re-election improve. One member of the Obama re-election team told me Friday that if not for the slow job growth, the election would not be as close as it is.Obama is on the defensive when it comes to jobs.What's new here in the discussion of jobs and the 2012 election are the very real possibilities that the European economy will implode before November -- at the same time that China's growth is slowing down. The European and Asia markets have an enormous impact on the U.S. economy.What's not new is Obama blaming the Republican Congress for blocking many of his jobs initiatives -- though they did agree on extending a payroll tax cut and patent reform and seem headed toward a deal on a highway infrastructure bill.Jobs, as they say in politics, are a "foundational" issue.The slow recovery is why Romney has been pounding Obama on jobs for months. That's why the job message is emphasized in the handful of battleground states -- many with high unemployment -- where the November election will be decided.Jobs key for Obama’s popularityEuronews, international news channel, 6-7-12(Euronews, “Weak jobs numbers overshadow US election,” , accessed 7-7-12, KGH)In what is bad news for President Barack Obama’s re-election chances in November, US employers hired at a dismal pace in June creating just 80,000 jobs, fewer than forecast.The numbers fuel concerns that Europe’s debt crisis is hitting the US economy and increased the pressure on the central bank, the Federal Reserve, to do more.Job creation during the month was not enough to bring down the country’s lofty 8.2 percent unemployment rate.That total has been above 8.0 percent since February 2009, but that is partly accounted for by more people joining the labour force and looking for jobs.The so-called underemployment rate also rose. That is part-time workers who would prefer to work full-time and those who want a job but have given up looking.The White House has acknowledged that economic weakness outside the United States is a major factor in things like jobs growth which will dominate debate and November’s presidential election between Obama and Republican Mitt Romney.Euronews Washington correspondent Stefan Grobe said: “It seems that for the rest of the election campaign the first Friday of every month is going to be unkind to Barack Obama.“The headlines will likely be negative for the president surrounding the unemployment rate – if it stays the same or worsens.“The White House fears it will compound the desire for a change among a sour electorate.”Economy KeyElections dependent on economyZeiler, Money Morning Associate Editor, 6-27-12(David, Money Morning, “Election 2012: President Obama at the Mercy of U.S. Economy,” , accessed 7-7-12, KGH)U.S. President Barack Obama's chances for re-election in 2012 are increasingly tied to the fate of the U.S. economy, poll results show.Meanwhile, presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney hasn't gotten as much benefit from the weak economy as one would expect - a sign of his inability to connect with voters.The past month has not been kind to the U.S. economy - or President Obama's standing in the polls.The barrage of bad news has included:An uptick in unemployment from 8.1% to 8.2%;A 700-plus point drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average since May 1;A reduction in the U.S. Federal Reserve 2012 economic growth forecast by half a percentage point;And a deflating Labor Department announcement that just 69,000 jobs were created in May."The economy is going through a rough patch, and that more than anything is going to determine President Obama's future," said Ipsos pollster Chris Jackson in comments on a Reuters/Ipsos poll taken in early June. "People's unhappiness with the economy carries over pretty directly to the president's numbers, and we see those weakening."In that poll, President Obama's job approval rating slipped from 50% in May to 47%, and those saying the country is on the wrong track jumped 6 points to 68%. Meanwhile, Romney gained 6 percentage points in the head-to-head matchup, making the Election 2012 race a statistical dead heat (Obama 45%, Romney 44%).Although President Obama's argument that he inherited economic problems too severe to fix in three years resonates with his liberal base, the moderates and independents likely to decide who sits in the Oval Office next year aren't so sure.In that Reuters poll, the president's approval rating among independent voters plunged from 48% to 35%. And that was just over one month."Independents are especially susceptible to economic pressures, which is why we see them bouncing all over the place in their approval of the president," Jackson said. "The finding that he is not doing that well with them this month is something for Obama to worry about."Election 2012: Romney's ConundrumBut the polls show Romney has reason to worry as well. Given the sorry state of the U.S. economy, one would expect Mitt Romney to be leading the president. Yet Romney remains an underdog in the Election 2012 race.For one thing, voters simply like President Obama better than Romney. A June poll by the Pew Research Center showed that only 41% of voters view Romney favorably, compared to 50% for President Obama. And when asked who better connects with ordinary Americans, 59% pick the president; just 28% pick Romney.In fact, voters rank President Obama well ahead of Romney in categories ranging from "Good judgment in a crisis" to "Willing to take an unpopular stand." Romney only prevails when voters are asked who would do a better job of improving the economy (see chart). That means if the U.S. economy starts to show any signs of life before November, voters will likely stick with President Obama.And while a tanking economy could deliver the White House to Romney, a safer plan would be to figure out how to better connect with voters.Otherwise, Romney's strategy hinges on using the lousy economy as a political truncheon, which plays right into the "insensitive rich guy" image that Romney needs to shed.That's a dicey proposition. Already last week Democrats were accusing Romney of "rooting" for bad economic news.Economic conditions heavily influence electionsKurtz, economist, 7-2-12(Walter, Pragmatic Capitalism, “How the U.S. Economy will Impact the Presidential Election,” , accessed 7-7-12, KGH)It’s “the economy, stupid” were the words used by James Carville, Bill Clinton’s campaign strategist. The strategy allowed the Clinton campaign to take advantage of the post-Gulf-War recession to defeat George Bush Sr. The question remains whether the current difficult economic conditions will deliver the same outcome for President Obama.Here are some interesting data compiled by Credit Suisse that looks at previous incumbent presidents running for their second term. In each case the comparison is made between specific economic indicators during a president’s tenure and the votes the incumbent was able to win in the general elections. Let’s look at the good, the bad, and the ugly of the US economic indicators during the past 4 years and what those indicators were for the previous incumbents.1. The good: both US inflation gauge and the change in the unemployment rate will work to President’s advantage.2. The bad: consumer sentiment (University of Michigan expectations) and the level of unemployment rate puts Mr. Obama with the losing group of incumbents.3. The ugly: the average GDP growth makes the past period truly stand out.Clearly this and other indicators are not necessarily the result of who was in the White House in the past four years (though there is some lively debate about that). But what this tells us is that there is a significant relationship between economic conditions and the incumbent’s ability to win the second term. That’s why there is a correlation between the equity markets and Obama’s odds on Intrade for example. The state of the economy in the next few months will likely decide the next US president.Presidents held responsible for economyPerry, Brookings Institute Senior Fellow, 12(George, 2-27-12, Brookings Institute, “The Economy and the Election,” , accessed 7-7-12, KGH)"It's the economy, stupid" became the rallying cry for the Clinton campaign of 1992. Now, 20 years later, Republicans are hoping the economy will help unseat another incumbent and bring them the White House. Whether fairly or not, by the time they are seeking reelection, the public holds sitting presidents responsible for the state of the economy. And while other things matter — war and peace, divisive social issues, and the personality of the candidates all come to mind — the economy is arguably the one thing that persistently matters in these elections.In the postwar period, incumbent presidents have run for reelection 10 times, winning 7 and losing 3. The winners all had strong job markets going for them. Dwight Eisenhower in 1956, Lyndon Johnson in 1964, Bill Clinton in 1996 and George W. Bush in 2004 all ran with both full employment and low inflation, and all won easily. Unemployment was still around 7.5 percent when Ronald Reagan ran in 1984. But job gains were rapid and unemployment was falling from a recession high of 11 percent. When Harry Truman ran in 1948, the economy was experiencing a postwar boom led by the backlog of demand for housing and autos, but was also buffeted by organized labor unrest and inflation driven by rapid wage increases. Truman won a close election. Richard Nixon in 1972 had a strong recovery and an inflation problem that he suppressed with price controls until after the election. He won in a landslide. The three losers all confronted economic issues. In 1976, Gerald Ford ran with a stubbornly high rate of inflation inherited from the post-price control Nixon years and the first OPEC oil price shock. The economy was recovering from recession but unemployment was still high. In 1980, Jimmy Carter stood for re-election with even more rapid inflation, fueled by the second OPEC oil price shock, and with a sharply higher unemployment rate, which stemmed from policies to reduce that inflation. He lost in a landslide. George H.W. Bush ran during the first "jobless recovery" of the postwar period. Employment was up by barely one percent in the year leading up to the election, and the unemployment rate stood at 7.5 percent, its worst level of the mild 1991-1992 downturn.How does today's election year economy compare with these 10 earlier ones involving incumbents? There is no inflation on the horizon. But the excesses that led to the Great Recession also held back the expansion that followed. The overbuilding during the housing boom was so great that the typical cyclical recovery in housing could not take hold. Consumer demand was constrained by the need to unwind credit excesses and by the huge loss of stock market and real estate wealth that took place. And the loss of revenues from the very deep recession forced states and municipalities to cut spending and employment.But over the past several months, the drag from some of these sources has eased and the expansion is now quickening on several fronts. Despite continuing oversupply in many local markets, housing activity finally began to move up during the second half of last year, with new housing starts in recent months 10 to 15 percent above year ago levels. New car sales have also been rising in recent months, to an annual sales rate around 14 million units. In both these sectors, activity is still far below levels that will return with full prosperity and, judging from the behavior of investors, substantial higher activity levels are expected. Over the first several weeks of the year, when the Dow Jones average rose 6 percent, ETFs for the shares of homebuilders rose 20 percent and Ford and GM shares rose by an average of about 25 percent.Rising demand will need support from rising jobs and incomes, and recent data show that is coming. Over the past 6 months, employment gains have quickened and total hours worked have risen at a four percent annual rate. Government employment, which had declined steadily last year, stopped falling in January. The unemployment rate, which peaked at 10 percent in late 2009 and was still 9 percent through most of last year, dropped steadily over the past four months, reaching 8.3 percent in January. Barring bad surprises, it is likely to be between 7.5 and 8 percent by election day.For the past couple of years, the crisis in the Euro zone has been a caveat to any forecast of the U.S. economy. Today that risk is diminished, but uncertainty over the world oil market, with Iran again at the center of the problem, has risen in its place. A disruption of supplies would drive up prices and slow the US recovery both by cutting auto sales, especially sales of larger domestically produced vehicles, and by siphoning off purchasing power more generally.While some damage to the expansion now seems likely, it may be contained, especially if Saudi Arabia makes up some of the supply loss. And an early resolution of the crisis might even produce a favorable outcome. Prices have already firmed, anticipating reduced supplies from Iran. If the crisis is now resolved without supply disruptions, prices will retreat.Where does this range of economic prospects place the 2012 election relative to the 10 previous contests involving incumbents? A year ago, the closest comparison was with the Bush election of 1992. But now it's looking different. In the Bush-Clinton election, unemployment was actually drifting up to its peak of 7.5 percent. Barring a sustained rise in oil prices, unemployment will still be high, but falling from its peak of 10 percent. That more nearly resembles Reagan's situation in 1984, though without the very strong employment gains of that year. If the Iran crisis is resolved without disruption -- an outcome the President would get some credit for -- and oil prices fall, a stronger expansion becomes more likely. That economy would clearly favor the incumbentEconomy determining factor for electionsCook, political analyst, 12(Charlie, 5-14-12,Cook Political Report, “Changing Times,” , accessed 7-9-12, KGH)It’s unlikely that same-sex marriage is going to push the economy out of the dominant role in this election. Indeed, short of a major international incident, it is unlikely that any other issue will displace the economic ones. But gay marriage was the most discussed issue last week. The most remarkable thing was not President Obama’s announcement that he would embrace same-sex marriage, even if it wasn’t exactly premeditated. Instead, it was a memo from a very prominent and well-respected Republican pollster suggesting that his party should treat the issue with considerably more caution than it has in the past.Economy key determining issueCook, political analyst, 12(Charlie, 4-26-12, Cook Political Report, “One-Track minds,” , accessed 7-9-12, KGH)All of these findings reinforce the view that the economy will be a very important factor in the election, regardless of whether it improves or just bumps along. Obama badly needs the country’s economic performance over the next six months to validate his policies and decisions. If the overall economy improves, job creation increases, and consumer confidence goes up, those markers will serve as validation. If the economy is bouncing along, with growth at a subdued level and unemployment still at or above 8 percent—not the 9 percent of a year ago, but hardly in the 7.2-to-7.4 percent range that boosted President Reagan’s 1984 reelection fortunes after the 1982 recession—the public will be in no mood to validate Obama’s policies and decisions.Gallup’s most recent polling suggests that Obama has received a bit of a boost from the decline in gasoline prices; his approval rating bumped up to 50 percent in three consecutive days of Gallup’s three-day moving averages. The bump shows just how volatile public attitudes are, particularly when important economic issues are involved. That volatility isn’t likely to change between now and Election Day. The economy will determine this election.Economy key election voteAgiesta and Kuhnhenn, Associated Press Director of Polling, Associated Press White House Correspondant, 6-21-12(Jennifer and Jim, onpolitix, “Poll: Obama, Romney even,” , accessed 7-10-12, KGH)Three months of declining job creation have left the public increasingly glum, with only 3 out of 10 adults saying the country is headed in the right direction. Five months before the election, the economy remains Obama's top liability.Obama has lost the narrow lead he held just a month ago among registered voters. In the new poll, 47 percent say they will vote for the president and 44 percent for Romney, a difference that is not statistically significant. The poll also shows that Romney has recovered well from a bruising Republican primary, with more of his supporters saying they are certain to vote for him now.Still, in a measure of Romney's own vulnerabilities, even some voters who say they support Romney believe the president will still be re-elected. Of all adults polled, 56 percent believe Obama will win a second term.With his Republican nomination now ensured, Romney has succeeded in unifying the party behind him and in maintaining a singular focus on making the election a referendum on Obama's handling of the economy. The poll is not good news for the president, and it reflects fluctuations in the economy, which has shown both strength and weakness since it began to recover from the recent recession. The new survey illustrates how an ideologically divided country and a stumbling recovery have driven the two men into a tight match.About half — 49 percent — approve of how Obama is handling his job as president, dropping him below the 50 percent mark he was above in May. Disapproval of Obama is highest — 55 percent — for his handling of the economy. Still, registered voters are split virtually evenly on whether Romney or Obama would do a better job improving it."I'm not going to vote for Obama," said Raymond Back, a 60-year-old manufacturing plant manager from North Olmsted, Ohio, one of the most competitive states in this election. "It's just the wrong thing to do. I don't know what Romney is going to do, but this isn't the right way."Obama's overall 49 percent approval rating is not unlike the approval ratings George W. Bush faced in June 2004 during his re-election campaign, when he and his Democratic challenger, John Kerry, were also locked in a dead heat.The polling numbers come as no surprise to either camp. Both Romney and Obama advisers have anticipated a close contest that will be driven largely by economic conditions. The Obama camp is busy trying to define Romney, hoping it is reaching more independents like Doss Comer, 58, of Jacksonville, N.C., who said he would vote for Obama again, despite the lagging economy."I think we are on the wrong track," he said. "We're not getting anywhere. We're not growing. The unemployment rate just spiked up again." But, he added: "I don't trust Romney because of what he's doing. He's telling his business experience, that he was an investor in business. ... I don't think he has the right background any more than Obama."Deficit Reduction/Fiscal Discipline KeySpending drives voters to republicans- 2010 provesBoskin, Stanford Professor of economics, 12(Michael, 2-3-12, Taipei Times, “US presidential election offers radically different choices,” , accessed 7-9-12, KGH)Successful political candidates try to implement the proposals on which they ran. US President Barack Obama and the Democrats, controlling the US House of Representatives and (a filibuster-proof) US Senate, had the power to do virtually anything they wanted in 2009 — and so they did.Obama and his congressional allies enacted an US$800 billion “stimulus” bill that was loaded with programs geared to key Democratic constituencies, such as environmentalists and public employees; adopted a sweeping and highly unpopular healthcare reform (whose constitutionality will be determined by the US Supreme Court this year); imposed vast new regulations on wide swaths of the economy; embraced an industrial policy that selects certain companies for special treatment; engaged in borrowing and spending at levels exceeded only in World War II; and centralized power in Washington (and, within the federal government, in the executive branch and -regulatory agencies).The last election that was followed by such a sweeping change in policy direction occurred in 1980, when then-US president Ronald Reagan overhauled taxes, spending and regulation, and supported the US Federal Reserve’s course of disinflation.While the 1988, 1992 and 2000 elections were also quite consequential, the policy shifts were not nearly as large as in 1980 and 2008.The country rebelled against Obama and the Democrats’ lurch to the left with historic Congressional election victories for Republicans in 2010.Deficit concern rising as top priorityPew, non-profit think tank focused on public opinion polling, 12(1-23-12, Pew Research Center, “Public Priorities: Deficit Rising, Terrorism Slipping,” accessed 7-9-12, KGH)Concern about the nation’s budget deficit, on the other hand, has been increasing in recent years. Currently, 69% say reducing the deficit is a top priority. In January 2009, only about half (53%) rated this as a top priority. The proportion citing the deficit as a top priority is now on par with the number that said this in December 1994 (65%), during Bill Clinton’s second year in office.Reducing the deficit or paying off the national debt became less of a priority in the late 1990s as the nation – and the federal government – benefited from a strong economy. Concern was also modest in the early years of the Bush administration, especially in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. But concern about deficits has increased steadily since 2009.Deficit priority votersKohut, Pew research center president, 6-14-12(Andrew, 6-14-12, Pew Research Center, “Debt and Deficit: A Public Opinion Dilemma,” , accessed 7-9-12, KGH)The issue of the debt and the deficit – and what to do about it – has paralyzed Washington lawmakers. But when it comes to measures for reducing the deficit on which they might reach common ground, they will get little help in building support for an agreement by turning to public opinion. In my years of polling, there has never been an issue such as the deficit on which there has been such a consensus among the public about its importance – and such a lack of agreement about acceptable solutions. When the public was asked in March to volunteer the most important problem facing the nation, only unemployment and the economy were cited more often. The deficit has also risen in importance in the public mind when Americans are asked at the beginning of each year what they believe to be the top national priorities for the president and the Congress. The Pew Research Center began measuring national priorities in 1997. Jobs, education, Social Security, Medicare and the budget deficit were at the top of the list then just as they are now, in 2012. The deficit had earlier slipped as a priority during the last years of the Clinton administration when the budget was in surplus and following the 9/11 attacks when terrorism rose as a priority. Today, however, the budget deficit stands out as one of the fastest growing priorities for Americans, rising 16 percentage points since 2007 and ranking third with 69% calling it a top priority. Only the economy and jobs, ranking first and second at 86% and 82% respectively, have registered bigger increases over this period – hardly surprising, given the financial meltdown that began in 2008 and whose impact is still being felt today.Independent Voters KeySwing voters key to close electionCook, political analyst, 12 (Charlie, 5-17-12, Cook Political Report, “The Folly of Crowds,” , accessed 7-9-12, KGH)But it’s the 58.8 percent chance of Obama winning that interests me today, because that prediction stands in stark contrast to what most pollsters, Democrats and Republicans alike, whom I talked with privately, believe. The number crunchers who conduct and analyze polls, and others who study these things closely, see a lot of metrics pointing to a very close contest that could go either way. They don’t see an election in which either Obama, or Mitt Romney, is likely to have an almost six-in-10 chance of winning.Take the polls, for example. The averages of all major national polls show the race as extremely close. gives Obama a 1.2-percentage-point lead over Romney, 46.3 percent to 45.1 percent. pegs Obama’s lead at 2 points, 47 percent to 45 percent. Gallup’s seven-day tracking poll puts the president’s lead at 1 point, 46 percent to 45 percent. Undecided voters, particularly, often break away from well-known, well-defined incumbents (the “what you see is what you get” rule for those in office). Does this really translate into a strong advantage for the president?Independents account for 29% of voteCook, political analyst, 12(Charlie, 3-29-12, Cook Political Report, “Young and Restless,” , accessed 7-9-12, KGH)When you look back at Barack Obama’s 7-point victory over John McCain in 2008, think of a four-legged stool. Obama needed each leg to support his candidacy. One leg was independent voters (29 percent of the vote); they chose Obama over McCain by 8 percentage points, 52 percent to 44 percent. The second leg was young voters, ages 18-29 (18 percent of vote); they broke for Obama by 34 percentage points, 66 percent to 32 percent. The third leg was Latinos (9 percent); they favored Obama by 36 points, 67 percent to 31 percent. And, finally, African-Americans (18 percent) backed Obama by 91 percentage points, 95 percent to 4 percent. To win reelection, Obama doesn’t need to match those performances, unless he dramatically underperforms with other demographic groups. But he needs to get relatively close to them to build a sufficient popular-vote cushion to assemble 270 electoral votes.Weak partisans function as independent voters- switch back and forth over timeEberly, St. Mary’s Political Science Professor, 12(Todd, 5-12-12, Change For Politics, “Do independent voters matter?” , accessed 7-9-12, KGH)Are independent voters a myth? That is certainly the conclusion of many who study political science. Research has demonstrated that, when pressed, independent voters often reveal significant partisan preferences: They lean Democratic or lean Republican. When leaners are reclassified and grouped among their partisan peers the share of pure independents in the electorate falls — by some accounts — to less than 10% of the electorate.If the true number of independent voters is less than 10% of the electorate, then independent voters are of little concern. In an age of narrow victory margins in the national popular vote for the presidency and control of the House of Representatives, winning a majority of that 10% can be crucial, but appeals to a party’s partisans would be a more important focus.But what if the number of independent voters is greater than 10%, or even greater than 20%? Suddenly, winning a majority of independent voters becomes more important. In a recent report written for the centrist Democratic organization Third Way, I examined whether or not leaners are indeed independent. For my research, I used the 2000-2004 panel study conducted by the American National Election Studies (ANES). I selected the panel study for a simple reason: It’s one of the few studies available that tracked the same group of voters across multiple elections. That’s important. Most studies of voting and partisanship capture only a snapshot of a point in time and allow researchers to measure partisanship only during a given election cycle.Such snapshots would be fine if partisanship were permanent and not subject to change. That is very much the view of partisanship taken by those who consider independent voters to be a myth. In my research for Third Way, I compared the partisan voting loyalty of Democrats and Republicans by looking at their partisan vote choice across three House elections (2000, 2002 and 2004) compared to their strength of partisanship in 2000. Survey respondents were classified as being strong, weak or independent partisans (leaners). I found that weak and independent partisans are less loyal to party in the short term and especially across time. While roughly 90% of strong partisans voted the party line in 2000, approximately a quarter of weak and independent partisans crossed party lines that year. In 2002 and 2004, strong and weak partisans held steady at roughly 90% and 75% loyalty, but independent partisans were more volatile — especially independent Democrats. In 2002, 46% of those who identified as an independent Democrat in 2000 voted Republican. The share was 38% in 2004. I also found that independent partisans were far more likely to switch their partisan identification over time — so 2000’s independent Democrat could well be 2004’s independent Republican. That’s something a non-panel series could not account for.Independents key to electionMadhani, USA Today staff writer, 12(Aamer, 2-6-12, USA Today, “Can Obama win independent voters in 2012?” munities/theoval/post/2012/02/obama-focus-independents-third-way/1, accessed 7-9-12, KGH)One key to President Obama winning re-election will be capturing a majority of independents as he did in 2008 when 52% of independents voted for him.But a report published this afternoon by Michelle Diggles and Lanae Erickson of the centrist Democratic think tank, Third Way, suggests that the Obama campaign will need to be focused in their approach if they're going to win back those voters in November.The fight for independent voters is already shaping up to be tougher in 2012 than it was four years ago. Democratic registration is down in eight battleground states, while independent registration is up 3.4%, according to a Third Way analysis.Diggles and Erickson contend it would be a mistake to lump all independents together. The independent voters who backed Obama in 2008 are more moderate than independents writ large, and a significant proportion of the president's independent backers showed in the midterm elections that they are truly swing voters."Not all independents are the same, and the real showdown for 2012 is over who will win the Obama independents," Diggles and Erickson write. "If President Obama woos the vast majority of them back, he can be re-elected. But if he performs among them like Democrats did in 2010, when one-quarter of the Obama independents voted for a Republican, it's going to be a long election night."Elections determined by independent voteGilespie, editor in chief of , 12(Nick, 3-14-12, , “Independents Will Decide the 2012 Election,”archives/2012/03/14/independents-will-decide-the-2012-electi, accessed 7-9-12, KGH)A raft of new polls about the presidential race drives home what everyone has always known: This election will turn on independent voters, the ever-growing plurality of Americans who refuse to sign up for Team Red or Team Blue.According to Gallup and based on 20,000 interviews from 20 polls taken throughout 2011, “a record-high 40 percent of Americans identify as Independents.” To put that in perspective, consider that self-identified Democrats roll in at a historic low of 31 percent while just 27 percent of us are willing to admit being Republicans. When the partisan leanings of independents were taken into consideration, Gallup found the nation evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, with each claiming 45 percent of the electorate. How important are independents, especially the 10 percent who don't lean toward Dems or Reps? President Barack Obama’s convincing win over Republican Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) in 2008 was due in large part to his pulling 51 percent of self-identified independents to McCain’s 43 percent. And Republican gains in the 2010 midterms stemmed largely from the GOP getting 55 percent of independent votes versus the Democrats pulling only 39 percent. Take it to the bank: You win any national election if you win the independent vote.Key swing voters torn over economic issuesSink, The Hill staff writer, 6-3-12(Justin, The Hill, “Poll finds independents wary of both Romney, Obama economic plans,” blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/232475-poll-voters-wary-of-both-romney-and-obama-economic-plans, accessed 7-9-12, KGH)The swing-voting independents that are likely the key to November's presidential race are distrustful of both President Obama and presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney's economic plans, according to a poll released Wednesday by ABC News and The Washington Post.More than half of independents surveyed, 54 percent, say they see the president's economic plan negatively, while just 38 percent say they consider Obama's proposals in a positive light. For Romney, 47 percent rate his plans unfavorably, versus 35 percent who rank his proposals positively.While more independents are undecided about Romney's plans, giving the Republican challenger more room to attract support, the former Massachusetts governor is also likely benefiting from the fact that more conservatives identify themselves as independents than do liberals. Among self-described moderates, the president's economic plan is actually favored, 48-46 percent, while Romney's plan shows a 37-47 percent deficit.Suburban independents keyLevy, Newsday editorial board member, 11(Lawrence, 6-10-11, CNN, “Battle for suburban voters is key for 2012,” , accessed 7-10-12, KGH)Since at least 1984, including the last six presidential elections, swing suburban voters have determined which party controls the White House and Congress. And the suburbs should remain politically fickle through next year.Take a recent special election in a congressional district between Buffalo and Rochester, New York, dominated by two large suburban towns."Independents and soft Republicans in the suburbs tilted this election," said Thomas Reynolds, who once ran the Republican House election operations when he occupied the seat. "You can't take these voters for granted here or anywhere. If they don't like what they see or hear, they will leave you in a heartbeat."Reynolds would get no argument from the congressman who currently oversees the Democrats' effort to reverse last year's historic losses, when the GOP picked up 63 seats in a rebuke of the Obama's management of the economy."Consistently, the path to regain the Democratic majority cuts through the 36 suburban areas where 9 million moderate, independent voters live," said Rep. Steve Israel (D-New York), who chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "We lost the majority in 2010 because we lost the independent voters in the suburbs who supported us in 2006 and 2008. And they are coming back to us steadily due to Republican extremism."Popularity KeyApproval ratings predict electionsSilver, New York Times Chief Pollster, 12 (Nate, 5-15-12, The New York Times, “A 30,000-Foot View on the Presidential Race,” , accessed 7-9-12, KGH)We are beginning to see more national surveys now, including this week’s New York Times/CBS News poll, which show Mitt Romney with a slight lead over President Obama in the general election matchup. To be sure, there are also a number of polls that put Mr. Obama slightly ahead. But his lead does seem to have narrowed — from about three or four points in an average of national polls a month or two ago to more like a point or so in surveys today.Has something fundamental changed in the race?Probably not. Instead, I suspect we are seeing some reversion to the mean. It could be that Mr. Obama’s larger lead from before was somewhat ephemeral, although there are a couple of factors that may be working in Mr. Romney’s favor at the margin.Although we are getting to the point where these national polls are at least worth a passing glance, it is still also worth paying attention to Mr. Obama’s approval rating. These have a history of predicting electoral outcomes at least as closely as head-to-head polls in the early stages of the race, especially for incumbent presidents.Mr. Obama’s approval ratings have not moved all that much. For the last month or two, they have been essentially even. Right now, in the RealClearPolitics average, 48.3 percent of Americans approve of the job that Mr. Obama is doing, and 48.6 percent disapprove.A president can get re-elected with numbers like those. Obviously, he can also lose. But the fact that Mr. Obama’s approval ratings are close to even means that it should not be surprising that the numbers in his matchup against Mr. Romney are getting closer to even, too.I am not a purist who says that candidates and campaigns make no difference. That said, the most reliable benchmark in the past of when presidential results deviate from those predicted by approval ratings is when one of the candidates has a relatively “extreme” ideology, like Barry M. Goldwater or George S. McGovern. Mr. Romney does not qualify as an extremist by the various measures we can look at that attempt to quantify this objectively — neither does he qualify as a moderate. Instead, he is a “generic Republican,” who might run fairly close to the outcomes predicted by Mr. Obama’s approval ratings.Mr. Romney also went through a period where his favorability ratings were quite poor. However, they have since improved to about even, possibly because his job has been less complicated since the effective end of the Republican primary campaign. It is not uncommon for favorability ratings to shift over the course of a campaign, particularly once the primaries end.Approval ratings best indicator of electionCook, political analyst, 12(Charlie, 3-29-12, Cook Political Report, “Young and Restless,” , accessed 7-9-12, KGH)Let’s focus for now on just one leg of the stool, the young voters. Visit any college campus today, and you are likely to sense a lack of passion and energy for Obama. It’s far from clear that he can reproduce the unusually strong turnout among younger voters that he sparked in 2008 or match the 66 percent performance level he achieved then. The data back up the doubts. Gallup tracking surveys in January and February recorded Obama’s job-approval rating at 52 percent and 54 percent, respectively, among 18-to-29-year-olds. The polling suggests he would win the majority of the youth vote, but not anything close to 66 percent. As with other key voter groups, Obama’s numbers with young Americans are better than they were last fall, when his approval ratings among that sector were typically in the mid-to-high 40s. The pattern is a common theme across so many voter groups: Obama is doing better, but his gains aren’t enough to put him close to 2008 levels.You may have noticed that I tend to focus on job-approval numbers rather than trial-heat figures from candidate matchups. Historically, when you have a president seeking reelection, the approval ratings for that incumbent are better measures of voter support than the trial-heat figures. When an incumbent is running, the election is usually a referendum on that person rather than a choice between two people.Approval rating determines electionCook, political analyst, 12(Charlie, 4-12-12, Cook Political Report, “Down to the Wire,” , accessed 7-9-12, KGH)When a president runs for reelection, his job-approval ratings are more significant than the trial heats. Voters who approve of the job a president is doing are very likely to vote to reelect him. Voters who disapprove are very likely to support the president’s opponent. Obama’s job ratings have ranged in recent weeks from as low as 44 percent to as high as 50 percent. The RealClearPolitics average and the Huffington Post/ trend estimate show Obama’s approval rating at 48 percent and his disapproval score at 47 percent.Dem Base/Turnout KeyDem turnout key in swing statesTomasky, Special Correspondent Newsweek, 11(Michael, 6-26-11, Newsweek, “Obama’s 2012 Game Plan,” , accessed 7-9-12, KGH)Wake County, N.C.; Arapahoe County, Colo.; Franklin County, Ohio—these are representative base Democratic counties. They are in swing states, which means the president will need a big vote in these places to offset a presumed high conservative turnout in other parts of these states. And they are counties that have only recently become solidly Democratic, because of demographic changes. “Obama’s majorities in these counties are not secure,” says Ruy Teixeira, coauthor of the 2002 book The Emerging Democratic Majority, which predicted the bluing of states like then-red Colorado. “He needs a full-bore mobilization effort in these counties to get his supporters out and develop the margins he needs to carry swing states like Ohio, Colorado, and North Carolina.”Wake County is home to Raleigh, the capital of North Carolina. Bush won it by 7 points in 2000 and then, in a sign that demographics were changing, by just 2 points in 2004 against the Yankee John Kerry. But in 2008 Obama blew it open—a 15-point win, 57–42, and a turnout 80,000 votes higher than in ’04. Since then? Very different story. In 2009 voters installed an aggressive conservative majority on the school board, and in 2010 Republicans took a congressional seat and swept most state and county offices (the GOP won back both statehouses last year).I don’t know a single expert who thinks Obama has a great shot at winning the Tarheel State again. But he wants it badly enough to hold the Democratic convention in Charlotte (Mecklenburg will be another county to watch). Mack Paul, the attorney who chairs the Wake County Democratic Party, believes that population growth has brought in more Democrats since 2008, and he insists, “I hear more anger directed at Democrats who don’t support the president.” His GOP counterpart, Sue Bryant, ventures that her party’s candidate might just carry Wake, but “even if we come within 5 points here, that’s the election in North Carolina.”Mobilizing Dems key to Obama winSeib, Wall Street Journal Reporter, 12(Gerald, 5-22-12, Wall Street Journal, “Energizing the Base a Key to Victory,” , accessed 7-9-12, KGH)President Barack Obama doesn't often dwell on similarities to his predecessor, George W. Bush, but here's one thing they have in common: Mr. Obama's re-election challenge this year is starting to look an awful lot like the one Mr. Bush faced in 2004. President Obama doesn't normally dwell on similarities to his predecessor in the Oval Office, but Jerry Seib explains on The News Hub one area where Mr. Obama and George W. Bush have an awful lot in common. Photo: Getty Images. In fact, the president faces a political situation remarkably like the one his predecessor confronted as he sought re-election. That suggests a similarly close election—and a campaign where the key to victory is likely to turn on ramping up enthusiasm among core supporters. Like Mr. Bush then, Mr. Obama now has proved to be more polarizing than expected. That means lots of voters already are fixed in their views, pro or con, and fewer are available to be persuaded. Both President Bush then and President Obama now have middling job-approval ratings—not terrible, but not great. In late May of 2004, the Bush job approval in Gallup daily tracking polls was 47%. Today, the Obama job approval in Gallup tracking stands at 48%. Both men do better on the personal likability scale. In a March Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, 49% of Americans said they had positive feelings about Mr. Obama, compared with 37% negative. At the same point in 2004, 50% of Americans had positive feelings about Mr. Bush, compared with 41% negative. The similarities even run to their general-election foes. In each case, candidates with Massachusetts roots—Sen. John Kerry in 2004, former Gov. Mitt Romney now—who are respected for their intelligence and experience, but also seen as somewhat stiff, and suspect to some average voters because of family wealth. In 2004, that strategic backdrop produced an agonizingly close election. Mr. Bush won with 51% of the vote. If he hadn't carried the swing state of Ohio by two percentage points, he would have lost in the Electoral College. His victory grew more from success mobilizing core supporters rather than winning over swing voters. In a new election analysis, William Galston of the Brookings Institution notes that re-election campaigns tend to be either "persuasion" elections, where the focus is on winning over swing voters as Bill Clinton did against President George H.W. Bush in 1992, or "mobilization" elections, in which the focus is on getting people already inclined to back a candidate to actually vote. Some campaigns "begin with relatively high levels of undecided 'swing' voters, while others fight over much smaller pools of voters who might change their minds," he writes. "1992 is an example of the former, 2004 of the latter…It appears that 2012 will be more like 2004—a classic mobilization election." That is how Mr. Bush's 2004 campaign prevailed. It used its financial advantages over the Kerry effort to shrewdly generate turnout among core supporters. One campaign consultant developed a "Target Voter Index" that helped aim campaign ads specifically to hit select groups of Republican voters. The Bush campaign itself, meanwhile, developed a "microtargeting" program that combed through voter files to loc ate specific groups of potential supporters, identify which issues were likely to motivate them, and then reach them with tailored campaign messages delivered via mail, phone calls and visits. It all culminated in the so-called "72-Hour Project," a final-days effort to maximize turnout, particularly in suburbs. Meanwhile, an outside group launched a last-minute independent effort to drag down Mr. Kerry with now-famous ads slamming his Vietnam War record as commander of a swift boat. Fast forward to today, and you can see that the Obama campaign faces similar challenges and needs. Given the early signs of a close election, Mr. Obama will need to ramp up turnout among the core groups of backers where he enjoys the strongest support: young voters, Hispanics, African-Americans and suburban white women. But overall, enthusiasm is down from four years ago among Democrats generally, and among young voters in particular.Obama needs to get base unifiedKhan, ABC news staff writer, 12(Huma, 1-9-12, ABC news, “Independent Voters on the Rise but Do They Matter?” abcnews.blogs/politics/2012/01/independent-voters-on-the-rise-but-do-they-matter, accessed 7-9-12, KGH)Still, the key for candidates on both sides of the political aisle this year will be to energize the base and get them to vote, as is evident in the trends on both sides thus far. “The key thing Obama campaign needs to do – not to say they should neglect swing voters – but it’s more important for them to make sure they get their own base unified,” Abramowitz said. “He’s probably not going to do as well with swing voters this time because he’s not going to have George Bush in the White House.” Many in this voting bloc also feel that Obama has failed to live up to his promises of change and hope.GOP Base/Turnout Key Republican turnouts key to election Stanley, Christian Post reporter, 6-8-12(Paul, Christian Post, “Santorum to Mobilize 1M Conservative Voters for November Elections,” , accessed 7-9-12, KGH)"Patriot Voices is committed to promoting faith, family, freedom and opportunity," Santorum said in a news release. "We believe that we're one nation under God and all we do must be consistent with the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. The defeat of Barack Obama and those who support his policies will be our first priority." Most social conservative leaders believe that in order to win in November they must motivate faith-based voters to turn out and vote in record numbers, similar to past election cycles in 1994 and 2000. And just as President Obama's announcement in support of same-sex marriage has engaged the homosexual community and those who support its goal to redefine marriage, Santorum and others such as Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America believe it's critical to rally social conservatives in order to defend life and marriage.Republican voter turnout key to swing statesSherman, Congress Writer for POLITICO, June 16(Romney, June 16, 2012, POLITICO, “Romney and Boehner's embrace,” Lexis Nexis, July 9, 2012, JGC)For Romney, a tighter bond with House Republicans could erase any lingering doubts among the conservative base that he is "one of them" - during the GOP primary, evangelicals and the very conservative largely supported one of his challengers.For example, Boehner and Romney's teams are working with the Republican National Committee to bolster victory centers in battleground districts in an effort centered on boosting voter turnout. The bulk of these efforts are focused in Boehner's Ohio, which is a key state for both Romney and Obama in November. No party has won the White House without winning the Buckeye State since 1960.And Boehner also thinks Romney could help Republicans regain a foothold in the Northeast, where the party is trying to establish a presence.AT: Too SoonVoters decide months before- models proveSides, George Washington University Professor of Political Science, 12(John, 3-12-12, The New York Times, “In Defense of Presidential Forecasting Models,” , accessed 7-9-12, KGH)Third, if we look at the models in a different way, they arguably do a good enough job. Say that you just want to know who is going to win the presidential election, not whether this candidate will get 51 percent or 52 percent of the vote. Of the 58 separate predictions that Nate tabulates, 85 percent of them correctly identified the winner — even though most forecasts were made two months or more before the election and even though few of these forecasts actually incorporated trial heat polls from the campaign.Campaigning now- not too soonBlitzer, CNN Journalist and host of The Situation Room, 12(Wolf, 1-12-12, CNN, “President Obama in full campaign mode,” , accessed 7-9-12, KGH)President Obama is now in full re-election campaign mode. If there was any doubt, just check out the campaign speeches he delivered Wednesday night at three separate fundraising events in Chicago.“I’ve said before, I’m not a perfect man,” he told one Chicago group. “I’m not a perfect president. But I’ve promised you this, and I’ve kept this promise. I will always tell you what I believe. I will always tell you where I stand. I will wake up every single day thinking about how I can make this country better, and I will spend every ounce of energy that I have fighting for you.”The audience, of course, erupted in applause. He inspired them. It was vintage 2008 Barack Obama on the campaign trail.If you need further evidence that he already is way deep in campaigning, just check out the amount of money he’s raised so far, without any Democratic primary challenger. When all the numbers are in on the Republican side, I suspect we will see that Obama raised more money in the last quarter than all the Republican candidates combined.Not too early- empirically provenAbramowitz, Center for politics Senior Columnist, Emory Professor of Political Science, 12(Alan, 5-23-12, Center For Politics, “What Does President Obama’s May Approval Rating Tell Us About His Reelection Chances?” , accessed 7-9-12, KGH)There is little evidence about how indicators like satisfaction with the direction of the country or perceptions of the most important problem facing the nation affect the outcomes of presidential elections. However, there is strong evidence that an incumbent president’s approval rating, even several months before Election Day, has a strong relationship to the eventual outcome of the election.Voters decide nowMalone, Voice of America Reporter, 6-7-12(Jim, Voice of America, “Romney Rising, Obama Slipping,” , accessed 7-9-12, KGH)But few believe that the Democrats can get a repeat of the turnout among young people, especially in 2008, so they have their work out for them in the months ahead.So yes, five months is a long time for the voters to decide. But recent presidential election history shows that many voters begin to make up their minds at this point in the election cycle, and that relatively few minds can be changed between now and Election Day.If it’s true that the cement is beginning to set, the Obama White House may not have a lot of time to change the dynamics of a race that shapes up as a straight up or down vote on how this president has handled the national economy.ImpactsRomney Solves CaseRomney will do plan – he can get GOP on boardDorsey, 12 (Thomas, CEO, Soul of America, 1/25, )In that scenario, Romney is most likely to endorse the new Transportation bill to differentiate himself from Gingrich and Santorum. Despite flip-flopping, Romney remembers that significant Highway, transit and HSR investment and job creation (Boston Big Dig, Boston Transit and more Amtrak NEC) made a positive difference to jobs under his watch. If Romney is the leading GOP candidate by then, it would give air cover for more Congressional GOP to split from the Tea Party on Transportation funding.Obama Solves CaseObama will do plan if he winsLevy, 12 (Alon, transportation commentator @ market urbanism and urbanophile, profiled in national review online as transportation expert, 1/25, don’t think there’s much hope coming from the current Congress. Obama probably realizes it. Both the correct strategy and the strategy that the administration seems to be pursuing is to wait until 2013. Obama will probably win reelection, and if Gingrich manages to defeat Romney in the primary, then Obama will win by a considerably margin and probably get enough coattails to obtain a friendly Democratic Congress. In that situation, the Tea Party’s influence will drop to close to zero, and a transportation bill that includes nonzero money to local transit and to HSR becomes an option. At this stage even Romney looks vulnerable, but still less so than Gingrich.**Climate Change**2NC ModuleObama key to global climate agreement – only chance to solveLeber, Think Progress, research assistant, 12(Rebecca, 1-5-12, Think Progress, “Report: Future of Global Climate Deal Dependent On 2012 Election,” , accessed 7-5-12, KGH)World leaders struck a deal last month during the Durban United Nations conference that sets a path to a global climate deal by 2015 — a precarious agreement including major developing countries like China and India. However, a report by the research branch of the HSBC bank predicts a deal would be trashed if President Obama is not reelected. With climate denial and opposition to emissions limits rampant in the GOP field, HSBC finds a global deal would be “almost impossible” if a Republican wins the White House:[The] prospects for a new global climate deal in 2015 depend considerably on the election of a pro-climate action president. The election of a President opposed to climate action will not only damage growth prospects for low-carbon solutions in the USA itself, but will make the hard task of negotiating a new global agreement by 2015 almost impossible. If Obama is re-elected with support in both houses, we expect modest measures to introduce a federal clean energy standard for electricity; a stripped down cap and trade programme could re-emerge building on the regional scheme on the West and East coasts.Though some GOP contenders haven’t always positioned themselves as climate zombies, everyone from Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, to Jon Huntsman have doubted climate change science leading up to the primaries. Frontrunner Romney opposes carbon emissions limits and a cap and trade program, despite having supported pollution limits as Massachussets governor.Of course, the future of energy policy also hinges on political developments worldwide. The report also notes that elections worldwide, particularly France, will be an “important test of the resilience of pro-nuclear policies” in a post-Fukushima world.Warming causes extinctionDeibel, professor of IR at National War College, Foreign Affairs Strategy, 7(“Conclusion: American Foreign Affairs Strategy Today Anthropogenic – caused by CO,” KGH)Finally, there is one major existential threat to American security (as well as prosperity) of a nonviolent nature, which, though far in the future, demands urgent action. It is the threat of global warming to the stability of the climate upon which all earthly life depends. Scientists worldwide have been observing the gathering of this threat for three decades now, and what was once a mere possibility has passed through probability to near certainty. Indeed not one of more than 900 articles on climate change published in refereed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003 doubted that anthropogenic warming is occurring. “In legitimate scientific circles,” writes Elizabeth Kolbert, “it is virtually impossible to find evidence of disagreement over the fundamentals of global warming.” Evidence from a vast international scientific monitoring effort accumulates almost weekly, as this sample of newspaper reports shows: an international panel predicts “brutal droughts, floods and violent storms across the planet over the next century”; climate change could “literally alter ocean currents, wipe away huge portions of Alpine Snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera and malaria”; “glaciers in the Antarctic and in Greenland are melting much faster than expected, and…worldwide, plants are blooming several days earlier than a decade ago”; “rising sea temperatures have been accompanied by a significant global increase in the most destructive hurricanes”; “NASA scientists have concluded from direct temperature measurements that 2005 was the hottest year on record, with 1998 a close second”; “Earth’s warming climate is estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year” as disease spreads; “widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidad…killed broad swaths of corals” due to a 2-degree rise in sea temperatures. “The world is slowly disintegrating,” concluded Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles from the Arctic Circle. “They call it climate change…but we just call it breaking up.” From the founding of the first cities some 6,000 years ago until the beginning of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained relatively constant at about 280 parts per million (ppm). At present they are accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by 2050 they will reach 500 ppm, about double pre-industrial levels. Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century, so there is no way immediately to reduce levels, only to slow their increase, we are thus in for significant global warming; the only debate is how much and how serous the effects will be. As the newspaper stories quoted above show, we are already experiencing the effects of 1-2 degree warming in more violent storms, spread of disease, mass die offs of plants and animals, species extinction, and threatened inundation of low-lying countries like the Pacific nation of Kiribati and the Netherlands at a warming of 5 degrees or less the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could disintegrate, leading to a sea level of rise of 20 feet that would cover North Carolina’s outer banks, swamp the southern third of Florida, and inundate Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village. Another catastrophic effect would be the collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation that keeps the winter weather in Europe far warmer than its latitude would otherwise allow. Economist William Cline once estimated the damage to the United States alone from moderate levels of warming at 1-6 percent of GDP annually; severe warming could cost 13-26 percent of GDP. But the most frightening scenario is runaway greenhouse warming, based on positive feedback from the buildup of water vapor in the atmosphere that is both caused by and causes hotter surface temperatures. Past ice age transitions, associated with only 5-10 degree changes in average global temperatures, took place in just decades, even though no one was then pouring ever-increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Faced with this specter, the best one can conclude is that “humankind’s continuing enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect is akin to playing Russian roulette with the earth’s climate and humanity’s life support system. At worst, says physics professor Marty Hoffert of New York University, “we’re just going to burn everything up; we’re going to het the atmosphere to the temperature it was in the Cretaceous when there were crocodiles at the poles, and then everything will collapse.” During the Cold War, astronomer Carl Sagan popularized a theory of nuclear winter to describe how a thermonuclear war between the Untied States and the Soviet Union would not only destroy both countries but possible end life on this planet. Global warming is the post-Cold War era’s equivalent of nuclear winter at least as serious and considerably better supported scientifically. Over the long run it puts dangers form terrorism and traditional military challenges to shame. It is a threat not only to the security and prosperity to the United States, but potentially to the continued existence of life on this planet.Obama Solves EmissionsClimate change top priority for ObamaNash, Personal Liberty Staff Writer, 12(Bryan, 6-15-12, Personal Liberty Digest, “Obama Will Focus On Climate Change If Re-Elected,”, accessed 7-5-12, KGH).If re-elected, Obama will put the hearts and minds of Americans at ease. He will pour his energy into climate change.According to Ryan Lizza, the Washington correspondent for The New Yorker, the President plans to focus on climate change as a way to “improve the world.”Lizza writes: “Obama has an ambitious second-term agenda, which, at least in broad ways, his campaign is beginning to highlight. The President has said that the most important policy he could address in his second term is climate change, one of the few issues that he thinks could fundamentally improve the world decades from now.”The Office of Management and Budget estimates that the Department of Energy has seen its budget increase from $24 billion in 2009 to $38 billion in 2012.Obama dedicated to climate changeDiaz, The Examiner reporter, 6-14-12(Dorsi, The Examiner, “Climate change top priority for President Obama’s second term,” , accessed 7-7-12, KGH)In a bold move sure to start arguments all over again about climate change, President Obama has said that the most important policy he could address in his second term is climate change. Obama feels addressing climate change now is one of the few issues that could fundamentally improve the world decades from now.While there are still naysayers that don't believe that climate change is a real issue and believe that global warming has been fabricated to fuel a green agenda, most scientists agree that climate change is the single most important issue facing human existence. In a rapidly warming earth with climate change wreaking havoc all around the world, humans are starting to see the effects of climate change including devastating crop losses, sea-level rises, increasing fires, floods and incidences of hurricanes, tornadoes and flooding world-wide. Even with the implementation of new policies concerning climate change, there is no guarantee that the earth has not already passed a critical "tipping point".Making climate change his top priority is in stark reversal to the beginning of his Presidency, when the President made on average fewer mentions of climate change in his first three addresses than Bill Clinton or even George Bush.In an interview that Rolling Stone published in April 2012, the President said he thinks climate change will be a big issue in the coming election and that he will be “very clear" about his "belief that we're going to have to take further steps to deal with climate change in a serious way."Romney doesn’t Solve EmissionsRomney unconcerned by climate changeLehmann, Reporter E&E, 12 (Evan, 4-16-12, E&E Publishing, “Romney, appealing to independents, won’t soften on climate change,” , accessed 7-7-12, KGH)Republican strategists predict that Mitt Romney could intensify his attacks on the president's energy policies, including perhaps on past efforts to reduce carbon emissions, now that the former Massachusetts governor is accelerating into the general election race.But several said it's unlikely Romney will return to the position he held on climate change last summer, when he expressed belief in humans' contribution to climatic alterations. The climate issue is "dead" in this election, said one strategist who believes in global warming.Romney raced into his new role as the presumptive nominee last week with a cascade of blows casting President Obama's economic policies as a failure for women, a category of voters with whom Obama enjoys a double-digit lead over Romney in polling. He accused the president Tuesday of waging a "war on women."With the tone of the race sharpening, Romney could increasingly use similar economic criticisms to challenge Obama's claims of supporting expanded fossil fuel production, like oil and natural gas drilling, the strategists say.The intent, in part, would be to portray the president as an exclusive supporter of renewable energy sources, thereby limiting his appeal among voters, including independents, who favor choices among all resources, said Mike McKenna, a Republican energy adviser and lobbyist who is unaffiliated with the Romney campaign."He's imprinted on the voters' minds as being the renewable energy president," McKenna said, suggesting that Obama is inextricably linked to the green policies he pursued earlier in his term, like the economic stimulus package, cap and trade, and the clean energy standard.That might not be a detriment in another time, but with gasoline prices climbing against the backdrop of an overcast economy, Republicans see benefits in preventing Obama from pivoting to an "all of the above" approach."In trying to sell himself as the pro-production president, [Obama's] got the mirror image of the problem George Bush had," McKenna said. "George Bush, creator of ethanol, kept trying to sell, 'Hey, I'm the green president.' Well, dude, you can't spend the first 30 years of your life being an oil and gas guy and then say, 'Hey, I'm really an ethanol and solar power guy.' Obama's got the same problem."Energy skirmishes in battleground statesAs if on cue, the Romney campaign launched an attack Thursday afternoon called the "magical misery tour." It portrays the Obama campaign airing television ads in swing states as an attempt to sidestep concerns about gas prices."After three years of promising change, the only thing that the President has delivered is gas prices twice as high as the day he took office," Andrea Saul, a Romney spokeswoman, said in a statement.The Obama ad touts the president's record of raising fuel economy standards and increasing renewable energy. It also accuses Romney of siding with fossil fuel companies, which, the ad says, are financing a television campaign to discourage alternative fuel sources."In all these fights, Mitt Romney stood with Big Oil, for their tax breaks, attacking higher mileage standards and renewables," the ad says. "So when you see these ads, remember who paid for them and what they want."The Obama ad is airing in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia -- key battleground states where independents could tilt the race in November. Not coincidentally, a super PAC supporting Romney, Crossroads GPS, is airing its own ads in those same states.An energy adviser for the Romney campaign said sustained messaging about gas prices will continue through the summer, even if prices inch downward. It strikes at Obama's perceived weakness on economic policy and also emphasizes Democratic tendencies to use overbearing government regulations, the adviser said."You don't need to get more complicated than that," the Romney adviser said. "They know when they go to the pump and begin to fill up, it costs a lot of money."Renewables 'tainted'Throughout the primary contest, Romney rarely mentioned renewable energy, unless he was denigrating Obama's use of loan guarantees to help finance companies like the failed solar panel manufacturer Solyndra.Republicans want to undermine EPAEcheverria, Vermont Law School, Georgetown University, Yale Law School, 12(John, Vermont Law, “With Republicans Attacking the EPA, 2012 Could Be a Turning Point for Environmental Regulation,” , accessed 7-6-12, KGH)Among the other things causing Richard Nixon to turn over in his grave may be Republican attacks on the Environmental Protection Agency, which the former president and Congress established in a bipartisan response to public demand for cleaner water, air, and land.Since Republicans regained control of the House of Representatives in the 2010 midterm elections, they have introduced an unprecedented number of measures designed to weaken longstanding environmental protections and block the EPA from putting forth new regulations.Rep. Henry Waxman, D- Calif., an environmental advocate, has called this “the most anti-environmental Congress in history.” The perceived assault has prompted the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, chaired by Waxman, to develop an online database tracking the number and scope of anti-environment bills proposed on the House floor. According to the searchable database, as of September 2011 there have been 170 anti-environment votes under the Republican majority in the 112th Congress. The database breaks down this number by category, finding the vast majority of anti-environment votes targeting the EPA (91 votes). Some of these seek to block actions that prevent pollution (71 votes), and others to dismantle the Clean Air Act specifically (61 votes). Fewer measures have been directed at weakening regulations of the Department of Energy and Department of the Interior, blocking action on climate change and defunding clean energy initiatives.EPA headquartersIncluded among the more broad-based attacks on the regulatory power of the EPA is the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation (TRAIN) Act. Passed by the House in September, the TRAIN Act “would create a special committee to oversee the EPA’s rules and regulations, and require the agency to consider economic impacts on polluters when it sets standards concerning how much air pollution is too much.” This would mark a dramatic shift from the current approach under the Clean Air Act, in which the EPA weighs only scientific and health considerations.Similarly, the Regulatory Accountability Act, also introduced in September, would require a hearing for each new regulation in which the primary goal would be to find lower-cost alternatives to the agency’s proposals, ostensibly forcing cost to become the most important consideration in the rulemaking process. Finally, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act, taken up by the House in November, would require congressional approval of all executive branch regulations if they are deemed “major rules.” President Obama informed Congress on December 6 that he would veto the measure if it were sent to the White House.Romney backed by Big Oil – wont pass climate change legislationAdler, Reporter The Nation, 12(Ben, 4-26-12, The Nation, “Meet Mitt, the Man from Big Oil,” , accessed 7-7-12, KGH)No sooner had Mitt Romney wrapped up the Republican presidential nomination than environmental groups began alerting the public to the threat they believe he represents. Last week four environmental groups—the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), Clean Water Action and Environment America—collectively endorsed President Obama. It was the first time that those groups had come together to make a candidate endorsement.They were moved to do so, and quite early in the process, because Romney is heavily backed by the enemies of environmental regulation. Energy companies and the rich tycoons who own them have begun pouring money into Republican causes for the 2012 cycle and are expected to give considerably more before November. And Romney is returning the favor with policy promises.In 2011 the oil and gas industry gave Romney $899,630 according to the Center for Responsive Politics, far more than they gave to President Obama. They were Romney’s eleventh-most-supportive industry, whereas they did not rank among President Obama’s top twenty. More money will surely fill his coffers this year since Rick Perry is no longer in the race.But the real money supporting Romney is the largesse he will enjoy through unlimited donations to Super PACs. Back in October Politico reported, “The billionaire industrialist brothers David and Charles Koch plan to steer more than $200 million—potentially much more—to conservative groups ahead of Election Day.” The term “industrialist” does not fully capture the Kochs’ intense personal interest in opposing environmental regulations. The bulk of their fortune comes from refining and distributing products such as petroleum, chemicals and fertilizers. Their libertarian ideology seems to revolve primarily around keeping the government from doing anything that would protect the public interest over their profit margins.Allies of Romney and the Kochs are already putting their money to work attacking Obama. According to Think Progress, “In the first three-and-a-half months of 2012, groups including Americans for Prosperity, American Petroleum Institute, Crossroads GPS and American Energy Alliance have spent $16,750,000 on energy attack ads.Romney opposes President Obama’s proposal to eliminate billions of dollars worth of subsidies for oil companies in the tax code. Romney justifies this by saying he is against all tax increases and that it is “dangerous” to single out one industry for losing its special favors. This, of course, blatantly contradicts Romney’s own proposals, and Representative Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) budget, both of which claim to be revenue neutral by slashing tax rates but paying for it by eliminating tax expenditures. Romney and Ryan don’t specify which tax expenditures they will eliminate, although Romney recently suggested the mortgage interest deduction for second homes might be one. By his logic, he was calling for a “dangerous” tax increase then. This is, at least, one rare subject where Romney can claim to be consistent. He supported continuing tax breaks for oil back in the 2008 campaign as well.Ryan made sure to exempt the extractive industries from any austerity in his budget. As Newsweek’s Daniel Stone reports, “[Ryan] asked Americans to make sacrifices on everything from Medicare to education, while preserving lucrative tax subsidies for the booming oil, mining and energy industries.” Coincidentally, as Stone notes, “He and his wife, Janna, own stakes in four family companies that lease land in Texas and Oklahoma to the very energy companies that benefit from the tax subsidies in Ryan's budget plan.”On other environmental issues Romney also sides with polluting industries. Romney is opposed to the Environmental Protection Agency regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant. He seems to oppose the EPA doing much of anything. At a Fox News event in December, he said oil executives tell him life was better under the Bush-Cheney administration. “I think the EPA has gotten completely out of control for a very simple reason: It is a tool in the hands of the president to crush the private enterprise system, to crush our ability to have energy, whether it's oil, gas, coal, nuclear,” Romney said. Romney even opposes fuel efficiency standards for automobiles.AT - Congress BlocksCongress will supportO’Konski, Researcher at Climate Science Watch, former intern for the EPA, 6-13-12(Katherine, 6-13-12, Climate Science Watch, “Campaign 2012: Climate Change and Energy,”, accessed 7-6-11, KGH)The tension between climate policy and electoral reality was on display at the Brookings Institution on June 11. Speakers on climate change and energy in the 2012 election suggested that pricing carbon emissions should be a priority for the next administration. But while pricing carbon could play an essential role in a progressive climate policy, it lacks support from a public that a new study finds is more willing to support regulations and mandates as a means of promoting clean energy alternatives. And global warming is thus far not even an issue in the presidential election.“As the struggling economy and demand for jobs consume the American public’s attention, climate policy has become a second-tier political issue. Although most economists advocate for putting a price on greenhouse gases through a carbon tax or cap-and-trade program, there is little political appetite to do so. Will the next president be able to make climate and energy a national priority?”So read the event description for a panel discussion at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC, this Monday, June 11. Panelists included Moderator Darren Samuelsohn (POLITICO); Ted Gayer (Brookings Senior Fellow, Economic Studies); Katherine Sierra (Brookings Senior Fellow, Global Economy and Development); and Charles Ebinger (Brookings Senior Fellow, Energy Security).Carbon pricing vs. electoral realityThe discussion was centered on Gayer’s recent paper in which he suggests the next administration elevate climate policy to a national priority by making it a component of fiscal reform. Specifically, he advocates for carbon pricing policies. “The economics is clear and convincing,” he said. Pricing carbon is the best way to make meaningful reductions in emissions.Carbon pricing achieves the greatest emissions reductions at the lowest possible cost, he contended. “An economy-wide cap-and-trade program allows the market the flexibility to find the cheapest sources of pollution reduction in order to meet the capped level of emissions.” Under his scheme, a carbon pricing policy would double as part of a tax reform policy, where revenues could be used to fund deficit reduction and economically harmful marginal tax rates. Gayer estimates that pricing carbon could generate $100 billion over 25 years – a significant sum but “not the holy grail. It would have to be one among many taxes” to make any dent in the national deficit.A price on carbon would also mean that regulations and mandates (like efficiency standards) could be abandoned, as they would, he believes, become redundant if a price on carbon were in place. “Republicans should embrace market-based environmental policies,” as they have in the past, as the best means of improving air quality at minimum economic cost, Gayer recommends. “The traditional approach taken by EPA, as prescribed by the environmental laws of the 1970s, attempts to achieve environmental improvements through inflexible and economically costly mandates that set uniform technology standards across firms. By demonizing cap-and-trade in the latest debate, Republicans risk a reversion of environmental policy away from market-based approaches toward these more costly options.”A cap-and-trade policy therefore might garner bi-partisan support, he argued, if introduced into the right political climate. “It’s definitely a long shot in the short term,” Gayer conceded. And given GOP attitudes toward any sort of environmental protection, the push for this kind of policy “must come from the White House.”AT – Regulations hurt EconomyEPA improves economyEPI, non-profit, non-partisan think tank that analyzes the economic status of America, 11(9-19-11, Economic Policy Institute, “EPI reports clarify economic impact of new EPA rules as House begins debates on regulations,” , accessed 7-6-11, KGH)The Combined Effect of the Obama EPA Rules, the only comprehensive tally of the combined costs and benefits of the new major Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules, debunks arguments that their cumulative impact would harm the struggling economy. The paper, by Economic Policy Institute (EPI) Director of Regulatory Policy Research Isaac Shapiro, released today by EPI, shows the regulations formulated by the Obama Administration will be of tremendous benefit to public health, and the combined compliance cost of the rules – both finalized and proposed – amounts to only about 0.1 percent of the economy, and thus are not a significant factor in the overall economy’s direction.House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has characterized many of these new EPA rules as “regulatory burdens to job creators” and has scheduled a series of votes, beginning this week, aimed at halting them. This latest research from EPI explains that Cantor’s characterization of these rules is inaccurate. EPI’s research finds that the dollar value of the benefits of the major rules finalized or proposed by the EPA so far during the Obama administration exceeds the rules’ costs by an exceptionally wide margin. Health benefits in terms of lives saved and illnesses avoided will be enormous. EPI also finds that the costs of all finalized and proposed rules total to a tiny sliver of the overall economy, suggesting that fears that these rules together will deter economic progress are unjustified.In addition to the new findings in The Combined Effect of the Obama EPA Rules, the findings in A lifesaver, not a job killer by EPI economist Josh Bivens, published in June 2011, reveal EPA’s proposed “air toxics rule” is no threat to job growth, and would instead lead to modest job creation. The House may vote to delay this vital rule this week. Further, a broader assessment of the impact regulations have on jobs and the economy, Regulation, employment, and the economy: Fears of job loss are overblown by Shapiro and EPI research director John Irons, published in April 2011, finds that regulations generally have a modestly positive or neutral effect on the economy, and that an emphasis on deregulation can contribute to dramatic economic dislocation.The Combined Effect of the Obama EPA Rules calculates the dollar value of the benefits and costs of new EPA rules, expressed in 2010 dollars, including the following:Setting aside the Cross-State Air Pollution rule, the combined annual benefits from all finalmajor rules exceed their costs by $10 billion to $95 billion a year. The benefit/cost ratio ranges from 2-to-1 to 20-to-1. The net benefits from the Cross-State Air Pollution rule exceed $100 billion a year (this rule is treated separately because benefits accruing from action under the Bush administration and the Obama administration cannot be disentangled).mThe combined annual benefits from three major proposed rules examined here exceed their costs by $62 billion to $188 billion a year. The benefit/cost ratio ranges from 6-to-1 to 15-to-1.When fully in effect in 2014, the combined costs of the major rules finalized by the Obama administration’s EPA would amount to significantly less than 0.1% of the economy.Assuming the proposed rules are also finalized, when fully in effect in 2016 the combined costs of the major EPA rules finalized and proposed so far under the Obama administration would amount to about 0.13% of the economy.Biodiversity ImpactWarming causes species loss and devastates biodiversityScience Daily 6 (Science Daily, Global Warming Capable Of Sparking Mass Species Extinctions, ) KAThe Earth could see massive waves of species extinctions around the world if global warming continues unabated, according to a new study published in the scientific journal Conservation Biology. Given its potential to damage areas far away from human habitation, the study finds that global warming represents one of the most pervasive threats to our planet's biodiversity -- in some areas rivaling and even surpassing deforestation as the main threat to biodiversity. The study expands on a much-debated 2004 paper published in the journal Nature that suggested a quarter of the world's species would be committed to extinction by 2050 as a result of global warming. This latest study picks up where the Nature paper left off, incorporating critiques and suggestions from other scientists while increasing the global scope of the research to include diverse hotspots around the world. The results reinforce the massive species extinction risks identified in the 2004 study. "Climate change is rapidly becoming the most serious threats to the planet's biodiversity," said lead author Dr. Jay Malcolm, an assistant forestry professor at the University of Toronto. "This study provides even stronger scientific evidence that global warming will result in catastrophic species loss across the planet." Using vegetation models, the research is one of the first attempts to assess the potential effects of climate change on terrestrial biodiversity on a global scale rather than just looking at individual species. Scientists looked specifically at the effect that climate change would have on 25 of the 34 globally outstanding "biodiversity hotspots" -- areas containing a large number of species unique to these regions alone, yet facing enormous threats. "It isn't just polar bears and penguins that we must worry about anymore," said Lee Hannah, co-author of the study and senior fellow for climate change at Conservation International. "The hotspots studied in this paper are essentially refugee camps for many of our planet's most unique plant and animal species. If those areas are no longer habitable due to global warming then we will quite literally be destroying the last sanctuaries many of these species have left." Since these biodiversity hotspots make up about one percent of the Earth's surface, but contain 44 percent of all terrestrial vertebrate species and 35 percent of the world's plant species, they are good indicators of the magnitude of global species that might be affected by rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere. "These species lose their last options if we allow climate change to continue unchecked," said Dr. Lara Hansen, Chief Climate Scientist at global conservation group World Wildlife Fund. "Keeping the natural wealth of this planet means we must avoid dangerous climate change -- and that means we have got to reduce carbon dioxide emissions." Areas particularly vulnerable to climate change include the tropical Andes, the Cape Floristic region of South Africa, Southwest Australia, and the Atlantic forests of Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina. These areas are particularly vulnerable because the species in these regions have restricted migration options due to geographical limitations. Species loss leads to human extinctionDiner 94 (Major David N.; Instructor, Administrative and Civil Law Division, The Judge Advocate General's School, United States Army, "The Army and the Endangered Species Act: Who's Endangering Whom?" 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161) KABiologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." 79 By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, 80 mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.Disease ImpactWarming causes DiseaseAssociated Press 6 ("Global warming causing diseases to rise" ) BSB“Climate affects some of the most important diseases afflicting the world,” said Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum of the World Health Organization. “The impacts may already be significant.” Kristie L. Ebi, an American public health consultant for the agency, warned “climate change could overwhelm public health services.” The specialists laid out recent findings as the two-week U.N. climate conference entered its final four days, grappling with technical issues concerning operation of the Kyoto Protocol, and trying to set a course for future controls on global greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists attribute at least some of the past century’s 1-degree rise in global temperatures to the accumulation in the atmosphere of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, byproducts of power plants, automobiles and other fossil fuel-burning sources. A warmer world already seems to be producing a sicker world, health experts reported Tuesday, citing surges in Kenya, China and Europe of such diseases as malaria, heart ailments and dengue fever.Disease causes extinctionYu 09 [Victoria, “Human Extinction: The Uncertainty of Our Fate,” Dartmouth Journal of Undergraduate Science, May 22, ]In the past, humans have indeed fallen victim to viruses. Perhaps the best-known case was the bubonic plague that killed up to one third of the European population in the mid-14th century (7). While vaccines have been developed for the plague and some other infectious diseases, new viral strains are constantly emerging — a process that maintains the possibility of a pandemic-facilitated human extinction. Some surveyed students mentioned AIDS as a potential pandemic-causing virus.? It is true that scientists have been unable thus far to find a sustainable cure for AIDS, mainly due to HIV’s rapid and constant evolution. Specifically, two factors account for the virus’s abnormally high mutation rate: 1. HIV’s use of reverse transcriptase, which does not have a proof-reading mechanism, and 2. the lack of an error-correction mechanism in HIV DNA polymerase (8). Luckily, though, there are certain characteristics of HIV that make it a poor candidate for a large-scale global infection: HIV can lie dormant in the human body for years without manifesting itself, and AIDS itself does not kill directly, but rather through the weakening of the immune system.? However, for more easily transmitted viruses such as influenza, the evolution of new strains could prove?far more consequential. The simultaneous occurrence of antigenic drift (point mutations that lead to new strains) and antigenic shift (the inter-species transfer of disease) in the influenza virus could produce a new version of influenza for which scientists may not immediately find a cure. Since influenza can spread quickly, this lag time could potentially lead to a “global influenza pandemic,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (9). The most recent scare of this variety came in 1918 when bird flu managed to kill over 50 million people around the world in what is sometimes referred to as the Spanish flu pandemic. Perhaps even more frightening is the fact that only 25 mutations were required to convert the original viral strain — which could only infect birds — into a human-viable strain (10).**Iran Strikes**2NC ModuleRomney win guarantees Iran strikesDaily Kos, Editorial, April 16th(4-16-2012, The Daily Kos, President Obama Versus Romney on Iran, , accessed 7-4-2012, JKE)To me, however the biggest contrast is their approach to Iran. Binyamin Netanyahu by all accounts is a hawk who is pushing the United States to bomb Iran and has been doing so for a long time. He appears to see no need for negotiation. Granted, he has a right to protect his nation if he believes that its under threat. However, we all know how flawed the “intelligence” was for the Iraq war. And its important to let negotiations play out as far as possible before rushing to war, which would have many unintended consequences for years to come. (See the Iraq war). Here’s the big difference. Here’s Netanyahu’s recent response to the ongoing P5+1 talks: ... Netanyahu -- whose government has not ruled out a preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities -- earlier said however that Tehran had simply bought itself some extra time to comply. "My initial impression is that Iran has been given a 'freebie'," Netanyahu said during talks with visiting US Senator Joe Lieberman, the premier's office reported. "It has got five weeks to continue enrichment without any limitation, any inhibition. I think Iran should take immediate steps to stop all enrichment, take out all enrichment material and dismantle the nuclear facility in Qom," he said. "I believe that the world's greatest practitioner of terrorism must not have the opportunity to develop atomic bombs," he said. Here’s President Obama’s response yesterday to Netanyahu (in a response to a journalist's question) at the press conference in Cartagena: But Obama refuted that statement, saying "The notion that we've given something away or a freebie would indicate that Iran has gotten something." "In fact, they got the toughest sanctions that they're going to be facing coming up in a few months if they don't take advantage of those talks. I hope they do," Obama said. "The clock is ticking and I've been very clear to Iran and our negotiating partners that we're not going to have these talks just drag out in a stalling process," Obama told reporters after an Americas summit in Colombia. "But so far at least we haven't given away anything -- other than the opportunity for us to negotiate," he said. Obama in conjunction with world powers is negotiating with Iran, trying to prevent a needless war. You can be sure that Mitt Romney would bow to his buddy Netanyahu and attack Iran. He has previously said “We will not have an inch of difference between ourselves and Israel”. As he also said in a debate, before making any decision regarding Israel, he will call his friend Bibi. Bottom line, if somehow the American people elect Mitt Romney, expect more of the bombastic, Bush cowboy approach to foreign policy with a more than likely bombardment of Iran. If the American people are not fooled by this charlatan and they reelect Barack Obama, he will continue in his measured way to deal with the threats around the world, quietly, through the use of negotiation, and force if absolutely necessary, but only as a last resort, without bragging, and scaring the American people with needless terrorism alerts.That causes multiple scenarios for global nuclear warHirsch, professor of Physics at the University of California at San Diego, 6(Jorge, 4-22-2006, Centre for Research on Globalization, Nuking Iran, , accessed 7-5-2012, JKE)JH: Iran is likely to respond to any US attack using its considerable missile arsenal against US forces in Iraq and elsewhere in the Persian Gulf. Israel may attempt to stay out of the conflict, it is not clear whether Iran would target Israel in a retaliatory strike but it is certainly possible. If the US attack includes nuclear weapons use against Iranian facilities, as I believe is very likely, rather than deterring Iran it will cause a much more violent response. Iranian military forces and militias are likely to storm into southern Iraq and the US may be forced to use nuclear weapons against them, causing large scale casualties and inflaming the Muslim world. There could be popular uprisings in other countries in the region like Pakistan, and of course a Shiite uprising in Iraq against American occupiers. Finally I would like to discuss the grave consequences to America and the world if the US uses nuclear weapons against Iran. First, the likelihood of terrorist attacks against Americans both on American soil and abroad will be enormously enhanced after these events. And terrorist's attempts to get hold of "loose nukes" and use them against Americans will be enormously incentivized after the US used nuclear weapons against Iran. Second, it will destroy America's position as the leader of the free world. The rest of the world rightly recognizes that nuclear weapons are qualitatively different from all other weapons, and that there is no sharp distinction between small and large nuclear weapons, or between nuclear weapons targeting facilities versus those targeting armies or civilians. It will not condone the breaking of the nuclear taboo in an unprovoked war of aggression against a non-nuclear country, and the US will become a pariah state. Third, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will cease to exist, and many of its 182 non-nuclear-weapon-country signatories will strive to acquire nuclear weapons as a deterrent to an attack by a nuclear nation. With no longer a taboo against the use of nuclear weapons, any regional conflict may go nuclear and expand into global nuclear war. Nuclear weapons are million-fold more powerful than any other weapon, and the existing nuclear arsenals can obliterate humanity many times over. In the past, global conflicts terminated when one side prevailed. In the next global conflict we will all be gone before anybody has prevailed.Obama won’t StrikeObama won’t strike Iran – empirics and the failure of political pressures proveGause, Professor of Political Science at the University of Vermont and Lustick, Bess W. Heyman Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania, 12(F. Gregory the III, Ian S., Summer 2012, Middle East Policy Council, American and the Regional Powers in a Transforming Middle East, , accessed 7-4-2012, JKE)The problem posed for Washington in Iran currently is a striking example of how history, not repeating itself, nevertheless often rhymes. U.S. decision makers are confronting an intense campaign of public and private pressure, originating in Israel and from many of Israel's supporters in the United States, reinforced by some of America's Gulf allies, to "do something" about Iran. That "something" differs, among the advocates, from regime change to carrying out, participating in, or at least authorizing an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. Once again, the specter of a totalitarian threat to the civilized world is portrayed as rising in Tehran — Red Communism in 1953, tyrannical Islamist fundamentalism in 2012. Debates rage, simulations are performed and wagers are made on . Will the United States and/or Israel attack Iran this year? The very fact that this is an issue of explicit and regular discussion is a major success for the Netanyahu government. It is a substantial justification for wondering if, indeed, the United States is more capable of implementing policies tailored to its interests now than it was during the Cold War or in Iraq during the George W. Bush administrations. We think it is. Despite this being an election year, when the leverage of Israeli governments over U.S. foreign policy is greatest, the United States will not attack Iran. The Obama administration is proving to be less susceptible to manipulation by its local allies than past administrations were, recognizing that its broader interests in a changing Middle East cannot be secured by military adventures. If such an attack does occur, it will be carried out by Israel against an American red light, not encouraged by an American green or yellow light. The administration's quiet but determined diplomacy has restrained Israel, while simultaneously implementing what is perhaps the most sophisticated and effective array of economic sanctions ever imposed on a country as large and important as Iran. It has organized a broad international front against Iranian proliferation and increased the pressure on Tehran at every level. It might not succeed, in the end, in preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear-weapons capability. But its approach has a much greater chance of success in preventing a nuclearized military confrontation in the region than a military strike that would unite Iranians (at least temporarily) behind their government, end domestic differences over nuclear strategy and, at best, set back its program a few years. In a broader context, the Iran case signifies that the United States is finding it easier to adapt to the disappearance of the old order in the Middle East than are local allies whose fundamental political logics are contradicted by twenty-first-century winds of change. Under this president, the United States is neither paralyzed against action out of fear of error, nor misled into a simplistic and dangerously uniform "doctrine." For evidence of the agility of American policy in the Middle East under the Obama administration, consider the degree to which policies in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria have been specifically tailored to the challenges, opportunities and constraints those very different settings present, much as the administration's approach to the Iranian nuclear issue has been.Obama won’t strike – prefers diplomacyThe Herald, Editorial, March 5th(3-5-2012, The Herald (Glasgow), Obama Warns of Loose Talks on Iran Strike, HS – News; Pg. 3, Lexis-Nexis, accessed 4-3-2012, JKE)PRESIDENT Barack Obama has warned against loose talk of a war with Iran ahead of a meeting at which he will urge Israel s prime minister not to order a strike on the Islamic Republic s nuclear facilities. On the eve of his talks with Benjamin Netanyahu, Obama used a speech to the pro-Israel US lobby group, American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), to pledge his support for the Jewish state and to argue that international sanctions on Iran must be given more time to work. I firmly believe that an opportunity remains for diplomacy backed by pressure to succeed, Obama told a crowd of 13,000 at the AIPAC policy conference. Obama said the bluster about a military strike was counter-productive because it has been driving up global oil prices, boosting demand for Iranian oil and helping to offset the impact of sanctions on its economy. Already, there is too much loose talk of war, the President said.Romney Will StrikeRomney will attack IranWhite, International Business Times – National Affairs Reporter, July 3rd(Jeremy B., 7-3-2012, International Business Times, Romney Foreign Policy: A ‘Replay of the Bush Administration’?, , accessed 7-7-2012, JKE)A President Romney would have less hesitation about attacking Iran's nuclear facilities. In response to a question about a recent Weekly Standard article urging Obama to seek congressional authorization for such an operation, Romney said he would be empowered to strike Iran without Congress' consent. "I can assure you that if I am president, the Iranians will have no question but that I would be willing to take military action, if necessary, to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world," Romney said on Face the Nation. "I don't believe at this stage, therefore, if I'm President, that we need to have war powers approval or a special authorization for military force. The President has that capacity now."AT - Congress BlocksRomney will strike Iran – he has to power to overstep CongressWhite, International Business Times – National Affairs Reporter, July 3rd(Jeremy B., 7-3-2012, International Business Times, Romney Foreign Policy: A ‘Replay of the Bush Administration’?, , accessed 7-7-2012, JKE)A President Romney would have less hesitation about attacking Iran's nuclear facilities. In response to a question about a recent Weekly Standard article urging Obama to seek congressional authorization for such an operation, Romney said he would be empowered to strike Iran without Congress' consent. "I can assure you that if I am president, the Iranians will have no question but that I would be willing to take military action, if necessary, to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world," Romney said on Face the Nation. "I don't believe at this stage, therefore, if I'm President, that we need to have war powers approval or a special authorization for military force. The President has that capacity now."AT - Campaign RhetoricRomney’s strikes on Iran aren’t campaign rhetoric – Bolton’s consideration provesLarison, Ph.D in History, July 21st(Daniel, 6-21-2012, The American Conservative, Report: Bolton is a “Leading Candidate” for Secretary of State, , accessed 7-7-2012, JKE)The Washington Times reports (via Glaser):John R. Bolton, the U.N. ambassador during the George W. Bush administration and specialist on arms control and security issues, is said to be a leading candidate for secretary of state.That’s a terrifying prospect, but it’s also not very surprising. Many of Romney’s foreign policy views sound very much like Bolton’s. Bolton is a prominent supporter of Romney. There is every reason to assume that Romney will govern in a fashion that would generally satisfy Bolton. The hope that Romney’s foreign policy statements are all campaign posturing and don’t mean anything has always been just that–a hope. The fact that Bolton is even being considered for this position ought to provide all the confirmation anyone needs that Romney’s positions on Iran and Russia in particular are more than just election-year demagoguery.AT – No EscalationDraws in Russia and China – guarantees escalationEU Times, Editorial, December 7th(European Union Online Newspaper, 12-7-2011, China Joins Russia, Orders Military to Prepare for World War III, , accessed 7-7-2012, JKE)A grim Ministry of Defense bulletin issued to Prime Minister Putin and President Medvedev today states that President Hu has “agreed in principal” that the only way to stop the West’s aggression led by the United States is through “direct and immediate military action” and that the Chinese leader has ordered his Naval Forces to “prepare for warfare.” Hu’s call for war joins Chinese Rear Admiral and prominent military commentator Zhang Zhaozhong who, likewise, warned this past week that: “China will not hesitate to protect Iran even with a Third World War,” and Russian General Nikolai Makarov who grimly stated last week: “I do not rule out local and regional armed conflicts developing into a large-scale war, including using nuclear weapons.” A new US intelligence report has also stated that China has up to 3000 nuclear weapons compared with general estimates of between 80 and 400. To further pour more gasoline on the fire, the Washington Times has just reported that North Korea is making missile able to hit the US.**US-Russia Relations**2NC ModuleElection determines US-Russia relationsInvestor’s Business Daily, Editorial, July 5th(7-5-2012, Investor’s Business Daily, Russia Hearts Obama, Not Romney, Lexis-Nexis, accessed 7-11-2012, JKE)Geopolitics: A highly ranked Russian official warns us that if we elects the Republican candidate there will be a major crisis in the first year. Didn't they say the same thing about the president who won the Cold War? Faced with the prospect of a new U.S. president who unapologetically believes in American exceptionalism, Alexey Pushkov, chairman of the international affairs committee of the State Duma, said in a recent interview that Russian leaders have noted likely GOP nominee Mitt Romney's comments with concern. "We don't think that for us Romney will be an easy partner," said Pushkov, an ally of President Vladimir Putin . "We think that Romney will be, on the rhetorical side, a replay of the Bush administration." Pushkov also noted Romney's statements that the U.S. should assert its dominance in the 21 st century. President Obama would be an "acceptable" partner for Russia in a second term, Pushkov said. Romney upset Moscow with a CNN interview in March in which he said that Russia was "without question our No. 1 geopolitical foe; they fight for every cause for the world's worst actors. The idea that (Obama) has more flexibility in mind for Russia is very, very troubling indeed."Relations key to solve us/russia warRumer, 2004 (Eugene, Strategic Forum, “Collision Avoidance: Us-Russian Bilatral Relations And Former Soviet States”, April 2004, NC)The need for cooperation is dictated by two converging trends. The first is the unprecedented American involvement in countries and regions on the Russian periphery, which many Russians have come to view as their country's sphere of influence. The second is the emergence of a powerful consensus among Russian politicians of all parties about the need to consolidate Russia's neighborhood into its exclusive sphere of influence. Each of these trends is a pillar of the two countries' respective national security strategies. Unless the United States and Russia make a deliberate and determined effort to work with each other, collision appears unavoidable. Cooperation is the only option, for an all-out competition for influence in the former Soviet lands between the two nations would hurt the interests of both and--most importantly--undermine the fragile gains the region has made since independence.ExtinctionStarr, 2006(Steven, “Total Global Nuclear Arsenal 2006 ? 27,000 Nuclear Weapons With ? 5,000 Mt Total Yield”, Fall 2006)Today the U.S. and Russia keep 9,000 operational strategic nuclear weapons deployed and constantly maintained so that they can be rapidly launched at predetermined targets. These weapons have a combined firepower of 3076 Megatons, which is more than 1000 times greater than the combined explosive force of all the bombs exploded in World War II. A single strategic nuclear weapon, when detonated above a city, would within tens of minutes create a mass fire over an area of 20 to 100 square miles. This firestorm would generate ground winds of hurricane force with average air temperatures well above the boiling point of water. There would be no possible escape from the fire zone. The firestorm would extinguish all life and destroy almost everything else within its boundaries. Imagine this event happening, in less than an hour, with not one, but with thousands of strategic nuclear weapons detonating in the cities of the U.S., Russia, China, Europe, India, and Pakistan. The details of such a holocaust are already inscribed in the guidance mechanisms of themissiles waiting to deliver the warheads. Now you have some idea of what the global nuclear arsenals, continually kept at launch-on-warning status, are capable of doing.Obama Helps RelationsObama will reset US-Russia relationsBurwell, Atlantic Council vice president, US-EU relations expert, and Cornell, Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, former Course Chair of Caucasus Area Studies at the Foreign Service Institute 12(Frances and Svante, 4/4/12, , accessed on 7/7/12, EW)As HYPERLINK "" \t "_self" Vladimir Putin prepares for his May inauguration and return to the Russian presidency, the HYPERLINK "" \t "_self" United States must design a new relationship with this often difficult leader and his country. The “Russian Reset” of HYPERLINK "" \t "_self" President Obama’s first term sought to overcome the strain in relations of recent years in order to achieve some specific foreign policy goals. It brought a new arms control treaty, Russian cooperation in transiting military material to HYPERLINK "" \t "_self" Afghanistan, and help in pressuring HYPERLINK "" \t "_self" Iran. But simply continuing the reset along the same lines is a dead end. There is little likelihood of any significant progress in nuclear arms control because any new accord would require more meaningful reductions in weapons. The US and HYPERLINK "" \t "_self" NATO engagement in Afghanistan is winding down. And HYPERLINK "" \t "_self" Russia seems unwilling to pursue further sanctions against the Iranian threat of proliferation. When Mr. Putin arrives in HYPERLINK "" \t "_self" Camp David for the HYPERLINK "" \t "_self" G8 summit in May, President Obama must be ready to lay out the framework for a new reset. Foreign policy cooperation, including on Iran, will still be important. But this reset must have a more comprehensive goal: to integrate Russia more fully into the international economy and community. By giving Russia – and Putin – a greater stake in strong relations with the West, the reset can also create incentives for better behavior, both domestically and internationally, at HYPERLINK "" \t "_self" the Kremlin. This new approach should have three components: an economic one that uses Russia’s anticipated entry into the HYPERLINK "" \t "_self" World Trade Organization (WTO) to boost support for rule-of-law and build stronger commercial ties; a diplomatic one that involves much closer coordination with European allies to present a united front to the Russians; and more firm and clear promotion of human rights and media freedom in Russia. First, the economics. In December, Russia reached agreement with the WTO and its members – including the United States and European governments – on the terms of its accession. All that remains is for the Duma, or parliament, to ratify the accord. While Putin has been somewhat skeptical of WTO accession, there is no other choice for Russia if the new government wishes to modernize an economy that’s overly dependent on oil and gas exports. The US and Europe should push Russia to complete its entry into the WTO and then begin close monitoring of its implementation of trade rules. As with HYPERLINK "" \t "_self" China, the process of adopting and enforcing those rules is likely to be slow. Just as the US and HYPERLINK "" \t "_self" European Union pushed together for Chinese adherence to WTO rules on protection of intellectual property, so they must cooperate closely to gain Russian adherence to those rules and others. WTO membership presents a valuable opportunity to strengthen rule-of-law in that country – including laws on contracts, property ownership, and investment protection. The US European Union should also support Russian organizations, including business associations, that seek to make WTO membership an effective and practical realityRomney Hurts RelationsRomney kills Russia Relations, limited foreign policy and stuck in cold warDavid, Reuters Journalist 12(Morgan, 4/1/12, , accessed on 7/13/12, EW)Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Sunday came under political fire from two of President Barack Obama's top lieutenants, who dismissed Romney's tough talk on Russia as being behind the times.In separate interviews, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sought to cast Romney as stuck in the days of the Cold War and unaware of the strategic interests that the United States and Russia share on Iran, Afghanistan and the world's oil supply.The two were hitting back at Romney for criticizing Obama last week after the Democratic president assured Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he would have "more flexibility" to deal with the contentious issue of missile defense after the November 6 general election in the United States.Republicans seeking to oust Obama from the White House in November pounced on his comments, which had been caught inadvertently by an open microphone. Romney expressed alarm that Obama had offered assurances to Russia, which he called "our number one geopolitical foe."The former Massachusetts governor has increasingly trained his attacks on Obama while seeking to establish himself as the Republican candidate most likely candidate for the party's nomination to challenge the president in November.Biden and Clinton took aim at Romney's limited experience on foreign relations issues."He acts like he thinks the Cold War is still on, Russia is still our major adversary. I don't know where he has been," Biden shot back during a Sunday interview on the CBS current affairs program "Face the Nation.""This is not 1956," Biden added. "We have disagreements with Russia, but they're united with us on Iran. One of only two ways we're getting material into Afghanistan to our troops is through Russia ... if there is an oil shutdown in any way in the Gulf, they'll consider increasing oil supplies to Europe."Meanwhile, Clinton told CNN that Romney needed to be more realistic about U.S.-Russian relations."I think it's somewhat dated to be looking backwards instead of being realistic about where we agree, where we don't agree," she said in an interview during a visit to Turkey.The Romney campaign quickly jumped to their candidate's defense."Vice President Biden appears to have forgotten the Russian government's opposition to crippling sanctions on Iran, its obstructionism on Syria and its own backsliding into authoritarianism. And Secretary Clinton herself asked recently of Russia, 'whose side are they on?'," Romney policy director Lanhee Chen said in a statement.Romney wrecks US-Russian relations whereas Obama is more acceptable – Russian statements prove Investor’s Business Daily, Editorial, July 5th (7-5-2012, Investor’s Business Daily, Russia Hearts Obama, Not Romney, Lexis-Nexis, accessed 7-11-2012, JKE) Geopolitics: A highly ranked Russian official warns us that if we elects the Republican candidate there will be a major crisis in the first year. Didn't they say the same thing about the president who won the Cold War? Faced with the prospect of a new U.S. president who unapologetically believes in American exceptionalism, Alexey Pushkov, chairman of the international affairs committee of the State Duma, said in a recent interview that Russian leaders have noted likely GOP nominee Mitt Romney's comments with concern. "We don't think that for us Romney will be an easy partner," said Pushkov, an ally of President Vladimir Putin . "We think that Romney will be, on the rhetorical side, a replay of the Bush administration." Pushkov also noted Romney's statements that the U.S. should assert its dominance in the 21 st century. President Obama would be an "acceptable" partner for Russia in a second term, Pushkov said. Romney upset Moscow with a CNN interview in March in which he said that Russia was "without question our No. 1 geopolitical foe; they fight for every cause for the world's worst actors. The idea that (Obama) has more flexibility in mind for Russia is very, very troubling indeed."Romney bad for US-Russia RelationsLarison, Ph.D in history, contributing editor at The American Conservative, 7/2(Daniel, 7/2/12, , accessed on 7/4/12, EW)Another part of the report on the Romney campaign’s foreign policy predicamentidentifies a more significant problem, which is that some of the people working on the campaign don’t understand when their candidate has blundered. Here the report quotes Romney’s foreign and legal policy adviser, Alex Wong: Wong declined to discuss his own qualifications for the job or the criticism that he is inexperienced. He said the candidate’s Russia remark was a legitimate criticism of Obama’s approach to Moscow. Wong said that in the same CNN interview, the governor also said an Iran pursuing nuclear weapons was the greatest threat to the U.S. “I thought it was quite ironic that the Obama campaign thought [the Russia] remarks were an opening for them [bold mine-DL],” said Wong. “Russia is a unique geopolitical challenge, it holds a veto at the U.N. Security Council, it has a nuclear arsenal, it holds vast energy reserves, it has a government that is backsliding into authoritarianism, and it has shown a penchant for protecting some of the world’s worst actors at the U.N.” Romney may not always listen to his advisers, but Wong isn’t doing him any favors here. Granted, he’s supposed to put the best spin on a bad statement, but it doesn’t work very well. Each thing Wong mentions in this quote is basically correct, but even when all of them are considered together it still makes absolutely no sense to describe Russia as “our number one geopolitical foe.” Everyone knows that Russia has a nuclear arsenal. Romney is on record opposing an arms reduction treaty that limits the size of that arsenal and re-establishes a verification regime to ensure compliance. Everyone knows that Russia has “vast energy reserves.” For some reason, Romney wants to antagonize the government that controls the supplies that Europe depends on for much of its energy. Everyone knows that Russia has a veto at the Security Council. Romney seems interested in provoking them into using it as often as possible. Russia isn’t America’s “number one geopolitical foe,” but for some reason Romney wants to treat it that way.It was fairly obvious that Romney had given the other campaign an opening with his “number one geopolitical foe” remark. There’s nothing ironic in taking advantage of an opponent’s erroneous statement. The remark was almost perfectly crafted to fit into the Obama campaign’s plan to portray Romney as out-of-date and out-of-touch. It lends credibility to the charge that Romney wants to return the country to the Bush era in foreign policy, because he is giving every indication that this is what he would do. What should concern Republicans is not that Romney isn’t paying enough attention to foreign policy, but that he doesn’t even seem to know when he has erred. He made his “number one geopolitical foe” blunder three months ago, and there are still campaign advisers and would-be allies trying to argue that his error was actually a profound insight. Romney isn’t required to agree with current Russia policy. One would expect a partisan opponent to try to find fault with a major administration initiative. What separates Romney’s “reset”-bashing from the usual attacks an inexperienced challenger makes is the shoddy, apparently uninformed nature of the attacks. Romney’s “number one geopolitical foe” remark was so bad for him not just because it was clearly wrong, but because it was the sort of error on foreign policy that anyone could easily recognize as a blunder. On top of that, it was part of a pattern of Romney statements on policies related to Russia that have relied on fabrications and falsehoods. His complaints about missile defense are basically unfounded or deeply misleading, and his criticism of New START washilariously bad. If the “number one geopolitical foe” crack had been an isolated episode, it would have been embarrassing but not very important. Because it belonged to a pattern of errors related to policies concerning Russia, it became a much bigger target for criticism. It confirmed the impression that Romney’s foreign policy is needlessly confrontational and informed by an anachronistic view of the world. The Obama campaign would have been mocked for inexcusable incompetence if they hadn’t seized on the remarkRomney kills Russia relations- no New-START and missile defenseLyman, International Policy Digest, Editor-in-Chief, 7/7(John, Foreign Policy Digest, Administrative Editor, United States Congressional Campaign, Policy Director, 7/7/12, , accessed on 7/13/12, EW)Writing in the Washington Post in July of 2010 as debate surrounding the ratification of the New START Treaty was heating up in the U.S. Senate, Romney wrote, “(Obama’s) New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New-START) with Russia could be his worst foreign policy mistake yet. The treaty as submitted to the Senate should not be ratified…New-START impedes missile defense, our protection from nuclear-proliferating rogue states such as Iran and North Korea…And Russia has expressly reserved the right to walk away from the treaty if it believes that the United States has significantly increased its missile defense capability.” Perhaps most ominous is Romney’s conclusion that significant nuclear stockpiles are necessary as a deterrent to Russia. “New-START gives Russia a massive nuclear weapon advantage over the United States. The treaty ignores tactical nuclear weapons, where Russia outnumbers us by as much as 10 to 1,” Romney writes. Does Romney believe that a nuclear war with Russia is still a possibility? Romney’s muddled foreign policy message has been to place himself in opposition to every Obama administration policy and initiative from the Arab Spring to U.S.-Russian relations. While, this might be expected, it opens candidate Romney to criticisms that he hasn’t offered any substantive details about what he would do differently as president other than to offer very vague generic “talking points”. In this regard he might be avoiding Obama’s problem. While not necessarily on par with Hubert Humphrey by promising something to everyone while running for president in 2008 Obama made very substantive campaign promises that never materialized and have continued to haunt him. Comprehensive immigration never saw the light of day, militants captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere are still being housed at Guantanamo Bay and while Obama did see the Affordable Care Act passed into law it was not without spending significant political capital and “Obamacare” very well could contribute to Obama’s defeat in November. But as November nears, Romney and by extension his campaign will need to fine-tune their argument why a Romney presidency would be more successful than the Obama presidency. While the Obama administration has had many misses they do have some areas that they can argue have been successful as in the complete U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, the bin Laden raid, decreasing the ranks of Al Qaeda, opening the Af-Pak border crossing for NATO and U.S. supplies and a U.S.-Afghan Strategic Partnership Agreement.AT - Campaign RhetoricRomney Russia statements reveal actually policy outcomesGlaser, Antiwar assistant editor, The American Conservative editorial assistant 6/21(John, 6/21/12, , accessed on 7/7/12, EW)John R. Bolton, the U.N. ambassador during the George W. Bush administration and specialist on arms control and security issues, is said to be a leading candidate for secretary of state.That’s a terrifying prospect, but it’s also not very surprising. Many of Romney’s foreign policy views sound very much like Bolton’s. Bolton is a prominent supporter of Romney. There is every reason to assume that Romney will govern in a fashion that would generally satisfy Bolton. The hope that Romney’s foreign policy statements are all campaign posturing and don’t mean anything has always been just that–a hope. The fact that Bolton is even being considered for this position ought to provide all the confirmation anyone needs that Romney’s positions on Iran and Russia in particular are more than just election-year demagoguery. Someone might object that Bolton has a very poor chance of being confirmed for this position. It’s possible that Romney wouldn’t be willing to go through a contentious, losing confirmation battle at the very beginning of his term. For that reason, he might not nominate someone as polarizing and controversial as Bolton. On the other hand, perhaps it is a mistake to assume that Bolton couldn’t be confirmed. It is still fairly unusual for a new administration’s major Cabinet nominations to be blocked by the other party. We should assume that a Bolton nomination is quite possible in the event of a Romney victory, and a Bolton confirmation might be as well.Accidents ImpactRelations solve accidents and miscalculationCirincione, 2007(Joseph, Director for Non-Proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “Nuclear Summer,” 7/23/11, , accessed 6/26/11, NC)With Russian early-warning capabilities eroding, we increasingly rely on good relations between the White House and the Kremlin to ensure that no Russian president will misinterpret a false alarm and make a catastrophic decision. This summer, behind the smiles at the “Lobster Summit" in Maine, that good will was in short supply, weakening an important safety net crucial to preventing an accidental nuclear exchange. Later in July, the mutual diplomatic expulsions between Russia and the United Kingdom, which fields 185 nuclear weapons, ratcheted tensions up another notch and should shake current complacent policies that take good relations for granted and scorn any further negotiated nuclear reductions.ExtinctionMintz, 01(Morton Mintz is a former chair of the Fund for Investigative Journalism and a former Washington Post reporter, , The American Prospect, 2/26/01, NC)The bitter disputes over national missile defense (NMD) have obscured a related but dramatically more urgent issue of national security: the4,800 nuclear warheads -- weapons with a combined destructive power nearly 100,000 times greater than the atomic bomb that leveled Hiroshima -- currently on "hair-trigger" alert. Hair-trigger alert means this: The missiles carrying those warheads are armed and fueled at all times. Two thousand or so of these warheads are on the intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) targeted by Russia at the United States; 1,800 are on the ICBMs targeted by the United Statesat Russia; and approximately 1,000 are on the submarine-based missiles targeted by the two nations at each other. These missiles would launch on receipt of three computer-delivered messages. Launch crews -- on duty every second of every day -- are under orders to send the messages on receipt of a single computer-delivered command. In no more than two minutes, if all went according to plan, Russia or theUnited Statescould launch missiles at predetermined targets: Washington or New York; Moscow or St. Petersburg. The early-warning systems on which the launch crews rely would detect the other side's missiles within tens of seconds, causing the intended -- or accidental -- enemy to mount retaliatory strikes. "Within a half-hour, there could be a nuclear war that would extinguish all of us," explains Bruce Blair. "It would be, basically, a nuclear war by checklist, by rote." Terrorism ImpactRelations key to solve terrorism and prolifPerry and Scowcroft, ’09 (William and brent, Chairs CFR, april, “US Nuclear Weapons Policy”, NC) Despite nearly universal opposition, North Korea has developed a small nuclear arsenal, and Iran appears to be following in its footsteps. Other states, particularly in the Middle East, are starting nuclear power programs modeled after that of Iran. The proliferation of nuclear weapons and fissile materials is thus dangerously close to a tipping point. Beyond this danger, there are still tens of thousands of nuclear weapons in the world. If just one of these thousands of weapons fell into the hands of terrorists, it could be detonated with catastrophic results. So, although the old danger of a massive nuclear exchange between great powers has declined, a new risk looms of a few nuclear detonations being set off by a terrorist group or a nuclear-capable rogue state, or of a nuclear power making a tragic mistake. The threat of nuclear terrorism is already serious, and, as more nations acquire nuclear weapons or the fissile material needed for nuclear weapons, it will increase. Of course, the detonation of a relatively primitive nuclear bomb in one American city would not be equivalent to the type of nuclear exchange that was feared during the Cold War. Nonetheless, the results would be catastrophic, with the devastation extending well beyond the staggering fatalities. The direct economic losses would amount to many hundreds of billions of dollars, but the indirect economic impact would be even greater. The social and political effects are incalculable, especially if the detonation were in Washington, DC, and disabled a significant part of the U.S. government. The terror and disruption would be beyond imagination. High priority should be accorded to policies that serve to prevent such a catastrophe, specifically programs that reduce and protect existing nuclear arsenals and that keep new arsenals from being created. All such preventive programs, by their nature, have international dimensions. Their success depends on the United States being able to work cooperatively with other countries, most notably Russia. That such international cooperation can be successful is illustrated by the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program in the 1990s. U.S.-Russian efforts on that program led to thousands of nuclear weapons and their launchers being dismantled and thus made the world safer. But unless U.S.-Russia relations improve, it is difficult to imagine those two governments cooperating on future programs that require such a high level of mutual trust.ExtinctionSid-Ahmed, 2004 (Mohamed, Managing Editor for Al-Ahali, “Extinction!” August 26-September 1, Issue no. 705, , NC)A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima and Nagazaki, even if -- and this is far from certain -- the weapons used are less harmful than those used then, Japan, at the time, with no knowledge of nuclear technology, had no choice but to capitulate. Today, the technology is a secret for nobody. So far, except for the two bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear weapons have been used only to threaten. Now we are at a stage where they can be detonated. This completely changes the rules of the game. We have reached a point where anticipatory measures can determine the course of events. Allegations of a terrorist connection can be used to justify anticipatory measures, including the invasion of a sovereign state like Iraq. As it turned out, these allegations, as well as the allegation that Saddam was harbouring WMD, proved to be unfounded. What would be the consequences ofa nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive.But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.**US-China Relations**2NC ModuleRomney win crushes US-China relationsLu and Swaine 12(Raymond and Michael, postdoctoral fellow at the Center for Chinese Studies, University of California at Berkeley, specializes in Chinese security and foreign policy, U.S.–China relations, and East Asian international relations, 3/6/12, , accessed on 7/5/12, EW)Raymond Lu and Michael D. Swaine argue that presidential candidate Mitt Romney's rhetoric about China points to a direction of diplomatic neglect and military overreach, while leaving important strategic questions unanswered. During the recent visit of Chinese heir apparent Xi Jinping to the United States, Mitt Romney lambasted the Obama administration for approaching Beijing as a "near supplicant" and permitting "the dawn of a Chinese century" to continue unopposed. The way forward: tougher economic penalties to reverse Washington's "trade surrender," and an invigorated military presence in the Pacific to force China to abandon its dreams of regional hegemony. The conventional reading of Romney on China suggests that such chest-thumping rhetoric will fade with the election, giving way to the mainstream consensus that pairs economic and diplomatic engagement with strategic hedging. Though this is at least partially true, leaving the next administration's China policy to the learning curve is still risky. Romney's tough talk on China conceals some profoundly deterministic--and pessimistic assumptions--about the future of U.S.-China relations that could accelerate existing momentum for future confrontations. Without a critical appraisal of U.S. interests and capabilities, Romney could do both too much and too little to manage the frictions generated by an increasingly assertive China in Asia. Too much in that an overly aggressive and militarized response against China could set the two great powers on a collision course, and too little in that poorly-conceived interventions in other regions could force the United States to divert its attention and resources away from Asia, sending disturbing messages to China and U.S. allies alike.After 10 years of close but unproductive talks, the U.S. and China still fail to understand one another's nuclear weapons policies, according to a disturbing report by Global Security Newswire. In other words, neither the U.S. nor China knows when the other will or will not use a nuclear weapon against the other. That's not due to hostility, secrecy, or deliberate foreign policy -- it's a combination of mistrust between individual negotiators and poor communication; at times, something as simple as a shoddy translation has prevented the two major powers from coming together. Though nuclear war between the U.S. and China is still extremely unlikely, because the two countries do not fully understand when the other will and will not deploy nuclear weapons, the odds of starting an accidental nuclear conflict are much higher.Global nuclear warWittner, Ph.D. in history, international prof., former president of the Council on Peace Research in History, 11(Lawrence S., 11/28/11, , accessed on 7/5/12, EW)While nuclear weapons exist, there remains a danger that they will be used. After all, for centuries national conflicts have led to wars, with nations employing their deadliest weapons. The current deterioration of U.S. relations with China might end up providing us with yet another example of this phenomenon. The gathering tension between the United States and China is clear enough. Disturbed by China’s growing economic and military strength, the U.S. government recently challenged China’s claims in the South China Sea, increased the U.S. military presence in Australia, and deepened U.S. military ties with other nations in the Pacific region. According to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United States was “asserting our own position as a Pacific power.” But need this lead to nuclear war? Not necessarily. And yet, there are signs that it could. After all, both the United States and China possess large numbers of nuclear weapons. The U.S. government threatened to attack China with nuclear weapons during the Korean War and, later, during the conflict over the future of China’s offshore islands, Quemoy and Matsu. In the midst of the latter confrontation, President Dwight Eisenhower declared publicly, and chillingly, that U.S. nuclear weapons would “be used just exactly as you would use a bullet or anything else.” Of course, China didn’t have nuclear weapons then. Now that it does, perhaps the behavior of national leaders will be more temperate. But the loose nuclear threats of U.S. and Soviet government officials during the Cold War, when both nations had vast nuclear arsenals, should convince us that, even as the military ante is raised, nuclear saber-rattling persists. Some pundits argue that nuclear weapons prevent wars between nuclear-armed nations; and, admittedly, there haven’t been very many—at least not yet. But the Kargil War of 1999, between nuclear-armed India and nuclear-armed Pakistan, should convince us that such wars can occur. Indeed, in that case, the conflict almost slipped into a nuclear war. Pakistan’s foreign secretary threatened that, if the war escalated, his country felt free to use “any weapon” in its arsenal. During the conflict, Pakistan did move nuclear weapons toward its border, while India, it is claimed, readied its own nuclear missiles for an attack on Pakistan. At the least, though, don’t nuclear weapons deter a nuclear attack? Do they? Obviously, NATO leaders didn’t feel deterred, for, throughout the Cold War, NATO’s strategy was to respond to a Soviet conventional military attack on Western Europe by launching a Western nuclear attack on the nuclear-armed Soviet Union. Furthermore, if U.S. government officials really believed that nuclear deterrence worked, they would not have resorted to championing “Star Wars” and its modern variant, national missile defense. Why are these vastly expensive—and probably unworkable—military defense systems needed if other nuclear powers are deterred from attacking by U.S. nuclear might? Of course, the bottom line for those Americans convinced that nuclear weapons safeguard them from a Chinese nuclear attack might be that the U.S. nuclear arsenal is far greater than its Chinese counterpart. Today, it is estimated that the U.S. government possesses over five thousand nuclear warheads, while the Chinese government has a total inventory of roughly three hundred. Moreover, only about forty of these Chinese nuclear weapons can reach the United States. Surely the United States would “win” any nuclear war with China. But what would that “victory” entail? A nuclear attack by China would immediately slaughter at least 10 million Americans in a great storm of blast and fire, while leaving many more dying horribly of sickness and radiation poisoning. The Chinese death toll in a nuclear war would be far higher. Both nations would be reduced to smoldering, radioactive wastelands. Also, radioactive debris sent aloft by the nuclear explosions would blot out the sun and bring on a “nuclear winter” around the globe—destroying agriculture, creating worldwide famine, and generating chaos and destruction. Moreover, in another decade the extent of this catastrophe would be far worse. The Chinese government is currently expanding its nuclear arsenal, and by the year 2020 it is expected to more than double its number of nuclear weapons that can hit the United States. The U.S. government, in turn, has plans to spend hundreds of billions of dollars “modernizing” its nuclear weapons and nuclear production facilities over the next decade. To avert the enormous disaster of a U.S.-China nuclear war, there are two obvious actions that can be taken. The first is to get rid of nuclear weapons, as the nuclear powers have agreed to do but thus far have resisted doing. The second, conducted while the nuclear disarmament process is occurring, is to improve U.S.-China relations. If the American and Chinese people are interested in ensuring their survival and that of the world, they should be working to encourage these policies.Obama Helps RelationsObama’s re-election is key to US-China relationsGuancha News 7/1(7/1/12, , accessed on 7/4/12, EW) Wang Jisi:Prof at National Defense University of the PLA, Pres. Of the Chinese Association for American Studies, founding member of the Pacific Council on International Policy in Los Angeles, International Council Member of the Asia Society in New York City, and Advisory Council Member of the Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies of the Brookings InstitutionSino-U.S. relations have long been considered the most important bilateral ties in the 21st century. Having endured 40 tumultuous years since the signing of the Shanghai Communiqué in 1972, the relationship between China and the U.S. currently faces many challenges, and yet has also seen many improvements. Wang Jisi, dean of the School of International Studies at Peking University, spoke to about his views on the current problems in Sino-U.S. relations. : Why have the problems in Sino-U.S. relations remained unsolved for such a long time? Wang Jisi: Most of the problems related to Sino-U.S. relations are rooted in the two powers' mutual suspicion of each other. This suspicion can be traced back to the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949. China's firm belief is that the U.S. has considered it an enemy ever since the founding of the new republic. On the other hand, the U.S. has been hostile to any nation under Communist rule. The [existing] mutual political suspicion will only grow as time goes by. Q: Is Sino-US hostility caused by political bias or is it the result of two big powers confronting each other? Wang Jisi: Chinese people and American people hold rather different values from each other. But unlike Iraq and the North Korea, China boasts huge business opportunities and an expanding market, both of which are quite attractive to the U.S. Despite this, conflicts between the two countries as a result of national interests are unavoidable. As one of the many interest groups in the United States, businessmen tend to focus their attention on China's economic systems rather than its ideologies, in the belief that China's economic systems are detrimental to their business. US senators and party leaders have to pay more attention to China's ideologies, including human rights issues, in order to gain electoral support. The Pentagon focuses on China's increasing military expenditure in order to push for increased US military spending. The Obama administration, which serves as a coordinator among different interest groups, has continuously tried to reassure China that the U.S. has not tried to, and indeed has no wish to negate China. However, these have been in vain. By the same token, the U.S. has never believed China's promise of a peaceful rise. The seemingly useless efforts made by the two sides are essentially aimed at lulling the other into a false sense of security. Q: Will the mutual suspicion be lessened by the increasing number of non-governmental exchanges between the two sides? Wang Jisi: Not really. Most people, whether in the U.S. or China, who acquire information via domestic mainstream media, will not get a true picture of the other country. Even getting involved in people-to-people communication does not negate wider existing differences. For instance, say that a person travels in America and becomes genuinely fond of the country and people, this individual experience will not eliminate the political differences and mutual suspicion which exist between the two countries. Simply learning more about a country does not necessarily mean you will trust it more. Q: Is China now really mounting a serious challenge to U.S. global hegemony? Wang Jisi: Due to many of the practices of both countries, each has long suspected the other of plots and counter-plots where international issues are concerned. But as far as I know, taking into consideration the current large gap which exists in terms of overall strength between the two countries, China is not yet strong enough to displace the U.S. with regard to global hegemony. Instead of trying to do so, China should improve its international standing by achieving targets which are within its reach and control. Q: Some scholars think that the U.S. is behind the South China Sea and Diaoyu Islands disputes. Is that true or is the U.S. simply being opportunistic as far as these disputes are concerned? Wang Jisi: From the U.S. point of view, increased tension between China and the Philippines over the disputed Huangyan Islands can only be an advantage because, to some degree, the dispute will contain its biggest opponent. On the other hand, it will make the Philippines more reliant on the U.S. China cannot openly blame the U.S. for provoking or exacerbating the disputes, despite the fact that it will certainly suspect the U.S. of being is behind these disputes. Despite this, the U.S. will definitely not become involved in the dispute. International issues are affected by various factors, including official diplomatic debates and media hype. As to the current issues, a US-Philippines joint military drill was held shortly after the Huangyan Islands dispute erupted. Was it plotted in advance or was it simply a coincidence? Official voices from both sides gave different explanations, and the tension was fuelled by international media, leaving a still-existing vacuum where the truth should be. Q: What about China's domestic issues? For instance, does the U.S. deliberately sell arms to Taiwan? Wang Jisi: In terms of timing, the U.S. doesn't "deliberately" sell arms to Taiwan, for you cannot deal with Taiwan when it doesn't actually need weapons. Such deals are a two-way street between U.S. and Taiwan, and they will only happen when necessary for the interests of either side. For the U.S. part, such weapon deals represent economic interest and strategic significance, as well as defense cooperation.Romney Hurts RelationsRomney will destroy US-China relations – his views create a competitive atmosphere from day oneStokes, National Security Network – Policy Analyst, April 25th(Jacob, 4-25-2012, China-US Focus, The Presidential Election and US-China Relations, , accessed 7-9-2012, JKE)Broadly, Romney views the Sino-American relationship as zero-sum and destined for strategic confrontation. Specifically, Romney promises that, if he’s elected, the 21st century will be an “American century,” not a “Chinese century.” He also promises to get tough on China on “day one” by labeling China out as a currency manipulator (although that promise goes against his earlier record on trade enforcement and the positions taken by his top trade policy advisor). Commentaries in the Chinese press have derided Romney’s positions on China. A piece in the People’s Daily Overseas Edition, the Chinese Communist Party organ, sniped that, “Even some of the US' allies regard these unscrupulous and irresponsible attacks on its imaginary enemies as nonsense.” As for Romney’s remarks on currency issues, a Foreign Ministry spokesman called Romney’s stance “irresponsible” and a Xinhua report characterized his stance as an “absurd” attempt to play on the fears of U.S. voters.AT - Campaign RhetoricRomney’s views on China aren’t political – the Cold War and China visits shape his viewsHon, Straits Times – US Bureau Chief, April 18th (Chua Chin, 4-18-2012, Straits Times, Romney’s Tough Talk on China Sparks Concern, , accessed 7-9-2012, JKE)The former Massachusetts governor has called China a 'cheat' on economic and trade issues, and wants to vastly expand US naval power so as to preserve American supremacy in the Pacific. A failure to do so would allow China to establish regional hegemony or even a 'global alliance of authoritarian states'. Many regard the tough rhetoric as being politically motivated. Others cite the influence of his stable of neo-conservative advisers. But a closer examination suggests that Mr Romney's views on China have not been entirely shaped by the political needs of the moment. His experiences growing up in the US during the height of the Cold War and his personal visits to China over the years appear to have done as much to shape his deeply mistrustful view of communism and authoritarian states - a trait that could weigh heavily on the future trajectory of bilateral ties.Taiwan ImpactStrong US-China relations prevent China-Taiwan WarSwaine, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s China Program – Senior Associate and Co-Director, 4(Michael D., March/April 2004, Trouble in Taiwan, Foreign Affairs, Volume: 83, Issue: 2, pg. 39-49, EBSCO, accessed 7-9-2012, JKE)Ultimately, the extent to which the United States and Taiwan must rely on deterrence is inversely related to the success of Washington's efforts to reassure China that it is committed to the status quo. As President Bush has recognized, such efforts are likely to be more successful if greater levels of trust can be created through the establishment of a stronger, more cooperative, Sino-American relationship. They are likely to be less successful if the relationship is allowed to deteriorate through insufficient attention to each other's interests. Chinese officials will be less bellicose and more patient if they believe Washington is not colluding with Taipei to favor independence. Insufficient reassurance---even if it is combined with a strong deterrence posture--could eventually provoke China into a desperate use of force, in the belief that Washington might use its superior military capabilities to protect Taiwan from a Chinese attack as the island moved toward independence. Efforts to strengthen deterrence, in other words, must be carefully coordinated with a larger strategy of reassurance if stability is to be maintained. China-Taiwan conflict goes nuclearO’Hanlon, Brookings Institution – Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy, 5(Michael E., 5-1-2005, Brookings Institution, The Risk of war over Taiwan is real, , accessed 7-9-2012, JKE)Nonetheless, Mr Zoellick is more right than wrong. In the absence of strong constraints on future high-technology sales, lifting the European arms embargo on China would be a big mistake. There really is a chance of a Sino-US war over Taiwan, which may ebb and flow month to month but nonetheless remains quite real. And any European decision to lift the embargo could make any war more likely and more costly in lives and assets. The reasons are simple. First, China is serious about being willing to risk war to prevent Taiwan's secession. Second, although many in China as well as Europe cannot quite believe it, the US is just as serious about defending Taiwan. And third, even though American military power remains far superior to that of China, the Chinese do not need to equal US power to make any war over nearby Taiwan very challenging for American forces. Given the right catalyst from Taipei, therefore, US deterrence of China could fail and the world's first true war between nuclear weapons states could ensue. It is not just China's ruling communist party that considers Taiwan a part of China; an increasingly nationalistic population does as well. In fact, the Chinese see themselves as patient and restrained because they are simply demanding that Taiwan not secede, rather than insisting on immediate reunification. They worry that if Taiwan broke away, it would encourage other separatist movements in places such as Tibet and Xinjiang province, and weaken China strategically at the very moment it is poised to regain its status as a global power. China's leaders operate on the assumption that Taiwanese secession would doom their own prospects for holding on to power. At a minimum, they would have to show they had gone the extra mile to try to prevent secession, meaning that even an unsuccessful military operation might be preferable to inaction.Economy/Warming ImpactUS China Relations key to environment and economyMcDonald 11(Jon, 1/17/11, , accessed on 7/7/12, EW)BEIJING — In late 2009, President Barack Obama and his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao announced an ambitious array of joint clean energy research projects touted as a mark of a maturing relationship and an alliance to fight climate change.A year after Obama's visit to China, the envisioned partnership has largely evaporated. The U.S. has filed a complaint at the World Trade Organization against China's policies favoring its producers of wind and solar equipment. Cooperation in climate change talks has been rare.On the eve of Hu's U.S. visit, the conflict is emblematic of a range of areas, from climate to technology to reducing strains in the the global economy, where Beijing sees its interests as very different from Washington even as they pledge cooperation."On the main issues, there is open hypocrisy on both sides," said Derek Scissors, an economist at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington think tank.The stakes are significant. The United States and China are the two biggest economies and greenhouse gas emitters and are linked by $250 billion a year in trade. Whether they can cooperate is likely to be key to restoring the world economy to health and creating an effective program to forestall climate change.The two governments have worked over the past decade to forge ties with regular Cabinet-level meetings and U.S. officials advise Beijing in fields from health to environmental enforcement. But across many economic issues they are moving toward conflict.Beijing, citing its need to reduce poverty and avoid financial shocks, has rejected binding greenhouse gas limits and U.S. pressure to ease currency controls that critics say keep its yuan weak and swell China's trade surplus.On the U.S. side, a listless economy and high unemployment make it politically harder for Washington to argue for cooperation and add to pressure on Obama to press China over trade complaints.In climate, the two governments trade accusations that they are blocking of FormBottom of FormSimilar conflict marks efforts to reinvigorate the world economy and ease global economic imbalances by reducing America's huge trade and budget deficits and narrowing China's multibillion-dollar trade surplus.Beijing committed to boost its domestic consumption to cut reliance on exports and fuel demand for imports. But it has restrained the rise of its yuan against the dollar, which would increase the spending power of Chinese families. Analysts expect a Chinese trade surplus this year of about $200 billion – the same as 2010.Warming will kill all humansStein 7 (David, Science Editor, “Scientists say Humanity ignores Antarctic melting and Greenhouse gas time-bombs with the price of Mass-Extinction” The Canadian)Global Warming continues to be approaches by governments as a "luxury" item, rather than a matter of basic human survival. Humanity is being taken to its destruction by a greed-driven elite. These elites, which include 'Big Oil' and other related interests, are intoxicated by "the high" of pursuing ego-driven power, in a comparable manner to drug addicts who pursue an elusive "high", irrespective of the threat of pursuing that "high" poses to their own basic survival, and the security of others. Global Warming and the pre-emptive war against Iraq are part of the same self-destructive prism of a political-military-industrial complex, which is on a path of mass planetary destruction, backed by techniques of mass-deception. "The scientific debate about human induced global warming is over but policy makers - let alone the happily shopping general public - still seem to not understand the scope of the impending tragedy. Global warming isn't just warmer temperatures, heat waves, melting ice and threatened polar bears. Scientific understanding increasingly points to runaway global warming leading to human extinction", reported Bill Henderson in CrossCurrents. If strict global environmental security measures are not immediately put in place to keep further emissions of greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere we are looking at the death of billions, the end of civilization as we know it and in all probability the end of humankind's several million year old existence, along with the extinction of most flora and fauna beloved to man in the world we share. The Stephen Harper minority government backed by Alberta "Big Oil", the U.S. Republican President Bush administration, and a confederacy of other elites associated with a neo-conservative oriented political-military-industrial complex, has only sought to "buy time" against his critics, (and mount a disingenuous public relations campaign under a new Minister of the Environment). It is apparent that The Stephen Harper government has no commitment to providing any leadership on Canadian or global achievement of the minimum standards set on greenhouse gas emissions reductions under the Kyoto Protocol. There are 'carbon bombs': carbon in soils, carbon in warming temperate and boreal forests and in a drought struck Amazon, methane in Arctic peat bogs and in methane hydrates melting in warming ocean waters. "For several decades it has been hypothesized that rising temperatures from increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels could be releasing some of and eventually all of these stored carbon stocks to add substantially more potent greenhouse gases to the atmosphere," Bill Henderson further elaborates. Given time lags of 30-50 years, we might have already put enough extra greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to have crossed a threshold to these bombs exploding, their released greenhouse gases leading to ever accelerating global warming with future global temperatures maybe tens of degrees higher than our norms of human habitation and therefore extinction or very near extinction of humanity. "(T)he science is clear. We need not a 20% cut by 2020; not a 60% cut by 2050, but a 90% cut by 2030 (1). Only then do we stand a good chance of keeping carbon concentrations in the atmosphere below 430 parts per million, which means that only then do we stand a good chance of preventing some of the threatened positive feedbacks. If we let it get beyond that point there is nothing we can do. The biosphere takes over as the primary source of carbon. It is out of our hands," George Monbiot says. Ticking Time Bomb by John Atcheson , a geologist writing in the Baltimore Sun, is the best and almost only mainstream media explanation of runaway global warming and how close we are to extinction. "There are enormous quantities of naturally occurring greenhouse gasses trapped in ice-like structures in the cold northern muds and at the bottom of the seas. These ices, called clathrates, contain 3,000 times as much methane as is in the atmosphere. Methane is more than 20 times as strong a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide."Economic decline causes protectionism and war – their defense doesn’t assume accompanying shifts in global power.Royal, DoD Cooperative Threat Reduction Director, 10?[Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, 2010, “Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises,” in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215]Less intuitive is how?periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defense behavior of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson’s (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that?rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such,?exogenous shocks such as?economic crisis?could usher in a redistribution of relative power?(see also Gilpin, 1981)?that?leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of?miscalculation?(Fearon, 1995). Alternatively,?even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power?(Werner, 1999). Seperately, Pollins (1996) also shows that?global?economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small?powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland’s (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that ‘future expectation of trade’ is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behavious of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations, However,?if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources,?the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to?those?resources.?Crisis could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations?either on its own or?because it triggers protectionist moves?by interdependent states.?Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write,?The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing.?Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favor. Moreover,?the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflict self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. P. 89)?Economic decline has been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism?(Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore,?crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. ‘Diversionary theory’ suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline,?sitting governments have increase incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a ‘rally around the flag’ effect.?Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995), and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that?the tendency towards?diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed?from office?due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of?weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity,?are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force.?In summary,?recent economic scholarship positively correlated economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.?This implied connection between integration, crisis and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.**Healthcare**2NC ModuleElection determines if healthcare reform stays or goesMetzler, US News and World Report – Political Writer, June 29th(Rebekah, 6-29-2012, US News and World Report, Republicans and Democrats See Political Advantage in Healthcare Ruling, , accessed 7-9-2012, JKE)Following the Supreme Court ruling to uphold Democrats' signature healthcare reform law, leaders in both parties sought to spin things to their advantage. Democrats basked in vindication after two years of enduring GOP attacks that the law was unconstitutional and receiving a beating during the 2010 mid-term elections. Republicans, meanwhile, doubled-down on plans to repeal the law and held the court ruling as a call-to-arms for voters in the fall to support the effort as the last chance to stop it from taking effect. At the top of the ticket, President Barack Obama and Republican rival Mitt Romney have already staked out their separate ground on the issue - Obama said on Thursday he never pursued the reforms because it was good politics, but because it was good policy. Romney on the other hand vowed in no uncertain terms that he would seek to repeal the law if elected.Universal Healthcare is key to prevent bioterror Green, Ph D, 04 (Shane, May 2004, “Bioterrorism and Health Care Reform: No Preparedness Without.” Accessed: 7/4/12 Azimi)Using infectious diseases as weapons, bioterrorism threatens to weaken the civilian workforce and, hence, a nation's ability to go about its daily business. Moreover, in the case of diseases that are transmissible person to person, each infected individual becomes a human weapon, infecting others, who then infect others, and so on, tying up medical responders and overwhelming medical resources. A nation's greatest defense against bioterrorism, both in preparation for and in response to an attack, is a population in which an introduced biological agent cannot get a foothold, ie, healthy people with easy access to health care.Bioterror leads to extinctionOchs, president of the Aberdeen Proving Ground Superfund Citizens Coalition, 02[Richard Ochs, , June 9, 2002, “Biological Weapons Must Be Abolished Immediately,”?, Accessed: July 5th 2012, Azimi]Of all the weapons of mass destruction, the genetically engineered biological weapons, many without a known cure or vaccine, are an extreme danger to the continued survival of life on earth. Any perceived military value or deterrence pales in comparison to the great risk these weapons pose just sitting in vials in laboratories. While a "nuclear winter," resulting from a massive exchange of nuclear weapons, could also kill off most of life on earth and severely compromise the health of future generations, they are easier to control. Biological weapons, on the other hand, can get out of control very easily, as the recent anthrax attacks has demonstrated. There is no way to guarantee the security of these doomsday weapons because very tiny amounts can be stolen or accidentally released and then grow or be grown to horrendous proportions. The Black Death of the Middle Ages would be small in comparison to the potential damage bioweapons could cause. Abolition of chemical weapons is less of a priority because, while they can also kill millions of people outright, their persistence in the environment would be less than nuclear or biological agents or more localized. Hence, chemical weapons would have a lesser effect on future generations of innocent people and the natural environment. Like the Holocaust, once a localized chemical extermination is over, it is over. With nuclear and biological weapons, the killing will probably never end. Radioactive elements last tens of thousands of years and will keep causing cancers virtually forever. Potentially worse than that, bio-engineered agents by the hundreds with no known cure could wreck even greater calamity on the human race than could persistent radiation. AIDS and ebola viruses are just a small example of recently emerging plagues with no known cure or vaccine. Can we imagine hundreds of such plagues? HUMAN EXTINCTION IS NOW POSSIBLE. Ironically, the Bush administration has just changed the U.S. nuclear doctrine to allow nuclear retaliation against threats upon allies by conventional weapons. The past doctrine allowed such use only as a last resort when our nation’s survival was at stake. Will the new policy also allow easier use of US bioweapons? How slippery is this slope?Romney Will RepealRomney will repeal healthcareKlein, MSNBC contributor, 6/29 (Erza, 6/29/12, WASHINGTON POST, If Romney wins, he can repeal health reform. And he should., , Accessed: 7/4/12, Azimi)Romney won’t have 60 votes in the Senate. But if he has 51, he can use the budget reconciliation process, which is filibuster-proof, to get rid of the law’s spending.One objection to that is that budget reconciliation is supposed to be used for laws that reduce the deficit, and the Congressional Budget Office would score repeal of the Affordable Care Act as increasing the deficit by about $300 billion. Sure, but Romney wouldn’t be the one supporting this health-care Frankenstein. He and other Republicans would be working to repeal it. And are Democrats really going to stand together on the floor of the United States Senate and filibuster in order to keep the individual mandate in place, which will now be forcing people to buy insurance they can’t afford without the subsidies that made the whole thing work? They’d have to be suicidal to do that. And to go even a bit further, if Mitt Romney wins the election and Republicans take control of the Senate, they should repeal the Affordable Care Act. At that point, they will have won two straight elections atop a platform in which repealing the ACA was a central, explicit promise. The American people will have spoken with unusual clarity, and part of what they will have said, whether they meant to say it or not, is repeal the ACA. If Republicans failed to follow through, they would be breaking a central campaign promise.Romney will repeal healthcare – it’s the third part of his November campaign platformShear, New York Times – Syndicated Blogger, Parker, New York Times – Reporter, June 28th(Michael D., Ashley, 6-28-2012, New York Times – The Caucus Blog, Romney Says He Will ‘Repeal Obamacare’ if Elected, , accessed 7-9-2012, JKE)Mitt Romney declared Thursday that he would “act to repeal Obamacare” if he was elected president, saying that he agreed with the dissenting justices in the Supreme Court ruling on Thursday. With the Capitol over his shoulder and standing in front of a podium with a sign that read “Repeal and Replace Obamacare,” Mr. Romney said the health of the American economy depended on getting rid of the health care law. “Our mission is clear: if we want to get rid of Obamacare, we are going to have to replace President Obama,” Mr. Romney said. “That is my mission. That is our work. And I’m asking the American people to join me.” Mr. Romney said the court’s ruling underscored the choice before American voters, one that he said was between bigger government that could take away health insurance choices or a Republican plan to preserve them. “We have to make sure that people who want to keep their current insurance will be able to do so,” Mr. Romney said in the brief statement. “This is now the time for the American people to make a choice.” Mr. Romney might have been hoping for a different court decision, but his campaign staff was not complaining. “No question that politically it is a huge energizer,” said a top campaign aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity to speak more freely about the campaign’s thinking. “Politically it is a big positive for Romney campaign.” Mr. Romney’s promise to repeal the president’s health care plan in his standard stump speech always gets applause, and now Mr. Romney can tie repeal to the November election. “If we want to get rid of Obamacare, we’re going to have to replace President Obama,” Mr. Romney said Thursday afternoon, offering a line that his aides are already echoing. Mr. Romney can be nuanced, which has tripped him up at times. But his campaign prefers one or two simple arguments (see: jobs and the economy), and they seem to have found another one in the ruling on Thursday: Repeal Obamacare/replace President Obama).Romney Can RepealRomney means healthcare repeal – he has developed ways around congressional blocksMacAskill, Guardian – Washington DC Bureau Chief, June 29th(Ewen, 6-29-2012, The Guardian, Romney Rakes in Millions in Wake of Supreme Court Health Decision, , accessed 7-9-2012, JKE)But this Plan A had to be scrapped when the supreme court issued its ruling. Instead, Romney had to resort to Plan B, saying that he would do what the court failed to do and move to scrap it on the first day of his presidency. Speaking in Washington, in front a podium decked with the slogan 'repeal and replace Obamacare', Romney said: "Help us defeat Obamacare. Help us defeat the liberal agenda that makes government too big, too intrusive, and is killing jobs across this great country." The Romney campaign team claimed the supreme court ruling had galvanised the support of opponents of the law and that in the first three hours after the ruling $1m in donations poured into the Romney headquarters. The team will be hoping the supreme court move might rekindle the Tea Party movement, diverting its energy behind his campaign. Romney will fight the election on healthcare but nowhere near to the extent to which he will on the economy, the issue which both he and Obama acknowledge will determine the outcome. The health issue is no longer as big a positive for Romney as it was for the Republicans in the Congressional elections in 2010. Most voters have made up their minds, so there do not seem to be new votes to be won over. The crucial difference is that many of those opposed who profess to be opposed to the act want to keep some of the measures. There are practical problems too with repeal. Although Romney said he would act to repeal Obama's Affordable Care Act from day one of his presidency, that is near impossible. There is almost no chance of the Republicans securing in November the 60 seats in the Senate they would need to prevent the Democrats from filibustering any attempts to repeal the legislation. An alternative for Romney, and one he has described on the campaign trail, would be to try to wreck Obama's healthcare reform - or at least some of it. One way to do that would be to issue waivers to states allowing them to opt out. Defense/Innovation ImpactRepeal bad kills defense spending and medical innovation which solves diseaseFrum, National Post Contributor, 6-28 (David, 6-30-2012,NATIONAL POST David Frum: How America’s healthcare debate affects the?world Accessed: 7/4/12, Azimi)The American healthcare debate is not a debate for Americans only. In two ways at least, the debate implicates the well-being of everybody in the developed world. The first implication: medical innovation. The profit-seeking American healthcare system is always looking for new products to sell: new drugs, new surgical procedures, new ways of delivering care. The result is that the United States has become the leading — often, the unique — source of progress in the treatment of disease. The second implication: global peace and security. The U.S. taxpayer pays the cost of the military protection that shelters Canada, Europe and all the other democracies. The U.S. defence budget costs about 4% of Gross Domestic Product. Rapidly rising U.S. health costs call into question America’s ability to pay that bill. The United States operates far and away the most expensive healthcare system on earth: 17% of GDP and still rising. Most other developed countries spend between 10% and 12%. Runner-up Switzerland pays 13%.Remember: Despite the supposedly “private” nature of U.S. healthcare, the majority of the dollars in the system are tax dollars: Medicare (for the elderly), Medicaid (for the poor), benefits for veterans, Indian tribes, public employees and poorer children. The first of the baby boomers became eligible for Medicare in 2011. Medicare will soon surpass defence as the largest single item in the U.S. federal budget — and federal budget-cutters will begin eyeing defence as a source of Medicare funding. That’s what happened in Europe, where defence budgets have declined below 2% of GDP, in many countries nearer to 1%. At 3% of GDP, the United States could still buy the world’s most powerful military — but not a military so powerful as today’s, and likely not a military that can secure all of America’s allies as they would like to be secured. When Americans talk about today’s health costs, they are also talking about tomorrow’s defence budget — the budget that protects us all from a world of dangers. Defense spending cuts kills hegemonyHorn, Atlantic assoc. editor, 2/1(Heather, 2/1/12, Why Defense Cuts Could Hurt, , Accessed: 7/5/12, Azimi)This summer, when Democrats and Republicans finally reached their debt ceiling deal, it included $400 billion worth of cuts on national security. But due to other cuts on the table, we could be looking at roughly $1 trillion total. In short, it's a post-war pullback, and though the size of it, according to the Brookings report, "is not unusual by historical standards," it's happening in the midst of China's rise, North Korea's leadership hand-off, the menace of a nuclear Iran, and continuing unrest in the Middle East. But that's not even the main point of the report. What the report highlights is that "the current wave of defense cuts is also different than past defense budget reductions in their likely industrial impact, as the U.S. defense industrial base is in a much different place than it was in the past." Cutting-edge technology is a big part of the United States' edge, both in actual conflict and as a deterrent, and thus what the signatories of the Brookings piece seem particularly concerned about is the procurement budget -- part of the so-called "investment accounts" -- along with research and development. Right now, "Reagan-era weaponry is wearing out, and the recent increase in procurement spending has not lasted long enough to replenish the nation's key weapons arsenals with new weaponry" -- we've mainly been focusing on "filling certain gaps in counterinsurgency capabilities." Meanwhile, "unlike the period just after the Cold War, there are no obvious surpluses of defense firms, such that a natural paring process will find the fittest firms and ensure their survival." Heg collapse leads to extinctionFerguson, Hoover Institution – Senior Fellow, 4(Niall, 7/1/04, A World Without Power, , Accessed: 7/5/12, Azimi)So what is left? Waning empires. Religious revivals. Incipient anarchy. A coming retreat into fortified cities. These are the Dark Age experiences that a world without a hyperpower might quickly find itself reliving. The trouble is, of course, that this Dark Age would be an altogether more dangerous one than the Dark Age of the ninth century. For the world is much more populous -- roughly 20 times more -- so friction between the world's disparate "tribes" is bound to be more frequent. Technology has transformed production; now human societies depend not merely on freshwater and the harvest but also on supplies of fossil fuels that are known to be finite. Technology has upgraded destruction, too, so it is now possible not just to sack a city but to obliterate it. For more than two decades, globalization -- the integration of world markets for commodities, labor, and capital -- has raised living standards throughout the world, except where countries have shut themselves off from the process through tyranny or civil war. The reversal of globalization -- which a new Dark Age would produce -- would certainly lead to economic stagnation and even depression. As the United States sought to protect itself after a second September 11 devastates, say, Houston or Chicago, it would inevitably become a less open society, less hospitable for foreigners seeking to work, visit, or do business. Meanwhile, as Europe's Muslim enclaves grew, Islamist extremists' infiltration of the EU would become irreversible, increasing trans-Atlantic tensions over the Middle East to the breaking point. An economic meltdown in China would plunge the Communist system into crisis, unleashing the centrifugal forces that undermined previous Chinese empires. Western investors would lose out and conclude that lower returns at home are preferable to the risks of default abroad. The worst effects of the new Dark Age would be felt on the edges of the waning great powers. The wealthiest ports of the global economy -- from New York to Rotterdam to Shanghai -- would become the targets of plunderers and pirates. With ease, terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas, targeting oil tankers, aircraft carriers, and cruise liners, while Western nations frantically concentrated on making their airports secure. Meanwhile, limited nuclear wars could devastate numerous regions, beginning in the Korean peninsula and Kashmir, perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle East. In Latin America, wretchedly poor citizens would seek solace in Evangelical Christianity imported by U.S. religious orders. In Africa, the great plagues of AIDS and malaria would continue their deadly work. The few remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend services to many cities in these continents; who would wish to leave their privately guarded safe havens to go there? For all these reasons, the prospect of an apolar world should frighten us today a great deal more than it frightened the heirs of Charlemagne. If the United States retreats from global hegemony -- its fragile self-image dented by minor setbacks on the imperial frontier -- its critics at home and abroad must not pretend that they are ushering in a new era of multipolar harmony, or even a return to the good old balance of power. Be careful what you wish for. The alternative to unipolarity would not be multipolarity at all. It would be apolarity -- a global vacuum of power. And far more dangerous forces than rival great powers would benefit from such a not-so-new world disorder.Pandemics outweigh WMD attacks and terrorismZarkaria, Foreign Affairs managing editor, 05(Fareed, 10/30/05, A Threat Worse Than Terror, , Accessed: 7/5/12, Azimi)A flu pandemic is the most dangerous threat the United States faces today," says Richard Falkenrath, who until recently served in the Bush administration as deputy Homeland Security adviser. "It's a bigger threat than terrorism. In fact it's bigger than anything I dealt with when I was in government." One makes a threat assessment on the basis of two factors: the probability of the event, and the loss of life if it happened. On both counts, a pandemic ranks higher than a major terror attack, even one involving weapons of mass destruction. A crude nuclear device would probably kill hundreds of thousands. A flu pandemic could easily kill millions.Small Business ImpactRepeal kills small businessKnapp, vice-chair American Sustainable Business Council 4/2(Frank Knapp Jr., 4/2/12, THE HILL, “Obamacare” repeal a disaster for small businesses, , Accessed: 7/4/12 Azimi)While the ACA is only two years old, the benefits to small businesses, as well as citizens in general, have been very sizable. While “repeal” business groups like the NFIB say that they are representing business interests in their efforts, it is clear that those interests are not those of small businesses. While the ACA has no mandate for small businesses with fewer than 50 employees (about 97% of all businesses) to offer health insurance, the ACA benefits already in place and to come for small businesses include: · Giving tax credits of up to 35% that literally hundreds of thousands of small businesses offering health insurance to employees are receiving today; · Providing affordable health insurance today for tens of thousands of self-employed and other citizens who, without the ACA’s Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, are otherwise uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions; · Keeping insurance premiums down today by requiring insurance companies to justify rate increases over 10% and top use 80% of small group premiums on actual medical coverage; · Establishing an insurance exchange that will create more competition between health insurance companies to drive down premiums and end small businesses paying up to 18% higher insurance premiums simply because they are small; · Dramatically increasing the number of Americans with insurance thus eliminating the hidden tax of $1,000 a year on every family health insurance policy small businesses and other policyholders pay to provide for the uncompensated care of the uninsured; · Stopping the practice of small businesses paying higher premiums for all employees when they have a worker with a pre-existing condition; · Providing low-income employees (family income of up to 133% of poverty) with Medicaid thus making private health insurance more affordable for the small-business owner to offer coverage to the other workers; · Cutting the healthcare chord that keeps an entrepreneur tethered to an employer’s health insurance plan thus encouraging new small business start-ups. The “repeal” groups seek to take away all the above benefits for small businesses while offering no effective or comprehensive alternative. For the “repeal” groups it is simply a matter of saying NO to these benefits that will make health insurance more affordable for small businesses compared to the healthcare system without the ACA.Small business is key to the economyLee, KSL reporter, 5/26(Jasen, 5/26/12, KSL News, Small business support key for U.S. economy, , Accessed: 7/5/12, Azimi) SALT LAKE CITY — For America to once again become the leading economic force worldwide, the country will have to invest heavily in the long- term success of small business."It's critically important that we nurture the entrepreneurial foundation of our nation if we want to grow and compete (in the global economy)," said Fiorina. Too much power and influence today is wielded in Washington D.C. by big business and big labor, Fiorina said, to the detriment of "the little guys that make our economy go."Economic decline causes protectionism and war Royal Department of Defense Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction 10?– (Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, 2010, “Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises,” in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215)Less intuitive is how?periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defense behavior of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson’s (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that?rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such,?exogenous shocks such as?economic crisis?could usher in a redistribution of relative power?(see also Gilpin, 1981)?that?leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of?miscalculation?(Fearon, 1995). Alternatively,?even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power?(Werner, 1999). Seperately, Pollins (1996) also shows that?global?economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small?powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland’s (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that ‘future expectation of trade’ is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behavious of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations, However,?if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources,?the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to?those?resources.?Crisis could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations?either on its own or?because it triggers protectionist moves?by interdependent states.?Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write,?The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing.?Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favor. Moreover,?the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflict self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. P. 89)?Economic decline has been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism?(Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore,?crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. ‘Diversionary theory’ suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline,?sitting governments have increase incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a ‘rally around the flag’ effect.?Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995), and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that?the tendency towards?diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed?from office?due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of?weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity,?are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force.?In summary,?recent economic scholarship positively correlated economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.?This implied connection between integration, crisis and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.**Tax Cuts**2NC ModuleElection determines future of Bush tax cuts – extension collapses competitiveness and economyAyres, Center for American Progress – Economic Policy Research Assistant, Boushey, Center for American Progress – Senior Economist, July 2nd(Sarah, Heather, 7-2-2012, Center for American Progress, Economists Agree Romney’s Plan Would Spark a New Recession, ., accessed 7-9-2012, JKE)The private sector of the U.S. economy has added jobs for the past 27 months in a row, corporate profits have hit an all-time high, and the U.S. auto industry is back, with manufacturers consistently adding jobs for the longest period since the mid-1990s. Still, as President Barack Obama has said, “we are still not creating (jobs) as fast as we want.” And the biggest hurdle to swifter job creation is the embrace of austerity by Republicans in Congress who refuse to implement measures that would boost employment—a position supported by their presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. This austerity has real—negative—economic consequences. Increasingly, economists are pointing to austerity as a key reason for too-slow job creation. Despite considerable warnings from economic experts that government spending is critical to creating jobs, conservative leaders in Congress are inflicting these austerity programs on us at the federal, state, and local level. According to Yale economists Ben Polak and Peter Schott: Without this hidden austerity program, the economy would look very different. If state and local governments had followed the pattern of the previous two recessions, they would have added 1.4 million to 1.9 million jobs and overall unemployment would be 7.0 to 7.3 percent instead of 8.2 percent. Even though austerity is not good for the U.S. economy, this is exactly the economic policy promoted by Romney. His ideologically driven agenda would continue the failed supply-side policies of President George W. Bush by giving even more tax breaks to the rich—a policy that has not generated strong and sustained economic growth—while slashing investments in our middle class and America’s future competitiveness, such as education, public safety, basic research and development, and infrastructure upgrades. Romney’s plan for spending cuts is deliberately vague, but it is clear that it will require drastic cuts to programs that support middle-class families and support economic growth in order to fund tax cuts for the rich.US competitiveness suppresses conflict escalationBaru 9 (Sanjaya, Visiting Professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy in Singapore Geopolitical Implications of the Current Global Financial Crisis, Strategic Analysis, Volume 33, Issue 2 March 2009 , pages 163 – 168)The management of the economy, and of the treasury, has been a vital aspect of statecraft from time immemorial. Kautilya’s Arthashastra says, ‘From the strength of the treasury the army is born. …men without wealth do not attain their objectives even after hundreds of trials… Only through wealth can material gains be acquired, as elephants (wild) can be captured only by elephants (tamed)… A state with depleted resources, even if acquired, becomes only a liability.’4 Hence, economic policies and performance do have strategic consequences.5 In the modern era, the idea that strong economic performance is the foundation of power was argued most persuasively by historian Paul Kennedy. ‘Victory (in war),’ Kennedy claimed, ‘has repeatedly gone to the side with more flourishing productive base.’6 Drawing attention to the interrelationships between economic wealth, technological innovation, and the ability of states to efficiently mobilize economic and technological resources for power projection and national defence, Kennedy argued that nations that were able to better combine military and economic strength scored over others. ‘The fact remains,’ Kennedy argued, ‘that all of the major shifts in the world’s military-power balance have followed alterations in the productive balances; and further, that the rising and falling of the various empires and states in the international system has been confirmed by the outcomes of the major Great Power wars, where victory has always gone to the side with the greatest material resources.’7Economic decline causes protectionism and war Royal Department of Defense Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction 10?– (Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, 2010, “Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises,” in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215)Less intuitive is how?periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defense behavior of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson’s (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that?rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such,?exogenous shocks such as?economic crisis?could usher in a redistribution of relative power?(see also Gilpin, 1981)?that?leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of?miscalculation?(Fearon, 1995). Alternatively,?even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power?(Werner, 1999). Seperately, Pollins (1996) also shows that?global?economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small?powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland’s (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that ‘future expectation of trade’ is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behavious of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations, However,?if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources,?the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to?those?resources.?Crisis could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations?either on its own or?because it triggers protectionist moves?by interdependent states.?Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write,?The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing.?Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favor. Moreover,?the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflict self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. P. 89)?Economic decline has been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism?(Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore,?crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. ‘Diversionary theory’ suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline,?sitting governments have increase incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a ‘rally around the flag’ effect.?Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995), and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that?the tendency towards?diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed?from office?due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of?weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity,?are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force.?In summary,?recent economic scholarship positively correlated economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.?This implied connection between integration, crisis and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.Obama won’t ExtendObama won’t extend Bush tax CutsStein, Huffington Post Political Reporter, 11(Sam, 8/2/11, Huffington Post, Obama Won't Extend Bush Tax Cuts Again: Pledge To House Dems, , Accessed: 7/7/12, Azimi)WASHINGTON -- In a meeting with House Democrats on Thursday, President Obama stressed that his administration would draw a firm line on taxes and revenues both in the deficit- and debt-reduction debates and in the buildup to the 2012 elections."I've been very clear about revenues as a part of a balanced package, and I will continue to be," said Obama.Underscoring his commitment, Obama noted taxes would be a defining area of contrast with Republicans on the campaign trail. He insisted that he would not compromise again on his position that the tax rates for the top earners be raised to pre-Bush levels.Obama won’t extend Bush tax CutsNewsmax, 6/6 (News Organization, 6/6/12, Obama Reiterates Opposition to Bush Tax Cuts , 7/7/12, Azimi)President Barack Obama continues to oppose extending Bush-era tax cuts for wealthier Americans, the White House said on Wednesday, shrugging off calls for a temporary extension to allow more time for a deal on deficits."President Obama has been clear about his position and it has not changed," White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters traveling with Obama to California on board Air Force One. "We should not extend and he will not extend the ... Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiestRomney will ExtendRomney will extend bush era tax cuts.Klein, MSNBC Contributor, 1/10(Erza, 1/10/12, Romney wants more tax cuts than Bush did, , 7/7/12, Azimi)Romney intends to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. So he’s taking the tax cuts George W. Bush proposed as a way to pay down a surplus and making them permanent in a time of deficits. That doesn’t just leave him supporting the same upper-income tax cuts that Bush proposed. Because larger sacrifices will be required to pay for them now than in 2001, it leaves him supporting those tax cuts at a time when paying for them will require much more sacrifice on the part of low-income Americans.And, on top of that, Romney layers on another set of tax cuts tilted towards high earners. The Tax Policy Center estimates that Romney’s tax plan will save earners in the top 1 percent $82,000 a year, but do very little for workers in the bottom half of the income distribution.The Tax Policy Center also estimates that Romney’s plan will cost $180 billion over and above the Bush tax cuts in 2015. So we can conservatively estimate that his plan will cost more than $2 trillion over the next 10 years. Add in the full extension of the Bush tax cuts, and Romney is promising at least $6 trillion — and likely much more — in tax cuts.Romney will extend and add onto the bush tax cutsLinden and Hanlon, Center for American Progress Action Fund Director of Tax and Budget Policy and Director of Fiscal Reform, 1/12(Michael and Seth, 1/12/12, Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan in 5 Charts He’s Ready to Hand Out Billions More to the 1 Percent, , Accessed: 7/4/12, Azimi)If you liked former President George W. Bush’s tax policies, then you’ll love Mitt Romney’s. Republican presidential candidate Romney’s plan for federal taxation begins with a hefty portion of Bush-era tax policy: Permanently extend all the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003, including those that mainly benefit the extremely wealthy. Then Romney layers on a heaping batch of new tax cuts for the rich, including a full repeal of the estate tax—which is currently paid by only the richest 0.14 percent of estates—and a massive corporate tax cut. The result is a tax code that asks even less of the rich than George W. Bush’s did. Just like President Bush, Romney’s tax plan doesn’t come close to being fiscally responsible. Under President Bush, average annual tax revenue as a share of gross domestic product was the lowest it had been under any president since Harry Truman—just 17.6 percent of GDP. Romney’s tax plan would result in average revenues of only 16.5 percent. Strangely, Romney’s tax plan has been described as “moderate” or “timid.” Compared to the full-tilt insanity of the plans of some of his fellow Republican presidential candidates (9-9-9! 15 percent flat tax!), it’s true that Romney’s plan appears more reasonable. But back here in the real world, Romney’s plan is an enormously irresponsible giveaway to the rich, boasting a tax cut for millionaires twice the size of President Bush’s. There’s nothing moderate about that. The charts below illustrate five key points about Romney’s plan: It would deliver twice as many tax cuts to the rich as did Bush’s tax plan. It would pile on more tax cuts focused almost exclusively on the wealthy. It would not balance the federal budget. It would increase taxes for the middle class and working families. It would leave all corporate tax loopholes and tax breaks intact.AT - Congress BlocksObama is pressing for an extension of Bush-era text cutsBloomberg 7/9 ("Obama Calls for Extending Middle-Income Tax Rates" ) BSBPresident Barack Obama urged Congress to pass a one-year extension of Bush-era tax cuts for families making less than $250,000 a year while letting rates rise for higher earners, sharpening differences with congressional Republicans and their presidential candidate, Mitt Romney. The country is being held back by the partisan deadlock in Washington, and “nowhere is that stalemate more pronounced than on the issue of taxes,” Obama said in remarks today at the White House. “It’s time to let the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans -- folks like myself -- to expire.” Republican congressional leaders rejected Obama’s call, saying the economy is too weak to raise taxes for anyone. They vowed to press ahead with legislation to extend all the tax cuts, a measure Obama said he would veto. Obama is focusing on the issue of tax fairness three days after a government jobs report showed the nation’s unemployment rate stuck at 8.2 percent. He argued that tax cuts for the wealthy haven’t helped the economy and are contributing to the deficit.Obama is asking for an extension for tax cutsRegister Guard 7/10 ("EDITORIAL: Posturing on tax cuts Parties engage in political theater as election nears" ) BSBCongressional Republicans call it “Taxmageddon” — the tax increase coming at the end of this year when the George W. Bush-era tax cuts are scheduled to expire unless Congress votes to extend them or make them permanent. President Obama proposed a reasonable alternative Monday, calling on lawmakers to temporarily extend the Bush-era tax cuts for people making less than $250,000 while letting the taxes of the wealthiest go up to pre-tax-cut levels. That would protect the vast majority of Americans — 98 percent of households and 97 percent of small businesses — from tax increases at a time when many are struggling in a stagnant economy. And it would raise revenue without harming the nation’s slow-motion recovery, because tax hikes on the wealthiest Americans do not reduce consumer spending nearly as much as those imposed on the middle class. Leading Republicans predictably rejected Obama’s proposal, insisting that it would be a mistake to raise anyone’s taxes under current economic conditions. The president proposed the one-year extension as an alternative to a proposal by House Republicans, scheduled for a vote later this month, to extend all of the Bush tax cuts for at least one year.Obama is only pushing tax cuts so he can be reelected. He actually doesn't careRegister Guard 7/10 ("EDITORIAL: Posturing on tax cuts Parties engage in political theater as election nears" ) BSBWith the presidential election less than four months away and Democrats in control of the Senate, the House proposal is a purely political maneuver intended to enhance GOP chances of winning the White House and making gains in Congress in November. The president’s proposal is intended to do the same for Democrats by making Republicans look like the party of the wealthy and elite, and unwilling to consider a reasonable compromise on the tax cuts. Given that the battle over tax cuts is largely symbolic until after the election — and perhaps even until the next Congress takes office — it’s worth reflecting briefly on the merits of the president’s proposal, which deserved better than the swift burial provided Monday by House Republicans. Under this approach, middle- and upper middle-income taxpayers, those who spend most of their incomes, would keep their Bush tax cuts for at least another year. Yes, that would add about $140 billion a year to the deficit, but consumer spending is vital to the economy right now. Meanwhile, revenue from letting the tax cuts for wealthiest Americans expire — an estimated $40 billion annually — could be used for targeted economic stimulus and deficit reduction. Obama’s proposal is flawed in one respect — its extension of middle class tax cuts that fiscal sanity dictates must eventually be scaled back or eliminated to help bring the deficit under control. By kicking the can further down the road, the president ensures that Congress will face the same difficult decision a year from now. Meanwhile, history has shown that the longer that a temporary tax cut lasts the more Americans and their elected representatives in Washington, D.C., regard it as permanent.AT - Campaign RhetoricObama vowed never to extend tax cuts againO’Brien, MSNBC politics editor, 7-10-12(Michael, MSNBC, “Obama calls for extending most tax cuts, setting up election year fight,” , accessed 7-13-12, KGH)"My opponent will fight to keep them in place; I will fight to end them,” Obama said in reference to Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.All of the tax cuts, which were first proposed by President George W. Bush, were set to expire at the end of 2010. After having initially resisted their extension, Obama relented and agreed to a two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts for all income brackets – a compromise that allowed the administration to advance some of its legislative priorities through that year’s lame-duck Congress.At the time of that extension, Obama said he would refuse to again agree to any extension of the high-end tax cuts.Obama will pass during less hostile houseScher, Campaign for America’s Future Campaign Manager, 7-9-12(Bill, Digg, “A Clear Choice on Taxes: Progressive Obama or Regressive Romney,” , accessed 7-13-12, KGH)After the 2010 tax cut deal between President Obama and congressional Republicans, some on the left presumed Obama was giving up on ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. But I argued at the time that he was simply playing for time while facing a hostile House, and 2012 would feature a straight-up debate on whether to keep them or not.Now there is no question about it. President Obama has thrown down the gauntlet, drawing attention to Mitt Romney's commitment to cut taxes even more for the wealthiest Americans.Obama is for letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire on schedule at the end of this year, returning the top rate to where it was in the 1990s, 39.6%. He also wants the capital gains tax to increase from 15% to 23.8%Tax cuts legislative priorityCowan, Thomson Reuters Correspondent, 7-11-12(Richard, Chicago Tribune, “Obama, Democrats put tax cuts at center of 2012 agenda,” , accessed 7-13-12, KGH)WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congressional Democrats and President Barack Obama on Wednesday plotted their legislative priorities for the months leading up to November's elections, showcasing an extension of middle-class tax cuts as well as with measures to keep government agencies functioning beyond September 30.Later this month, the Democratic-led Senate is expected to stage a vote on continuing tax cuts for families earning up to $250,000 - an election-year initiative that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives will not go along with.Instead, Republicans want to renew all Bush-era tax cuts that are set to expire on December 31, including those for families earning above $250,000, despite Obama's opposition. The House is expected to vote this month on full renewal.Both of these tax initiatives are aimed at more at energizing Democratic and Republican voters than actually enacting legislation before November's election as few think the House and Senate are capable of agreeing on much of anything.A senior Senate Democratic aide said that the Democrats' tax bill this month likely will also include the extension of some additional middle-class tax breaks, such as a child tax credit and another for college tuition.Senator Richard Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, told reporters that few, "if any, Democratic senators," will back the extension of all Bush-era tax cuts. Some have said they favor a extending the cut beyond the $250,000 earning level - which they say no longer defines the middle class in some expensive areas of the country - to those earning up to $1 million.But Obama spokesman Jay Carney predicted "overwhelming Democratic support" for letting income tax breaks expire for those making more than $250,000.AT – Austerity SolvesRomney Tax Plans cost 3.4 trillionRiley, CNN staff reporter, 2/29(Charles, 2/29/12, CNN MONEY, New Romney tax cuts would cost $3.4 trillion, , 7/7/12, Azimi)NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Mitt Romney made two big changes to his tax plan last week, and according to a new analysis, they will be very expensive.Like $3.4 trillion expensive.Previously, Romney had said he would "maintain current tax rates on personal income" as president before moving to a "fairer, flatter, simpler tax structure" in the future.Now Romney appears to be accelerating that timetable, announcing a move that would reduce the current top rate paid on income from 35% to 28%, with similar reductions across all tax brackets.Americans in the lowest bracket would pay 8% instead of 10%. Individuals closer to the middle would pay 20% instead of 25%.In addition to the changes to the marginal income tax rates, Romney also said he plans to eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax.The twin changes will come at a cost of more than $3.4 trillion over 10 years, according to a new estimate from the Tax Policy Center.By 2022, the 20% reduction in rates would add $357 billion in debt that year alone, while eliminating the AMT would cost $94 billion.And that's assuming the Bush tax cuts are extended, something most experts think will happen -- at least for a majority of taxpayers.Bush Era tax cuts are bad hurts the economyBartlett, Reagan domestic policy adviser/Bush Treasury official, 10(Bruce, 9/10/12, Bush Tax Cuts Had Little Positive Impact on Economy, , Accessed: 7/5/12, Azimi)The truth is that there is virtually no evidence in support of the Bush tax cuts as an economic elixir. To the extent that they had any positive effect on growth, it was very, very modest. Their main effect was simply to reduce the government’s revenue, thereby increasing the budget deficit, which all Republicans claim to abhor.Subsequent research by Federal Reserve economists has found little, if any, impact on growth from the 2003 tax cut. The main effect was to raise dividend payouts. But companies cut back on share repurchases by a similar amount, suggesting that only the form of payouts changed. (See here, here, and here.) Moreover, according to a study by Steven Bank of the UCLA law school, the fact that the dividend tax cut was temporary was a key motivation for higher dividend payouts; had the dividend tax cut been permanent, as the supply-siders favored, the impact probably would have been much less.The mediocre economic and employment growth of the Bush years is still a bad memory for most voters. Almost two years into the Obama administration, a majority of Americans still hold Bush and the Republicans more responsible for the economy’s dismal condition than Obama and the Democrats. According to a CNN poll earlier this month, 53 percent blame the former and 33 percent blame the latter.Disease ImpactTax cuts kill health agency budgets.Moran 11 [Tom, July 25 2011, “In federal budget fight, discretionary spending cuts slash critical services”, ] ATPThe CDC budget was cut by 11 percent this year, and will undoubtedly take a bigger hit next year. They've had to cancel successful programs, freeze staff salaries, and pinch off the spigot of aid to states that are working on these issues. "Now if you have people who can find a job elsewhere, they will," Arias says. "And a number of state health departments have had to let people go" as the CDC cuts block grants. When Republicans say they will not raise any taxes, or even end tax subsidies for oil and gas companies, it means agencies like the CDC take an even deeper hit. And this happens at a time when the federal tax bite is at a post World War II low. Their no-compromise position on taxes is weakening the nation. The CDC is but one small example.Health agencies key to preventing the spread of diseaseCDC 6 [Centers for Disease Control, “Controlling the Spread of Contagious Diseases:Quarantine and Isolation”, ] ATPThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is the U.S. government agency responsible for identifying, tracking and controlling the spread of disease. With the help of the CDC, state and local health departments have created emergency preparedness and response plans. In addition to early detection, rapid diagnosis and treatment with antibiotics or antivirals, these plans use two main traditional strategies—quarantine and isolation*1*—to contain the spread of illness. These are common health care practices to control the spread of a contagious disease by limiting people's exposure to it.Diseases lead to extinctionYu 9 [Victoria, May 22 2009, Dartmouth U, “Human Extinction: The Uncertainty of Our Fate”, ] ATPHowever, for more easily transmitted viruses such as influenza, the evolution of new strains could prove far more consequential. The simultaneous occurrence of antigenic drift (point mutations that lead to new strains) and antigenic shift (the inter-species transfer of disease) in the influenza virus could produce a new version of influenza for which scientists may not immediately find a cure. Since influenza can spread quickly, this lag time could potentially lead to a “global influenza pandemic,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (9). The most recent scare of this variety came in 1918 when bird flu managed to kill over 50 million people around the world in what is sometimes referred to as the Spanish flu pandemic. Perhaps even more frightening is the fact that only 25 mutations were required to convert the original viral strain — which could only infect birds — into a human-viable strain (10).Trade Wars ImpactTax cuts lead to rising deficitKlein 12(Ezra, 2/3/12, Washington Post “Wonkbook: Yes, tax cuts increaes the deficit” , Accessed 7/13/12, , JGC).But there's a more important economic debate here. Republicans occasionally flirt with the idea that tax cuts don't increase deficits. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell has said this directly. Speaker John Boehner has decreed that tax cuts don't need to be offset, but spending proposals do. But there's a very easy way to see that Republicans don't really mean this: They believe that tax cuts cause deficits when Democrats are behind them. The ongoing debate over the payroll tax is a good example. When Republicans proposed a payroll tax cut as stimulus in 2009, it wasn't offset. When they agreed to it in the 2010 tax deal, it wasn't offset. But since it has become the White House's favored policy, House Republicans -- the same House Republicans who passed the CUTGO rules stating that spending proposals had to be paid for but tax cuts didn't -- are insisting the payroll tax cut be offset. Then there's the Bush tax cuts. When Republicans tally up Obama's deficits over the last few years, they're adding $620 billion for the two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts. When they project his deficits for the next five years, they're assuming the extension of the Bush tax cuts. And they're doing so explicitly. Earlier in the week, I worked with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities on a column summing up the projected budgetary impact of every single piece of legislation Obama had signed into law. In the end, my numbers showed, Obama has passed policies adding about a trillion dollars to the deficit. But Keith Hennessey, who directed the National Economic Council under George W. Bush, responded that I had ignored the trillions of dollars in deficits "from policies President Obama proposes to enact in the future (like extending most but not all tax cuts rates beyond 2012)". And Hennessey is right. Not about my analysis, which was restricted to actual policies, not proposed policies (should I also have subtracted $4 trillion from the deficit because Obama favors a deficit deal of that size?). But about the Bush tax cuts, which will add trillions of dollars to the deficit if Obama extends all or most of them in 2012.Rising deficit leads to trade war with chinaO'NEIL 98(Mark October 20, 1998, South China Morning Post (Hong Kong), “Bush fears trade war as key talks delayed,” Lexis Nexis, Accessed 7/13/12, , JGC).The mainland has increased exports to the US to make up for markets lost in Asia. According to mainland figures, in the first eight months exports to the US were US$ 23.57 billion, up 17.4 per cent on the same period a year earlier, with imports at $ 10.3 billion, up 2.3 per cent. US figures, which include goods transshipped via Hong Kong, show a deficit of about $ 1 billion a week. Mr Bush, at a lunch arranged by John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance, was asked about the reaction of Congress to this rising deficit. "My fear would be a trade war and trade barriers in the US. I don't think it would happen. There could be a denial of MFN status to China, which would be a disaster," he said. There was a growing concern in Congress about the surplus and the two sides had to find ways to deal with it. "I would encourage China to give more access to its markets for financial firms like Hancock," he saidTrade wars become shooting wars going nuclearMiller and Elwood ‘88(Vincent and James, Founder and President of the International Society for Individual Liberty, and Vice-President of the ISIL, “FREE TRADE OR PROTECTIONISM? The Case Against Trade Restrictions”, )WHEN GOODS DON'T CROSS BORDERS, ARMIES OFTEN DO History is not lacking in examples of cold trade wars escalating into hot shooting wars: * Europe suffered from almost non-stop wars during the 17th and 18th centuries, when restrictive trade policy (mercantilism) was the rule; rival governments fought each other to expand their empires and to exploit captive markets. * British tariffs provoked the American colonists to revolution, and later the Northern-dominated US government imposed restrictions on Southern cotton exports - a major factor leading to the American Civil War. * In the late 19th Century, after a half century of general free trade (which brought a half-century of peace), short-sighted politicians throughout Europe again began erecting trade barriers. Hostilities built up until they eventually exploded into World War I. * In 1930, facing only a mild recession, US President Hoover ignored warning pleas in a petition by 1028 prominent economists and signed the notorious Smoot-Hawley Act, which raised some tariffs to 100% levels. Within a year, over 25 other governments had retaliated by passing similar laws. The result? World trade came to a grinding halt, and the entire world was plunged into the "Great Depression" for the rest of the decade. The depression in turn led to World War II. THE #1 DANGER TO WORLD PEACE The world enjoyed its greatest economic growth during the relatively free trade period of 1945-1970, a period that also saw no major wars. Yet we again see trade barriers being raised around the world by short-sighted politicians. Will the world again end up in a shooting war as a result of these economically-deranged policies? Can we afford to allow this to happen in the nuclear age?**Missile Defense**2NC ModuleRomney is committed to continue NMD Lakshmanan, contributor to Bloomberg, 11(Indira, 10/ 7/11, Romney Promises To Boost Defense Spending, Deter Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions, , Accessed, 7/7/12, Azimi)Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney today accused President Barack Obama of bowing to global adversaries and promised, if elected, to boost America’s military strength by expanding the Navy and missile defenses. “America must lead the world, or someone else will,” Romney said, reprising the argument from his 2010 book, “No Apology,” that U.S. military strength and leadership are essential to deterring tyrants and keeping world peace. “In an American century, America has the strongest economy and the strongest military in the world.” Romney pledged in his first 100 days, if elected, to boost naval shipbuilding, deploy Navy carriers to deter Iran’s suspected military ambitions, increase intelligence cooperation with Israel, review military and aid spending in Afghanistan and invest heavily in missile defense and cybersecurity.NMD bad it leads to proliferationSnyder and Snyder, Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies and a physicist in San Diego, 1(Timothy and Philip, 2/1/01, CSM, Why missile defense is a bad idea, , Accessed: 7/7/12, Azimi)Missile defense has two basic problems: It can't do what it is supposed to do, and it creates the very threats to American national security it is supposed to resolve. Why won't missile defense work? As a technical matter, it is enormously easier to send a missile up into the air than to destroy a missile coming down from the sky. No known technology could protect Americans from a missile attack. Every test so far has been rigged; even so, nearly every test has been a failure. Physicists largely agree that the technology to build effective national missile defense does not exist. (See the December 2000 issue of Physics Today, or the website of the American Physical Society, .) Let's assume we were able to hit a missile coming down from the sky, which we are not. Any state that wished to defeat our system could build cheap countermeasures. Just as it will always be easier to send a missile into the sky than to shoot it down from the ground, it will always be cheaper to build countermeasures than it will be to improve missile defense. Against basic physics even the most expensive government programs are powerless. The hundreds of billions of dollars spent on missile defense would create a false sense of security regarding the very real threat of international terrorism. Missile defense isn't designed to protect Americans from terrorist attacks by means other than ballistic missiles, and ballistic missiles aren't a likely terrorist weapon. The costly attempt to build missile defense diverts resources and attention from prosaic policies that would reduce our vulnerability to attacks by biological, chemical, or nuclear agents. For one thing, they know how Russia and China will react. Although missile defense will not work, the Russians and Chinese must assume the contrary. Since it is much cheaper to build nuclear missiles than it is to build missile defense, they can afford to make this assumption. The Chinese, who today have only a modest nuclear arsenal, would probably become a major nuclear power. A Chinese buildup, combined with what the Japanese would see as irresponsible US policy, would force the Japanese to consider building nuclear weapons. After a Chinese buildup, India would enlarge its nuclear arsenal, and Pakistan would do the same. Iran would probably go nuclear. Peacemaking efforts in the Mideast and Korea would suffer. If the US builds national missile defense, we create a world full of nuclear weapons, where our allies strike out on their own, rivals become enemies, and no one feels bound by previous agreements. Missile defense is likely to contribute to new world anarchy, and will not protect us from the consequences. These are matters to be considered before any final decision is taken.Proliferation leads to extinctionTaylor, American Physical Society Fellow and Nuclear Agency Deputy Director of the Defense,?1(Theodore, Chairman of NOVA, Former Nuclear Weapons Designer, Recipient of the US Atomic Energy Commission’s 1965 Lawrence Memorial Award, Breakthrough: Emerging New Thinking”, , Accessed 7/7/12, Azimi)Nuclear proliferation is greatly enhancing the likelihood of nuclear war. It dramatically increases the number of scenarios for small-scale nuclear wars or nuclear terrorism, that could escalate to nuclear war between the superpowers. Deterrence, the cornerstone of national security in present strategies, fails against nuclear terrorism simply because there are no well-defined targets against which to retaliate. Nuclear proliferation - be it among nations or terrorists - greatly increases the chance of nuclear violence on a scale that would be intolerable. Proliferation increases the chance that nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of irrational people, either suicidal or with no concern for the fate of the world. Irrational or outright psychotic leaders of military factions or terrorist groups might decide to use a few nuclear weapons under their control to stimulate a global nuclear war, as an act of vengeance against humanity as a whole. Countless scenarios of this type can be constructed. Limited nuclear wars between countries with small numbers of nuclear weapons could escalate into major nuclear wars between superpowers. For example, a nation in an advanced stage of "latent proliferation," finding itself losing a nonnuclear war, might complete the transition to deliverable nuclear weapons and, in desperation, use them. If that should happen in a region, such as the Middle East, where major superpower interests are at stake, the small nuclear war could easily escalate into a global nuclear war. A sudden rush of nuclear proliferation among nations may be triggered by small nuclear wars that are won by a country with more effective nuclear forces than its adversary, or by success of nuclear terrorists in forcing adherence to their demands. Proliferation of nuclear weapons among nations could spread at an awesome rate in such circumstances, since "latent proliferation" is far along in at least several dozen nations, and is increasing rapidly as more nuclear power plants and supporting facilities are built in more countries. In summary, much more serious international attention than is now evident needs to be given to the consequences of nuclear proliferation among nations, terrorists, or criminals. Continuing to neglect this menace is a recipe for disaster.Obama Opposes BMDObama has dropped missile defenceHarding and Traynor 9 (Luke, award-winning foreign correspondent with theGuardian, and Ian, the Guardian's European editor, “Obama abandons missile defence shield in Europe,” ) KABarack Obama has abandoned the controversial Pentagon plan to build a missile defence system in Europe that had long soured relations with Russia. In one of the sharpest breaks yet with the policies of the Bush administration, Obama said the new approach would offer "stronger, swifter and smarter" defence for the US and its allies. He said it would focus on the threat posed by Iran's short- and medium-range missiles, rather than its intercontinental nuclear capabilities. Obama announced the reversal officially at a news conference today. "This new approach will provide capabilities sooner, build on proven systems to offer greater defences to the threat of attack than the 2007 European missile defence programme," he said. He phoned the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic last night to tell them he had dropped plans to site missile interceptors and a radar station in their respective countries. Russia had furiously opposed the project, claiming it targeted Moscow's nuclear arsenal. The change of tack had been prompted by advances in missile technology and new intelligence about Iran's existing missile capabilities, Obama said.Obama cancelled NMDIBD 12 (Investors’ Business Daily, “Russia Finds Obama Acceptable, Romney Inflexible“, ) KARomney upset Moscow with a CNN interview in March in which he said that Russia was "without question our No. 1 geopolitical foe; they fight for every cause for the world's worst actors. The idea that (Obama) has more flexibility in mind for Russia is very, very troubling indeed." We think so too, and have said as much. We hope and believe Romney will be similar to President George W. Bush in more than just rhetoric, at least in regard to national missile defense. Bush had plans for a robust fulfillment of President Reagan's dream of protecting America and the free world from missile attack. This included ground-based missile interceptors in Poland and missile defense radar in the Czech Republic. Pushkov's criticisms of Romney sound like an echo of Soviet statements about Reagan in 1980. Typical of the way Obama has treated loyal allies such as Britain and Israel, the Poles were notified with a midnight phone call on Sept. 17, 2009, the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland from the east as the Nazis swept in from the west. Obama announced we were pulling the plug on the agreement our NATO allies had made with Bush. The president caved after the Russians threatened to bombard our proposed missile defense sites in these two countries before they became operational and threatened to deploy SS-26 Iskander missiles in the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad on the Polish border. Of course Obama would be "acceptable" to the Russians. This was made obvious by the March 26 open microphone moment at a photo-op between President Obama and outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that took place after a 90-minute meeting in Seoul, Korea, during the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit.Obama has stopped pursuing NMDBaker 9 (Peter, reporter for the NY Times, “Obama Offered Deal to Russia in Secret Letter,” ) KAPresident Obama sent a secret letter to Russia’s president last month suggesting that he would back off deploying a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow would help stop Iran from developing long-range weapons, American officials said Monday. The letter to President Dmitri A. Medvedev was hand-delivered in Moscow by top administration officials three weeks ago. It said the United States would not need to proceed with the interceptor system, which has been vehemently opposed by Russia since it was proposed by the Bush administration, if Iran halted any efforts to build nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles. The officials who described the contents of the message requested anonymity because it has not been made public. While they said it did not offer a direct quid pro quo, the letter was intended to give Moscow an incentive to join the United States in a common front against Iran. Russia’s military, diplomatic and commercial ties to Tehran give it some influence there, but it has often resisted Washington’s hard line against Iran.Romney Supports BMDRomney is fully committed to continuing American NMDDreazen, National Journal Group – Senior Military Affairs and National Security Correspondent, June 7th(Yochi J., 6-7-2012, National Journal Group, Tone Poem, , accessed 7-10-2012, JKE)Romney has a starkly different national-defense philosophy. He has promised to reverse what he calls Obama’s “massive” defense cuts and boost the Pentagon’s budget. The presumptive GOP nominee says he wants to add 100,000 ground troops, increase the Navy’s ship-buying budget from nine to 15 vessels a year, and maintain the current fleet of carrier battle groups, the most powerful—and most expensive—weapon in the U.S. seaborne arsenal. The Republican also wants to purchase more F-35s, a next-generation model of amazingly advanced, but staggeringly expensive, stealth warplanes. The former Massachusetts governor’s spending plans don’t stop there. He has promised to devote more money to missile defense—including systems designed to shoot down intercontinental ballistic missiles—to protect the U.S. from potential attacks from Iran or North Korea. Romney hasn’t specified how much the new programs would cost, but, if fully implemented, they would amount to billions of dollars in new spending. He has also called for protecting the Pentagon from the sequester and allowing the full budgetary ax to fall solely on domestic programs.AT - Congress StopsKyl supports NMDGrossman 11 (Elaine M., GOP leaders aim to enforce Obama's nuclear modernization promises, May 10, 2011, )Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio, are spearheading legislation aimed at holding the Obama administration accountable for nuclear modernization pledges it made last year. "We're going to ensure that the administration complies with the commitments that it made," Kyl, the Senate's No. 2 GOP leader, said Monday at a media round table. "Better to have it in writing, understood by both parties exactly what's required, so that we don't have confusion in the future." Bills drawn up by the two lawmakers for consideration in both chambers also seek to prohibit unilateral U.S. warhead reductions and preserve the nation's missile defense options. Turner introduced his proposal, H.R. 1750, in the House on Friday, while Kyl could file his version in the Senate as early as today. Kyl controls the Senate.McConnell 10 (Mitch, Senate Minority Leader, “Jon Kyl,” Time 100, , EMM)In the Senate, Arizona's Jon Kyl has built a reputation for his encyclopedic knowledge of domestic and foreign policy, and his hard work and leadership. Few people have his command of policy, his knowledge of its nuances or his grip on how they fit together. This is why so many of his Senate colleagues look to him for policy advice. Kyl, 68, is a principled conservative who knows what is attainable. He believes in the wisdom contained in a sign on President Reagan's desk that said, "There's no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." Jon Kyl is a great persuader. As minority whip, the No. 2 position in the Senate Republican leadership, he is responsible for rallying his Republican colleagues for key legislative votes. What is unique is his single-minded focus on convincing them that a particular vote is in the best interests of their state and the nation. Jon demonstrates continually that the essence of Senate power is the power to persuade.Congress supports missile defense – Patriot missiles provesHildreth 7 (Steven A., Specialist in National DefenseForeign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division, “Ballistic Missile Defense: Historical Overview,” ) KANonetheless, Congress and the Department of Defense determined subsequently that the Patriot concept to defend against shorter range ballistic missile threats to U.S. forces overseas warranted further support. The Patriot system had been upgraded several times by the time of the recent war against Iraq. On the battlefield, Patriot was considered more successful than in 1991, but with mixed results. 5 Congress and the Pentagon continue to support development of highly effective TMD systems, especially a maritime TMD capability built around existing naval systems and infrastructure that have been deployed or in development for decades. 6 In terms of program and testing success, most observers agree that the U.S. effort to develop and deploy effective BMD against short-range missiles has been more successful relative to the U.S. effort to develop and deploy effective BMD against long-range or strategic ballistic missiles.AT - Campaign RhetoricRomney’s serious – explicitly said he will reinvigorate NMDTraub 12 (James, a fellow of the Center on International Cooperation, “Making Enemies from Friends,” ) KAIn recent months the Obama administration has notably hardened its own rhetoric, including Clinton's dramatic accusation that Russia was stoking Syria's killing machine by supplying and servicing attack helicopters for the Assad regime. Romney says that the time has come to "reset the reset," but you could argue that the administration has already begun to do just that. The rosy era of "engagement," when Obama believed that he could establish a more benign global environment through gestures of deference to national sensibilities, quotations from the Quran, or inspiring autobiographical references is over. A second Obama term, should it happen, would probably focus more on strengthening bonds with traditional allies -- in Asia, as we have now heard ad nauseam -- and less on trying to convert rivals and adversaries. A realistic reckoning with the limits of America's capacity to change the behavior of unfriendly states is very different from the idea of greeting hostility with hostility, as Romney and the neocons among his team of advisors seem prepared to do. Romney says that he would "review the implementation of the New START treaty" and return to a missile defense plan that Russia views, no matter how absurdly, as a threat to its survival. Romney says that Russia needs to be "tempered," whatever that means. Of course, Putin will greet any overt attempt to block or encircle Russia as a direct provocation; and he is a man who goes around looking for provocations to respond to. A President Romney, in short, might well turn Russia into the geopolitical foe which candidate Romney claims it already is.Romney believes in American strength – he will continue NMDShelley 12 (Matthew, writer for CBS News, “Romney keeps up strong rhetoric on Russia,” ) KAShowing no sign of backing down on his hawkish stance on Russia, Mitt Romney said in a radio interview broadcast on Tuesday that the country is continuing "to pursue a course which is antithetical" to that of the United States. In the interview with Fox Radio, Romney repeated his earlier characterization of Russia as "geopolitical foe" - a remark that has raised questions among Democrats and even some Republicans about whether he remains stuck in a Cold War mindset. He sought to put the notion to rest, but did not deviate from his earlier controversial assertions. "The nation which consistently opposes our actions at The United Nations has been Russia," Romney said. "We're of course not enemies. We're not fighting each other. There's no Cold War, but Russia is a geopolitical foe in that regard." Romney's remarks came as President Obama has been meeting with Russian leader Vladimir Putin at Mexico's G20 summit to try to seek common ground over how to deal with Syria, one of Russia's allies. Romney blasted Obama for what he called an ill-advised concession on withdrawing missile-defense sites from Eastern Europe, which he called Putin's "number one foreign-policy objective." "I think it was an enormous mistake to give them that and what he got in return shows the extraordinary naiveté of a Presidency that does not understand the power of resolve and strength," he said. Asked if he thinks Putin respects Obama, Romney replied: "I believe that people around the world tend to act on their own self-interests as they perceive it. I do not believe that they respond to magnetic personalities and pleasantries, and believe that the best way to shape the course of American foreign policy is show strength -- strength in our homes and our economy and our military. And to have a president who shows resolve and locks arms with our allies, as opposed to attacking our allies and trying to control our geopolitical foes." On another subject, Romney was asked about the heckling between his supporters and Obama supporters that has escalated at his recent campaign stops. He said it would be "a nice thing" if he could reach agreement with Obama strategist David Axelrod, but added: "I'm not sure it's possible."Russia ImpactMissile Defense strains US-Russia RelationsWeir 5/22 (Fred Weir is a Canadian journalist who lives in Moscow and specializes in Russian affairs) “Russia exasperated with US over missile defense” () md"This is a very sensitive subject for us," says Andrei Klimov, deputy chair of the State Duma's international affairs committee. "It looks like the Americans are just stringing us along. If this anti-missile system is really not directed against Russia, why not sign a legal document declaring that? Why not to give Russia access to real monitoring of the system?" Russian military?experts say the planned missile shield would, in its later stages, undermine the country's nuclear deterrent. Unless the US makes a legally binding pledge never to use the weapons against Russia and makes Moscow an equal partner in a joint system, they say, a new arms race with the West looks inevitable. At a Defense Ministry meeting Tuesday, President Dmitry Medvedev said Russia was already preparing a range of countermeasures to defeat?NATO missile defense, including forward deployments of tactical nuclear missiles in Russia's Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad. "We are not closing the doors for communication, but we really need to prepare ourselves to the change of situation," Mr. Medvedev said. "We need to be fully armed by 2017-18 ... we must get ready for a serious rearming of the armed forces so that we could be in a due shape and capable to respond to the?missile defense?in Europe." Flurry of excitement ends in disappointment Russian experts say the Kremlin has been extremely disappointed by the lack of response to its concerns by the Obama administration.Low Russia Relations leads to Russia proliferationBlank ’10 (Stephen, Research Professor of National Security Affairs, Non-Proliferation, Russian Style, ) mdThis misconceived approach is entirely our own fault. Moscow has made it abundantly clear that on proliferation issues it follows its own interests–interests that are qualitatively different from, and often opposed to, those of the United States. To be sure, Moscow opposes adding new members to the nuclear club and regards proliferation writ large as a threat.2?But beyond that, it diverges from U.S. thinking. Indeed, proliferation ranks a distant fifth in terms of threats in Russia’s new defense doctrine, behind a whole series of U.S.-inspired threats, among them NATO enlargement and the U.S. deployment of missile defenses.3 Also, unlike America, Russia evaluates proliferation issues not according to whether the regime in question is democratic, but on the basis of whether a country’s nuclearization would seriously threaten itself and its interests.4?Thus, when then-President Vladimir Putin–in an effort to assuage American fears over Iran–proposed in June 2007 to allow the United States to jointly manage the Russian missile defense radar at Gabala, Azerbaijan, then-Russian General Staff Chief Yuri Baluyevsky downplayed the danger from Iran, insisting “this trend is not something catastrophic, which would require a global missile defense system deployed near Russian borders.”5?Accordingly, Moscow has tended to view American policy towards nonproliferation in jaundiced fashion, displaying a visible?schadenfreude?when North Korea tested missiles and then a nuclear weapon in July and October 2006. Or alternatively, Russian officialdom views Washington’s insistence on nonproliferation controls largely as an effort to pressure competitors in the nuclear and arms markets.6Proliferation leads to global nuclear warCimbala ’08 (Stephen, Distinguished Prof. Pol. Sci. – Penn. State Brandywine, Comparative Strategy, “Anticipatory Attacks: Nuclear Crisis Stability in Future Asia”, 27, InformaWorld, 2008) mdIf the possibility existed of a mistaken preemption during and immediately after the Cold War, between the experienced nuclear forces and command systems of America and Russia, then it may be a matter of even more concern with regard to states with newer and more opaque forces and command systems. In addition, the Americans and Soviets (and then Russians) had a great deal of experience getting to know one another’s military operational proclivities and doctrinal idiosyncrasies, including those that might influence the decision for or against war. Another consideration, relative to nuclear stability in the present century, is that the Americans and their NATO allies shared with the Soviets and Russians a commonality of culture and historical experience. Future threats to American or Russian security from weapons of mass destruction may be presented by states or non-state actors motivated by cultural and social predispositions not easily understood by those in the West nor subject to favorable manipulation during a crisis. The spread of nuclear weapons in Asia presents a complicated mosaic of possibilities in this regard. States with nuclear forces of variable force structure, operational experience, and command-control systems will be thrown into a matrix of complex political, social, and cultural crosscurrents contributory to the possibility of war. In addition to the existing nuclear powers in Asia, others may seek nuclear weapons if they feel threatened by regional rivals or hostile alliances. Containment of nuclear proliferation in Asia is a desirable political objective for all of the obvious reasons. Nevertheless, the present century is unlikely to see the nuclear hesitancy or risk aversion that marked the Cold War, in part, because the military and political discipline imposed by the Cold War superpowers no longer exists, but also because states in Asia have new aspirations for regional or global respect.12 The spread of ballistic missiles and other nuclear-capable delivery systems in Asia, or in the Middle East with reach into Asia, is especially dangerous because plausible adversaries live close together and are already engaged in ongoing disputes about territory or other issues.13 The Cold War Americans and Soviets required missiles and airborne delivery systems of intercontinental range to strike at one another’s vitals. But short-range ballistic missiles or fighter-bombers suffice for India and Pakistan to launch attacks at one another with potentially “strategic” effects. China shares borders with Russia, North Korea, India, and Pakistan; Russia, with China and NorthKorea; India, with Pakistan and China; Pakistan, with India and China; and so on. The short flight times of ballistic missiles between the cities or military forces of contiguous states means that very little time will be available for warning and attack assessment by the defender. Conventionally armed missiles could easily be mistaken for a tactical nuclear first use. Fighter-bombers appearing over the horizon could just as easily be carrying nuclear weapons as conventional ordnance. In addition to the challenges posed by shorter flight times and uncertain weapons loads, potential victims of nuclear attack in Asia may also have first strike–vulnerable forces and command-control systems that increase decision pressures for rapid, and possibly mistaken, retaliation. This potpourri of possibilities challenges conventional wisdom about nuclear deterrence and proliferation on the part of policymakers and academic theorists. For policymakers in the United States and NATO, spreading nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction in Asia could profoundly shift the geopolitics of mass destruction from a European center of gravity (in the twentieth century) to an Asian and/or Middle Eastern center of gravity (in the present century).14 This would profoundly shake up prognostications to the effect that wars of mass destruction are now passe, on account of the emergence of the “Revolution in Military Affairs” and its encouragement of information-based warfare.15 Together with this, there has emerged the argument that large-scale war between states or coalitions of states, as opposed to varieties of unconventional warfare and failed states, are exceptional and potentially obsolete.16 The spread of WMD and ballistic missiles in Asia could overturn these expectations for the obsolescence or marginalization of major interstate warfare.Impact Defense/Turns**Congress Blocks**House/Senate = SameCongressional leadership will stay the same in NovemberGiroux, Bloomberg Government analyst focusing on Congress, 7/10 (Greg, July 10, 2012,“Voters Poised to Re-Elect Incumbents They Don’t Much Like,” Bloomberg, , , accessed: 07-13-12, PCS) Spikes in incumbent losses and changes in control of congressional chambers usually occur when voter anger is channeled at one party -- a dynamic that existed in the past three elections and isn’t present this year, Abramowitz said. In 2006, when Democrats won control of the House and Senate, and in 2008, when they augmented their majorities, Republicans bore the brunt of seat losses because of President George W. Bush’s unpopularity and scandals. In 2010, Democrats suffered because they were defending large numbers of swing House districts and Republican voters were more motivated to oppose President Barack Obama’s policies than his supporters were to defend them. The upshot: Republicans regained control of the House and reduced the Democratic Senate majority. The 2012 election probably won’t result in these types of upheavals partly because political power is divided in Washington, with Democrats occupying the White House and running the Senate while Republicans control the House. That keeps public discontent from focusing solely on one party. A close presidential race between Obama and presumed Republican nominee Mitt Romney also undercuts the prospects that one side will dominate November’s vote and defeat droves of the other party’s officeholders. “Overall, it’s a deeply divided country, but it’s pretty evenly divided as well,” said Gary Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California in San Diego. “And that doesn’t give either party any kind of hope for having a ’wave’ election.”House = RepublicanMajority of 113th Congress will be RepublicanFox 7-7-12 (Lauren, Writer for US News, “Freshman Republicans in Congress Here to Stay”, , accessed 7-13-12, AR)The majority of the 87 freshman Republicans who overtook the House of Representatives in 2010 are likely to serve a second term in the 113th Congress, despite their reputation as obstructionists in the 112th. "The overall sense is that most of those 87 are likely to keep those jobs," says Republican pollster Scott Rasmussen. [See a Collection of Political Cartoons on Mitt Romney.] While the freshman class has failed to repeal President Obama'shealthcare reform as it promised or implement a cost-slashing budget, the group's done a fierce job of blaming those shortcomings on what it considers to be its dysfunctional counterpart—the Democrat-led U.S. Senate. And back home, their constituents are proud of the job they've tried to do. "I always joke the best decision the Republicans made in 2010 was not to win the Senate," Rasmussen says. "If the Republicans controlled the House and the Senate right now they would be doing worse because then the Republicans would have [borne] some responsibility." Rasmussen says those in the 2010 class average about a four-to five-point advantage over their Democratic opponents, a lead that is roughly the same as it was heading into the 2010 election. Since the 87 GOP freshman won election in 2010, there has been only one week in which the majority of voters have picked a Democratic congressional candidate to a Republican one in a generic Rasmussen poll. [Check out U.S. News Weekly: an insider's guide to politics and policy.] Many in the freshman class have their state legislators back home to thank for their job security. "It was the great untold story of 2010, hundreds of conservatives were elected to state legislators," Rasmussen says. In Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Ohio, swing states that saw 19 freshman Republicans elected in 2010, all have Republican state legislators that Kyle Kondik, the House editor at the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, says made their congressional districts more conservative. "I think redistricting has generally been good for Republican freshman," Kondik says. "Chances are pretty good for the majority." Redistricting helped many outside of the key swing states as well. Kondik argues Texas Republican Rep. Randolph Blake Farenthold won on a fluke in 2010. The congressman beat Democratic incumbent Rep. Solomon Ortiz by 799 votes. But after redistricting, the district he won has become more conservative, an R+13 district, according to the Cook Political Report. So far, none of the freshman Republicans has lost in a primary, although there are still a few competitive races set for August. "I think that is insightful," Kondik says. "I think it is hard in a primary to say these freshman haven't been conservative enough." Kondik estimates only about 30 Republicans out of the 87 are even in competitive general election races. And he has only 11 of them facing off in toss-up or leaning-Democratic districts. Some of the most competitive races are coming in the state of Illinois, where a Democratic-leaning state legislature made things harder for freshman Republican Reps. Bobby Schilling, Robert Dold, and Joe Walsh. In New York, Republican Ann Marie Buerkle is another freshman facing a tough re-election campaign, a rematch against former Congressman Dan Maffei in what Kondik says is a leaning-Democratic district. Buerkle campaign manager David Ray, however, says the district actually has about 4,300 more registered Republicans in it than Democrats. And with healthcare again at the front of voters' minds (a key issue that got Buerkle elected in 2010), Ray says he's confident she's got a solid shot. Ray says like a lot of Republican freshman who ran in 2010, Buerkle's going to continue fighting with the same conservative ideals that won in 2010 and that included voting on repealing the president's healthcare plan for the 30th time.No chance of Democratic majority in CongressCameron 6-19-12 (Joseph, Reporter for The Hill, “Dem hopes dim for recapturing House”, , accessed 7/13/12, AR)Democratic hopes of recapturing the House are dimming as a series of race-by-race setbacks and economic uncertainty suggest that the 25 seats they need to net might be out of reach. The Hill projects that Democrats will net somewhere between 10 and 15 seats, assuming the presidential election remains a close contest. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has given her party a better than 50-50 chance of wresting control of the lower chamber — but missed opportunities in specific races and increasing economic worries have put that prediction in doubt. “The environment certainly isn’t as good as it was six months ago for Democrats,” a senior Democratic strategist who works on House races told The Hill, speaking on the condition of anonymity in order to comment candidly. “Democrats are way off track of where they need to be to regain the majority,” said David Wasserman, the House race editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report The situation for the left is slightly better in the Senate, where strong recruitment and the surprise retirement of Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) has increased Democrats’ odds of holding the upper chamber. House Democrats lost a prime pickup opportunity in California earlier this month when they failed to get a top recruit through the state’s new “top two” primary system. Instead, two Republicans will face off for control of a seat that would have given President Obama 56 percent of its vote in 2008 — a result that Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel (N.Y.) admitted to The Hill was a “setback.” They also suffered blows recently in Arkansas and South Carolina, where the party’s preferred recruits failed to win their primaries in three GOP-leaning districts. While the Arkansas and South Carolina seats were going to be difficult for Democrats to win even with their favored candidates, in a year in which they need everything to break their way, the results further limited the number of seats they have a chance at. Predictions for who will control the House in the 113th Congress have predictably fallen along party lines. Israel argues it is possible for Democrats to win control, while avoiding making any guarantees. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said in late April that there was a “1 in 3” chance his party could lose the chamber, while National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) Chairman Pete Sessions (Texas) predicted in early May that the GOP would expand its majority. Republicans argue the Democrats’ recent struggles are the latest sign the GOP would hold onto the House. “This cycle has turned out to be nothing but a drought instead of what Democrats hoped would be a river of dreams,” said NRCC communications director Andrea Bozek. Presidents rarely have long coattails during their reelection campaigns. A party with a sitting president has only picked up more than 25 seats in a presidential year once in the last half-century: President Johnson helped 36 Democrats into the House in 1964. To engineer a wave election of that size, Democrats would need a strong wind at their backs — and while polls show Dems hold a slight lead in recent generic House polls, there is no sign of strong momentum that could give them a win. “House races are always going to be tied to the top of the ticket,” the Democratic strategist said. “The better Obama’s doing, the redder the districts Democrats can be playing in, and the economy is very important to the president’s success.” There are signs that the economy might be stagnating. Last month’s jobs report showed the unemployment rate tick up slightly, to 8.2 percent, the first increase in a year. Just 69,000 jobs were created in the month, the third consecutive month in which job growth did not reach expectations. On top of that, the ongoing economic crisis has caused instability in U.S. markets. While Greece’s election of a pro-bailout party staved off an immediate banking crisis on the continent, there are numerous signs that things might be going in the wrong direction in Europe. That would further roil U.S. markets and damage the already fragile economic recovery, which in turn could hurt Obama and the House Democratic candidates who need strong coattails from him. Many political scientists say that voters’ perceptions of the economy are cemented months ahead of a presidential election, and a poll conducted by The Hill this past weekend showed three-quarters of voters were either “very” or “somewhat” concerned the economy was heading for another recession. “If we don’t see these jobs numbers stabilize and start improving, the trend is only going to continue to be difficult for the Democrats,” said another Democratic strategist who works on House races. “This trend on unemployment, I don’t want to say it’s scary, but it’s certainly getting people’s attention.” Democrats publicly argue that the generic congressional ballot test shows that they can win back control of the House, and point to two recent polls showing them leading by a handful of points, although because of redistricting they will need to run a few points ahead of 50 percent nationally to win back control. They also point to their recent victory in the special election to replace former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) in a GOP-leaning district as evidence that their Medicare messaging will work in the fall. “In last week’s special election in Arizona, Democrats ran against the Republican plan to drastically cut Medicare while protecting tax breaks for millionaires and Republicans rehashed the same tired themes they ran in 2010,” said DCCC spokesman Jesse Ferguson. “Despite the fact that the district voted for George W. Bush in 2004 and John McCain in 2008 and Democratic outside groups were outspent, our message won and it’s clear the Republican majority is in jeopardy.” While the election did indicate their message worked, the GOP candidate was flawed, and had failed to win in the 2010 Republican wave election for the same reason. Republicans were able to shore up many of their 2010 gains in redistricting — by Wasserman’s calculations, the process saved the GOP roughly ten seats they otherwise would have lost in 2012, making the hill for Democrats to climb back to the majority even steeper. Senate = DemocraticThe Senate race will be close but Democrats will retain control Joseph and Lederman, The National Journal, staff reporter and political reporter and multimedia journalist, 5/9 (Cameron, and Josh, May 9, 2012, “The Hill’s Senate Ratings: Democrats Favored to Keep Control of the Senate,” The Hill, accessed: 07-13-12, PCS) Democrats’ outlook for keeping control of the Senate has slightly improved, according to an analysis by The Hill, largely due to Sen. Dick Lugar’s (Ind.) defeat at the hands of Indiana state Treasurer Richard Mourdock (R), a Tea Party favorite, in the Republican primary. Lugar would have been all but unbeatable in a general election, while a match-up between Mourdock and Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), two little-known candidates, is less predictable. While the state remains heavily Republican-leaning, Donnelly has some centrist credentials and held onto his House district in the 2010 Republican wave year. Plus, Mourdock has taken enough hard-right positions that he’s vulnerable to Democratic attacks. The Hill moves this race to a “toss-up.” The Hill lists seven additional races as toss-ups, meaning Republicans have a fighting chance to reclaim the majority going into November. Republicans could have an opportunity in Wisconsin, largely because former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson (R), the GOP's best chance at winning the seat, looks to be more secure in his primary race now that big-spending businessman Eric Hovde (R) has jumped in and further split the conservative anti-Thompson vote. Republicans also could pick up Nebraska's Senate seat. All polls there show former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.) starting off as a huge underdog to hold retiring Sen. Ben Nelson’s (D-Neb.) seat for his party, regardless of which of the three Republicans wins the primary. This races moves from “lean Republican” to “likely Republican.” But Democrats have improved their lot elsewhere. In North Dakota, former state Attorney General Heidi Heitkamp (D) has proven to be a formidable candidate, even in a conservative-leaning state. Although little polling has been released in the race, Heitkamp appears to have narrowed the gap on Rep. Rick Berg (R-N.D.). The race moves from “lean Republican” to “toss-up.” The Hill, therefore, projects Republicans are likely to pick up one to three seats, leaving them just short of the four seats needed to retake control of the Senate if President Obama wins reelection. These ratings and projections will be updated throughout the campaign cycle. The full Senate ratings are below. Ratings for the House are available on The Hill’s Ballot Box blog under the race rating category.Democrats are poised to maintain Senate controlHendin, CBS News senior reporter, 5/16 (Robert, May 16, 2012, Democrats Say They ‘Absolutely’ Will Keep Senate,” CBS News, , accessed: 07-13-12, PCS) Despite what appears to be an uphill battle, Democrats are confident they will retain control of the Senate in this fall's election. "We walked into this cycle with 23 seats to defend, the Republicans only had 10 seats to defend, and despite that fact, I think most pundits today would say that the Republicans have really hit a stumbling block in terms of recruitment, in terms of fundraising," Guy Cecil, the executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, told CBS News' Nancy Cordes on Wednesday. The DSCC is the arm of the Democratic Party tasked with building a Democratic majority in the Senate. Cecil cites his side's strong fundraising and candidate recruiting, including a record number of women candidates, as the reasons for his optimism. "The reality is that we have put five Republican seats on the map out of 10," he said, referring to Republican-held seats in Massachusetts, Maine, Indiana, Nevada and Arizona. "And obviously, the more seats we pick up on their side, the more difficult a challenge it is for them to take back the majority." Additionally, Republican primary battles have helped make the field stronger for Democrats, including Tuesday's GOP primary upset in Nebraska that could help the Democrats' chances of keeping that seat, held by retiring Sen. Ben Nelson. In Nebraska's Republican Senate primary, State Sen. Deb Fischer beat out two top Republican candidates to win the nomination and will face former Sen. Bob Kerrey in the fall. Cecil says there's a lot to learn about Fischer, and Democrats will make the issue a choice between the two. "Fischer is an untested candidate. And there are a lot of questions that need to be asked about her business, about her service in the legislature, and we want to make sure that we ask those questions," he said. More broadly though, the upset of Republican Sen. Richard Lugar in Indiana, coupled with the Nebraska results, show a Republican party pushed far to the right. "Republicans have divisive, nasty, angry primaries happening all across the country. Obviously a lot of attention was paid in Indiana, but we're seeing this in a host of races, from Indiana to Nebraska to Missouri. And what it's doing is it's forcing Republican primary candidates farther and farther and farther to the right," Cecil said. On another hot-button issue, Cecil says President Obama's recent announcement about his support for same-sex marriage won't hurt incumbent Democrats running in tough battles, like Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill or Montana's Jon Tester. "A lot of our candidates, including Claire McCaskill, have already spoken on this issue," he said. "And our party, unlike the other side, is a party that is a big tent. And we're going to have different perspectives. The reality is that the majority of our caucus has come out in favor of marriage equality, and so I think in whole, it's not going to be much of an issue." Overall, Cecil said the same-sex marriage issue -- coupled with a new ultimatum from House Republicans over cutting the nation's debt without raising taxes -- helps show voters that Democrats are the more sensible of the two parties.GOP senate majority unlikely—divided on social issues Clift, Newsweek, editor, 12 (Eleanor, March 2, 2012, “Why the GOP Won’t Win the Senate,” The Daily Beast, , accessed: 07-13-12, CPO)When the votes were counted, Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe stood alone, the only Republican to oppose a hotly contested amendment that would have granted employers the right to withhold insurance coverage for any health service they find objectionable for religious or moral reasons. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell runs a tight ship, and that was one of the reasons Snowe announced earlier this week that she is ending her campaign for reelection and leaving the Senate. As one of the few moderates left in the Republican caucus, she had grown tired of the pressure to always toe the line. Snowe’s isolation was stark as the amendment was voted down, 51 to 48: almost all Democrats were on one side and Republicans on the other.The tight tally “is just another sign of polarization,” says Jack Pitney, a professor of American politics at Claremont McKenna College. “The center is a lonely place and getting lonelier with every election.”In the lead-up to the vote, Republicans portrayed the “Respect for Rights of Conscience Act” as an effort to keep government out of health-care decisions, while Democrats said it was so broadly written that employers citing moral objections would be empowered to cut off everything from prenatal care for children of single mothers to HIV screening. When Snowe went public with her decision to vote against the measure, the question was whether other GOP moderates would follow in her footsteps. None did, not even Susan Collins, her fellow home-state senator. The two women, who typically vote in lockstep, are known as the “Maine twins.”Republicans looked to Snowe to provide political cover on thorny social issues, and Democrats knew she could generally be counted on to bring along a handful of additional Republican votes once she was persuaded on an issue. Her support of ending the ban on gays in the military was key and she helped persuade Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown to vote with Democrats on the issue. He is up for reelection in November and looking for ways to demonstrate independence from his party in a state that votes Democratic in a presidential election year. Brown, though, stuck with his party on the so-called Blunt Amendment, named after its principal sponsor, Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri.Brown is betting that there are enough independent Catholic votes in his state that see the issue as one of religious freedom as opposed to an assault on contraceptives. Yet his assertion in an op-ed and in a radio ad that Sen. Ted Kennedy would have supported the Blunt Amendment was belied by Thursday’s vote when liberal Democrats who are Catholics, including John Kerry, voted to table the amendment. Kennedy’s son, former congressman Patrick Kennedy, asked Brown to take down the radio ad; Brown refused. “If I were Elizabeth Warren, I’d have Patrick Kennedy cut an ad to say, ‘I knew Ted Kennedy, Ted Kennedy was my father’ …” says Matt Bennett of Third Way, a centrist Democratic group backing Warren in her bid to defeat Brown in Massachusetts.A Republican activist who worked on Capitol Hill and who does not want to be quoted says the debate over the availability of contraceptives is “way bigger than a wedge issue” because it goes against settled thought for two generations, and makes the Republican Party look out of touch. “Younger people hear [a debate about contraception] and think those people are Martians. They are unlike me or anybody I know or care about. Republicans risk becoming irrelevant to a whole generation of people, and I include Catholics in that. This is a private matter between a woman, her God, her spouse, and her physician. It’s a crowded enough conversation without government in there.”Six months ago, Republicans were talking confidently about taking the Senate next November, widening their lead in the House and having a really good chance to win the White House. A debate about social issues that many think has gone off the rails capped by Snowe’s surprise resignation is the latest evidence that their predictions are widely off the mark, particularly in the Senate where Republicans need four seats to gain control. That seemed easy enough with 23 Democrat-held seats being contested, some of them in red states, but Snowe’s departure will likely put Maine into the Democratic column, and Elizabeth Warren, an outspoken consumer advocate, is probably the one Democrat with a chance to defeat Scott Brown in Massachusetts.That has not escaped the notice of Republicans, who say that if McConnell had let Warren’s nomination go through to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the GOP wouldn’t be sweating Brown’s seat. “He can chalk that up to his own stubbornness,” says the GOP activist about McConnell. “He may be running a tight ship, but it’s a small ship, a nice small ship of white guys.” Snowe is one of five Republican women in the Senate, and one of even fewer GOP moderates, which is why she will be missed. “I’m a partisan Democrat, and a pick up is a pick up,” says Third Way’s Bennett. “But you don’t want to lose the only people on the other side who are willing to talk to you. That’s not how we want to pick up seats, and it’s not good for the institution.”**Climate Change**I/L DefenseEven if Romney and GOP win – dems block EPA rollbackStar Ledger, 12 (6/3, )Yes, there are restraints on how bad this could get. Some of the EPA’s toughest regulations were put in place as a result of lawsuits. One example is the rule limiting mercury emissions from coal plants. New Jersey, in the pre-Christie era, was one of the states that filed that lawsuit. A President Romney might not be able to reverse those regulations without new legislation. And even if Republicans make gains, Democrats will be able to block the worst legislation with 41 votes in the Senate. The dreaded filibuster rule could finally come in handy.Romneys bluffing – its just a campaign tacticStar Ledger, 12 (6/3, )And, of course, you never know how seriously to take Romney. You get the sense he might not believe some of the crazy things he says, that he wouldn’t be as bad as he promises to be. As governor of Massachusetts, he imposed tough emissions rules on coal plants, and even stood outside one and said, "This plant kills people."AT – WarmingThe impact on overall warming is negligibleLieberman 10. [Ben, JD from George Washington Senior Policy Analyst in Energy and the Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, EPA's Global Warming Regulations: A Threat to American Agriculture, ]Last June, America's Climate Security Act was withdrawn by its Senate supporters after only three days of debate. A Heritage Foundation analysis de tailed the costs of the bill, which included a 29 per cent increase in the price of gasoline, net job losses well into the hundreds of thousands, and an overall reduction in gross domestic product of $1.7 to $4.8 trillion by 2030.[2]?At the time of the debate, gasoline was approaching $4 per gallon for the first time in history, and signs of a slowing economy were begin ning to emerge. Economically speaking, the bill was one of the last items on the agenda that Americans wanted, and its Senate sponsors recognized that. Beyond the costs, the bill would have--even assum ing the worst case scenarios of future warming-- likely reduced the earth's future temperature by an amount too small to verify.[3]Other nations won’t model EPA regulationsLieberman 10. [Ben, JD from George Washington Senior Policy Analyst in Energy and the Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, EPA's Global Warming Regulations: A Threat to American Agriculture, ]The impact on the overall econ omy, as measured by gross domestic product (GDP), is substantial. The cumulative GDP losses for 2010 to 2029 approach $7 trillion. Single-year losses exceed $600 billion in 2029, more than $5,000 per house hold. (See Chart 1.) Job losses are expected to exceed 800,000 in some years, and exceed at least 500,000 from 2015 through 2026. (See Chart 2). Note that these are net job losses, after any jobs created by compliance with the regulations--so-called green jobs--are taken into account. Hardest-hit are man ufacturing jobs, with losses approaching 3 million. (See Chart 3). Particularly vulnerable are jobs in durable manufacturing (28 percent job losses), machinery manufacturing (57 percent), textiles (27.6 percent), electrical equipment and appli ances (22 percent), paper (36 percent), and plastics and rubber products (54 percent). It should be noted that since the EPA rule is unilateral and few other nations are likely to follow the U.S. lead, many of these manufacturing jobs will be out sourced overseas.Impact Turn – EconomyClimate Change regulations cause unemployementKreutzer and Campbell 8. [David W., Ph.D.,Senior Policy Analyst for Energy Economics and Climate Change, and Karen A., Ph.D., Policy Analyst in Macroeconomics, Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation, CO2-Emission Cuts: The Economic Costs of the EPA's ANPR Regulations, ]Number of Jobs Declines.?The loss of economic output is the proverbial tip of the economic iceberg. Below the surface are economic reactions to the leg islation that led up to the drop in output. Employment growth slows sharply following the boomlet of the first few years. Potential employment (or the job growth that would be implied by the demand for goods and services and the relevant cost of capital used in production) slumps sharply. In 2015, regu lation-induced employment losses exceed 500,000; and they exceed that level for the remainder of the investigated period. Non-farm job losses peak at more than 800,000. Indeed, in no year after the boomlet does employment under the ANPR outperform the base line economy where these proposed regulations never become law. For manufacturing workers, the news is grim indeed. Employment will already be in decline due to increased labor-saving productivity: Our baseline shows that even with out additional job-killing regula tions, manufacturing employment will drop by more than 980,000 jobs. The ANPR accelerates this decrease substantially: Employ ment in manufacturing declines by an additional 22.6 percent or 2,880,000 jobs beyond the baseline losses. By 2029, several specific areas of the manufacturing industry will experience particularly harsh employment losses: Durable-manufacturing employ ment will decrease by 28 percent; Machinery-manufacturing job losses will exceed 57 percent; Textile-mills employment will decrease by 27.6 percent; Electrical-equipment and -appli ance employment will decrease by 22 percent; Paper and paper-product jobs will decrease by 36 percent; and Plastic and rubber products employment drops 54 percent. All employment declines described are in addi tion to those that occur in the baseline projections.That causes economic collapseWRAY 9. [L. Randall, PhD, Prof of Economics @ UMKC, Senior Research Scholar @ Levy Economics Institute, “When all else has failed, why not try job creation” -- ]The US continues to hemorrhage jobs even as some purport to see “green shoots”. All plausible projections show that unemployment will rise even if our economy begins to grow. Personally, I think those green shoots will die this winter because the stimulus package is far too small and because the financial system is going to crash again. The longer we wait to actually address the unemployment problem, the worse are the prospects for a real recovery. In his recent piece, Paul Krugman writes: Just to be clear, I believe that a large enough conventional stimulus would do the trick. But since that doesn’t seem to be in the cards, we need to talk about cheaper alternatives that address the job problem directly. Should we introduce an employment tax credit, like the one proposed by the Economic Policy Institute? Should we introduce the German- style job-sharing subsidy proposed by the Center for Economic Policy Research? Both are worthy of consideration. The point is that we need to start doing something more than, and different from, what we’re already doing. And the experience of other countries suggests that it’s time for a policy that explicitly and directly targets job creation. Impact Turn – Chemical IndustryEPA REGULATIONS WILL CAUSE MASSIVE NATURAL GAS PRICE SPIKES. BERG 8. [Amanda, legislative assistant @ NCPA, “Regulating Global Warming: Expanding the Authority of the Environmental Protection Agency” National Center for Policy Analysis -- Oct Regulating Global Warming: Expanding the Authority of the Environmental Protection Agency -- ]Effects of Regulations on Energy Costs. As with other pollutants, if the EPA finalizes these findings, the agency could go beyond regulating CO 2 emissions from automobiles to regulating greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources as well. The EPA would likely implement an emissions permit program covering stationary sources emitting 250 tons per year of any regulated pollutant. This would subject thousands of new sources to EPA regulations — including small businesses, hospitals and even large single-family homes. It would require costly new technology or retrofits to meet stringent emissions criteria. Furthermore, the proposed EPA rule would cause a shift from coal — currently used to generate half of the domestic electricity supply — to natural gas. Due to the limited domestic supply of natural gas and the moratorium on production from reserves on the Outer Continental Shelf, more natural gas would be imported, reducing U.S. energy security. According to a study by Science Applications International Corporation, an increase in demand for natural gas would cause its price to skyrocket, raising electricity prices: Natural gas prices could increase by as much as 146 percent. Electricity prices could increase 129 percent. A two-thirds reduction in coal-fired electric power generation would lower gross domestic product (GDP) by $371 billion annually, say Pennsylvania State University researchers. High natural gas prices will crush the petrochemical industryRichards ’01 (Don,- writer for ICB Americas, Health Industry “Rising Natural Gas Costs Threaten US Chemical Growth” .)The current spike in natural gas costs "may be the most critical issue our industry has ever faced in this state and nation." This is what Jim Woodrick, president of Texas Chemical Council, told comissioners of the Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) at a recent agency hearing in Austin. Last week benchmark gas prices hovered around $5.27 per 1,000 cubic feet (mcf) at the Henry Hub in Louisiana and on the Houston Ship Channel after having soared to $10.65 per mcf on January 2. In January 2000, the Henry Hub price was only $2.32 per mcf. RRC's hearing was designed to find price relief for industrial, business and home consumers. Mr. Woodrick says that high natural gas prices are posing serious near-term economic disruptions for chemical manufacturers. What's more, he projects that continuation of these conditions long-term will force the migration of production facilities out of Texas and this country. "Within the last few months," he says, "high natural gas prices have made many chemical businesses painfully unprofitable. Some production units have been forced to shut down or slow down while overseas plants operate at full capacity. Other units are losing money but are still operating to honor their supply commitments to their customers."ExtinctionBaum ’99 (Rudy M,- Editor-in-Chief of Chemical & Engineering News and Senior Vice President of the C&EN Magazine Group 12-6 “Millenium Special Report” )Here is the fundamental challenge we face: The world's growing and aging population must be fed and clothed and housed and transported in ways that do not perpetuate the environmental devastation wrought by the first waves of industrialization of the 19th and 20th centuries. As we increase our output of goods and services, as we increase our consumption of energy, as we meet the imperative of raising the standard of living for the poorest among us, we must learn to carry out our economic activities sustainably. There are optimists out there, C&EN readers among them, who believe that the history of civilization is a long string of technological triumphs of humans over the limits of nature. In this view, the idea of a "carrying capacity" for Earth—a limit to the number of humans Earth's resources can support—is a fiction because technological advances will continuously obviate previously perceived limits. This view has historical merit. Dire predictions made in the 1960s about the exhaustion of resources ranging from petroleum to chromium to fresh water by the end of the 1980s or 1990s have proven utterly wrong. While I do not count myself as one of the technological pessimists who see technology as a mixed blessing at best and an unmitigated evil at worst, I do not count myself among the technological optimists either. There are environmental challenges of transcendent complexity that I fear may overcome us and our Earth before technological progress can come to our rescue. Global climate change, the accelerating destruction of terrestrial and oceanic habitats, the catastrophic loss of species across the plant and animal kingdoms—these are problems that are not obviously amenable to straightforward technological solutions. But I know this, too: Science and technology have brought us to where we are, and only science and technology, coupled with innovative social and economic thinking, can take us to where we need to be in the coming millennium. Chemists, chemistry, and the chemical industry—what we at C&EN call the chemical enterprise—will play central roles in addressing these challenges. The first section of this Special Report is a series called "Millennial Musings" in which a wide variety of representatives from the chemical enterprise share their thoughts about the future of our science and industry. The five essays that follow explore the contributions the chemical enterprise is making right now to ensure that we will successfully meet the challenges of the 21st century. The essays do not attempt to predict the future. Taken as a whole, they do not pretend to be a comprehensive examination of the efforts of our science and our industry to tackle the challenges I've outlined above. Rather, they paint, in broad brush strokes, a portrait of scientists, engineers, and business managers struggling to make a vital contribution to humanity's future. The first essay, by Senior Editor Marc S. Reisch, is a case study of the chemical industry's ongoing transformation to sustainable production. Although it is not well known to the general public, the chemical industry is at the forefront of corporate efforts to reduce waste from production streams to zero. Industry giants DuPont and Dow Chemical are taking major strides worldwide to manufacture chemicals while minimizing the environmental "footprint" of their facilities. This is an ethic that starts at the top of corporate structure. Indeed, Reisch quotes Dow President and Chief Executive Officer William S. Stavropolous: "We must integrate elements that historically have been seen as at odds with one another: the triple bottom line of sustainability—economic and social and environmental needs." DuPont Chairman and CEO Charles (Chad) O. Holliday envisions a future in which "biological processes use renewable resources as feedstocks, use solar energy to drive growth, absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, use low-temperature and low-pressure processes, and produce waste that is less toxic." But sustainability is more than just a philosophy at these two chemical companies. Reisch describes ongoing Dow and DuPont initiatives that are making sustainability a reality at Dow facilities in Michigan and Germany and at DuPont's massive plant site near Richmond, Va. Another manifestation of the chemical industry's evolution is its embrace of life sciences. Genetic engineering is a revolutionary technology. In the 1970s, research advances fundamentally shifted our perception of DNA. While it had always been clear that deoxyribonucleic acid was a chemical, it was not a chemical that could be manipulated like other chemicals—clipped precisely, altered, stitched back together again into a functioning molecule. Recombinant DNA techniques began the transformation of DNA into just such a chemical, and the reverberations of that change are likely to be felt well into the next century. Genetic engineering has entered the fabric of modern science and technology. It is one of the basic tools chemists and biologists use to understand life at the molecular level. It provides new avenues to pharmaceuticals and new approaches to treat disease. It expands enormously agronomists' ability to introduce traits into crops, a capability seized on by numerous chemical companies. There is no doubt that this powerful new tool will play a major role in feeding the world's population in the coming century, but its adoption has hit some bumps in the road. In the second essay, Editor-at-Large Michael Heylin examines how the promise of agricultural biotechnology has gotten tangled up in real public fear of genetic manipulation and corporate control over food. The third essay, by Senior Editor Mairin B. Brennan, looks at chemists embarking on what is perhaps the greatest intellectual quest in the history of science—humans' attempt to understand the detailed chemistry of the human brain, and with it, human consciousness. While this quest is, at one level, basic research at its most pure, it also has enormous practical significance. Brennan focuses on one such practical aspect: the effort to understand neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease that predominantly plague older humans and are likely to become increasingly difficult public health problems among an aging population. Science and technology are always two-edged swords. They bestow the power to create and the power to destroy. In addition to its enormous potential for health and agriculture, genetic engineering conceivably could be used to create horrific biological warfare agents. In the fourth essay of this Millennium Special Report, Senior Correspondent Lois R. Ember examines the challenge of developing methods to counter the threat of such biological weapons. "Science and technology will eventually produce sensors able to detect the presence or release of biological agents, or devices that aid in forecasting, remediating, and ameliorating bioattacks," Ember writes. Finally, Contributing Editor Wil Lepkowski discusses the most mundane, the most marvelous, and the most essential molecule on Earth, H2O. Providing clean water to Earth's population is already difficult—and tragically, not always accomplished. Lepkowski looks in depth at the situation in Bangladesh—where a well-meaning UN program to deliver clean water from wells has poisoned millions with arsenic. Chemists are working to develop better ways to detect arsenic in drinking water at meaningful concentrations and ways to remove it that will work in a poor, developing country. And he explores the evolving water management philosophy, and the science that underpins it, that will be needed to provide adequate water for all its vital uses. In the past two centuries, our science has transformed the world. Chemistry is a wondrous tool that has allowed us to understand the structure of matter and gives us the ability to manipulate that structure to suit our own purposes. It allows us to dissect the molecules of life to see what makes them, and us, tick. It is providing a glimpse into workings of what may be the most complex structure in the universe, the human brain, and with it hints about what constitutes consciousness. In the coming decades, we will use chemistry to delve ever deeper into these mysteries and provide for humanity's basic and not-so-basic needs.**Iran Strikes**Impact DefenseIsrael will strike Iran if we don’t – official statements and war game-planning.Katzman -11 (Kenneth Katzman, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs, June 9, 2011, Congressional Research Service, )Some experts express greater concern over the potential for a strategic strike on Iran by Israel as compared to strikes by the United States. The debate over this possibility increased following the publication by the September 2010 issue of The Atlantic magazine of an article by Jeffrey Goldberg entitled “Point of No Return.”64 As noted in the piece, Israeli officials view a nuclear armed Iran as an existential threat and have repeatedly refused to rule out the possibility that Israel might strike Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Speculation about this possibility increased in March and April 2009 with statements by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to The Atlantic magazine stating that “You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs.” This and other Israeli comments generated assessments by then CENTCOM Commander General Petraeus that Israel might well decide to launch a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Adding to the prospects for this scenario, in mid-June 2008, Israeli officials confirmed reports that Israel had practiced a long-range strike such as that which would be required. Taking a position similar to that of the George W. Bush Administration, senior U.S. officials visited Israel throughout 2010 (including Vice President Biden in March 2010) in part to express the view that the Obama Administration is committed to strict sanctions on Iran—with the implication that Israeli military action should not be undertaken. Others say that Israeli urgency has abated as of the end of 2010 because of shared U.S.-Israeli assessments that an Iranian nuclear weapons capability is not imminent. Impact Turn – Strikes SolveOn balance strikes are best – critics underestimate current risks and turns rely on flawed assumptionsKroenig, 12 (Matthew, professor of Government at Georgetown University and a Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Foreign Affairs, Feb, )But skeptics of military action fail to appreciate the true danger that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose to U.S. interests in the Middle East and beyond. And their grim forecasts assume that the cure would be worse than the disease -- that is, that the consequences of a U.S. assault on Iran would be as bad as or worse than those of Iran achieving its nuclear ambitions. But that is a faulty assumption. The truth is that a military strike intended to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, if managed carefully, could spare the region and the world a very real threat and dramatically improve the long-term national security of the United States.Impact Turn - ProlifIran prolif coming soon – only striking Soon solves – all alternatives have failedKroenig, 12 (Matthew, professor of Government at Georgetown University and a Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Foreign Affairs, Feb, )DANGERS OF DETERRENCE Years of international pressure have failed to halt Iran's attempt to build a nuclear program. The Stuxnet computer worm, which attacked control systems in Iranian nuclear facilities, temporarily disrupted Tehran's enrichment effort, but a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency this past May revealed that the targeted plants have fully recovered from the assault. And the latest IAEA findings on Iran, released in November, provided the most compelling evidence yet that the Islamic Republic has weathered sanctions and sabotage, allegedly testing nuclear triggering devices and redesigning its missiles to carry nuclear payloads. The Institute for Science and International Security, a nonprofit research institution, estimates that Iran could now produce its first nuclear weapon within six months of deciding to do so. Tehran's plans to move sensitive nuclear operations into more secure facilities over the course of the coming year could reduce the window for effective military action even further. If Iran expels IAEA inspectors, begins enriching its stockpiles of uranium to weapons-grade levels of 90 percent, or installs advanced centrifuges at its uranium-enrichment facility in Qom, the United States must strike immediately or forfeit its last opportunity to prevent Iran from joining the nuclear club.Iran Strikes Key to Prevent Rapid Global Proliferation and Nuclear WarThomas Holsinger, Guest Author, 1/19/06, Winds of Change, ’s mullahs are about to produce their first home-built nuclear weapons this year. If we permit that, many other countries, some of whose governments are dangerously unstable, will build their own nuclear weapons to deter Iran and each other from nuclear attack as our inaction will have demonstrated our unwillingness to keep the peace. This rapid and widespread proliferation will inevitably lead to use of nuclear weapons in anger, both by terrorists and by fearful and unstable third world regimes, at which point the existing world order will break down and we will suffer every Hobbesian nightmare of nuclear proliferation.Impact Turn - TerrorismFailure to strike incites terrorism Krauthammer, 2004 (Charles-Phd. Oxford, McGill, Harvard. Pulitzer Prize.) New York Daily News, July 23 There are only two things that will stop the Iranian nuclear program: revolution from below or an attack on its nuclear facilities. The country should be ripe for revolution. But the mullahs are very good at police-state tactics. The long-awaited revolution is not happening. Which makes the question of preemptive attack all the more urgent. Iran will go nuclear during the next presidential term. If nothing is done, a fanatical terrorist regime openly dedicated to the destruction of the "Great Satan" will have both nuclear weapons and the terrorists and missiles to deliver them. All that stands between us and that is either revolution or preemptive strike. Both of which, by the way, are far more likely to succeed with 146,000 American troops and highly sophisticated aircraft standing by just a few miles away - in Iraq.The impact is extinctionAlexander 2003 (Yonah, Director, Inter-University for Terrorism Studies, Jerusalem Post, 8-25, Lexis)Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically the international community's failure, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and implications of the terrorist threat to the survival of civilization itself. Even the United States and Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than as a critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns. It is not surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001, Americans were stunned to witness the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al-Qaida terrorists striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military centers. Likewise Israel and its citizens, despite the collapse of the Oslo Accords of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack. Why are the US and Israel, as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism, continually shocked by terrorist surprises? There are several reasons: * A misunderstanding of the manifold factors contributing to the expansion of terrorism, such as the absence of a universal definition of terrorism; * The religionization of politics; * Double standards of morality, weak punishment of terrorists, and exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear that we have entered an Age of Super-Terrorism - biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear, and cyber - with its serious implications for national, regional, and global security concerns. Two myths in particular must be debunked immediately if an effective counterterrorism strategy can be developed; for example, strengthening international cooperation. THE FIRST illusion is that terrorism can be greatly reduced, if not eliminated completely, provided the root causes of conflicts - political, social, and economic - are addressed. The conventional illusion is that terrorism used by "oppressed" people seeking to achieve their goals is justified. Consequently, the argument advanced by so-called freedom fighters - "give me liberty and I will give you death" - is tolerated, if not glorified. This traditional rationalization of "sacred" violence often conceals the fact that the real purpose of terrorist groups is to gain political power through the barrel of the gun, in violation of fundamental human rights of the noncombatant segment of societies. For instance, Palestinian religious movements, such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and secular entities, such as Fatah's Tanzim and the Aksa Martyrs Brigade, wish not only to resolve national grievances such as settlements, the right of return, and Jerusalem, but primarily to destroy the Jewish state. Similarly, Osama bin Laden's international network not only opposes the presence of American military in the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq; its stated objective is to "unite all Muslims and establish a government that follows the rule of the Caliphs." The second myth is that initiating strong action against the terrorist infrastructure - leaders, recruitment, funding, propaganda, training, weapons, operational command and control - will only increase terrorism. The argument here is that law enforcement efforts and military retaliation will inevitably fuel more brutal revenge acts of violence. Clearly, if this perception continues to prevail, particularly in democratic societies, the danger is that such thinking will paralyze governments into inaction, thereby encouraging further terrorist attacks. Past experience provides useful lessons for a realistic strategy. The prudent application of force has demonstrated that it is an effective tool in deterring terrorism in the short and long terms. For example, Israel's targeted killing of Mohammed Sider, the Hebron commander of the Islamic Jihad, defused a ticking bomb. The assassination of Ismail Abu Shanab, a top Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip, directly responsible for several suicide bombings including the latest bus attack in Jerusalem, disrupted potential terrorist operations. Similarly, the US military operation in Iraq eliminated Saddam Hussein's regime as a state sponsor of terror. Thus it behooves those countries victimized by terrorism to understand a cardinal message communicated by Sir Winston Churchill to the House of Commons on May 13, 1940: "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of terror, victory however long and hard the road may be: For without victory there is no survival."**US-China Relations**I/L DefenseRomney would pursue the same approach to China as Obama Bennett 12 (John, Staff, U.S. News, “Romney Likely to Follow Obama's Lead on China”, June 19th, , 7/13/12, AH)Should Mitt Romney become president, he likely would use the same kind of nonconfrontational approach to China that occupants of the Oval Office have used for over four decades, says one foreign policy analyst. Since the 1970s, U.S. presidents have sought to persuade Beijing to make economic and social reforms. In foreign policy circles, this is called trying to "integrate China into the international order," as Brookings Institution analyst Michael O'Hanlon put it Tuesday. U.S. presidents from both political parties for decades have sought to "convince China it is best served playing ball with us the way the rest of the world does," O'Hanlon said during a forum in Washington. O'Hanlon, also a Johns Hopkins University professor, said he sees no evidence that Romney would alter that course. Mitt Romney has the same US-China policyBennett 12 (John; US News; Reporter; Romney likely to follow lead Obama’s Lead on China ; June 19) Should Mitt Romney become president, he likely would use the same kind of nonconfrontational approach to China that occupants of the Oval Office have used for over four decades, says one foreign policy analyst. Since the 1970s, U.S. presidents have sought to persuade Beijing to make economic and social reforms. In foreign policy circles, this is called trying to "integrate China into the international order," as Brookings Institution analyst Michael O'Hanlon put it Tuesday. U.S. presidents from both political parties for decades have sought to "convince China it is best served playing ball with us the way the rest of the world does," O'Hanlon said during a forum in Washington. O'Hanlon, also a Johns Hopkins University professor, said he sees no evidence that Romney would alter that course. I/L Turn – Obama Hurts RelationsObama worse than Romney on US china relationsJackson 7/2/12 (David, USA TODAY, “Obama, Romney both bashing china” )It sounds like President Obama and Mitt Romney are now competing to see who can be tougher on China. While Romney has vowed to brand China a currency manipulator on "day one" of his presidency, Obama this week played up a new complaint against China with the World Trade Organization during his tour of Ohio. Speaking near Toledo -- the home of Jeep Wranglers that are subject to Chinese import duties -- Obama said his administration has "brought trade cases against China at a faster pace than the previous administration, and we've won those cases." Obama said the new WTO complaint will "hold China accountable for unfair trade practices that harm American automakers." Over the course of the campaign, Romney has accused China of seeking to steal U.S. government and corporate secrets. "We have to have China understand that like everybody else on the world stage, they have to play by the rules," Romney said. The candidates are following a fairly recent campaign tradition that has grown along with the rise of China as a global economic power. The AFP describes it as "the anti-China card beloved of U.S. presidential candidates." Stephen Collinson of AFP also notes that HYPERLINK "" \l ".T_b1SY7ZfzI" \t "_blank" Obama or Romney may have trouble following through on their get-tough-with-China pledges: China bashing may also have greater consequences than in the past when China was merely a prospective power. Beijing now has the capacity, and often the inclination to thwart US foreign policy - a capability exemplified by the current diplomatic drive to force Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power. So Romney, who could take power in January needing China's help on issues including North Korea and Iran, may pay a price down the road. And should Obama win in November, plain sailing for US-China ties is hardly a given. At the APEC summit in Hawaii in November, Obama vented frustration at China's yuan policy, telling President Hu Jintao that Americans were "impatient." And despite Obama's assurance that he does not want to "contain" China, his decision last year to deploy U.S. Marines to Australia caused Beijing to bristle.Impact Turn – Conflict/ExpansionChina exploits relations for advantages in the WTO—part of a greater strategy of imperialist expansion in Asia Kelly 10 (5-30, Robert, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Pusan National University, “Off to China… 1) The ‘China Threat’ Thesis”, Asian Security Blog, ) GSK 1. China’s internal politics are repressive: Falun Gong, democracy dissidents, Muslim Uighurs, Tibet. Why would you expect a regime that treats its own people that way to be nicer to the ‘foreign devils’ (the 19th century mandarin term for western traders) ? Why would you trust a regime that shoots its own people? When Iran and Zimbabwe do it, we worry. Why not with China? China is not a democracy. 2. While China is rising, it is vulnerable. It is benefitting enormously from the US/WTO-lead trading order. So of course they will say they want to rise peacefully. They won’t shoot themselves in the foot. They see how Germany’s belligerent rise in the late 19th century got it encircled and crushed in WWI. They aren’t stupid enough to say they want changes, but we shouldn’t be stupid enough to believe them either, especially given point 1 above. 3. China has a historical legacy of xenophobia and cultural supremacism. You can overcome history of course; the Germans did. But the Chinese aren’t there at all, and its historical reservoir of national myths clashes badly with just being ‘one more country.’ 4. As countries grow and get wealthier, their perceptions of their national interests change, ie, grow. So yes, today, the Chinese do want to rise peacefully, and maybe they are sincere. But eventually, as its sense of its global role grows, and as the scope of its interests grow, it will become pushier and probably more belligerent. This usually happens when countries grow to new prominence. Britain in the 19th century intervened all over Asia. The US got more involved in Latin America and the Pacific. The USSR dabbled in all over the place during the Cold War. Maybe China is different, but the historical record of big states developing new ‘needs’ and ‘appetites’ is pretty clear. Expect it here. 5. What will they want after they get rich? James Fallows’ work at the Atlantic suggests that China just wants to get rich, and that’s true, but what happens after they get there? As states become richer and more influential, their perceptions of their national interests expand – particularly as states trade more and import resources more (as most rising states must). It is all but inevitable that China’s global footprint will expand as it already has in Central Asia, Africa, and the South China Sea. This does not mean it must be belligerent, but it does mean that there are more possible loci of conflict. The sheer size of China and its reach will insure friction and collisions – just as it did with the British Empire, the USSR, and the US. Add to this China’s rather toxic internal politics. China is hypernationalist (the replacement ideology after Tiannamen), mercantilist, and repressive. I see nothing benign in that mix. If you were China, wouldn’t you be chafing at the bit, having to listen to Bush or Hillary lecture you about human rights and your exchange rate? And once the first missile lands on Tibet, all the talk of peaceful China will fly out the window. My first-cut schtick on the US and China is in galleys at Geopolitics for publication this fall; here it is in brief. For China’s muscle in the Northeast Asia, try here and here. In short, I lean toward the view that China is a rising power likely to collide with the US, because its range of interests will expand as its power expands. In 20 years, when China has a bigger navy, it will suddenly ‘discover’ national interests in the South Pacific or Indian Ocean. Rome, Britain, the US, the USSR all went down this path. It is worse, because China has the Sinocentric history of informally dominating its Confucian neighbors. And the regime ideology is still fairly illiberal – mercantilism, hypernationalism, internal repression.US-Sino relations bad—three reasons Sims 5-29 (George, writer for e-International Relations, “Will Sino-U.S. Relations Eventually Lead to War?”, e-International Relations, ) GSK The relationship that has developed between the United States and China can be seen as both one of opportunity and a cause for concern. While the emergence of China as an economic fore-runner presents new and fertile grounds for trade, it can be seen as the first major post-cold war challenge to the United States’ dominance both as the only global superpower and as a challenge to U.S. hegemonic dominance in the Pacific region. China has risen quickly and relatively peacefully; embracing globalisation, utilising domestic resources as well as its vast and growing population[1]. However, as China grows and its interests expand, it begins to challenge the United States on an economic level, as well as having an unsettling effect on an established post-cold war world order and U.S. strategic interests. As the title of this essay suggests, this unsettling affect has the very real potential of leading both sides down a path to war. In assessing the likelihood of the United States and China going to war, arguments have developed both for and against the hypothesis that Sino-U.S. relations will eventually lead to war. It could be argued that there exist a number of key areas within the Sino-U.S. relationship to which a great amount of attention is paid by international relations thinkers and theorists. These key areas are the commonly understood most likely flashpoints which, if left unresolved diplomatically could lead to conflict between the two great powers. Traditionally, the foremost threat to peace is Taiwan; decades old U.S. commitments to the protection of Taiwan limp into the 21st Century, but with China’s importance as a trade-partner becoming of increasing significance, the United States faces some difficult decisions with regard to its commitments to Taiwan. Equally, China and Taiwan must themselves assess the best means of their relationship with one another moving forwards, and whether reunification or pursuing sovereignty for China and Taiwan respectively, is still the best course of action. Secondly, China prides itself on its “peaceful rise”[2], placing emphasis on its transcendence of the U.S. and USSR’s paths to becoming great powers, in favour of peaceful development and cooperation with other states[3]. But China’s sense of military insufficiency in comparison to the capabilities of the U.S., has spurred an increase in funding for the Chinese military[4] over the last 20 years. As with any military expansion, the build-up of Chinese military forces creates something of a security dilemma; in which the unintended effects are the build-up of other states military forces in the region, thus exacerbating the initial problem. Many realists have argued that this is a sure sign that China is building for a potential future conflict[5]. While some have argued that China’s capabilities have been exaggerated, there is no ignoring China’s growing military might[6]. If China wishes to avoid stimulating a cold-war-esque arms-race with the United States, it must utilise its soft power as a means of offsetting Western concerns; “If an adversary can be persuaded that all one wants is security (as opposed to domination), the adversary may itself relax”[7], equally, the United States must learn to approach China from a position of security, as opposed to seeing China as an over exaggerated security threat. Thirdly, with China’s economic rise has come the plundering of domestic resources for both manufacturing and energy purposes, this has led to a severe resource shortage and China is being forced to look elsewhere for significant amounts of oil and coal. With China facing direct competition for resources from the U.S. and other states, they are utilising diplomatic neutrality in buying oil from Iran, while they are developing diplomatic relations through coal deals with Australia. Some have argued that China’s approach to energy acquisition is in fact amoral, with a dependence on oil, China can ill-afford to slow growth to support U.S.-led sanctions on Iran, but it must be wary of doing so and the wider impact it has on the Sino-U.S. relationship as the U.S. and the West put increased pressure on Tehran and its nuclear programme.US relations with China is full of contradictions and conflicts. Yunling 2k (Zhang, Professor at the Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies China Academy of Social Sciences, ‘Changing Sino-US-Japanese Relations,’ , 1-21-2000)Brandon Nhan cut this card U.S. policy towards China is mired in contradictions. On the one hand, it supports China’s reforms and opening in the hope of including China in a Western dominated international community; on the other hand, it is confronted with a difficult truth: the challenge of a strong China. U.S. wavering between “engagement” and “containment” in its policies towards China is a reflection of this contradiction. China is also having difficulties in its dealings with the U.S.? China must, for one thing, recognize that the U.S., as a superpower, has tremendous influence over international and regional affairs.? China therefore has to maintain stable ties with the U.S.? On the other hand, China is unwilling to accept the U.S.’s overweening arrogance, orders, and pressure. The volatility of Sino-U.S. relations – now good, now bad – is a demonstration of this contradiction. The U.S. is a superpower attempting to establish a world order in its interests, but suffers from a declining ability to implement its orders. China is a developing country enjoying rapid development and increasing strength, and is thus a strong, rising power with great potential. The relationship between the two is one of dynamic imbalance inevitably generating frequent contradictions and conflicts. Handling these contradictions and conflicts, striking a balance, and achieving stability is very difficult. What merits special attention is whether or not the structure of the relationship will become a hostile one. Once the U.S. and China become rivals, the region and the world at large will be seriously influenced. Sino-US relations are contradicting and will cause warYunling 2k (Zhang, Professor at the Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies China Academy of Social Sciences, ‘Changing Sino-US-Japanese Relations,’ , 1-21-2000)Brandon Nhan cut this card U.S. policy towards China is mired in contradictions. On the one hand, it supports China’s reforms and opening in the hope of including China in a Western dominated international community; on the other hand, it is confronted with a difficult truth: the challenge of a strong China. U.S. wavering between “engagement” and “containment” in its policies towards China is a reflection of this contradiction. China is also having difficulties in its dealings with the U.S.? China must, for one thing, recognize that the U.S., as a superpower, has tremendous influence over international and regional affairs.? China therefore has to maintain stable ties with the U.S.? On the other hand, China is unwilling to accept the U.S.’s overweening arrogance, orders, and pressure. The volatility of Sino-U.S. relations – now good, now bad – is a demonstration of this contradiction. The U.S. is a superpower attempting to establish a world order in its interests, but suffers from a declining ability to implement its orders. China is a developing country enjoying rapid development and increasing strength, and is thus a strong, rising power with great potential. The relationship between the two is one of dynamic imbalance inevitably generating frequent contradictions and conflicts. Handling these contradictions and conflicts, striking a balance, and achieving stability are very difficult. What merits special attention is whether or not the structure of the relationship will become a hostile one. Once the U.S. and China become rivals, the region and the world at large will be seriously influenced. Impact Turn – US/India RelationsU.S.-China relations are a zero sum game—trades off with U.S. India relations Baru 11 (Sanjaya, Director for Geo-economics and Strategy, International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS), Business Standard, “Sanjaya Baru: China, India and the US-Their geo-political differences will be managed, given the geo-economics of an inter-dependent world”, October 10th, , 7/13/12, AH)Far too many analysts and commentators around the world view the China-India-United States trilateral relationship as a zero-sum game. This view is promoted by the fact that on several recent occasions, when two of the three have come together, the third has been worried about losing out. When the US and China issued a joint statement with a shared view of South Asia, during US President Barack Obama’s visit to Beijing in 2009, India was upset. When China and India stood as one at the Copenhagen climate conference in 2010, the US was upset. When the US and India come together on maritime security in the Indian Ocean, China is upset. This paradigm shaped Chinese response to the India-US agreement on cooperation in civil nuclear energy and US-India maritime exercises in the Indian Ocean. It shaped many Indian anxieties in the aftermath of the trans-Atlantic financial crisis when US analysts began to float the ‘G-2’ theory of a condominium between China and the US aimed at ‘managing’ the global economy. So dominant was this view within the corridors of the US state department in the early days of Hillary Clinton and in the year after the Lehman collapse of September 2008, that one of Ms Clinton’s aides, former US deputy secretary of state Jim Steinberg told this writer in September 2009 that India should just stop whining about US-China relations, grow up and come to terms with it. Mr Steinberg equated early 21st century China to early 20th century United States and the US to early 20th century Britain. A view that this newspaper’s columnist Arvind Subramanian has echoed in his book on the eclipse of the US dollar by China’s Yuan and the growing ‘economic dominance’ of China. While Washington DC is now conflicted on how to deal with a rising China, both those who think China can be a friend and those who think China will be an enemy advocate policy options that India cannot feel too comfortable with. Similarly, in China there are the US-haters who see India as an American cat’s-paw and US-lovers who like the G-2 idea of working with the US to run the world, and view India as a supplicant at their shared high table. All these ‘zero-sum game’ views have the common failing that they can become self-fulfilling prophecies. If things can go wrong, they will. China, being the fastest rising power with more at stake, has the highest stake in stability but will be most prone to making mistakes, if it believes its own fears. I say this because a recurring theme of Chinese interlocutors in bilateral diaologues that I have been involved in over the past three years has been that the US and India are ‘ganging up’ against China. But India, too, can make mistakes if it does not have a realistic view of China-US relations. Every time a Chinese interlocutor asks me as to what India seeks from its friendship with the US, my answer has been that India seeks nothing more than what China has sought over the past three decades from its relationship with the US, namely, a win-win relationship that would help India’s economic growth and development. The reason Chinese analysts would not easily accept this explanation is that China’s own relationship with the US facilitated the destruction of the Soviet Union. Since China played the zero-sum game of using its friendship with the US in the period 1979 to 1989 to facilitate US victory in the Cold War, the Chinese fear the US may use India in a similar manoeuvre to contain and weaken China. The past, however, is not always a useful guide, especially in a changing world. The trans-Atlantic financial crisis of 2008 has changed the world. The US is renegotiating many of its relationships in the context of an economic crisis and in the new world of the growing economic clout of both ‘emerging’ and ‘re-emerging’ powers. It is now clear that uncertainty will grip the world economy in the near term and can have unforeseen consequences. No one country is so well positioned to imagine that it will rise while others fall. China of the 2010s is not the United States of the inter-war years. Much less the world. Indeed, the fundamental change that has taken place in the post-Cold War world is the increased inter-dependence between nations and economies. While those who measure power focus on changes at the margin — the changing relative weight of individual nations — those who seek to wield power would rather look at absolute weight and at inter-dependencies. In both terms, the US and China recognise that they are locked in a relationship of inter-dependence that they cannot unilaterally alter in the near term. This is even more true for India.U.S. China relations would kill U.S. India relations Kapila 11 (Subhash, International relations and strategic affairs analyst with a Ph.D in Strategic Studies, South Asia Analysis Group, “CHINA-INDIA-UNITED STATES TRILATERAL: A FLAWED FORMULATION”, November 15th, Cpaper4772.html, 7/13/12, AH)Perceptively, what came across in the US Secretary of State assertions were that major calls were being made by the United States on India that it should not only Look East but also Engage East and that India’s leadership would help shape the future of not only South Asia and Central Asia but also that of the Asia Pacific. Contrastingly no calls were made by the US Secretary of State on China to show and prove by demonstrated performance that it will emerge as a responsible stakeholder in Asian security and stability before it can be considered by the United States as a responsible partner in Asian security management. American emphasis seemed more like abject American pleadings that China should appreciate that the United States was sincere in establishing a positive and constructive relationship with China. India already stands engaged in the East by strengthening security relationships with Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and Indonesia, initiatives convergent with United States security architecture in Asia Pacific. What more is United States expecting out of India? The United States so far has not clearly enunciated what it expects of India strategically in relation to China. If the United States expects India to play a leadership role in Asia Pacific then the United States cannot adopt ambivalent postures and strategies on China which confuse India. India adopting an assertive leadership role in Asia Pacific would bring it in a direct and open power tussle with China. Would the United States unambiguously underwrite such a strategy and also the implications that go with it? Washington cannot strategically afford to send different strategic messages to Beijing and different messages or signaling to other Asian capitals of American strategic perceptions and future intentions. In the instant Trilateral formulation espoused by US Secretary of State one gets a feeling that the United States expects India to sink its differences with China, ignore China’s strategic encirclement of India and accede to Chinese demands on the boundary issue so that the United States preferred China-India-United States Trilateral formulation becomes a reality. Or is there a different message which presently seems unfathomable? India has also to note that implicit in the Trilateral formulation espoused by the US Secretary of State is a message for the future and that is that India should let the Russia-India Strategic Partnership fade away and opt for the American preferred China-India-United States Trilateral, Can India afford to do so? Concluding Observations The China-India-United States Trilateral formulation espoused by the US Secretary of State may be a visionary one and should be left at just that. It is an idea whose time has not yet come and unlikely to come in the 21st Century. In terms of political and geostrategic dynamics in Asia even the very thought of China, India and the United States working and cooperating together towards Asian security and stability is unthinkable. The United States Secretary of State seems to be oblivious to the reality that the pressing issues that need resolution in the 21st Century are the creation of China and therefore China cannot be part of the solution. China is the major part of the problem. The United States seems to take India for granted when it espouses and pressurizes the Indian pliable political leadership to appease the Pakistan Army and now attempts a repetition that India should now appease China for the greater good of United States strategic interests in Asia conveniently forgetting that Pakistan and China, singly and jointly, figure heavily as military threats to India’s external and internal security.**Healthcare**I/L DefenseRepeal won’t pass if Romney is elected- no Republican majority and past Romney mandates prove Silverleib and Bash, CNN Congressional Producer and CNN Capitol Hill anchorwoman, 7/3 (Alan and Dana, July 3, 2012, “Can Congressional Republicans Repeal Obamacare,” CNN, accessed: 07-13-12, PCS) Reconciliation matters because in today's sharply polarized political climate, most legislation can't clear the 100-member Senate without a filibuster-proof of majority of 60 votes. Right now, the Republicans control 47 Senate seats. While most political analysts believe the GOP has a decent shot at a net pickup of four seats this fall, almost nobody believes the Republicans can gain 13 seats. In the meantime, top congressional Republicans have latched onto the notion that the individual mandate is a tax -- something GOP leaders believe plays into one of the Democrats' main political weaknesses. Obamacare is "not a good idea (and) I think you saw one of the reasons why -- because it's a tax increase," Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a possible GOP vice presidential nominee, said Saturday. "It's a massive tax increase on the middle class." While Democratic leaders still maintain the mandate is not a tax -- instead calling it a penalty -- roughly 60% of Americans believe it is, according to a CNN/ORC International poll released Monday. The poll also notes that while an overwhelming majority of GOP voters oppose the mandate, 55% of independents do as well. Republican Senate candidates are now being told that "every day you are not talking about (the health care issue) is a day you've wasted," according to a Washington-based GOP strategist. One potential wrinkle in any GOP plans to call the individual mandate a new Democratic tax: Romney's health care overhaul in Massachusetts also included a mandate. "This was a plan that, that Gov. Romney supported," White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union." "It's something that I would think that he would have been proud of." Pressed on the issue Monday, Romney senior campaign adviser Eric Fehrnstrom told MSNBC that the presumptive GOP presidential nominee agrees "with the dissent written by Justice (Antonin) Scalia which very clearly stated that the mandate was not a tax." Fehrnstrom bucks Republican line on 'Obamacare' as 'tax' Asked repeatedly if Romney agrees with Obama and Democrats that the penalty tied to the mandate is not tax, Fehrnstrom eventually said, "That's correct."Romney can’t repeal Obamacare Lizza, political correspondent, 12 (Ryan, June 28, 2012, “Why Romney Won’t Repeal Obamacare,” The New Yorker, , accessed: 07-13-12, CPO)Mitt Romney, speaking just before noon today, declared that on his first day in office, “I will act to repeal Obamacare.” I think he chose his words carefully. As President, he may indeed “act” to repeal it on Day One, but I don’t believe he will actually be able to overturn the law.If Romney were to win in November, the first matter he’d have to deal with would be the fallout from the so-called fiscal cliff of December 31st, the day when some five hundred billion dollars worth of tax increases and spending reductions take effect, which could put the economy into another recession (if it’s not already in recession by then). This moment would perhaps be Romney’s greatest chance at repeal. Because the fiscal-cliff negotiations will be an enormous fight over the size and scope of the federal government, every government policy will theoretically be open to debate—including, Romney might insist, repeal of the A.C.A.But it’s a fantasy. The negotiations would be dead before they started if Republicans demanded repeal as a price for a Grand Bargain on taxes, spending, and entitlements. The fiscal-cliff negotiations will undoubtedly include a great deal of horse-trading that will infuriate and cheer partisans on both sides. But there is literally nothing Republicans could offer Democrats in return for repealing the Party’s greatest achievement since the Johnson Administration.Assuming that Romney comes through this period of his transition and Presidency with a deal that settles the tax and spending issues brought about by the fiscal cliff (and the related debt-ceiling vote that will likely happen weeks later), he could then return to his domestic agenda, which, he declared today, includes repeal of the A.C.A. as the first priority. But he would immediately face a set of political circumstances similar to the ones that made health care such a difficult issue for Obama in 2009.Absent the Senate Democratic Caucus being found to be running a crack house or child-prostitution ring, there is no prospect whatsoever of the Republicans winning a sixty-vote, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate this year. The most likely outcome is the Democrats narrowly retaining control, though Republican control is certainly within the realm of possibility.Repeal not likely—4 reasonsVolsky, Think Progress, Deputy Editor, 12 (Igor, June 28, 2012, “4 Reasons Why Republicans Won’t Be Able To Repeal Obamacare,” Think Progress, , accessed: 07-13-12, CPO) Responding to Thursday’s Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, Congressional Republicans have scheduled a vote in the House to repeal the law and Mitt Romney pledged to undo the measure if he’s elected president in November. But unless the GOP wins a super majority in the Senate — a scenario no one thinks is plausible — it can do little more than weaken Obamacare’s regulations and defund some of its provisions. Here is why:1) Romney has no authority to issue waivers. Romney has promised to expand a provision of the Affordable Care Act that allows states to opt out of certain sections of the law to permit states to ignore it entirely. But the executive branch and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) likely don’t have the authority to grant such broad waivers. According to the law, HHS (together with the IRS) have waiver authority, but only if the states meet very specific requirements. Neither have blanket waiver authority, which would have to come from Congress. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) — the author of the waiver provision — has challenged Romney’s claims, saying, “Anybody who tries to move outside the standards of the bill — which is the coverage and costs and the like — well I’ll certainly fight that. But I think lots of other people will too.”2) Congress can’t repeal the full law through reconciliation. Without the necessary 60 votes in the Senate for full repeal, Republicans are pledging to use a budget reconciliation bill to undo the ACA. But this process would only apply to the budget-related elements of the law and would thus leave many portions — including the mandate — intact. As health care expert Robert Laszewski put it, “Romney could end up creating a chaotic environment driven by enormous uncertainty over just which parts of the new health care law would be implemented–for consumers, health care providers, and insurers.”3) Republicans have nothing to replace it with. David Frum explains that since the expansion of coverage provisions go into effect in 2014, Romney would have just one year to both repeal and replace the law. Republicans haven’t even coalesced around a single plan — and many in the party believe that the federal government should leave health care alone and want to leave the entire reform process to the states. Thus, “if replacement does not happen in the first 100 days, it won’t happen at all—that is, it won’t happen as a single measure, but rather will take the form of dozens of small incremental changes adopted episodically over the next 20 years.”4) Americans support Obamacare’s provisions. While Americans may not like “Obamacare” — and the political process of passing it — they do support its major provisions and are likely to resist any effort by Republicans to take away their benefits. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found that while 56 percent of Americans oppose the law as a whole, 61 percent of respondents favored allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance plans until age 26, 72 percent wish to maintain the requirement that companies with more than 50 workers provide health insurance for their employees, and 82 percent of respondents favored banning insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. As more benefits roll out in 2014, it will be increasingly difficult for Republicans to argue for their repeal.Romney’s ability to repeal health care is far-fetched Somashekhar, Washington Post Reporter, 12 (Sandhya, July 10, 2012, “Romney would face tough road trying to repeal ‘Obamacare’ if elected president,” The Washington Post, , accessed: 07-13-12, CPO)Mitt Romney has vowed that on his first day as president, he would act to repeal President Obama’s health-care law, thus fulfilling a long-standing promise.But the reality for a President Romney would be more complicated.Unless Republicans gain huge numbers in Congress, he probably would not have the votes to simply repeal the entire law.From the White House, he could instruct the Department of Health and Human Services to drag its feet, pushing back deadlines and turning to an army of lawyers and consultants to figure out how to exploit the law’s weaknesses. But that kind of administrative muscle flexing could bring its own political problems.“The simple answer is there’s nothing Romney can do on the first day to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but he could do a great deal to gum up the works,” said Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University.Nearly two weeks after the Supreme Court upheld most of the law, its future remains unsettled, with the November election its next major hurdle. Americans have been stubbornly divided over the law, with Republican voters highly unified in their opposition to the largest new federal social program in decades.In what has become a common Washington ritual, House Republicans are scheduled again Wednesday to vote on a repeal of the law. It will be the 33rd time Republicans have tried to undo all or part of the law since its passage in 2010 and the first since the court decision. As in those previous attempts, it is almost purely symbolic because it is unlikely to pass muster in the Democratic-led Senate.Despite Romney’s role in passing a similar overhaul while governor of Massachusetts, he has been steadfast in his opposition to the law, a factor that has been key to his winning over deeply conservative voters.As a result, many predict that he would move decisively and aggressively to make good on that promise if elected. Still, doing so would carry political pitfalls because millions of Americans not only support the law, but also are already benefiting from some of its provisions, such as one that requires insurance companies to cover children with preexisting conditions.Others say Romney would be held responsible for the health-care system that might be reshaped by his actions.“He belongs to a very conservative party that hates this bill, many members of which have sworn that they’d rather eat ground glass than let this law go forward,” said Henry J. Aaron, a senior fellow of economic studies at the Brookings Institution. “But there is the conflicting problem of, ‘If you break it, you own it.’ [He will own] anything that goes wrong with the health-care system down the road.”Then there is the matter of what Romney would be able to do as president.He has said that on Day One in office, he will “act to repeal Obamacare” and issue waivers to all 50 states exempting them from the law’s requirements. But neither will be so easy to pull off.Few political analysts expect the GOP to have a 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate come January, the advantage needed to pass most controversial legislation these days. Without it, Romney would have little chance of pushing a repeal bill through Congress. Unless Republicans gain huge numbers in Congress, he probably would not have the votes to simply repeal the entire law.Future blame and lack of Senate votes will prevent repeal even if Romney wins in NovemberSomashekhar, The Washington Post, political reporter, 7/10 (Sandhya, July 10, 2012, “Romney Would Face Tough Road Trying to Repeal ‘Obamacare’ if Elected President,” The Washington Post, , accessed: 07-13-12, PCS) “He belongs to a very conservative party that hates this bill, many members of which have sworn that they’d rather eat ground glass than let this law go forward,” said Henry J. Aaron, a senior fellow of economic studies at the Brookings Institution. “But there is the conflicting problem of, ‘If you break it, you own it.’ [He will own] anything that goes wrong with the health-care system down the road.” Then there is the matter of what Romney would be able to do as president. He has said that on Day One in office, he will “act to repeal Obamacare” and issue waivers to all 50 states exempting them from the law’s requirements. But neither will be so easy to pull off. Few political analysts expect the GOP to have a 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate come January, the advantage needed to pass most controversial legislation these days. Without it, Romney would have little chance of pushing a repeal bill through Congress. Romney also would face problems in waiving all states from the measure. Although the law permits states to apply for exemptions, they must prove that they have alternate programs in place to provide comparable benefits. But those waivers won’t be available until 2017, according to experts. Healthcare lobbying would block repealSchmitt, the Roosevelt Institute, senior fellow, 7/3 (Mark, July 3, 2012, “Why Republicans Won’t Repeal the Affordable care Act (Hint: It’s About Money in Politics),” The Roosevelt Institute, , accessed: 07-13-12, PCS) This is true – though the Court's decision has nothing to do with it. Anything that has a significant impact on federal revenues or spending, such as fees, interest on student loans, or mining licenses, can be changed using the budget reconciliation process. The mandate, and some other provisions of the Affordable Care Act, can certainly be stripped out by a Republican majority. Other provisions that don't affect the budget, such as some of the requirements placed on insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions and keep young adults on their parents' plans, probably can't be, because their effect on federal finances is minimal. So if Romney wins the presidency and Republicans capture the Senate (as seems likely, if Romney wins), at the very least, we can expect them to repeal the individual mandate, right? It's the least popular element of the law, and not too difficult to sever from the rest. As Paul Starr of Princeton and The American Prospect has argued for years, a mandate with minimal enforcement mechanisms might be worse than no mandate at all. Whether they do that or not will be an interesting case study in the role of money in politics. Health insurance companies and HMOs, after all, are mainstays of the Republican money machine. Aetna, the health insurer that spends the most on lobbying, recently bolstered its Republican bona fides by being the first public corporation to disclose recent contributions to Republican dark-money committees, the American Action Network and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's political arm. Aetna's former CEO, Ronald Williams, even went so far as to renounce the company's long-standing support for the mandate, predicting it would fall at the Supreme Court. But for health insurers like Aetna, stripping out the mandate alone would be the worst possible outcome. It would mean that they would still have to take all applicants, and couldn't reject or charge more to people with preexisting conditions. And they wouldn't have the profits from younger, healthier customers. Ideally, companies like Aetna would like to have the mandate without any of the other reforms, but that's a political non-starter, since individuals would be mandated to buy something that the insurers would refuse to sell them. Failing that, the insurers could live with the Affordable Care Act, or the pre-ACA status quo. But what they can't live with is the insurance reforms alone, without a mandate. (As a spokesperson for America's Health Insurance Plans told Reuters, “There has always been broad agreement that the insurance market reforms... cannot work without universal coverage.”)I/L Turn – Economy Health care is unsustainable and would collapse the economyWu, Columbia Law School professor, 12(Tim, 01-26-12, Slate Magazine, “Will Health Care Costs Destroy the Economy?” , accessed: 07-13-12, AJY)Several elements, as the film demonstrates, make health care costs grow uncontrollably. Providers, who are paid on a fee-for-service basis for the most part, want to provide more care, whether it’s needed or not. Since patients often switch insurers, there is little incentive to invest in prevention, which might save money. And finally patients—us—actually want more care than even the most fortunate are already getting, because we have come to believe that it will be good for us.? The final ingredient is a health care lobby with two simple goals: Block any law that cuts costs, and support only reforms that will increase health care spending. The 2003 prescription drug law—which both subsidizes drug purchases and bars the government from negotiating lower prices—is perhaps the greatest testament to the lobby’s efforts. But Obama’s health care law suffers from some of the same problems: By forcing everyone to buy health care, it also, ultimately increases costs. The result is a health care system that, to switch the metaphor, is growing like a cancer—now $2.7 trillion now dollars per year. The sheer volume of spending is not itself a problem; the problem is spending so much money while providing health outcomes that are well below the average for the developed world.? Other health care documentaries, like Michael Moore’s Sicko, focus on the individual tragedy of denied health care. And the focus of the Obama administration and some reformers has been extending coverage to everyone. But Escape Fire makes it clear that even if everyone had coverage, the system would still be out of control, with questionable benefit for the public’s health. This cancer may very well destroy its host.Healthcare will destroy the U.S. economyFox, University of South Carolina School of Law Assistant professor, 11(Jacqueline, 2011, University of Cincinnati Law Review, "THE HIDDEN ROLE OF COST: MEDICARE DECISIONS, TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC TRUST," Vol. 79: Iss. 1, Article 1, , accessed: 07-13-12 AJY)The most significant challenge in directing Medicare explicitly to consider the costs of particular medical treatment is the fear of revealing the frightening fact that Medicare is actually rationing health care in America and that healthcare rationing will only increase in the years ahead. It may be that politicians' fears of negative public perception could lead to limited political support for changing Medicare in the manner proposed here. On the other hand, experience has shown that some politicians appear to have benefited from frankly addressing medical rationing. Putting aside the politics of the matter, it is critically necessary to control the overall costs of the Medicare program. Without a more forthright approach to rationing, the healthcare system's massive projected cost increases could actually destroy the country's economy. Changes in the law that effectively stop this from occurring are clearly in the public interest.Part II of this Article describes the CMS process for issuing NCDs and uses a case study to show how cost concerns affect the NCDs it issues. This Part describes the history of the Medicare Act, particularly why costs were not addressed in the language of the Act, and explains the legal structure of the Medicare Act in the context of this history by focusing on the language of the Act and how it can be interpreted [*7] regarding cost.Taxation mechanisms for healthcare reform cause hard economic collapse and doom US competitivenessRiedl and Dubay, Federal Budgetary Affairs, Grover M. Hermann Fellow, and Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, senior analyst in tax policy, 09( HYPERLINK "" \t "_blank" Brian M. and Curtis S., 07-16-09, Heritage Foundation, “Income Tax Surtax Should Not Fund Government Health Care Expansion,” , accessed: 07-13-12, ZLH)Congress is reportedly considering raising taxes by at least $540 billion over 10 years to fund President Obama's health care initiative through a "surtax" on top of the highest individual tax rates. This should finally put to rest President Obama's implausible claim that expanding government health care benefits will save money, since policies that save money do not typically require painful tax increases to offset their cost. The latest proposal would impose an income surtax of between one and 5.4 percentage points on families and small businesses earning over $350,000. This latest tax scheme would drive the top rates in the U.S. to among the highest in the industrialized world, leaving economic havoc in its wake. Congress should seriously consider the consequences of such a policy. Surtax Creates a Cascade of Progressivity Under the House of Representatives' plan, families and small businesses earning between $350,000 and $500,000 a year would pay a one-percentage-point surtax on top of the top income tax rate. Those making between $500,000 and $1 million would pay a 1.5 percentage point surtax, and those making over $1 million a 5.4 percentage point surtax. Currently, the top rate is 35 percent. But in his budget President Obama proposed raising the top two income tax rates from 33 and 35 percent to 36 and 39.6 percent. Families in the top 20 percent of income earners already pay 943 percent more income taxes than middle-income families.[1] The new surtaxes would extend progressivity at the top of the income spectrum and raise the disparity in taxes paid between middle- and low-income families and high-earning families. Moreover, the surtax could rise even higher if certain savings included in the legislation do not materialize by 2012. In that case, the 1 and 1.5 percentage point surtaxes rise to 2 and 3 percentage points, respectively. So, if all the amorphous proposals to "bend the curve" do not pan out, then--presto!--up goes the surtax. Congress should ensure that savings are banked before rushing headlong into an unaffordable new, entitlement benefit.[2] Higher Tax Rates Than France Threatening to raise taxes is a sure sign that health care reform has gone awry, and this is underscored in the fact that the tax increases now under consideration are among the most economically harmful the Congress could consider. U.S. tax rates are already among the highest among the industrialized nations. The average top income tax rate for countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is currently 42 percent. (The OECD is an association of the 30 most economically developed nations in the world.) The U.S. average top rate--when including the top federal income tax rate, the average of state and local income taxes, and Medicare taxes--is also currently 42 percent. This includes the current 35 percent top federal rate, plus the average of the top rates in all 50 states (including state and local income taxes), and the 2.9 percent Medicare tax. It also accounts for federal and state deductibility and other federal adjustments. But if President Obama's proposal to raise the top two marginal income tax rates becomes law, the average top rate will jump to 47 percent. This would raise the top rate higher than the OECD average and, as can be seen in Table 1, put the top U.S. rate on par with Germany and Australia and leapfrog it ahead of Canada, France, and Italy. Then this 5.4 percentage point surtax would raise the average top tax rate in the U.S. even higher to above 52 percent.[3] This higher rate would then be higher than the top rate in Finland, Japan, Austria, and the Netherlands and higher than all but three countries in the OECD: Denmark (60 percent), Sweden (56 percent), and Belgium (54 percent). Raising top marginal tax rates above most European countries is a horrible model for the U.S. to follow. European countries have chronically higher unemployment levels than the U.S. and persistently lower rates of economic growth. The U.S. will suffer from the same afflictions if it follows in the footsteps of European countries--and worse if it actually surpasses their punitive levels of taxation. Moreover, such a misguided policy will drive business and economic activity out of the U.S. and into other low-tax nations. Top Earners in High Tax States Hit Hard In the six highest-taxed states, Oregon (11 percent top income tax rate), Hawaii (11 percent), New Jersey (10.75 percent), New York (8.97 percent), California (10.55 percent), and Rhode Island (9.9 percent), the top rates would be higher than all but Denmark among OECD countries if the Obama plan and surtax become law. Under these higher taxes, families and small businesses making over $350,000 in every state would face higher top rates than 21 OECD countries--including France, Italy, and Spain. Even the nine states with no state income tax at all would have higher rates than these social democracies that are typically regarded as countries with punitively high taxes. Taxpayers in all 41 states that do levy an income tax would pay a top rate that is higher than all but seven of the 30 OECD countries. High Tax Rates Punish Incentives to Grow Raising the top tax rates on individuals is especially damaging to the economy because these individuals are often the most productive in our economy, as evidenced by their incomes. They are also those most able to respond to higher rates by working less, shifting their compensation to more lightly taxed forms, moving taxable activity offshore, and retiring early. These tax rates also fall on various forms of capital income, discouraging saving and investment on the one hand while on the other distorting the pattern of saving and investment toward more lightly taxed yet less efficient forms. Small businesses typically pay taxes at the individual rate, so raising the top individual income tax rates is a hard slap at small businesses. The President and his congressional allies repeatedly--and correctly--praise small businesses as the job creators and great innovators in our economy, and they are right. Yet repeatedly in tax policy and elsewhere, President Obama has threatened to depress small businesses. In the global race for capital, income tax rates that are higher than all but a few of the highest-tax countries will be a further hindrance to the ability of the U.S. to attract new investment, entrepreneurs, and businesses. The income tax creates perverse incentives driving business activity toward the Slovak Republic, for example, where it faces a 19 percent top income tax rate, or the Czech Republic's 15 percent, as compared to 45 percent in the lowest-tax U.S state. Unless the U.S. keeps its top tax rate comparable to competitor nations like those in the OECD, it will continue to loose capital to lower-tax countries. Less capital will mean fewer jobs and lower wages for American workers. Tax Hikes during a Recession? In addition to damaging our international competitiveness, the surtax would surely worsen the recession. Not a single economic school of thought advocates raising taxes during a recession or threatening to do so in its aftermath. To call for a tax increase during the largest recession in 70 years is downright reckless. The proposed tax increase would likely go into effect after 2010, yet many expect the economy to remain in a weak recovery at best 18 months from now. The surtax will threaten even a weak recovery if small businesses are facing a tax hike. Furthermore, the negative economic effects would not wait until 2011. Small businesses typically plan investments, expansions, and new hiring years in advance. Learning that their tax rates will rise in 2011 businesses would immediately curtail investments and long-term hiring plans. Overall, the higher tax rates on small businesses and upper-income families would rob the economy of vital investment dollars at a time when large budget deficits are already soaking up the economy's savings. This will result in less job creation and slower economic growth.[4] Lawmakers will surely claim that a surtax of one to 5.4 percentage points is too small to harm the economy. Weary taxpayers must wonder if this is a case of the camel's nose getting in the tent. There is already a provision in the bill that allows the lower surtax rates to increase. How long will it be before the top rate goes up too? How high would they go? Small businesses struggling to make payroll during tough economic times would surely disagree that these taxes are too small to matter. Upper-income families may be better able to afford the tax, but the negative effects on savings, investment, and the overall economy would harm everyone. Try Belt-Tightening Its time for lawmakers to stop unaffordably expanding government. Over the past eight years, lawmakers have created a new Medicare drug entitlement, doubled the education budget, enacted a $700 billion financial bailout, and passed a second "stimulus" bill that cost $1.1 trillion--all on top of unaffordable entitlement programs in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Adding another colossal health care entitlement just digs the nation's financial hole deeper. It would add to a future of record debt, European-sized tax increases, and economic stagnation. Healthcare reform will lead to runaway spending—tanks the economy Carroll, The Heritage Foundation, Non-Staff contributor, 09 (Conn, 07-17-09, Heritage Foundation, “Morning Bell: Obamacare Is An Economy Killer,” HYPERLINK "" , accessed: 7/12/12, ZLH)Yesterday, the independent scorekeeper for Congressional spending proposals, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), dropped a bombshell on Obamacare. The core of President Obama’s case for his health care plan has been his claim that it will “bend the curve” on rising health costs, thereby eventually lowering our nation’s exploding deficits. In a Senate Budget Committee hearing yesterday, chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) asked CBO director Douglas Elmendorf point blank: “I’m going to really put you on the spot. From what you have seen from the products of the committees that have reported, do you see a successful effort being mounted to bend the long-term cost curve?” Elmendorf responded: “No, Mr. Chairman. On the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.” The independent verdict on Obamacare is in: Instead of saving the federal government from fiscal catastrophe, the health reform measures being drafted by congressional Democrats would worsen an already-bleak budget outlook, increasing deficit projections and driving the nation more deeply into debt. This runaway spending, coupled with the Democrats plans to raise taxes, will kill our struggling economy and leave us with double digit unemployment for years to come. Trillion Dollar Deficits: In his blog yesterday, CBO director Elmendorf laid out the economic impact of Obama’s never-ending trillion dollar deficits: “Large budget deficits would reduce national saving, leading to more borrowing from abroad and less domestic investment, which in turn would depress economic growth in the United States. Over time, accumulating debt would cause substantial harm to the economy.” Tax: Both the House and Senate bills help pay for their new spending by instituting an employer mandate to buy health insurance that, as CBO director Elmendorf explained earlier this week, is really just a job-killing employment tax: “[I]f employers who did not offer insurance were required to pay a fee, employees’ wages and other forms of compensation would generally decline by the amount of that fee from what they would otherwise have been.” French Levels of Taxation: The House’s main vehicle for paying for their $1.3 trillion bill is a surtax on higher income Americans that, when coupled with state and local taxes, raises the top rate higher than economic competitors like?Germany and Japan, and even higher than France. And that is just the opening bid. If health care savings do not materialize, as the CBO says they will not, the House bill gives Obama the unilateral authority to raise the surtax even higher. The White House reads polls. They know that confidence in Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package, like the economy it was supposed to stimulate, has tanked. Just 38% of Americans are confident the stimulus will turn around the economy. That is why President Obama continues to pressure both the House and Senate to pass his health plan before the August recess. But moderates in Congress are beginning to push back. Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR) has promised to keep the current bill off of the House floor until the runaway spending and taxation are addressed: “I don’t like the idea of raising taxes in the worst economic crisis since World War II.” Amen, Representative Ross. Amen.Economic collapse turns their impactsFriedberg and Schoenfeld, Princeton Woodrow Wilson School professor of politics and IR, and Witherspoon Institute senior editor of commentary and visiting scholar, 08 (Aaron, and Gabriel, 10-21-08, Wall Street Journal, “The Dangers of a Diminished America”, , accessed: 07-13-12, ZLH)Then there are the dolorous consequences of a potential collapse of the world's financial architecture. For decades now, Americans have enjoyed the advantages of being at the center of that system. The worldwide use of the dollar, and the stability of our economy, among other things, made it easier for us to run huge budget deficits, as we counted on foreigners to pick up the tab by buying dollar-denominated assets as a safe haven. Will this be possible in the future? Meanwhile, traditional foreign-policy challenges are multiplying. The threat from al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist affiliates has not been extinguished. Iran and North Korea are continuing on their bellicose paths, while Pakistan and Afghanistan are progressing smartly down the road to chaos. Russia's new militancy and China's seemingly relentless rise also give cause for concern. If America now tries to pull back from the world stage, it will leave a dangerous power vacuum. The stabilizing effects of our presence in Asia, our continuing commitment to Europe, and our position as defender of last resort for Middle East energy sources and supply lines could all be placed at risk. In such a scenario there are shades of the 1930s, when global trade and finance ground nearly to a halt, the peaceful democracies failed to cooperate, and aggressive powers led by the remorseless fanatics who rose up on the crest of economic disaster exploited their divisions. Today we run the risk that rogue states may choose to become ever more reckless with their nuclear toys, just at our moment of maximum vulnerability. The aftershocks of the financial crisis will almost certainly rock our principal strategic competitors even harder than they will rock us. The dramatic free fall of the Russian stock market has demonstrated the fragility of a state whose economic performance hinges on high oil prices, now driven down by the global slowdown. China is perhaps even more fragile, its economic growth depending heavily on foreign investment and access to foreign markets. Both will now be constricted, inflicting economic pain and perhaps even sparking unrest in a country where political legitimacy rests on progress in the long march to prosperity. None of this is good news if the authoritarian leaders of these countries seek to divert attention from internal travails with external adventures.I/L Turn – Innovation/LeadershipThe federal government slows innovation through regulation-advances are halted-essential technologies are never created.Overbeek, Northern Illinois University, computer science professor, 06 (Ross D., 10-04-06, The Rational Review, “Health Care: Three Fantasies” accessed: 07-13-12, ZLH)In the case of computing we see what can be accomplished with minimal regulation. In the case of health care we observe the outcome of a highly regulated process. Most cost-benefit analyses of regulatory protocols consider the trade-off between prevention of accidents and delay of the products that reach the market. But if you reflect on the computing industry, you will realize that the effect of regulation is the simple nonexistence of many products that could have reached the market, but did not. In such cases, you cannot quantify the effect of regulation, because the advances just cease to occur; the innovations just cease to happen. The delay of events that do eventually occur is certainly important, but the dramatic reduction in innovation is far more so. Right now, reduction of innovation is an issue of grave importance. We have reached the stage in our understanding of the human genome where a dramatic acceleration of medical technology is possible. Medical innovation is key to US leadership, competitiveness, economic recovery and an effective healthcare systemBusiness Wire 08(Business Wire press release, 03-05-08, Reuters, "Gov. Rendell, Former Rep. Gephardt and Leading Innovators Call for Greater Focus on Medical Innovation to Boost U.S. and Local Economies," accessed: 07-13-12, ZLH)A group of America’s top minds in medical innovation gathered today at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia to discuss how strengthening the U.S. medical innovation sector could be a key to economic recovery. Participants in the Best and Brightest Forum on Medical Innovation outlined how the U.S. can bolster its traditional leadership in medical innovation and create more jobs in this critical area. “It has become increasingly clear that continued leadership in medical innovation has a direct correlation to job growth and U.S. competitiveness, as well as the health of all Americans,” said Former Congressman Dick Gephardt, who moderated the discussion. “This region is home to some of the country’s most innovative universities and biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies who together employ hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians – making it an ideal place to discuss how we can ensure continued health and economic security through medical innovation.” According to a 2005 Milken Institute study, the medical innovation or life sciences industry of the Greater Philadelphia area is responsible for: * 276,000 jobs, or 11.4 percent of all employment in the region. (For every job within the life sciences in Greater Philadelphia, an additional 4.2 jobs are created in all other sectors.) * $13.7 billion in earnings, or 12.8 percent of total earnings in the region. (For each dollar in earnings produced in the life sciences sector, an additional $2.00 in earnings is generated beyond it.) * $15.5 billion in gross metro product, or 7.1 percent of gross metro product in the region. (For each dollar of output produced in the life sciences sector, an additional $1.20 in output is generated beyond it.) "The economic benefits of medical innovation are indisputable, but there is an even more important reason that we need to rise to the innovation challenge: The health and well being of our citizenry," said Governor Edward G. Rendell, who offered the keynote address at the forum. "We need to do even more to spur medical innovation in order to deliver solutions to our national health care challenge and – most importantly – make a difference in the lives of Americans who are depending on our ability to lead the world in innovation." Close to 400 companies are engaged in medical innovation activities in the Greater Philadelphia area, and major centers of research and training of our future leaders include institutions from within Philadelphia proper, including the University of Pennsylvania, Thomas Jefferson University, Temple University, Drexel University and University of the Sciences in Philadelphia – many of which were represented at today’s event on the panel and in the audience. “This is a critical time for medical innovation in America,” said Bernard Poussot, Chairman, President and CEO of Wyeth. "We need a national strategy that supports science education; creates a just legal system rooted in science; maintains a sensible immigration policy that makes room for the world’s best scientists; and allows access to new medicines for patients.” In conjunction with the forum, results were released today from a November 2008 APCO Insight survey of 250 randomly selected medical innovation professionals in the mid-Atlantic region. Respondents included research professionals, medical equipment manufacturers, pharmaceutical innovators, medical professors, hospital workers and physicians. While the survey found strong agreement that medical innovation should be a top economic priority for the U.S., medical innovation professionals in the region also point to challenges to continued U.S. leadership and a growing petitiveness causes a global trade warKrugman, Princeton University professor or economics and international affairs, 94 (Paul, Mar/Apr 94, Council on Foreign Affairs, “Competitiveness: A Dangerous Obsession,” , accessed: 07-13-12, VZ)Thinking and speaking in terms of competitiveness poses three real dangers. First, it could result in the wasteful spending of government money supposedly to enhance U.S. competitiveness. Second, it could lead to protectionism and trade wars. Finally, and most important, it could result in bad public policy on a spectrum of important issues. During the 1950s, fear of the Soviet Union induced the U.S. government to spend money on useful things like highways and science education. It also, however, led to considerable spending on more doubtful items like bomb shelters. The most obvious if least worrisome danger of the growing obsession with competitiveness is that it might lead to a similar misallocation of resources. To take an example, recent guidelines for government research funding have stressed the importance of supporting research that can improve U.S. international competitiveness. This exerts at least some bias toward inventions that can help manufacturing firms, which generally compete on international markets, rather than service producers, which generally do not. Yet most of our employment and value-added is now in services, and lagging productivity in services rather than manufactures has been the single most important factor in the stagnation of U.S. living standards. A much more serious risk is that the obsession with competitiveness will lead to trade conflict, perhaps even to a world trade war. Most of those who have preached the doctrine of competitiveness have not been old-fashioned protectionists. They want their countries to win the global trade game, not drop out. But what if, despite its best efforts, a country does not seem to be winning, or lacks confidence that it can? Then the competitive diagnosis inevitably suggests that to close the borders is better than to risk having foreigners take away high-wage jobs and high-value sectors. At the very least, the focus on the supposedly competitive nature of international economic relations greases the rails for those who want confrontational if not frankly protectionist policies. U.S. hegemonic decline causes global great-power warZhang & Shi, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace researcher, and Columbia University, Eurasia Group and World Bank independent consultant, 11 (Yuhan and Lin, 01-22-11, East Asia Forum, “America’s decline: A harbinger of conflict and rivalry,” accessed: 07-13-12, ZLH)Over the past two decades, no other state has had the ability to seriously challenge the US military. Under these circumstances, motivated by both opportunity and fear, many actors have bandwagoned with US hegemony and accepted a subordinate role. Canada, most of Western Europe, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Singapore and the Philippines have all joined the US, creating a status quo that has tended to mute great power conflicts. However, as the hegemony that drew these powers together withers, so will the pulling power behind the US alliance. The result will be an international order where power is more diffuse, American interests and influence can be more readily challenged, and conflicts or wars may be harder to avoid. As history attests, power decline and redistribution result in military confrontation. For example, in the late 19th century America’s emergence as a regional power saw it launch its first overseas war of conquest towards Spain. By the turn of the 20th century, accompanying the increase in US power and waning of British power, the American Navy had begun to challenge the notion that Britain ‘rules the waves.’ Such a notion would eventually see the US attain the status of sole guardians of the Western Hemisphere’s security to become the order-creating Leviathan shaping the international system with democracy and rule of law. Defining this US-centred system are three key characteristics: enforcement of property rights, constraints on the actions of powerful individuals and groups and some degree of equal opportunities for broad segments of society. As a result of such political stability, free markets, liberal trade and flexible financial mechanisms have appeared. And, with this, many countries have sought opportunities to enter this system, proliferating stable and cooperative relations. However, what will happen to these advances as America’s influence declines? Given that America’s authority, although sullied at times, has benefited people across much of Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans, as well as parts of Africa and, quite extensively, Asia, the answer to this question could affect global society in a profoundly detrimental way. Public imagination and academia have anticipated that a post-hegemonic world would return to the problems of the 1930s: regional blocs, trade conflicts and strategic rivalry. Furthermore, multilateral institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank or the WTO might give way to regional organisations. For example, Europe and East Asia would each step forward to fill the vacuum left by Washington’s withering leadership to pursue their own visions of regional political and economic orders. Free markets would become more politicised — and, well, less free — and major powers would compete for supremacy. Additionally, such power plays have historically possessed a zero-sum element. In the late 1960s and 1970s, US economic power declined relative to the rise of the Japanese and Western European economies, with the US dollar also becoming less attractive. And, as American power eroded, so did international regimes (such as the Bretton Woods System in 1973). A world without American hegemony is one where great power wars re-emerge, the liberal international system is supplanted by an authoritarian one, and trade protectionism devolves into restrictive, anti-globalisation barriers. This, at least, is one possibility we can forecast in a future that will inevitably be devoid of unrivalled US primacy.**Tax Cuts****Missile Defense**Impact Turn – DeterrenceMissile Defense key to deterrenceBureau of Arms Control 1 (Bureau of Arms Control in Washington, DC September 1, 2001) ”Missile Defense and Deterrence” mdBallistic missile defenses enhance the traditional deterrence of offensive capabilities by denying rogue states the ability to reliably and predictably inflict mass destruction on other nations. By complicating his calculation of success, these defenses add to a potential aggressor's uncertainty and weaken his confidence. Effective missile defenses may also serve to undercut the value potential aggressor's place on missiles as a means of delivery, thereby advancing our non-proliferation goals. With these considerations in mind, missile defenses can be a force for stability and security. Moreover, some potential threats, such as accidental or unauthorized launches of ballistic missiles, cannot be deterred by their very nature. They can only be defended against. To counter such contingencies, missile defenses provide an element of insurance that supplements and enhances their deterrent value.Deterrence solves for nuclear war and miscalculationBureau of Arms Control 1 (Bureau of Arms Control in Washington, DC September 1, 2001) ”Missile Defense and Deterrence” mdHowever, given the new threats we all face -- especially from weapons of mass destruction and increasingly sophisticated ballistic missiles in the hands of rogue states -- our deterrence posture can no longer rely exclusively on the threat of retaliation. We now need a strategy based on an appropriate mix of offensive and defensive capabilities to deny potential adversaries the opportunities and benefits they might hope to realize from the threat or use of weapons of mass destruction against our homeland and forces deployed abroad, as well as those of our allies and friends. Today, we are confronted with a more diverse, less predictable, and less risk-averse group of hostile states that are aggressively seeking to develop or acquire weapons of mass destruction and longer-range missiles as a means of their delivery. They see such weapons both as operational weapons of war and as coercive tools of diplomacy to preclude us and our partners from assisting friends and allies in regions of vital interest. For such threats, deterrence must take advantage of the contribution of both offensive and defensive forces, working together. Ballistic missile defenses enhance the traditional deterrence of offensive capabilities by denying rogue states the ability to reliably and predictably inflict mass destruction on other nations. By complicating his calculation of success, these defenses add to a potential aggressor's uncertainty and weaken his confidence. Effective missile defenses may also serve to undercut the value potential aggressor's place on missiles as a means of delivery, thereby advancing our non-proliferation goals. With these considerations in mind, missile defenses can be a force for stability and security. Moreover, some potential threats, such as accidental or unauthorized launches of ballistic missiles, cannot be deterred by their very nature. They can only be defended against. To counter such contingencies, missile defenses provide an element of insurance that supplements and enhances their deterrent value.Deterrence Solves US-Russia RelationsDeterrence key to solve Russia relations Bureau of Arms Control 1 (Bureau of Arms Control in Washington, DC September 1, 2001) ”Missile Defense and Deterrence” mdWe are committed to creating a new strategic and diplomatic relationship with Russia, one founded not on common vulnerabilities, but on common interests and shared objectives. As Secretary of State Colin L. Powell has said: "It is time to change the nuclear equation of mutual assured destruction to a more sensible strategic arrangement." While we seek to persuade Russia to join us in further reducing our nuclear arsenals, we are also prepared to lead by example. Therefore, we are committed to ensuring that this new strategic framework with Russia is characterized by efforts to achieve the lowest levels of nuclear weapons consistent with our present and future national security needs. Our missile defenses will not threaten Russia's deterrent forces. Our missile defenses will be designed to deter and defend against small-scale attacks from rogue states, as well as from accidental or unauthorized attacks from any source. As a force for stability and security in both the Asian region and the world at large, defense and deterrence working together advance goals of regional peace and stability which we share with China. Missile defense is not intended as a threat to China?s deterrent forces.Deterrence Solves TerrorismDeterrence key to solve terrorist attack CSIS 7/13 (Center for Strategic and International Studies, July 13, 2012) “Missile Defense’s Role in 21st Century Deterrence” Jay Carafano from the Heritage Foundation? HYPERLINK "" \t "_blank" pubilshed an oped today?discussing the role missile defense can play in the altered deterrence environment of the 21st Century. ?Citing the lack of deterrence to prevent likely pressing nuclear dangers (terrorism and rogue states), he argues that missile defense can operate as another layer of insurance to discourage potential adversaries from planning a complicated attack against the United States. ? A large part of Carafano's endorsement for missile defense relies on his threat assessment that the typical scenario of a dirty bomb type attack is not as likely as assumes whereas a terrorist attack using missile may actually be more feasible. ?He explains,?In short, it’s unlikely there are many terrorists out there with the smarts to put a bomb in suitcase -- and it’s unlikely there are any to buy, either?. . . A truck-borne small “real” nuclear weapon detonated in downtown?New York?might kill 40,000. The same weapon detonated as the warhead of a missile in a low-altitude airburst might cause half-a-million causalities. If you wanted to send a message to?America, which attack mode would you chose???And missile threats are not out of reach for terrorists with even modest means. Short-range ballistic missiles can be bought on the open market. They can be launched at ships from sea that never see an American shore or come near a Coast Guard cutter.?Deterrence Solves WarDeterrence checks warsBureau of Arms Control 1 (Bureau of Arms Control in Washington, DC September 1, 2001) ”Missile Defense and Deterrence” mdDeterrence must and will remain a critical component of our security posture. Yet, many of the conditions and assumptions that long guided the way we thought about deterrence and its supporting strategic force posture have changed fundamentally. Deterrence can involve more than just the threat to retaliate in the event of an attack. It can also be based on the ability to prevent potential adversaries from achieving their objectives thereby deterring them from pursuing such objectives in the first place. The United States is developing a forward-looking strategy that takes into account the changing nature of the threats we face, as well as the full range of capabilities that we can marshal to protect our nation and its vital interests, as well as meet our commitments to friends and allies.Maintaining a reliable deterrent against attacks on the U.S. and our allies is a critical objective of our national security strategy. Our nation always prefers peaceful means to maintain its own security and prosperity, and that of its friends and allies, but maintains the military capabilities needed to deter and defend against the threat or potential use of force by prospective adversaries.Our deterrence strategy to date has largely relied on our ability to respond to attack with a variety of options, ranging from a devastating retaliation through more selective strikes, and our offensive nuclear forces are and will remain a key component of that capability. No group or nation should doubt that the U.S. will continue to depend on the certainty of a devastating response to any attack on the U.S. or its allies to deter attacks by ballistic missiles or other weapons.AFFToo EarlyToo early – uniqueness and link should be treated with grain of saltSabato, 5/31/12 (Larry, Director, UVA Center For Politics, )With all of the polls, models and history at their disposal, political analysts should be able to figure out who is going to win a November presidential election by June, right? Well, not quite. While we would modestly suggest to Socrates and our readers that we know more than nothing about the election, declaring the winner with certainty at this point is a fool’s errand, particularly when the current data argue only that the contest will be a close one. In the RealClearPolitics average of national horse race polls as of Wednesday, President Obama was narrowly ahead of Mitt Romney by 2.0 percentage points. Meanwhile, in last week’s Crystal Ball, Alan Abramowitz showed how his respected presidential election model forecasts a very tight race at this point, with Obama as a slight favorite. But surely, this year is an outlier, many would assert. Because of the unique circumstances surrounding this election, including the great economic dislocation caused by the 2008 crash and the restless mood of Americans even after three straight wave elections, it’s understandable that this contest would remain hazy late into the spring. That’s true. But uncertainty in June is not unique, at least not in modern history. If anyone doubts that a reassessment — maybe several of them — will come as 2012 wears on, consider this: Over the past eight elections, Gallup — the most recognizable of polling organizations — has only identified the eventual popular vote winner twice in its early June horse race polling: In June 1980, President Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan 39% to 32%, with independent John Anderson at 21%. In November, Reagan defeated Carter, 51% to 41%, with Anderson getting less than 7%. Remember that this race appeared close until the very end, with some polling even indicating that Carter might actually win just a few days before the election. But Reagan proved his mettle in a late debate, and Carter’s attempt to negotiate freedom for the American hostages in Iran failed. Those late developments helped turn a close election into a blowout. Note, also, Anderson’s strong early performance in polls: Third party candidates sometimes appear formidable in early surveys and then fade away as the election gets closer, victims of the voters’ desire not to “waste” their ballots. The polling was fairly stable in 1984. In June, Reagan already led Walter Mondale by 53% to 44%. The incumbent won 59% in the fall. Such early polling, and Reagan’s strength, prompted Mondale to throw a Hail Mary by selecting Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate. Like most Hail Marys, the pass was incomplete. By 1988, the June polling was far more misleading: Michael Dukakis was ahead of George H.W. Bush by a landslide, 52% to 38%. Bush ended up winning more than 53% in November. The June 1992 polling projected the nation’s first independent president, Ross Perot. At 39%, Perot easily topped Bush (31%) and Bill Clinton at 25%. Less than five months later, the order was reversed: Clinton won with 43%, Bush (37%) was ousted and Perot finished last with 19%, failing to win a single electoral vote. However, Perot maintained his support to a greater degree than most independent candidates do down the stretch. Gallup’s June 1996 survey got Clinton’s reelection percentage right on the nose (49%), but Bob Dole, at 33%, was well below his eventual 41% and Perot had 17% in June but finished with about 8% in November. Like 1984, Clinton’s reelection bid lacked drama. The squeaker of 2000 was close even in June, but Gallup had George W. Bush up over Al Gore, 46% to 41%. Come November, Gore won the popular vote by half a percentage point, though of course he lost the Electoral College vote. Gallup had John Kerry well on his way to avenging Gore’s loss in June 2004. Kerry led Bush outside the margin of error at 49% to 43%. Instead, Bush grabbed his second term with 51% in November. It’s rarely recalled, but John McCain actually led Barack Obama by a whisker in Gallup’s daily tracking at the beginning of June 2008, 46% to 45%. It wasn’t close in the fall, with Obama winning 53%. And the uncertainty goes back further. Jimmy Carter looked as though he would roll Gerald Ford in 1976; instead, the election ended up incredibly tight. So did the 1960 and 1968 contests. As we never tire of repeating, Harry Truman shocked the world in 1948 by defeating “President-elect” Thomas E. Dewey. This is not meant to cast aspersions on Gallup; rather, it’s to say that presidential races are not static, and that polling conducted five months before the election is only a snapshot in time, as opposed to a reliable prediction as to how the race will eventually shake out. As of Wednesday, Obama and Romney were tied, 46%-46%, in the Gallup poll. Obviously, this is a matchup that could go either way. Almost everything can change, and frequently does, during the course of the summer and fall in a presidential race. The economy can get decidedly better or worse. International crises can pop up — or peace can break out. Unexpected scandals can engulf one or both major party candidates. One or more independents or third-party candidates may prove influential in the presidential tally. Politics, as we’ve insisted for years, is a good thing. And a fun thing, too, for people who do not treat American elections as a life or death affair. There will be many spectacles between now and Nov. 6, and plenty of unexpected developments in this semi-scripted human drama. But while we know the road to the finish line will be fascinating, let’s also grant that it will be somewhat unpredictable. For those of you who can’t wait, just join the partisans on both sides who absolutely, positively know their side will win — in a landslide! One side will be right, more or less, and after the election, the winners will lord their perceptiveness over friends, family and the opposition. And if your partisanship isn’t intense enough for this route, there’s always that coin in your pocket. With the prospect of a tight presidential race, a good flip may tell you as much as June polls.Too early – nothing matters now and voters aren’t paying attentionSilver, 5/15/12 (Nate,chief pollster for New York Times’ 538 election polling center. Regarded as top-level pollster based on distinct mathematical models )What I am less convinced by is the idea that anything in the campaign — the day-to-day stories that the news media covers — has mattered very much so far. One of the reasons that campaign stories have been so trivial lately is because if one of the campaigns has an especially strong line of attack on their opponent, or a great piece of opposition research, it does not make a lot of sense to drop it now when most voters are not paying attention yet. It is still extremely early for a general election campaign. If the period after Labor Day qualifies as the pennant race, and the summer of the general election year the regular season, we are still playing preseason baseball now.Can’t predict the election – unforeseen alt causes trumpCunningham 11 (Pat, Columnist – RRS, “Here’s Why Outcome of Next Presidential Election is Impossible to Predict at this Point”, Rockford Register Star, 12-13, )Forty-seven weeks from today, tens of millions of Americans will flock to polling places all across the country to cast ballots in the presidential election of 2012 — and right now it’s anybody’s guess as to what kind of collective judgment they will make. I mean anybody’s guess. That’s not just a profound grasp of the obvious. Rather, it’s a confident prediction that many, many weeks will pass before any confident prediction of the election outcome can be made. The principal reason for this is that, in my 50 years of following these matters, I’ve never seen such volatility in the national political mood. I say this as a pundit whose own smug predictions, in some cases, have been made to look silly in recent months. To wit, as recently as a few months ago, I was saying that Newt Gingrich had absolutely no chance — none, zip, zilch, nada — of winning the Republican presidential nomination. But look at him now. As some other pundit put it just the other day, Gingrich has gone from an afterthought to a juggernaut in the proverbial blink of an eye. But the topsy-turvy race for the GOP nomination isn’t the only reason why it’s foolish to say how the election of 11 months hence is likely to play out. Another is that President Obama, for all his troubles, has maintained a fairly steady position in the polls and has yet to fall far behind any of his potential Republican rivals in hypothetical match-ups. Just yesterday, the difference between Obama’s overall approval and disapproval ratings in the Gallup Daily Tracking poll was within the survey’s margin of error. Nor has Obama’s approval rating ever been as low as Ronald Reagan’s was at one point in his first term. All of this suggests that the president may or may not be in terrible shape by the time Americans begin making up their minds before voting next year. Then, too, Obama’s standing among voters inevitably will be influenced by public perceptions of the person the Republicans choose to run against him. It’s one thing to say that the incumbent looks less than strong in a hypothetical race with a generic opponent. But his GOP challenger won’t be a generic person. It will be an actual person with actual strengths and weaknesses. In the final analysis, the following are among the most important factors that will make the election outcome impossible to predict with any confidence until the final days of the campaign: –Money: Well more than a billion dollars is likely to be spent in efforts to influence the electorate. The sum will dwarf anything we’ve ever seen before. Many of these expenditures will be relatively ineffective, but some of them could well tip the balance in a few key states. –Personalities: Beyond the issues of governance on which civic-minded voters are supposed to base their ballot choices, there’s the all-important matter of likability. I’ve often told the story of how Ronald Reagan still would have defeated Democrat Walter Mondale in 1984, even if they had switched all their positions on the issues. Reagan’s likability trumped almost all other considerations. Unpredictable events: Elections can pivot, at times, on occurrences that no one saw coming — natural disasters, foreign crises, foolish gaffes, sudden scandals, etc. Given all these factors and more, I’m not even ready to subscribe to the conventional political wisdom that the presidential race of 2012 is likely to be a close one, with the winner prevailing only by a small margin. For all we know at this point, it might turn out to be a landslide. It’s complex, non-linear, and history proves prediction’s impossibleTeitelbaum 11 (Robert, Reporter – Daily Deal, “Prediction and Its Discontents”, Daily Deal, 9-7, Lexis)I guess you could have predicted this. With the world a mess -- call it disequilibrium, nonlinear perturbations, turbulence, possibly a phase change, perhaps a revolution, certainly a damn load of woe -- prediction as a respectable way to expend mental energy has suddenly become about as popular as Osama bin Laden futures. Now the truth is I've had serious doubts about the ability of anyone (including myself) to predict -- economists, analysts, especially pundits, most spectacularly anyone on television -- for some time now, certainly as long as I've realized the irrefutable fact that most stock pickers really stink, and that even the best have a lot of trouble sustaining a market-beating run. I would boast about this (well, I am) except that skepticism about prediction doesn't require genius, just a modest appreciation for history and a distrust of authority figures, like local weathermen and politicians. Living through the last decade has been one tutorial after another on the failure of prediction, in particularly, but not exclusively, the failure of markets to see around the corner: the dot-com bust, Sept. 11, the mortgage bubble, the financial crisis, the euro-zone mess, right on down to Hurricane Irene. In fact every decade teaches that lesson, though we are, as a species, very poor students in that regard. That's a long preamble to the fact that the papers and blogosphere seem to be awash in denunciations of prediction today. The cover of this week's Bloomberg Businessweek is apocalyptic in the run-up to the Sept. 11 anniversary, with a cover line for a story on reinsurance that declares, "Risk: A Decade of Disaster Has Made Predicting Impossible." Not a lot of nuance in that statement. In the Financial Times, the always-estimable John Kay, who was very early and sophisticated on such topics, economists one more time Wednesday about why they're often wrong. Kay has come back from his holiday clearly re-energized to dismantle economic pretensions, as we've noted and . But in this column, he dwells on reflexivity generated by human systems when folks believe a prediction may be right, thus either leading to an efficient market or to predictions short-circuited by feedback loops. "The economic world, far more than the physical world, is influenced by our beliefs about it," writes Kay, who is nothing if not nuanced. "It is a mistake to ignore the efficient market; it is also a mistake to take it too seriously." Andrew Sullivan, who does not usually paddle about in such waters (although skepticism about prediction does seem to be part of a certain kind of classical conservatism: If you can't see the future clearly, then be careful of advocating for change), up a handful of posts from Robin Hanson's Overcoming Bias personal prediction models and Erica Grieder at The Economist journalistic prediction. Sullivan asks, "How can we make prediction more valuable?" He then to a long and interesting summation of the issues from a blog called The Fifth Wave, which wrestles mostly with the difficulties of applying linear, Newtonian billiard-ball cause-and-effect concepts to nonlinear human events, that is to history. The Fifth Wave in turn links to two other attacks on prediction, Duncan Watts' book " is Obvious," and a book on punditry and its failings by Philip Tetlock, " Political Judgment," that suggests that "great experts in world politics have been wrong often enough to put in doubt the whole concept of expertise." No knock on Tetlock, but that was pretty obvious. Still, the Fifth Wave does set up the problem nicely. "In brief, we love to stretch common sense and Newtonian (or billiard-ball) causation beyond the breaking point. When we fail, we take it for granted it was because of insufficient information. This too is a failure of understanding. It's not that we lack enough information, it's that no amount of information can ever be enough. Human events unfold within complex systems governed by weird, nonlinear dynamics. Prediction by means of billiard-ball mechanics is impossible, in principle. Because each complex system develops in unique ways, events are also rarely susceptible to probabilistic analysis. Rightly considered, a question like "Who will win the 2012 presidential elections?" refers to a single token. There have been no previous 2012 presidential elections to average out with this one.Mean’s no risk of the DAShermer 12 (Michael, Founding Publisher and Editor – Skeptic Magazine, “Wrong Again: Why Experts' Predictions Fail, Especially About the Future”, Huffington Post, 1-5, )So as 2012 unfolds, most notably with predictions about political elections, beware of the experts on CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, CNN, and even here at Huffington Post. For the most part these experts are no better than dart-throwing chimps. By contrast, follow the electronic markets that employ the wisdom of the crowd, such as , whose track record predicting election outcomes far surpasses that of any of the aforementioned sources. Remember this prediction in the months to come: InTrade has Mitt Romney taking the Republican nomination at 79.7% but losing to Barack Obama in the general election by 51.5%.Economy ThumperPerception of economic benefit won’t influence voters unless actual economic recovery occursCook, 12 (Charlie, Cook Political Report, National Journal, 4/26, )If you focus on the economy, though, the situation looks more complicated. Obama’s NBC/WSJ job rating on handling the economy is 45 percent approval and 57 percent disapproval. Those numbers are less favorable than his overall approval rating. When respondents were asked whether they thought Obama’s policies had helped or hurt economic conditions, or had made no difference at all, 36 percent said they had helped, 30 percent said they made no difference, and 33 percent said they had hurt. Obviously, you can push the “made no difference” group in either direction. But the 63 percent who said that Obama’s policies either made no difference or hurt economic conditions do not bode well for the president. When asked whether they thought the economy would get better, get worse, or stay about the same over the next 12 months, 38 percent said that it would get better, 42 percent said it would stay the same, and 19 percent predicted that things would get worse. With 61 percent believing that the economic picture will either get worse or stay the same, the public clearly remains very nervous about the economy—again, not good news for the president. Respondents were given a choice of 13 positive attributes and asked whether each better describes Obama or Romney; the good news for the president is that the respondents associated 10 attributes more with him than with his challenger. They are, in descending order of advantage: “being easygoing and likable”; “caring about average people”; “being compassionate enough to understand average people”; “dealing with issues of concern to women”; “looking out for the middle class”; “being knowledgeable and experienced enough to be president”; “being consistent and standing up for his beliefs”; “sharing your positions on the issues”; and “being honest and straightforward.” Obama also had a narrow advantage, within the margin of error, on “setting the proper moral tone for the country.” Taken together, the results suggest that Obama’s reelection should be a slam dunk, right? Not necessarily. Although Romney had the advantage on only two attributes, they were “having good ideas for how to improve the economy” (by 6 points) and “changing the business as usual in Washington” (by 7 points). Those sound a lot like central tenets of Obama’s campaign four years ago. So Obama had the advantage on most of the attributes, but Romney led on two of the most important ones. The results aren’t convincing enough to give the advantage to either Romney or Obama. All of these findings reinforce the view that the economy will be a very important factor in the election, regardless of whether it improves or just bumps along. Obama badly needs the country’s economic performance over the next six months to validate his policies and decisions. If the overall economy improves, job creation increases, and consumer confidence goes up, those markers will serve as validation. If the economy is bouncing along, with growth at a subdued level and unemployment still at or above 8 percent—not the 9 percent of a year ago, but hardly in the 7.2-to-7.4 percent range that boosted President Reagan’s 1984 reelection fortunes after the 1982 recession—the public will be in no mood to validate Obama’s policies and decisions. Gallup’s most recent polling suggests that Obama has received a bit of a boost from the decline in gasoline prices; his approval rating bumped up to 50 percent in three consecutive days of Gallup’s three-day moving averages. The bump shows just how volatile public attitudes are, particularly when important economic issues are involved. That volatility isn’t likely to change between now and Election Day. The economy will determine this election.Actual economic conditions on the ground will shape public perceptionsCook, 12 (Charlie, Cook Political Report, National Journal, 4/26, )The pace of the exceedingly fragile economic recovery over the 204 days between now and the Nov. 6 election is a lot more important than anything that either President Obama or Mitt Romney says over the course of the campaign. How fast the economy grows—measured by change in gross domestic product, in the unemployment rate, and in real personal disposable income, as well as in oil and gasoline prices—will be far more influential than rhetoric in determining whether voters renew Obama’s contract for another four years. If the economy grows, the jobless rate declines, real incomes increase, and gasoline prices drop, Obama’s economic policy would be validated. It would also heal some of the scar tissue of his first two years, when his approval numbers plummeted among independent voters and Democrats were ejected from their House majority. Conversely, if economic growth remains sluggish, the jobless rate stays about the same, voters’ personal finances don’t improve, and gas prices stay high, Obama’s situation would look considerably dimmer. The struggles would reinforce lingering doubts from 2009 and 2010, when voters saw the president and the Democratic Congress as being more focused on health care reform than on a dramatically worsening economy. His reelection hopes would diminish.Economic outcomes on the ground shape voters economic perception of obamaCook, 12 (Charlie, Cook Political Report, National Journal, 3/26, )A far more important factor in determining whether voters decide to renew Obama’s contract for another four years is whether they see his stewardship of the economy as a success. Has he done as well as anyone could realistically have done? Or did he have other priorities—like health care—that seemed to merit more attention than dealing with a worsening economic downturn and dramatically escalating unemployment? With each passing week we will get a new crop of statistics that will provide clues as to how the economy is faring. Will the narrative be a continuation of the improvement seen since last fall? Or, will this spurt have been more temporary, bumping against headwinds—in the form of high energy prices, a global economic downturn, and recession in Europe—preventing that pattern from continuing through the November election? How will the economy perform over the seven months between now and the election? Upcoming economic reports are likely to answer the question about whether Obama’s presidency will be judged as a success. The Conference Board on Tuesday will release its latest survey of consumer confidence. On Friday, the Thomson/Reuters/University of Michigan Index of Consumer Sentiment will be released. These are the two most closely watched measures of how Americans see the economy now, and what their expectations are for the coming months. A week from Friday, the March unemployment figures will be reported. Analysts will look to see whether the improvement in the jobless picture seen over the winter will continue or whether it has leveled off. Some speculate that rapidly rising gasoline prices may ease sooner, rather than skyrocketing through the spring and summer, as many have forecasted. Which forecasts turn out to be right will be hugely important both politically and for the economy. Up until now, much of the spike in gas prices has been offset by unusually low heating bills paid during the fourth-warmest winter on record, and the warmest since 1990. The Wall Street research firm ISI Group, as of Oct. 3, had charted 16 out of 20 weeks as having more negative economic news and developments than positive ones. Since October 10, it has marked 25 weeks in a row of more positive than negative news and developments. But it has noted that the positive mix last week was not particularly convincing—a possible sign that the recent upbeat pattern may be breaking up. Right now, a fair number of voters sit on the fence when it comes to assessing Obama’s performance on the economy. They are disappointed that he didn’t do better, but they are unwilling to pass final judgment. How the economy fares in the coming months will determine which side of that fence these voters decide to come down on.Link DefenseIts politically irrelevant – not perceived as key issue, no significant jobs perception and Obama can’t spin itFreemark, 12Yonah Freemark is an independent researcher currently working in France on comparative urban development as part of a Gordon Grand Fellowship from Yale University, from which he graduated in May 2008 with a BA in architecture. He writes about transportation and land use issues for The Transport Politic and The Infrastructurist, 1/25, the context of the presidential race, Mr. Obama’s decision not to continue his previously strong advocacy of more and more transportation funding suggests that the campaign sees the issue as politically irrelevant. If the Administration made an effort last year to convince Americans of the importance of improving infrastructure, there seems to have been fewer positive results in terms of popular perceptions than hoped for. Perhaps the rebuffs from Republican governors on high-speed rail took their toll; perhaps the few recovery projects that entered construction were not visible enough (or at least their federal funding was not obvious enough); perhaps the truth of the matter is that people truly care more about issues like unemployment and health care than they do for public transit and roads.Voters don’t care – not high priorityPew, 11 (Pew Research Center, 1/20, )Improving the nation’s roads, bridges, and transportation does not rank as a particularly high priority for Democrats, Republicans or independents. Still, Democrats are more likely to see this as important (41% top priority vs. 30% of independents, 26% of Republicans. This is the case for dealing with obesity as well.I/L DefenseObama doesn’t get credit – his sales pitch is especially badSkelley, 12Geoffrey Skelley, Political Analyst, U.Va. Center for Politics, 5/23, far, the Obama campaign has run ads promoting the president’s handling of the economy, such as spots that tout the auto industry bailout and mention increased job growth. But are voters buying the pitch and giving Obama credit? That’s up for debate, especially with Republican governors in key swing states, such as Virginia and Ohio, competing with the president for the public’s applause. In Virginia, in what can mainly be described as a campaign to improve his chances of being Romney’s running mate, Gov. Bob McDonnell’s (R) Opportunity Virginia PAC has run an ad highlighting Virginia’s economic improvement during McDonnell’s tenure. The spot notes that Virginia has its lowest unemployment rate in three years and the lowest in the Southeast. As our chart shows, Virginia’s 5.6% figure is at least 1% better than any other Southern state. Federal spending, particularly defense expenditures, is a big reason why, of course — a point often left unmade in a state whose politicians regularly launch broadsides against “wasteful spending by Washington.” Meanwhile, Ohio and much of the Rust Belt have seen stirrings of economic improvement. But the president has not necessarily received a significant bump from this news. A recent Quinnipiac poll found that Ohioans who think the Buckeye State’s economy has improved give Gov. John Kasich (R) credit for the change by a 68% to 22% margin over President Obama. Voters who think the economy is worse also blame the sitting governor more than the president, 49% to 27%. Considering Ohio’s unemployment rate has gone from 8.8% in April 2011 to 7.4% last month, both incumbents can brag about the change. But it is far more important for Obama, who is on the ballot this November while Kasich isn’t up for reelection until 2014. Strategically, the Obama campaign wants to convince voters that the economy is in fact improving. Tactically, this has meant running ads in key swing states that generally promote Obama’s economic stewardship. Yet the campaign might be losing an opportunity if it doesn’t take greater ownership of positive state-specific numbers. Obama’s generic television ads might do more than simply target all the swing states as a bloc. Instead, he could focus on each state separately. If a state’s unemployment rate has improved over the past year, then the president’s campaign could run general election ads that trumpet the success. Ohio and especially Virginia are ideal for such advertising. In politics, a president gets the blame for anything bad that happens on his watch. Conversely, he gets the credit for anything good that unfolds during his term — that is, if he doesn’t let others take the credit from him. To this point, President Obama has failed to take advantage of the improved jobs numbers in some competitive states with unemployment lower than the national average. In this close election, Obama has little margin for error. ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download