Politics Neg



Politics NegUQLinkUQ – TrumpTrump’s at the magic approval number now – he is popular with his Republican base right now, he needs to sustain itChuck Todd, 6-23-2017, NBC/WSJ Poll: It's Trump's Base Against Everyone Else," NBC News, , Accessed: 7-2-2017, /Kent Denver-MB, HWPresident Trump job-approval rating in the latest NBC/WSJ poll stands at 40% — essentially unchanged from where it was a month ago at 39%. And there’s a fascinating dynamic inside that approval rating: It’s Trump’s base vs. everyone else. Republicans support Trump by an 82%-13% clip, while Democrats disapprove of him by 90%-6%, and independents break against him by a 63%-35% margin. And if that 40% for Trump (or thereabouts) looks familiar in our NBC/WSJ poll, well, it is: Trump’s positive rating: 38% Those preferring a GOP-controlled Congress: 42% Those who believe Trump’s problems are due to the DC establishment (and not his own competence and inexperience): 42% Those who believe the economy has improved and Trump deserves credit for it: 38% Those who think Obamacare is a bad idea: 38% And those who believe the efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare should continue: 38%. Under the normal rules of politics, a politician needs majority support — or more. But this magic number of 38% to 42% is keeping Trump and Republicans afloat right now. And because Republicans are in the majority in Congress, that 38%-to-42% remains the most powerful faction in politics. And it explains how health care COULD pass, no matter the popularity of the legislation. The question is: How long can that minority force last? Remember, the unemployment rate is at 4.3%, and Trump has yet to face an external crisis or threat.Trump is maintaining high approval from his base despite controversyMarcin, Newsweek Staff Writer, 7-12-17[Tim, 7-12-2017, Newsweek, “DONALD TRUMP’S POPULARITY: HIS APPROVAL RATING AMONG HIS BASE VOTERS IS BACK UP” , Accessed: 7-14-2017]A new poll from The Economist/YouGov released Wednesday showed that Trump’s base largely approves of the job he’s doing. Fifty-eight percent of people who voted for Trump in November “strongly approve” of the job he’s doing as president, according to the survey. Thirty percent of Trump voters “somewhat approve,” meaning 88 percent of folks who voted for the president have approved of his time in office to some degree. The Economist/YouGov poll pegged Trump’s overall approval, however, at 37 percent, while 52 percent disapproved of the job his is doing. Ariel Edwards-Levy, a reporter who is polling director at Huffington Post Politics, pointed out on Twitter that the new poll showed Trump’s “strong” approval among his voters had risen to 58 percent from 52 percent earlier this month. During his tenure in the White House, that figure has risen as high as 66 percent and dropped as low as 48 percent. Trump’s popularity has suffered amid a steady drumbeat of controversy and pushback against his decisions in office. An ongoing debate over the Republican plan to gut Obamacare and the investigation into his team’s potential ties to Russia have proved especially detrimental to his approval rating. The several iterations of the GOP health care plan have had one thing in common: tens of millions of Americans losing coverage, according to scores from the Congressional Budget Office. The Russia controversy, meanwhile, took a new turn this week. Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., tweeted out an email conversation that showed he set up a meeting during the campaign with a person he believed was an operative of the Russian government in an attempt to land negative information about Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. The same conversation included a line from a Trump associate that read, “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” All in all, not a great week for the president. But he can take solace knowing a good portion of his most devoted voters still like him.Despite overall disapproval, Trump’s base remains loyal—increased support writ large is key to Trump’s agendaMalone, VOA, US Elections and Politics, National Correspondent, 7/7/17[Jim Malone, 7-7-2017, VOA, "Trump Faces Major Challenges on Home Front After European Trip," , accessed 7/7/17]Trump's public approval rating hovers around or in many cases below 40 percent in most polls. The Gallup Daily Tracking poll has had him at below 40 percent approval for most of the last week. But his core supporters, for the most part, appear to be sticking with him. "I think the first six months is not a perfect gauge of when to judge a president on these matters," said John Fortier of the Bipartisan Policy Center. "It often takes a long time to get legislation done. So at this point he is not doing so well but it is still relatively early in the legislative game."Trump is making moves to ensure his base stays loyal—border wall talks proveSvitsky, Axios, Newsdesk reporter, 7/7/17[Shane Savitsky, 7-7-2017, Axios,"Trump "absolutely" still wants Mexico to pay for wall," a meeting with Mexican President Enrique Pe?a Nieto at the G20 summit, President Trump told reporters that he "absolutely" still expects Mexico to pay for a border wall. Think back: Pe?a Nieto called Trump's bluff and cancelled a trip to Washington in January — via Twitter — after Trump attacked Mexico in a series of tweets about both NAFTA and funding for the wall. Why it matters: It's an antagonistic move by Trump during a summit meant to built compromise and consensus between world leaders, but it's also a signal to Trump's base that he's standing by his campaign pledge.Yes PassUniqueness and internal link – Congress will raise debt ceiling now, but requires political capital, and failure risks economic calamityHamilton, Indiana University Center on Representative Government senior advisor & former member of the House of Representatives, 6-24-17[Lee, 6-24-17, The Republic, “It’s time to scrap the U.S. debt ceiling”, , accessed 7-8-17]Back when I was in Congress, I got a call from a constituent one day. I’d recently voted to raise the nation’s debt ceiling, and the man was more than irate. “Don’t you understand that we’ve got a serious spending and debt problem in this country?” he asked. “Why did you cast this idiotic vote?” He was right about the problem. But he was wrong about the vote. With Congress fast approaching another debt-ceiling vote and yet one more “fiscal cliff” drama taking shape, I’d like to explain why that is. If you ask members of Congress which regular vote they most dread, this one would probably top the list. It’s hard to explain to constituents why raising the debt ceiling is necessary, as indeed I had trouble explaining to my own constituent. It’s an unpopular vote to cast, and many members simply will not do it. Yet they recognize that if a majority of their colleagues sided with them and voted against raising the ceiling, we’d be in deep economic trouble. The key thing to understand is that raising the debt ceiling is not about increasing spending. It’s about paying the bills for purchases we’ve already made. Refusing to increase the debt ceiling is like putting your child in day care so you can work, getting your transmission repaired so you can get there, and buying work boots and a hard hat so you can stay safe — and then telling your preschool, mechanic and local storekeeper you have no intention of paying them. Only, if our nation were to do this, the results would include plummeting investment, rocketing interest rates and an economic downturn that could be catastrophic. At the moment, our debt is about $20 trillion, or about $160,000 for every household in the U.S. We have to find a long-term path to deficit reduction — through spending reductions, increased taxes or a combination of the two. But using the debt ceiling as a means of reining in excessive spending has not worked since an aggregate ceiling was put in place almost 80 years ago. The political capital devoted to raising the ceiling every year would be far better spent putting us on a sustainable budget path. Indeed, I’d argue that the nation would be better off scrapping the debt ceiling altogether. I know of no other major country that has a debt ceiling requirement. It has become a political football. Rounding up the votes takes a huge amount of precious legislative time and energy. Most people in Washington understand that a default by the United States would be calamitous for our own economy and for the world’s, which means that once we put the debt ceiling requirement in place, this bill simply must pass. This, in turn, gives members of Congress great leverage to try to get something else they want. Right now, congressional leaders are stumped. Members of the Republican majority don’t want to vote for raising the ceiling — but the leadership knows that they control the government and can’t simply let it default on its payments. So, much to their chagrin, they’ll mostly likely have to negotiate with the Democrats and with Republicans who can be won over, handing members the chance to exact policy concessions that should instead be considered on their own merits. Even the run-up to an eventual vote is likely to be chaotic, risking a dip into a recession by damaging confidence in our economy.Pass now but Mnuchin and Trump are key and GOP is being weird about it – Trump needs to maintain his baseStein 7/25 (Harry, Opinion contributor to the Hill, “Congress must repeal the debt limit so no party can take it hostage” 7/25/17 ) brenTreasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has a problem. He knows that President Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress must pass a debt limit increase to avoid the catastrophe of defaulting on the national debt. But the Trump administration has sent mixed signals about how to handle the debt limit, and congressional Republicans are divided on the issue. It is hard to imagine a more egregious unforced error than defaulting on the national debt when the same party controls the House, Senate and White House — and hard to imagine anything more absurd than expecting the minority party to make policy concessions to help the governing party avoid default. Ultimately, the whole situation shows the need for a permanent repeal of the debt limit so that it can no longer be taken hostage by anyone — regardless of which party is in charge. To be clear, raising the debt limit does not authorize new government spending. It simply ensures that the federal government will honor its existing commitments. If the government suddenly fails to make payments that it is required to make under law, the loss of confidence in the United States could spark a financial crisis and widespread job losses. As Secretary Mnuchin’s Treasury Department has explained, “Failing to increase the debt limit would have catastrophic economic consequences.” Prioritizing interest on Treasury bonds over other federal obligations — as some members of the House Freedom Caucus have proposed — would not prevent default. The federal government has passed laws or signed contracts committing to pay military and civilian salaries, Social Security benefits, and payments to hospitals for Medicare services, to give just three examples. Defaulting on any of these commitments would call into question every financial commitment made by the United States, with disastrous economic consequences. It is the responsibility of the governing party to raise the debt limit. President Obama made the public case for raising the debt limit when needed during his term. Democrats provided the bulk of the votes in Congress to raise the debt limit under President Obama. It is now President Trump’s job to push for a debt limit increase, and for the Republicans who control Congress to deliver the bulk of the votes. Some Republicans — such as the House Freedom Caucus and White House budget director Mick Mulvaney — have bizarrely demanded massive spending cuts or repeal of the Affordable Care Act in exchange for avoiding default. If Trump and other Republicans kowtow to this faction, the governing party will be taking its own government hostage. There is no reason for the minority party to make even the slightest concession to bail out the governing party for its failure to govern. Ultimately, Secretary Mnuchin must convince his colleagues in the Trump administration and the congressional majority to do their job and raise the debt limit, and it is becoming increasing clear that lawmakers must take steps to end debt limit brinksmanship once and for all. No one should be able to use the full faith and credit of the United States as a hostage to demand policy concessions — now or in the future. Jason Furman and Rohit Kumar, who were on opposite sides of debt limit negotiations as senior advisors to President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), respectively, have now come together to call for a permanent repeal of the debt limit. They point out that there are significant costs from the now routine “extraordinary measures” that are used when the United States is at the brink of default.It'll pass eventually, but requires party unityFox 7/25 (Fox Business, Markets: Dow Jones Newswires, “Wall Street braces for debt-ceiling showdown” Junly 25, 2017, ) brenThis time around, the debate adds a new dimension because it will force different factions within the Republican party to come to an agreement. And they will also have to reach across the aisle to avoid a filibuster, since the Senate will likely need 60 votes to pass a debt-limit increase. The Treasury reached its $20 trillion ceiling in March, but has raised cash through a series of extraordinary measures. Now lawmakers have until early-to-mid October to lift the ceiling before cash balances are exhausted, according to the CBO. In the meantime, some market participants expect the Treasury will reduce its issuance of T-bills. Some investors are doubtful about Congress's ability to smoothly reach an agreement to lift the debt limit, given that Republicans in the Senate have so far not been able to bridge divides on a health-care bill. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and White House budget director Mick Mulvaney have offered differing views about how to proceed. Mr. Mnuchin has said he does not want to attach conditions to a bill lifting the debt ceiling while Mr. Mulvaney has long advocated tying it to spending cuts or other legislation. President Donald Trump has said Mr. Mnuchin is the point-person on the matter. While most expect a debt ceiling deal to be ironed out eventually, some worry about knock-on effects in the meantime. In addition to the remote possibility of a short-term delay in debt payments, a debate that comes down to the wire could impact the Fed's decisions on the timing of interest rate increases. The Fed has penciled in one more increase this year. MnuchinMnuchin pushing for debt ceiling now, cites high interest ratesWoods 7/26 (Randy, staff writer for Bloomberg, “Mnuchin Cautions Congress About Cost of U.S. Debt-Limit Impasse” July 26, 2017 ) brenThe government has been relying on special accounting maneuvers since March to stay under the nearly $20 trillion current debt cap. Aside from the “implied cost” of market uncertainty, special measures to stave off a default have pushed up interest rates for some government borrowing, Mnuchin told a Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Wednesday. The Treasury is using cash-management tactics such as suspending investments in pension funds for federal workers. “There is a real cost to doing that,” he said. “There is also an implied cost of uncertainty into the market. And the longer we wait, the more that uncertainty will be.” Mnuchin’s comments increase pressure on lawmakers to act on the government’s borrowing authority, amid lawmaker wrangling over President Donald Trump’s key legislative goals like health-care reform and a tax overhaul. Mnuchin on Wednesday repeated that the U.S. must honor its debt obligations as the world’s reserve currency. Mnuchin has called on Congress to pass a “clean” debt-ceiling increase -- without any policy riders. White House budget director Mick Mulvaney, backed by conservatives in the House, has suggested using the bill to try to force Democrats to accept spending cuts.LinksL - PolcapIt would require massive political capital to overcome congressional perennial constraints and achieve consensusOberlander 3 (Jon, associate professor of social medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “The Politics Of Health Reform: Why Do Bad Things Happen To Good Plans?” Health Affairs: Web Exclusive, 27 August 2003) brenInstitutional fragmentation. Health care reform plans face two distinct sets of political constraints. The first set is perennial constraints that endure over a long period and are particularly resistant to change. The structure of U.S. political institutions creates a number of barriers to the passage of any legislation, let alone a reform as controversial, ideologically divisive, and threatening to powerful interests as national health insurance.8 Unlike a British-style parliamentary system, U.S. constitutional arrangements provide no assurance that the president will represent the same party as the congressional majority; divided government is a regular feature of U.S. political life. Moreover, even if the president’s own party holds majorities in the House and Senate, Congress may rebuff the president’s priorities; partisan majorities do not necessarily produce policy majorities in American politics. U.S. political parties are weaker than parties elsewhere in the democratic world. Members of Congress commonly run their own campaigns, raise their own funds, and run independently from—and sometimes in opposition to—their own party’s platform.9 Their first political allegiance is not to their party or president but to their congressional district. Also, unlike parliamentary legislators, members of Congress can cast important votes against their party’s president without worrying that it will lead to a vote of no confidence that triggers new elections in parliamentary systems. Consequently, presidential sponsorship of major health care legislation, even with a Congress controlled by the president’s party, does not assure legislative victory. The internal organization of Congress further complicates the road to reform. Legislation must clear both the House and the Senate and afterward a conference committee to reach the president’s desk. But the labyrinth that must be navigated even before that step is formidable. Congress is organized into a series of committees and subcommittees, often with overlapping jurisdictions, through which health reform legislation must pass before it comes to the House and Senate floors for a vote. There is, then, an institutional bias in U.S. politics favoring the status quo: Traditionally, reformers have had to jump over every legislative hurdle, while opponents have only had to trip them up once to win.10 The fragmented structure of Congress creates another barrier to reform: the difficulty in achieving consensus on a single piece of legislation. Congress, measured in terms of its political independence, administrative capacity, and ability to pursue policies that diverge from the executive, may be the most powerful legislature in the world. Members of Congress who head committees and subcommittees have their own platforms from which to introduce health reform bills that differ from those of their parties. Any debate over health care reform consequently produces numerous bills sponsored by enterprising congressional policymakers. This fragmentation provides a sobering lesson for reformers. Even if a congressional majority in favor of universal coverage exists, it does not mean that majority support exists for any one plan.Takes tons of political capital to pass the planJones 17 (Sarah, Social Media Editor at the New Republic, “How Trumpcare’s Failure Sets the Stage for Single-Payer,” March 28, 2017) brenCalls for single-payer invariably provoke concern over its practicality and expense, and it is true that single-payer proposals have to account for a drastic transition process. According to the University of Chicago’s Dr. Harold Pollack, there’s no doubt that “a well-functioning single-payer system would work better than the current American health system.” But he said advocates must account for the dysfunctional system they’ve inherited. “The challenge that I have is that people often talk about single-payer as an alternative to the pathological political economy that drives American health care and American health politics,” he told the New Republic. “And a single-payer system would have to be a product of that exact same troubled political economy, and would have to bake in many of the defects that we have in our current system in order to come about.” This dynamic is partially why then-President Barack Obama had to fight conservatives in his own party to pass the incremental reforms offered by the ACA. Obama himself became more conservative on the issue: Though he once supported what he called “a single-payer universal health care program,” he came to believe that single-payer would be “too disruptive” for the health care industry. The system’s deficiencies are well-known. For one, this thin safety net doesn’t actually save the country any money. The World Bank reports that, in 2014, America spent more on health care as a total share of its GDP than any other nation save for the Marshall Islands. Our health care system is also one of the most inefficient on the planet: Bloomberg reported last September that America ranks 50th out of 55 nations its health care efficiency index. The question is not if the ACA and Medicare and Medicaid are inadequate. This is self-evidently true.L - LobbiesPlan unpopular with a host of important lobbies including pharma and medical tech – uninsured are the minority and have no organized political advocatesOberlander 3 (Jon, associate professor of social medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “The Politics Of Health Reform: Why Do Bad Things Happen To Good Plans?” Health Affairs: Web Exclusive, 27 August 2003) brenUnbalanced political arena. A second critical barrier to the adoption of national health insurance is the structure of U.S. health care politics. Fundamental reform poses a threat to interests invested in maintaining the medical status quo, including physicians, hospitals, insurers, pharmaceutical companies, and suppliers of medical technology—the entire medical-industrial complex.11 National health spending represents these parties’ income, and they are opposed to any reform that will slow down the resources society is transferring to them. These groups are well-organized, well-funded, and willing and able to take advantage of fragmented political institutions that provide multiple opportunities to block legislation deemed as hostile to their interests. On the other side are millions of uninsured Americans (now forty-one million) with a stake in universal health insurance. But the uninsured are a group in statistical terms only. They have little in common—except that they are uninsured. They are a diverse group politically, geographically, and ethnically, with no organization, few financial resources, and little political clout. It is no accident that while the list of medical lobbying groups and trade associations is endless, few prominent national groups advocate for the uninsured. Pitted against the resources and influence of the medical industry, the uninsured are no match, and the result is a profound imbalance in the politics of health reform. Moreover, it is clear that the most relevant political fact about U.S. health politics is not that 15 percent of the population is uninsured but that 85 percent is insured. The insured are generally satisfied with their own medical care, even if they think poorly of the system as a whole. Consequently, the well-insured are not a reliable constituency for change. Indeed, any reform that threatens to alter their medical care arrangements is likely to provoke public opposition. Our health insurance arrangements consequently reproduce the politics of indifference.Medicare reform is a lightning rod for opponents of federal powerOberlander 3 (Jon, associate professor of social medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “The Politics Of Health Reform: Why Do Bad Things Happen To Good Plans?” Health Affairs: Web Exclusive, 27 August 2003) brenPolitical culture. The third perennial obstacle to health reform is political culture. Since the American revolution, U.S. political culture has been ambivalent about public power, an ambivalence enshrined in the Constitution. There is a strong antigovernment streak in U.S. politics that is suspicious of centralized authority and confident of the virtues of individual responsibility and free markets.12 This has made national health insurance an attractive target for ideological opponents to any expansion of federal authority. It also has led some to conclude that we have the health system, inequality and all, that the American public actually wants; after all, the United States tolerates more income inequality among its citizenry than any other industrial democracy.13L - UnpopularPeople hate healthcare plans that lower consumer costsOberlander 3 (Jon, associate professor of social medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “The Politics Of Health Reform: Why Do Bad Things Happen To Good Plans?” Health Affairs: Web Exclusive, 27 August 2003) brenThe politics of cost control. What are we to make, then, of the fact that two of the three options for health reform lack any serious potential for controlling costs? One reading of both the demise of the Clinton plan and the erosion of managed care is that the public does not want cost containment, at least to the extent that they perceive it as creating barriers to care; they want all the access to high-tech procedures, specialists, and surgery that their insurers can afford. And if we are to cover the uninsured, perhaps the only reform plans that are politically feasible are those that do not control costs, since if they do so in a serious way it threatens the in comes of providers and the insurance industry and makes the well-insured nervous that reform will hurt them (alas, there is no Rawlsian “veil of ignorance” operating here that could induce insured Americans to choose a socially just system that would protect their uninsured neighbors). Here is the ultimate paradox of U.S. health politics: Rising health costs put health care reform on the agenda, but the more likely a reform proposal is to control costs, the less likely it is to be politically viable. Most international systems did not control costs until after they had achieved universal coverage. Indeed, the U.S. experience has been to enact programs that expand access without restraining spending (cost control comes later after the inevitable fiscal strain on public budgets): That is the pleasure-without-pain formula for political success repeated in Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), a formula that the Medicare prescription drug benefit promises to follow. Perhaps in this era of medical inflation we need, for political reasons, to pretend that building on the mixed system or moving to individual-based insurance will control costs. If so, we should not expect health care reform to produce much in the way of cost containment.Even if a majority of Americans support public health care in the abstract, that support is unpredictable and they won’t support a policy.Oberlander 3 (Jon, associate professor of social medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “The Politics Of Health Reform: Why Do Bad Things Happen To Good Plans?” Health Affairs: Web Exclusive, 27 August 2003) brenNevertheless, U.S. political culture is often oversimplified into a stereotype of universal devotion to individualism and free markets that does not always fit the facts. There is evidence from opinion polls that health care is different; general ambivalence about government coexists with broad support for public action in health policy. An overwhelming number of Americans have consistently supported the idea that health care should be a right. And for much of the past fifty years, a majority of Americans have favored national health insurance. Yet the depth and stability of public support for health reform have remained both suspect and volatile.14 Even if U.S. political culture is not homogeneous, the intensity and durability of its antigovernment strain is politically crucial. It is difficult to dispute the fact that U.S. reformers have unsuccessfully coped with more ideologically based opposition to national health insurance than reformers abroad have had to face.15 The American public has been especially vulnerable to the influence of media campaigns organized by interest groups to discredit national health insurance. These campaigns succeed, in part, because suspicions about centralized authority are easily aroused in the United States.2ncOur cards are not outdated – the political climate now is analogous to 2003 in a few important ways – that has a profound effect on aff feasibilityOberlander 3 (Jon, associate professor of social medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “The Politics Of Health Reform: Why Do Bad Things Happen To Good Plans?” Health Affairs: Web Exclusive, 27 August 2003) brenMedicare, after all, was adopted in 1965 as a single-payer health insurance program, despite frequent assertions that single payer is culturally taboo in the United States, because Democrats enjoyed massive congressional majorities in the liberal Johnson era of federal activism. If Medicare had been enacted at a different political time, it could well have had a different form. In other words, Medicare’s single-payer status was contingent on the prevailing politics of 1965, and its political fortunes rested on much more than its internal characteristics or inherent political attributes.16 That contingency calls attention to the importance of a second set of forces affecting the feasibility of health reform: contemporary political alignments, socioeconomic conditions, and the public mood. In contrast to the enduring barriers described previously, these circumstances—including elections, economic performance, and public opinion—are subject to quick, frequent, and unpredictable change. Institutional and constitutional barriers to national health insurance will always be there, but a Congress controlled by Republicans (or Democrats) will not. This instability is crucial: While we know the current policy environment, we cannot know what that environment will look like ten or four or even two years down the road. Political feasibility thus involves a different analytic challenge than that of evaluating whether a particular health reform plan promotes quality of care or controls costs. A plan that has attributes promoting quality will still have those attributes a decade from now. But a plan that is politically out of the question today may be feasible in a decade, so the only reliable judgments about political feasibility are those made for the short term, and those judgments are not reliable guides to the future. The present political environment—conservative Republican president, conservative Republican majorities in Congress, a public agenda dominated by national security issues, and fiscal politics marked by growing federal deficits and tax cuts—is not conducive to enacting universal coverage. George W. Bush’s chief domestic policy interests have not included the uninsured; indeed, the administration’s plan to block-grant Medicaid could contract public coverage. And the Bush administration’s own health reform proposals have aimed to insure only about 15 percent of the uninsured. Nor is there now, despite recent activity from Sen. John Breaux (D-LA) and others, any perceptible congressional majority predisposed to comprehensive health reform that would, at least, cover a majority of the uninsured. Beyond 2004, though, the crystal ball gets foggier. The current climate is not unlike the political environment in 1991, with the number of uninsured Americans rising against the backdrop of war, economic stagnation, and sizable federal deficits that quickly gave way by 1993 to a new environment with an activist health policy agenda.i/L: PolcapPolcap realPolitical capital is finite and key to sway pivotal lawmakersBeckmann, UC-Irvine political science professor, & Kumar, Indian Institute of Technology economics professor, 11[Matthew N. Beckmann PhD and Associate Professor, Political Science School of Social Sciences at UC Irvine; and Vimal Kumar, Journal of Theoretical Politics “How presidents push, when presidents win: A model of positive presidential power in US lawmaking,”, 23: 3, Journal of Theoretical Politics, accessed: 7/9/16]Of course, presidential political capital is a scarce commodity with a ?oating value. Even a favorably situated president enjoys only a ?nite supply of political capital; he can only promise or pressure so much. What is more, this capital ebbs and ?ows as realities and/or perceptions change. So, similarly to Edwards (1989), we believe presidents’ bargaining resources cannot fundamentally alter legislators’ predispositions, but rather operate ‘at the margins’ of US lawmaking, however important those margins may be (see also Bond and Fleisher (1990), Peterson (1990), Kingdon (1989), Jones (1994), and Rudalevige (2002)). Indeed, our aim is to explicate those margins and show how presidents may systematically in?uence them.Political capital theory true – leverage gained from popularity increases Presidential power and boldnessPonder, Drury University’s Political Science Professor, 12[Daniel E., June 2012, Presidential Studies Quarterly, “Presidential Leverage and the Politics of Policy Formulation,” 42, no. 2, p. 304-5, accessed 7/8/16]Presidents can use leverage strategically so as to maximize their power potential, thereby gaining a degree of autonomy in the American system. Indeed, at one level, presidential leverage can be conceived of as having a familial resemblance to Skowronek’s “warrant” for power, by which he means a kind of license or authority to put political power into action (Skowronek 1993, especially chapters 2 and 3), and are contingent on the political time in which presidents’ serve. Leverage provides a degree of autonomy, and is reflected in the systematic measurement of this contingency and identifies when a president truly does “stand preeminent” in American politics. Unlike Skowronek, who argues that presidential leadership opportunities follow more-or-less predictable patterns in the life cycles of “regimes,” leverage does not reject the notion of cyclical opportunism, nor does it depend on it. But drawing on the insight of “preeminence,” the theory holds that such an advantage for president obtains when leverage is high. When government action (or inaction) has left the public wanting, distrustful, and/or skeptical of political action, presidents may enjoy leverage over competing institutions and thus feel emboldened to increase the variety of their public policy proposals, perhaps realizing increased policy success in the legislative arena. Presidential leverage conveys how presidents (via the imperfect measure of presidential approval) fare in the presence of public attitudes in the other institutions of government, with specific reference to trust in government. When the public lacks trust in other institutions and the president is able to rise above those institutions, he builds distance between himself and the beleaguered institutions of government; on the downside, he may sense he has more of a warrant for action than is actually the case (see Schlesinger 1973; Skorwonek 1993). Similar too is Charles O. Jones’s consideration of “leeway.” Jones sees leeway as “essentially an exercise in capitalizing on the conspicuous features of separationism …encouraged in post-World War II politics by the frequency of split party government” (Jones 2000, 6). Leeway is similar to Skowronek’s warrants in that they both imply that presidents can use structural and institutional contexts to forge their own paths, perhaps working outside the boundaries of what might be acceptable or predictable. Presidents with considerable leverage can further veer “off course” and take advantage of the “feeling,” however temporary, that they are “first among equals” with the leverage to set the course of American politics. Leverage, broadly conceived, derives from and builds upon these insights into presidential authority. The leverage a president has, which is largely outside his ability to control, adds a sense of autonomy and is not antagonistic to “warrants” or “leeway”), but is part of a cumulative process that helps explain presidential action where presidents can assert, however intuitively, leverage over the course of American politics and public policy. Trump is bound by the rules of political capital and he does use itKeifer, Christian Science Monitor, 17[Francine, 3-2-2017, Christian Science Monitor, “Can Trump and Congress turn outreach into legislation?” Accessed: 7-11-2017, BP]To get anything done in Washington, a president’s got to keep the lines of communication open with Capitol Hill. President Trump, with some notable exceptions, appears to have that pipeline flowing – though largely to his own party. Mr. Trump lost no time inviting lawmakers to the White House. When Congress was on recess last week, Hill staffers from both parties headed to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue for bowling and pizza, part of a concerted outreach. Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan speaks several times a week with the president. Other members of Congress call Trump directly on his cellphone. And the vice president’s motorcade cruises regularly to the Capitol’s wide plaza to dispense the White House's point man – Mike Pence, a former congressman. “There’s no ambassador quite like ... the vice president,” says Sen. James Lankford (R) of Oklahoma. Unusually, the peripatetic Mr. Pence, who is president of the Senate, has been given an office on the House side of the Capitol, and he confabs every week with his GOP Senate colleagues at their Tuesday caucus lunch. Trump has mostly reached out to fellow Republicans – though he’s also strategically wooing a handful of Democrats from red states who are up for reelection in 2018, among them Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia.AT TurnThe President has a limited capability to pass his agenda. Even popular plans are doomed to political scrutinyFeehery, former House Speaker Hastert staffer & Feehery Group president, 9[John, Feehery Group is a Washington-based advocacy firm, 7/21/09, CNN, “Commentary: Obama enters 'The Matrix'” 2009/POLITICS/07/21/feehery.obama.matrix/index.html Accessed 7/5/16]And, indeed, the Congress has its own rules that make quick legislative action, no matter how popular with the American people, hard to achieve. The Obama agenda is breathtaking in its scope and eye-popping in its cost. He seeks to completely recast the health care, energy, financial services and automobile sectors of this country, as he seeks to make the tax code more progressive, retirement programs more sustainable, and the immigration system more welcoming to immigrants. And he also wants to stimulate the economy and get us out of what some people are calling the "Great Recession." But can it all get done, and in a form that makes his political base happy? The president insists that he can get this all done, and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, has implied that the financial crisis has actually given the White House more momentum to get it all done. But history tells a different story. Congress has its own code, and cracking that code usually means taking into account five different factors. These five factors are: Money: It may seem trite, but the biggest factor in determining the size and scope of a legislative agenda is how much money -- and more importantly, the perception of how much money -- is available for the government to use. Bill Clinton's legislative agenda was necessarily limited because his budget constraints made it difficult to spend money on big things. George Bush, who inherited a fairly large budget surplus, had money to burn, which allowed him to pass a prescription drug benefit. President Obama has no money, which means that if he wants to pass a big new entitlement like a health care public option, he will have to make the Congress take the painful step of raising a lot of taxes. Time: The legislative calendar is simply not that long. A new administration has a little less than a year to pass its big-ticket items, mostly because it is very hard to get major initiatives done in an election year. Take away the three months it takes to hire key staff, a couple of months for the various congressional recesses, and you have about six months to really legislate. Since Congress is supposed to use some time to pass its annual spending bills (there are 12 that need to be passed each year, not counting supplemental spending bills), time for big initiatives is actually very limited. Each day the president takes time to travel overseas or to throw out the first pitch at an All Star game, he is taking time away from making contacts with legislators whose support is crucial for the president's agenda. Time is not a limitless resource on Capitol Hill. Political capital: A president enters office with the highest popularity ratings he will ever get (barring a war or some other calamity that brings the country together), which is why most presidents try to pass as much as possible as early as possible in their administrations. The most famous example of that was Franklin Roosevelt's Hundred Days. But there are other examples. Ronald Reagan moved his agenda very early in his administration, George Bush passed his tax proposals and the No Child Left Behind law very early in his White House. They understood the principle that it is important to strike while the iron is hot. President Bush famously misunderstood this principle when he said that he was going to use the "political capital" gained in his re-election to pass Social Security reform. What he failed to understand was that as soon as he won re-election, he was a lame duck in the eyes of the Congress, and he had no political capital. President Obama believes he has a lot of political capital, and perhaps he does. But each day he is in office, his political capital reserve is declining. And each time he goes to the well to pass things like "cap and trade" makes it more difficult for him to pass his more important priorities like health care.CongressCongressional approval key to political capitalKriner, Boston University associate professor of political science, 14[Douglas L., June 2014, Presidential Studies Quarterly, “Obama’s Authorization Paradox: Syria and Congress’s Continued Relevance in Military Affairs,” , accessed 7/8/16]Thus, presidents may seek authorization in the hope of securing immediate benefits in terms of increased public support. Such support may be particularly likely to emerge if the authorization succeeds. However, the most important advantages of a congressional authorization—even of a failed authorization vote—may materialize months afterward as a military venture unfolds. A wealth of scholarship has emphasized Congress’s failure in all but the rarest of cases to use the power of the purse, the WPR, or any other measure at its disposal to legislatively compel a president to abandon his preferred military policy course (Fisher 1995; Rudalevige 2005; Schlesinger 1973). However, this does not mean that Congress has remained silent when confronted with military policies with which it disagrees. Rather, on a wide range of military actions from major wars in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq, to smaller interventions in Lebanon, Somalia, Haiti, and Bosnia, members of Congress have introduced legislation to constrain the commander in chief, investigated presidential policies, and denounced the administration’s handling of foreign policy before the television cameras. Recent research suggests that through such actions, even though they do not have the force of law, Congress has exerted significant influence on the duration of major military actions in the post–World War II era (Kriner 2010). Congressional criticism in each of these venues is politically costly. It can precipitate both real and anticipated shifts in public opinion (Baum and Groeling 2010; Berinsky 2009; Howell and Pevehouse 2007), and it can force presidents to expend political capital in foreign policy that will then be unavailable for other initiatives (Neustadt 1990). Moreover, congressional criticism sends signals of American disunity to our adversaries, which can also affect the military costs that must be paid to achieve the administration’s objectives (e.g., Auerswald 2000; Schultz 2001). As a result, presidents facing legislative challenges or even just intense public criticism of their military policies on Capitol Hill may conclude that staying the course militarily is no longer worth the heightened costs and will therefore adjust their policy course accordingly.Key to debt ceilingPolitical capital key to debt ceiling – heavy legislative lift, narrow windowRappeport, New York Times, 7-6-17[Alan, 7-6-17, New York Times, “Republicans Have a Long To-Do List, but Not Much Time”, Lexis, p. A14]WASHINGTON -- An iffy health care vote. An unresolved budget resolution. A heavy debt ceiling lift. And, of course, there is that tax overhaul plan. Congress has a lot to do, and it doesn't have much time. So much for a lazy July in Washington. When members of Congress return next week from their Fourth of July break, they will be greeted by a mammoth legislative logjam. Republicans are increasingly skeptical that they can get everything done. There are even calls from some to forgo their sacred August recess -- a respite from the capital in its swampiest month. ''Our current Senate calendar shows only 33 potential working days remaining before the end of the fiscal year,'' a group of 10 Republican senators wrote on Friday in a letter to Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, highlighting the deadline at the end of September. ''This does not appear to give us enough time to adequately address the issues that demand immediate attention.'' The Republican Party is under intense pressure to achieve something of consequence in that limited time in order to legitimately claim that the first year of the Trump administration has been a success. So far, the ambitious agenda has stagnated without a signature achievement. President Trump's unpredictability has only made matters more complicated. ''Everyone is coming to the realization that Republicans are going to need to sprint to the end of the year,'' said Ken Spain, a former spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee who now lobbies for companies on tax issues. ''A lot of the legislative maneuvering in July will lay the groundwork for them to do so.'' The first order of business when lawmakers return remains reaching a swift conclusion to the debate over how to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, an ambition that has bedeviled Republicans since Mr. Trump entered the White House. The grappling over how to proceed has laid bare deep divisions within the party and stalled progress for the next items on the agenda, a federal budget deal and a tax overhaul. A vote on health care could drag on until mid-July or later depending on when Senate Republicans deliver a new bill to the Congressional Budget Office for scoring. The straggling health bill has backed up other major priorities, setting the stage for a government shutdown or even a default in the fall if the debt ceiling is not raised in time. The specter of a debt ceiling breach as lawmakers work to lift the statutory borrowing limit adds another twist to a complex set of problems. The Congressional Budget Office said last week that the Treasury could probably go until mid-October before it exhausts its ''extraordinary powers'' to keep paying the federal government's bills. But Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, has been pressing Congress to lift the debt ceiling by the end of July to avoid disrupting the markets. With Republicans split over whether spending cuts or changes to the budget process should be tied to the raising of the debt limit, reaching a deal could go down to the wire.Trump political capital low – needs every little bit to get debt ceilingShephard Smith Reporting, 17[5-18-17, Fox News, “Is Trump's Political Capital With Republicans Dwindling?”, , accessed 7-8-17]On "Shepard Smith Reporting" this afternoon, Chad Pergram said many Republican members of Congress are concerned that the Trump administration is surrounded by so much drama that it's going to be difficult to advance their legislative agenda. He pointed to comments from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell earlier this week and from House Speaker Paul Ryan today, in which both lawmakers expressed their unease. "Look at what they're trying to do. They have to move health care through the Senate. They have to do tax reform. ... And then the granddaddy of them all is coming, a must-do bill some time this summer or fall: the debt ceiling," Pergram said from Capitol Hill. He said Republicans are very concerned that all the controversy surrounding the administration is preventing the party from focusing on these pieces of legislation, particularly the debt ceiling bill. "That really concerns people up here, as President Trump's political capital among Republicans is starting to dwindle significantly," Pergram said. He added that many Democrats are already floating impeachment, and he's even spoken to a couple Republican lawmakers who said off-the-record that "President Pence" doesn't sound too bad to them. "To be fair, we're a long way away from that, but just the fact that the 'I-word' is in play on Capitol Hill, there is some blood in the water," Pergram said. "And that's where it gets very hard ... to get on health care, to do the debt ceiling. That's a big challenge." [Note – Chad Pergram covers Congress for Fox News]i/L: Popularity key to PolCapPresidential performance depends on public perception – presidents are held accountable for actions and resultsBuchanan, University of Texas-Austin Government Professor, June 16[Bruce, Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress, Presidential Studies Quarterly 46, no. 2, “Citizen Oversight of Presidential Performance,” p. 256-257, Accessed 6/29/16]Presidents are beholden to those who put them in power. Thus, citizen expectations can in?uence presidential performance. This makes citizen oversight important, not just normatively, but also for its potential impact on presidential behavior. Do the incentives that citizens create for presidents encourage them to perform responsibly and effectively? This is a question about citizen performance, arguably as important to the viability of the polity as is presidential performance. The VT matrix theorized and tested above is a conceptual tool for addressing this question. Its use to organize and explain citizen reactions to Presidents Bush and Obama illustrates the utility of a valid, comprehensive model of citizen oversight. The matrix is multifaceted enough to surface dimensions of citizen performance, which less comprehensive models (e.g., Brody 1991) cannot, such as the near-equivalent importance of Action and Results. Applying the matrix to different presidential performance categories across time also made it clear that Action was the most mentioned criterion only in performance categories where presidential work was still in progress (Tables 5 and 6). What do the ?ndings reveal about citizen performance over these two presidential terms? First, it is noteworthy that citizens deem Action, as well as Results, to be a suitable basis for judgment. Attention to the importance of criteria additional to Results across presidencies and performance categories suggests a modest degree of perceptiveness in citizen oversight that is generally overlooked. The second citizen performance indicator—macro assessments of Presidents Bush and Obama—yields mixed reviews. On the merits, citizens judged the second term Bush performance in a balanced way—low marks for War and Economy Handling but acknowledgment of the reassurance his Assertiveness offered in anxious times. For his part, the ?rst-term Obama received high marks in both of these categories. But from the perspective of ideal citizen oversight, a case can be made that an economy-?xated public was insuf?ciently attentive to the scope of this president’s military initiatives (identi?ed above). Democratic publics are well advised to be particularly attentive to executive uses of military force, whether they are inclined to be supportive or not. Finally, the emergence of Partisan Agreement as a top priority expectation for a growing number of citizens (its mention frequency increased signi?cantly from Bush to Obama) is a notable trend. By reducing the pressure on presidents to emphasize valence problem solving, such growth can diminish both competent citizen oversight and presidential effectiveness.Presidential approval directly impacts support of presidential power – studies proveReeves & Rogowski, Washington University political science professors, 15[Andrew and John, December 2015, “Public Opinion Toward Presidential Power”, Presidential Studies Quarterly, 45: no. 4, p. 754]The results displayed in Figure 2 suggest that presidents who curry favor with the public can expect to expand their levers of power. Members of the public who approve of the president also support his ability to use the tools of of?ce—including, in some instances, tools not typically afforded to presidents—to affect the behavior, policies, and composition of the federal government. At the same time, citizens who disapprove of the president’s performance are most likely to oppose the exercise of presidential power. While this disapproval may be rooted in political disagreement, it also suggests that the people who disapprove or of disagree with the president serve as the key checks against the concentration of political power in the person who inhabits the White House.The president’s agenda lives and dies by the polls – public approval is crucialGregg, Clarion political science professor, 97(Gary, THE PRESIDENTIAL REPUBLIC, 1997, p. 143-44)But if presidential power thrives by the polls, it might also die by the polls. While popular presidents tend to get much of what they want and are willing to fight for, unpopular presidents are trapped and constrained by the polls. As a senior aide to President Carter mused about that president's problems with Congress controlled by his own party, "When the President is low in public opinion polls, the members of Congress see little hazard in bucking him...They read the polls and from that they feel secure in turning their backs on the President with political impunity." Unquestionably, the success of the President’s policies bear a tremendous relationship to his popularity in the polls. Without effective public relations, modern presidents and their programs whither on the vine of public opinion.Public opinion has a strong influence on the passage of legislationBarrett & Eshbaugh-Soha, University of North Texas, 7[Andrew W. & Matthew, March, Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 60, No. 1, “Presidential Success on the Substance of Legislation”, pp. 100-112, Stable URL: , Accessed: 7-15-10)Public attitudes also should influence the presi- dent's bargaining position. Despite evidence to the contrary (Bond and Fleisher 1990; Collier and Sullivan 1995), presidents, White House staff, and legislators believe that public approval is important to the president's success in Congress (Edwards 1997; Neustadt 1960; Rivers and Rose 1985). Theoretically, public support will improve the president's bargain- ing position as members of Congress will not want to risk alienating their constituents by opposing a popu- lar president's policy preferences. Therefore, we hypothesize that the higher his level of approval, the more a final statute will reflect the president's policy preferences.Public opinion polls influence presidential agendaSparrow, University of Texas at Austin government professor, 8(Bartholomew H., “Who Speaks for the People? The President, the Press, and Public Opinion in the United States”, 10-13-8, Presidential Studies Quarterly, Volume 38, Issue 4, Pages 578-592, Wiley InterScience, accessed 7-8-9)Public opinion serves as a metric of presidential leadership with respect to presidential approval ratings. Presidents and their advisors use public opinion not as an absolute guide, but rather for tactical purposes, and instrumentally, for reaching particular political ends (Jacobs and Shapiro 2000). In general, political analysts conceive of public opinion as a channel or guide for policy makers, boundaries beyond which they cannot go but which also offer leeway in terms of the exact path policy makers take. Public opinion serves as a "permissive limit" for policy makers (Almond 1950; Key 1961; Sobel 2001).Impacts1NC ScenarioDebt crisis ensures economic crisis and collapse leadership, triggering warsKhalilzad, former US ambassador to the UN, 11[Zalmay, 2-8-11, National Review “The Economy and National Security,”, , accessed 7-8-17]Today, economic and fiscal trends pose the most severe long-term threat to the United States’ position as global leader. While the United States suffers from fiscal imbalances and low economic growth, the economies of rival powers are developing rapidly. The continuation of these two trends could lead to a shift from American primacy toward a multi-polar global system, leading in turn to increased geopolitical rivalry and even war among the great powers. The current recession is the result of a deep financial crisis, not a mere fluctuation in the business cycle. Recovery is likely to be protracted. The crisis was preceded by the buildup over two decades of enormous amounts of debt throughout the U.S. economy — ultimately totaling almost 350 percent of GDP — and the development of credit-fueled asset bubbles, particularly in the housing sector. When the bubbles burst, huge amounts of wealth were destroyed, and unemployment rose to over 10 percent. The decline of tax revenues and massive countercyclical spending put the U.S. government on an unsustainable fiscal path. Publicly held national debt rose from 38 to over 60 percent of GDP in three years. Without faster economic growth and actions to reduce deficits, publicly held national debt is projected to reach dangerous proportions. If interest rates were to rise significantly, annual interest payments — which already are larger than the defense budget — would crowd out other spending or require substantial tax increases that would undercut economic growth. Even worse, if unanticipated events trigger what economists call a “sudden stop” in credit markets for U.S. debt, the United States would be unable to roll over its outstanding obligations, precipitating a sovereign-debt crisis that would almost certainly compel a radical retrenchment of the United States internationally. Such scenarios would reshape the international order. It was the economic devastation of Britain and France during World War II, as well as the rise of other powers, that led both countries to relinquish their empires. In the late 1960s, British leaders concluded that they lacked the economic capacity to maintain a presence “east of Suez.” Soviet economic weakness, which crystallized under Gorbachev, contributed to their decisions to withdraw from Afghanistan, abandon Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and allow the Soviet Union to fragment. If the U.S. debt problem goes critical, the United States would be compelled to retrench, reducing its military spending and shedding international commitments. We face this domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth. Even though countries such as China, India, and Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their economies are growing faster than ours, and this could alter the global distribution of power. These trends could in the long term produce a multi-polar world. If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but when a new international order will emerge. The closing of the gap between the United States and its rivals could intensify geopolitical competition among major powers, increase incentives for local powers to play major powers against one another, and undercut our will to preclude or respond to international crises because of the higher risk of escalation. The stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has been the era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their competitive dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar international systems produced both world wars.Those conflicts go nuclearT?nnesson, Peace Research Institute Oslo research professor, 15[Stein, Research Professor, Peace Research Institute Oslo; Leader of East Asia Peace program, Uppsala University, 2015, “Deterrence, interdependence and Sino–US peace,” International Area Studies Review, Vol. 18, No. 3, p. 297-311, , accessed 7-8-17]Several recent works on China and Sino–US relations have made substantial contributions to the current understanding of how and under what circumstances a combination of nuclear deterrence and economic interdependence may reduce the risk of war between major powers. At least four conclusions can be drawn from the review above: first, those who say that interdependence may both inhibit and drive conflict are right. Interdependence raises the cost of conflict for all sides but asymmetrical or unbalanced dependencies and negative trade expectations may generate tensions leading to trade wars among inter-dependent states that in turn increase the risk of military conflict (Copeland, 2015: 1, 14, 437; Roach, 2014). The risk may increase if one of the interdependent countries is governed by an inward-looking socio-economic coalition (Solingen, 2015); second, the risk of war between China and the US should not just be analysed bilaterally but include their allies and partners. Third party countries could drag China or the US into confrontation; third, in this context it is of some comfort that the three main economic powers in Northeast Asia (China, Japan and South Korea) are all deeply integrated economically through production networks within a global system of trade and finance (Ravenhill, 2014; Yoshimatsu, 2014: 576); and fourth, decisions for war and peace are taken by very few people, who act on the basis of their future expectations. International relations theory must be supplemented by foreign policy analysis in order to assess the value attributed by national decision-makers to economic development and their assessments of risks and opportunities. If leaders on either side of the Atlantic begin to seriously fear or anticipate their own nation’s decline then they may blame this on external dependence, appeal to anti-foreign sentiments, contemplate the use of force to gain respect or credibility, adopt protectionist policies, and ultimately refuse to be deterred by either nuclear arms or prospects of socioeconomic calamities. Such a dangerous shift could happen abruptly, i.e. under the instigation of actions by a third party – or against a third party. Yet as long as there is both nuclear deterrence and interdependence, the tensions in East Asia are unlikely to escalate to war. As Chan (2013) says, all states in the region are aware that they cannot count on support from either China or the US if they make provocative moves. The greatest risk is not that a territorial dispute leads to war under present circumstances but that changes in the world economy alter those circumstances in ways that render inter-state peace more precarious. If China and the US fail to rebalance their financial and trading relations (Roach, 2014) then a trade war could result, interrupting transnational production networks, provoking social distress, and exacerbating nationalist emotions. This could have unforeseen consequences in the field of security, with nuclear deterrence remaining the only factor to protect the world from Armageddon, and unreliably so. Deterrence could lose its credibility: one of the two great powers might gamble that the other yield in a cyber-war or conventional limited war, or third party countries might engage in conflict with each other, with a view to obliging Washington or Beijing to intervene.Internal Link – DefaultThe debt ceiling needs to be raised by October assuming there aren’t major changes in spending—without this a default on US loans is inevitableSprouse, CFO, Corporate Finance News, reporter, 7/5/17[William Sprouse, 7-5-2017, CFO, "CBO: Shutdown Looms If Debt Ceiling Isn’t Lifted -," , accessed 7/9/17]Congress has to raise the national debt ceiling by October, or the federal government will run out of money, according to an announcement from the Congressional Budget Office, which said the deadline was approaching quicker than expected, Politico reports. The CBO estimated that the Treasury “will most likely run out of cash in early to mid-October,” though it noted major changes in spending or revenues could still impact the timing. It had previously said the deadline would come “in the fall.” “If the debt limit is not increased above the amount that was established on March 16, 2017, the Treasury will not be authorized to issue additional debt that increases the amount outstanding,” the CBO said in its report. “That restriction would ultimately lead to delays of payments for government programs and activities, a default on the government’s debt obligations, or both.” The CBO announcement comes as Congress struggles to follow through on Trump administration promises to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, which has taken longer than expected. “I want to get [a debt limit vote] done in advance, but there is no set [decision] that we have to do it in July,” House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy of California told Roll Call. “I think health is going to have to get done first,” he said. The CBO said the U.S. faces a projected budget deficit of $693 billion by the fall, about $134 billion more than its most recent estimate, amid “surprisingly weak tax collections” and larger subsides for government programs. The government has been using “extraordinary measures” since March when the suspension of the debt ceilng expired, CBS reports. The Treasury Secretary, Steven Mnuchin, has urged action before the August recess, urging a “clean” increase. The Freedom Caucus, a group of conservative and libertarian Republican members of the House, has rejected that call.Failure to raise the debt ceiling would be cataclysmic to the US economy—debt defaults shock international marketsScaggs, Financial Times, FT Alphaville columnist, 7/14/17[Alexandra Scaggs, 7-14-17, Financial Times, “US risk of technical default returns as debt ceiling decision looms,” , accessed 7/15/17]As Janet Yellen testified to the US House of Representatives on Wednesday, red numbers on a large doomsday clock behind her ticked higher, tallying up the outstanding value of US Treasuries in real time. A more helpful display would show the real risk to America’s fiscal health: the dwindling number of days Congress has left to raise, or eliminate, the statutory limit for issuing those securities. If Congress fails the US will be at risk of a technical default. Yet it does not seem Congress is planning to address the topic before the August recess, in which case “fears of a delayed or missed payment should start to build,” as Credit Suisse rate strategists explained in a recent note. If the US does fail to make a payment owed to holders of Treasury securities, the consequences will probably be severe. Such a technical default would upend markets and threaten the country’s status as the risk-free benchmark for global finance. Clearing systems that do not permit the flow of defaulted securities would freeze, as would other markets dependent on safe collateral. You’d think US lawmakers would have learnt by now. Such a calamity was just narrowly averted in 2011 and 2013. Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, has publicly hinted at alternatives to default if the debt ceiling is breached. Historically, such back-up plans — invoking the president’s constitutional requirement to enforce payment, issuing a trillion-dollar platinum coin, or prioritising debtholders above, say, welfare recipients — have been politically unpopular and operationally tortuous at best, illegal at worst. And there are three reasons this round of debt-ceiling negotiations could be especially risky, comparable even to the close calls of 2011 and 2013. One clear hazard is that newer topics of national interest have pushed the statutory limit to the bottom of Congress’s list of priorities. This year’s legislative agenda already includes contentious and ambitious reforms to healthcare and the byzantine US tax code. The White House, for its part, is grappling with a special prosecutor and a diplomatic crisis between Qatar and other countries in the Gulf. A second problem is that Congress’s ultimate deadline for lifting the debt ceiling is not entirely clear. Public expectations of tax cuts under a Trump administration could be partly to blame. Analysts suspect that many Americans have delayed tax payments in the hopes that legislation will be passed this year. The Congressional Budget Office warned in June that tax receipts were running 3 per cent below estimates for the first eight months of the fiscal year. “Treasury’s [cash balance] will run quite low before being boosted by mid-September corporate tax receipts,” writes Mark Cabana, rates strategist with Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Predicting the government’s cash balances has thus become trickier, adding to the risk of crashing against the debt ceiling sooner than expected. The third complication relates to monetary policy. Unlike previous debt-ceiling stand-offs, this one is approaching in the middle of a Federal Reserve tightening cycle. The US central bank has signalled it will start shrinking its holdings of bonds by the end of this year. But a “disruptive stand-off around the debt ceiling that lasts through September could very well force the Fed to step back in September and wait for a resolution,” wrote the Credit Suisse strategists. If there is a technical default, the appropriate response from the Fed is itself uncertain. Steve Kang, a Citigroup strategist, says the central bank would probably “act to backstop excessive financial tightening from the debt default”, citing meeting minutes from the 2011 stand-off released this year. But current Fed officials have reason to be more cautious than 2011 officials did. Depending on the severity of the fallout, an aggressive change of course from the Fed’s plan to shrink its balance sheet could raise uncomfortable questions about the central bank’s independence, already the cause of increased scrutiny in recent years — even in Ms Yellen’s testimony on Wednesday. And while the 2011 minutes suggested the government could prioritise Treasury payments over others if needed, Bank of America’s Mr Cabana is not convinced that changes much. “We think it would be politically difficult to explain why US debt holders were receiving payments instead of social security or other government contracts,” he wrote. “As a result, we think there is low likelihood to debt prioritisation and doubt it alters the potential crash course of the debt limit and shutdown in October.”The Treasury will run out of money by early October—proven by two independent studies—failure to raise the ceiling would deck the economySahadi, CNNMoney Senior writer, 7/12/17[Jeanne Sahadi, 7-12-2017, CNNMoney, "New tax data suggest debt ceiling must change by first half of October," , accessed 7/14/17]With revenue numbers in for June, the Bipartisan Policy Center now projects the U.S. Treasury will face a cash crunch by the first half of October if Congress fails to raise or suspend the country's debt ceiling soon. That so-called X date -- which BPC expects to come in early to mid-October -- is the point when Treasury won't have enough cash and revenue on hand to pay all bills in full and on time. Previously, BPC had predicted the X date could occur sometime in October or November. "We now have a better sense of what revenues and spending will be over the next few months after seeing the Treasury data on individual and corporate tax receipts for June," said Shai Akabas, BPC's director of fiscal policy. Currently the legal borrowing limit is set at $19.81 trillion. Since mid-March, when the most recent debt ceiling suspension ended, Treasury has been using special accounting measures to allow the government to continue borrowing as needed. BPC's latest projection is in line with that of the Congressional Budget Office, which late last month also estimated that Treasury could risk defaulting on some payments in the first half of October. "The exact date when the federal government will be unable to fully pay all of its bills remains uncertain, but it has become clearer that it will be reached sooner rather than later," Akabas said. In addition to payments for Social Security and Medicare, Treasury must make a big payment on Oct. 2 to the Military Retirement Trust Fund. Because of such obligations, spending typically outpaces incoming revenue in October, by an average of $104 billion in the past five years. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin still hasn't offered any official Treasury estimate of when it won't have enough money on hand to pay all bills as they come due. Instead he's repeatedly urged lawmakers to raise the debt ceiling before they go on August recess. Trying to pin down an exact X-date, down to the day, isn't necessarily possible -- certainly not months out -- because the flow and magnitude of incoming revenue and spending obligations can vary greatly from day to day. That's all the more reason, fiscal policy experts warn, that lawmakers shouldn't wait until the last minute to raise or suspend the debt ceiling. First, there's no indication of how badly financial markets would react because it would be unprecedented. And second, if the U.S. fails to meet all of its legal obligations -- whether to seniors, veterans, government contractors or any number of other individuals and businesses -- that could hurt the economy.Internal Link – Economic CatastropheFailure to pay back debts would be cataclysmic to the global economy—interest rates would skyrocket and the US would be seen as an untrustworthy partnerDonachie, Daily Caller, finance and health care reporter, 7/12/17[Robert Donachie, 7-12-2017, Daily Caller, "The Federal Gov Is Facing This Serious Fiscal Crisis," , accessed 7/14/17]If Congress does not come to an agreement on the raising the debt ceiling, the U.S. Treasury will be unable to pay its liabilities in October, a situation that could bring dire consequences, The Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) reported Wednesday. The Congressional Budget Office reported June 29 that the legislative body will have no choice but to raise the debt ceiling, given that the U.S. Treasury is set to run out of liquidity by mid-October if no decision is reached. Lawmakers will soon face a decision on whether or not to raise the federal debt ceiling. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin urged Congress in late May to raise the debt ceiling before leaving for the August recess, or even sooner, to avoid shocking financial markets and imposing some potentially dire liquidity risks. Mnuchin enacted “extraordinary measures” in March to ensure that the federal government could pay its bills through the summer, but warned that those measures would be ineffective at staving off a solvency crisis in the fall. “The exact date when the federal government will be unable to fully pay all of its bills remains uncertain, but it has become clearer that it will be reached sooner rather than later,” Shai Akabas, fiscal policy director at BPC, said in a statement Wednesday. “To avoid the serious economic consequences that could occur if the government was unable to fully pay its bills, Congress will need to act in a timely manner.” Federal spending is likely to exceed federal revenues in October, as it has outpaced revenues in the month of October for the past half decade with an average cash deficit of $104 billion, BPC reports. The majority of the federal government’s liabilities in October come at the beginning of the month, meaning it is likely the Treasury could default within the first two weeks of the month. Programs with the likelihood of pushing the government past the debt limit in October include Social Security, Medicare and the Military Retirement Trust Fund. One thing known for sure is that the federal government could run out of funds to pay back individuals who have invested in Treasury bonds. There are many holders of Treasury bonds, including regional banks and pension funds for millions of Americans and even foreign governments, like Japan and China. If the government started defaulting on its debts to these entities, it could cause the value of U.S. bonds to nosedive. That would, in turn, force the federal government to pay out higher rates of returns to investors. If that happens, worldwide interest rates could skyrocket, given that global rates are linked to the value of U.S. bonds.The debt ceiling has to pass by October—failure to do so would ensure economic catastrophe, including severe GDP damage and increased unemploymentNJ Today, Staff Report, 7/4/17[Staff Report, 7-4-2017, NJ Today, "Trump treading on fiscal disaster," , accessed 7/9/17]Congress has until mid-October to act or the United States will risk defaulting on its debt obligations, since Treasury has been using “extraordinary measures” for several months to avoid breaching the debt ceiling. Mnuchin said that his ability to juggle the books was ending sooner than expected because tax revenues have been weaker than expected, which may be a sign of diminished economic activity — a recession that is predicted to be called the Trump Slump. Weaker than expected tax collection have also resulted in a larger budget deficit this year as compared with 2016. If Republicans succeed in passing massive tax cuts for the wealthy, less money would be in circulation and a new economic slowdown would probably result, instead of the rosy picture painted by the Goldman Sachs money managers President Trump hired to shepherd his tax and fiscal programs. The dire projections released by the CBO show the United States adding $10 trillion to the federal debt over the next 10 years, due to a swelling federal budget deficit. Former President Obama inherited a massive budget gap but he reduced the spread between revenue and spending each year. Expectations of rising interest rates could make it even harder for Trump to chip away at the debt. When Republicans threatened in 2011 to hold the debt limit hostage for spending reductions, the nation’s credit rating plummeted and panic gripped worldwide financial centers, The Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that the delay in raising the debt ceiling increased government borrowing costs by $1.3 billion in 2011 and the Bipartisan Policy Center found that it would raise borrowing costs by a total of $18.9 billion over time. Just as during the 2011 debt ceiling crisis, a repeat performance in 2013 caused rating agencies to downgrade the United States credit and a federal government shutdown ran from October 1 to 16, 2013. If the United States should be forced to default on its debt, severe GDP damage, falling job market confidence or other consequences could be catastrophic. Every major recession since 1980 has fallen during a Republican presidency, including Ronald Reagan’s 1987 Black Monday, George H.W. Bush’s recession in 1991, and both George Bush Jr’s post 9-11 market crash and the global financial meltdown known as the Great Recession.Internal Link – MarketsHitting the debt ceiling will destabilize marketsAdler, Wall Street Examiner, 7-6-17[Lee, Daily Reckoning, “As Tax Collections Boom, Panic Now and Avoid The Rush”, , accessed 7-8-17]Meanwhile, the Treasury held $181 billion in cash at the end of June. That can tide it over through a couple of more months of deficits, now averaging $50-60 billion per month. Soon the US won’t be able to sell new debt as it bumps up against the debt ceiling, and it runs out of internal bookkeeping games. That would be a bullish factor for both bonds and stocks for the weeks where the debt ceiling actively prevents the Treasury from issuing new supply. Experts suggest that the debt ceiling must be raised by October 2 when a big military pension fund payment comes due. The Federal government may then need to borrow as much as $200 billion over the course of October and November, with much of it loaded into early October. That’s likely to destabilize the markets.Failure to raise the debt ceiling will wreck the economyBlock, Muddy Waters Capital LLC chief investment officer, 17[Carson, 3-15-17, Bloomberg, “Beware the Debt Ceiling”, , accessed 7-8-17]The stock market is oddly complacent over a looming political battle. Euphoria has been pervasive in the stock market since the election. But investors seem to be overlooking the risk of a U.S. government default resulting from a failure by Congress to raise the debt ceiling. The possibility is greater than anyone seems to realize, even with a supposedly unified government. In particular, the markets seem to be ignoring two vital numbers, which together could have profound consequences for global markets: 218 and $189 billion. In order to raise or suspend the debt ceiling (which will technically be reinstated on March 16), 218 votes are needed in the House of Representatives. The Treasury’s cash balance will need to last until this happens, or the U.S. will default. The opening cash balance this month was $189 billion, and Treasury is burning an average of $2 billion per day – with the ability to issue new debt. Net redemptions of existing debt not held by the government are running north of $100 billion a month. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has acknowledged the coming deadline, encouraging Congress last week to raise the limit immediately. Reaching 218 votes in favor of raising or suspending the debt ceiling might be harder than in any previous fiscal showdown. President Donald Trump almost certainly wants to raise the ceiling, but he may not have the votes. While Republicans control 237 seats in the House, the Tea Party wing of the party has in the past has steadfastly refused to go along with increases. The Republican Party is already facing a revolt on its right flank over its failure to offer a clean repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Many members of this resistance constitute the ultra-right “Freedom Caucus,” which was willing to stand its ground during previous debt ceiling showdowns. The Freedom Caucus has 29 members, which means there might be only 208 votes to raise the ceiling. (It’s interesting to recall that, in 2013, President Trump himself tweeted that he was “embarrassed” that Republicans had voted to extend the ceiling.) It may be unrealistic to expect Democrats to save the day – at least initially. House Democrats may be more than happy to sit back and watch Republicans fight among themselves. If the Democrats eventually ride to the rescue, it probably won't be until after a period of Republican-on-Republican violence. Nobody wants the Treasury to reach the point where it has to prioritize payment of interest over other obligations – a threshold where creditworthiness and market confidence will have begun to retreat. The bond market already seems to be reacting to this possibility, sending yields higher and prices lower, even as the S&P/Dow/Nasdaq have been on a tear and are showing scant concern over the potential turmoil. In an ideal world, all sides would come together and not play politics with the debt ceiling again. Clearly that’s not the world in which we live. America’s partisan divide may now be so wide that a default will occur. That isn’t my base case scenario, but we will probably come down to the wire.Market Instability Goes GlobalUS market shock goes globalIrwin, New York Times senior economic correspondent, 16[Neil Irwin, 1-9-16, International New York Times, “Foreign Crises Test America's Resilience”, International New York Times, p. A11, Lexis, accessed 7-8-17]Seven days in, 2016 is shaping up to be a chaotic year in global economics and geopolitics, with profound challenges nearly everywhere. Except, for now at least, in the world's largest economy. The American economy is acting as a steadying force in a volatile world. A giant question for 2016 - not just for Americans but for people across the globe who benefit from having one of the world's major economic engines revving while others sputter - is how resilient the United States will prove to be. On one hand, in an interconnected global economy, troubles in one place can spread easily, whether through financial markets, the banking system or trade linkages. Just Thursday the World Bank downgraded its forecast of 2016 global growth, which implies less demand for American products around the world - and fewer jobs for American workers. On the other hand, in the past, the United States has shown an uncanny tendency to benefit economically from tumult abroad. ''The United States may not have incredibly robust economic growth and has plenty of problems you can point to,'' said Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia Group, a geopolitical consultancy. ''But from a stability perspective, when things are more unstable, the United States in some ways gets stronger,'' as both people and investment dollars gravitate to the nation's relative stability. The truth is, not one of the problems that have flared across financial news tickers so far in 2016 is completely new or surprising. Rather, they are continuations of trends that were well established in 2015. And as disturbing as it may be to see tensions rise, conflict in the Middle East is not exactly new. Usually the way those tensions ripple through the global economy is by driving the cost of oil up; instead, the opposite is happening. Oil prices fell to $37 a barrel from around $53 a barrel over the course of last year and are now under $34. The Shanghai composite index fell sharply, starting in June of last year, and even after steep declines in the opening days of 2016 is above its late-August level (though it is anybody's guess how much it would have fallen, absent a string of government interventions to try to stanch the declines). Economic growth has been slowing not just in China but across many emerging markets, including Brazil and Nigeria, for two years now. Europe and Japan are growing only barely, and even formerly hot advanced economies like Canada are suffering from the commodity glut. Against that gloomy backdrop, the consensus economic forecasts for the United States - the International Monetary Fund forecasts 2.8 percent growth in 2016 - look pretty terrific. The American stock market indexes, despite the global sell-off and major hits to oil companies' earnings, remain above their September levels. But there are two basic questions about the notion that the United States can serve as an island of economic and political stability in a messy world. First, what happens if that changes? Second, what happens if it doesn't? The ''things change'' situation is the risk that these global headwinds become too powerful for the United States to overcome. Already, oil producers and their suppliers are suffering. The American industrial sector is groaning under the weight of a strong dollar, which drives up the price of exported goods. That's a consequence of the mismatch between growth in the United States and the rest of the world. The strength in the service sector and the broader consumer economy in the United States has offset any damage so far. But the 2008 crisis showed how the global economy is intertwined in ways that are hard to predict - and that's before accounting for the geopolitical dangers from the Middle East and the Korean Peninsula that could cause major economic disruptions if they take a dark turn. If something does go wrong, the usual buffers in the global economy look to be weakened or nonexistent right now. Government deficits are high in much of the world, and even where they aren't, political leaders have shown no desire to open the spending floodgates in an effort to bolster economies.US Economy KeyUS shock goes globalLarsen, Reuters Asia editor, 15[Peter Thal, 12-25-15, The Nation (Thailand), “No Chance for India to Rescue the World Economy Next Year”, The Nation (Thailand), Lexis, accessed 7-8-17]India will not rescue the global economy in 2016. The subcontinent's expanding GDP is one of next year's few economic bright spots. But Indian output is still too small. Any negative shocks from the sluggish United States and decelerating China will reverberate more widely. India is finally emerging from China's shadow in the global growth stakes. Helped by a controversial overhaul of its GDP statistics, the Indian economy probably expanded by 7.5 per cent in 2015 and is set to swell by a further 7.8 per cent in 2016. Contrast that with the People's Republic, which is struggling to maintain the near-7 per cent pace promised by its leaders. The prospect of sustained rapid growth has drawn the attention of prominent central bankers. India's economy has "enormous potential" to recharge Asia's growth engine, Stanley Fischer, the US Federal Reserve's vice chairman, declared in a recent speech. For now, however, the country's economic progress has relatively little impact on the rest of the world ?€“ although it is enormously important to India's 1.3 billion citizens. The economy accounts for little more than 3 percent of global output, according to Reuters calculations based on World Bank forecasts. China is almost four times as large, while the United States is still responsible for more than a fifth of all economic activity. On current projections, India will produce about 7 per cent of global growth in 2016 while the United States and China will together be responsible for about 45 per cent of GDP expansion. Put another way, India's growth rate would need to rise by about 3 percentage points in order to add 0.1 percentage point to next year's expected global growth rate of 3.3 per cent. China could have the same impact with a 1-point increase in the pace of expansion. For the United States, an extra half point would suffice. With Europe stuck in the doldrums and Japan struggling to recover, the world economy still depends heavily on its two largest growth engines, both of which are sputtering. A severe slowdown in China or a stalled recovery in the United States would be felt around the world. By comparison, India's economic performance, no matter how impressive, will barely register.Politics AffNUQ – no passWon’t pass - republicans can’t agree on anythingBade and Everett 7/17 (Rachel and Burgess, staff writers for Politico, “Republicans divided on debt ceiling strategy” 7/17/17 ) brenIf Senate Republicans insist on acting before recess, however, they would need to send a bill to the House in the next two weeks, before the lower chamber breaks for recess at the end of July. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has told Republicans he will not keep them in town in August at all — unless the Senate sends them an Obamacare repeal bill. McCarthy said nothing about staying in session to address the debt ceiling. The reality is that striking a debt agreement will likely take much longer than two weeks. Republicans will need Democrats to carry the legislation because conservatives won’t vote for a debt ceiling increase without steep spending cuts — a proposition at which Democrats scoff. Senate Democrats have also suggested they may play hard to get, demanding policy changes for their support. That all but ensures a multiweek negotiation process. There’s also been talk about striking a bipartisan budget deal to raise federal spending caps along with a debt limit boost. In the House, more than 20 members of the moderate Tuesday Group — the very members House GOP leadership will lean on to help pass a debt ceiling bill — have asked for the two to go hand in hand. Negotiations on that front, however, have not even started. SHUTODWN IMMINENT (Won’t pass – infighting, Freedom Caucus, just not enough time)Elis 7/30 (Niv, staff writer for the Hill, “House heads into August recess with uncertain path on budget” The Hill, 7/30/17, ) brenThe House has no budget and no specific plan for preventing a government shutdown or debt ceiling breach as it heads into its August recess. “September is going to be a very difficult month," said Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus on Friday morning. "I mean obviously all of this is coming into play right away, all the fiscal issues and deadlines are going to make it extremely difficult to get everything done in a piece-by-piece basis.” When the Republican-controlled House returns in September, it will have four weeks to figure out a spending plan for 2018, and little more to address the debt ceiling. The chamber made middling progress on its agenda during the summer session; it passed a budget resolution out of committee and approved four of twelve spending bills. But both budget and spending are stalled due to Republican infighting. On the budget resolution, which includes reconciliation instructions that will pave the way for Republican’s tax reform plan, disagreements persist on the depth of cuts to mandatory spending in areas such as welfare and education. “They’re still working on making sure they have the votes to get it passed, and that’s the goal right now,” said Rep. Jim Renacci (R-Ohio), a member of the House Budget Committee. The Freedom Caucus also wants further specifics on tax reform. The Thursday revelation that the Border Adjustment Tax, which conservatives revile, would be absent from the plan did little to assuage the group. House moderates, such as Tuesday group Chairman Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), argue that the entire process is misguided; final spending numbers will need to pass through the Senate, meaning they will require Democratic support. “We spend too much time, energy and capital here in getting people to vote for the first launch, for the takeoff, knowing damn well a lot of those same people won’t be there for the landing…They won’t be there for the real appropriations package, the real numbers. That’s the problem,” Dent said in a quote that Democratic Whip Steney Hoyer (Md.) gleefully circulated this week. “I’ve seen this movie before… And we all know how this is going to end,” Dent added, meaning that a bi-partisan, bicameral deal was the only solution. Others see the drawn-out process as part of a strategic opening bid for eventual negotiations with Democrats. “We are establishing our marker for what’s going to have to be a negotiation to get there,” said Rep. Bradley Byrn (R-Al.). But there is little time for negotiations when the House reconvenes in September, as a shutdown looms when 2017 funding runs out on October 1. With the four security-related spending bills passed, the House must find a way to piece together the additional eight bills, and then reconcile them with the Senate in just a few weeks time. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wi.) decided not to combine those bills with the four that passed this week because of concerns that an unpopular amendment might scare members away from voting for the all-or-nothing package. That remains a possibility with the other eight bills, regardless of whether they pass individually, which seems unlikely, or grouped together in “minibus” packages. But without the popular security-related bills attached, House members may not feel as much pressure to vote yes on tough spending bills. Even if the House passes all its appropriations bills, it will have trouble working out differences with the Senate, which is working off a completely different set of spending figures.NUQ - TrumpTrump losing political capital nowBryan 17 (Bob. Policy Analyst for Business Insider." 'Trump doesn't bring us any votes': Trump appears to be losing influence on healthcare.” Business Insider, Web. 28 June 2017. )President Donald Trump made the pledge to repeal and replace Obamacare one of the key issues of his 2016 election campaign. But as Republicans try in earnest to make good on that promise, Trump appears to be losing influence. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday that GOP leadership would delay a vote on its healthcare bill, the Better Care Reconciliation Act, until after the weeklong July 4 recess because of a lack of support among Republican lawmakers. Nine members of the party have publicly said they would not vote for the bill in its current form. McConnell can lose only two votes for the BCRA to pass, as all Democrats are expected to oppose it. But Trump apparently isn't helping GOP members get to "yes." In contrast to his hard sell on the House healthcare bill, The Washington Post and The New York Times published reports late Tuesday saying Trump had done little to get the reluctant GOP senators to come to an agreement. According to The Times' Glenn Thrush and Jonathan Martin, Trump has been "on the sidelines" during the Senate negotiations. In fact, one Republican senator in favor of the BCRA told The Times that the president "did not have a grasp of some basic elements of the Senate plan" during a meeting with all of the GOP members on Tuesday. The senator also said Trump was confused when a moderate expressed concern that the bill would be seen as a tax break for the rich. A Tax Policy Center analysis showed that the top 0.1% of earners in America would receive, on average, a $207,390 tax break from the BCRA. The Times also reported that Republican senators, including McConnell, expressed frustration with ads from a pro-Trump nonprofit group attacking GOP Sen. Dean Heller for going against the BCRA. Heller is up for reelection in Nevada come 2018 and faces an uphill battle in a state Democrat Hillary Clinton won in last year's presidential election. A senior Republican close to both the Senate and the White House also told The Post that Republican lawmakers thought Trump was a "paper tiger" and did not mind going "their own way." The lack of deference, according to The Post, comes from a feeling among lawmakers that Trump lacks an understanding of policy and that his low approval numbers do not give him much political capital. "Trump doesn't bring us any votes. He just doesn't," a source close to McConnell told Politico.NL - PolcapDems and moderates willing to work together on Obamacare solutionsWong 17 (Scott. Senior political reporter. “Moderate Republicans, Dems huddle on healthcare.” The Hill. Web. 18 July 2017. ) LeiaCentrist House Republicans and Democrats huddled on Tuesday and discussed healthcare in the wake of the collapse of Senate GOP efforts to repeal ObamaCare, multiple sources told The Hill. Members of the GOP’s Tuesday Group and the New Democrat Coalition met in the Capitol, part of a periodic gathering of the two moderate groups. But healthcare dominated the meeting, participants said. The meeting is part of the “preliminary” discussion taking place between centrists on both sides of the aisle following the implosion of Senate Republicans’ repeal-and-replace legislation, House lawmakers said. No formal bipartisan working group on healthcare has been established, but it is one of the ideas being discussed at this early stage. “I am for that. That’s all I will say,” Rep. Leonard Lance (R-N.J.), a member of the Tuesday Group and bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, said of a possible working group. “There are informal talks here and there. That’s the way to go,” added another centrist Republican, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida. “It’s just starting. It’s ongoing now.” Still, some centrists in attendance were highly skeptical such a bipartisan plan could work, calling the “kumbaya” meeting a “waste of time.” And Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) earlier Tuesday poured cold water on the idea of working with Democrats to fix the Affordable Care Act. But others seemed open to the prospect. “I certainly want to be involved in any bipartisan discussion,” said Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), who co-chairs the Tuesday Group with Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.). “The question is does leadership want to engage in a bipartisan discussion on healthcare.” Last week, hoping to break through the strict partisanship that’s governed the debate so far, a group of 10 Democrats –– representing both the New Democrats and the more conservative Blue Dogs –– proposed a series of specific policy fixes to ObamaCare. Among their proposed solutions was a suggestion to create a $15 billion reinsurance fund to help those who were hit with high premium and deductible costs. Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.), who was among the Democrats endorsing those provisions, said she’s hopeful the collapse of the GOP repeal effort in the Senate will force Republicans to the negotiating table. “We know what we have to do to fix it, let’s just do it. … My hope is that there finally is going to be an appetite for some real bipartisan fix here, because we know what we have to do. “There’s nothing else that they can do,” she added. Rice said Democrats are actively reaching out to GOP moderates in hopes of striking a deal. “They agree, they want to get things fixed,” she said without naming names. In the Senate, centrist Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) is reaching out to senators in both parties who used to be governors to discuss healthcare, Manchin's office said. Democratic leaders jumped head-first into the effort on Tuesday, with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) penning a letter to Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) in which she credited public opposition for the failure of “TrumpCare.” “Now, Republicans must pivot and work in a bipartisan fashion to lower health costs, improve quality, and expand coverage, while strengthening the stability of the marketplaces,” she wrote. Rep. David Joyce (R-Ohio), a member of the moderate Tuesday Group, is urging colleagues to hold bipartisan hearings on health care — a step House Republicans skipped earlier this year in their rush to pass their repeal-and-replacement bill. “We need to have hearings on what works, what doesn’t work and how best to make healthcare available in the most cost efficient way,” Joyce told The Hill. “We have health experts in this country who actually know what they’re talking about.” Asked if he planned to join a possible bipartisan healthcare working group, Joyce said: “I’ll be part of anything that brings about solutions that are in the best interest of the American peopleLT – BaseDelivering on Trump agenda key to ensuring GOP cohesionMead, Distinguished Fellow at Hudson Institute, 17[Walter Russell Mead, 7-3-17, Hudson Institute, Investors Losing Faith in Trump?, , Accessed 7-14-17]Investors continue to think that many of Trump’s economic ideas would be good for the U.S. economy (not protection, but tax cuts, deregulation, infrastructure, development of energy resources). However, they are losing faith in his ability to make much of that happen. The less chance Trump has of cementing his appeal through broadly-shared, robust economic growth, the more he will have to try to whip up his base and to further polarize the country. GOP leadership in Congress needs to understand that delivering on the elements of the Trump agenda that command broad support is the key to maintaining an increasingly fragile party unity. But this is not just about Trump. Voters have given the GOP an extraordinary mandate: both houses of Congress, the White House, and a slew of gubernatorial mansions and legislative chambers across the country—by some measures, the greatest GOP mandate in 100 years. If the party fails to produce results with all these advantages, the cost to the GOP brand and to the party’s cohesion could be severe.LT - PolcapTrump needs to keep his promises to keep his political capitalBinder, Washington Post Contributor, 4-26-17[Sarah, 4-26-17, Washington Post, “This is why Trump’s legislative agenda is stuck in neutral”, , accessed 7-11-17]Political capital is built on public support and post-election momentum — and often peaks in a president’s first few months in office. Most presidents leverage their electoral boost to push through major initiatives and proposals blocked by their predecessor. After President Bill Clinton’s rocky start, Democrats swiftly enacted a first-ever family leave law vetoed by President George H.W. Bush. The second President Bush made quick progress on a multitrillion-dollar tax cut, as well as landmark education reform. Within a month, President Barack Obama’s Democratic Congress delivered a record-size fiscal stimulus, soon followed by pay equity and children’s health reforms that President George W. Bush had vetoed. Before and after the November election, Trump outlined a menu of ambitious offerings — including immigration and tax restructuring, infrastructure spending, trade renegotiation, his oft-emphasized southern border wall, as well as Affordable Care Act repeal and Wall Street deregulation. The Senate has confirmed Neil M. Gorsuch as a Supreme Court justice, albeit only after nuking the need for Democratic votes. And via the Congressional Review Act, a seldom-used, fast-track law, Republicans quietly overturned more than a dozen late-term Obama rules — loosening regulatory limits on oil, gas, coal and telecom industries, among others.LT – dem popularityDems like the planSuzy Khimm, 7-15-17. (Khimm: Freelance writer in Washington. “’Medicare for All’ Isn’t Sounding so Crazy Anymore.” NYT. Accessed 7-18-17. JSD)Single payer is now poised to become the standard position for the Democratic base. More elected Democrats are following suit as Republicans struggle to get their deeply unpopular health care bill past Congress. The prevailing assumption is that the G.O.P. effort will ultimately implode, clearing the way for a bold alternative. Senator Dick Durbin [would], the upper chamber's second-highest-ranking Democrat, told me that he'd happily sign onto a single-payer bill - and might even bring one to the floor himself. But while liberals have spent decades pining for single payer - Ted Kennedy drew up a bill in 1970 - there are surprisingly few detailed proposals. I/L T – Boosts EconomyInternal link turn: hitting the debt ceiling boosts the economy—investors are forced to diversify investments which boosts market pricesAdler, Wall Street Examiner, publisher and editor, 7/6/17[Lee Adler, 7-6-2017, Daily Reckoning, "As Tax Collections Boom, Panic Now and Avoid The Rush," , accessed 7-7-17]As of June 30, 2017, the Treasury’s cash balance was $181 billion. Cash levels get a boost in June from quarterly estimated taxes collected from individual non-withheld payers and corporations. Total cash at the end of June was $183 billion less than a year ago. That was less than half the level on June 30 last year. When the debt ceiling finally forces the Treasury to stop borrowing, the government will then need to spend down its cash. Ironically, that will boost the economy and the markets, because the usual Treasury supply that absorbs the cash will not be present. Dealers and investors will need to redeploy their normal cash flow into other investments, which will boost prices, all else being equal.No I/L - defaultNo internal link—failing to raise the debt ceiling won’t cause the US to default on its debtFisher Investments 7/13/17[Fisher Investments, an independent, fee-only investment adviser serving investors globally, 7-13-2017, TheStreet, "The Debt Ceiling Returns," , accessed 7/14/17]This wouldn't be so annoying if, every time this boomerang comes around, they didn't make all those dire warnings about default. You know, "If we don't raise the debt ceiling, the Treasury won't be able to pay its bills, and we'll default and destroy America's creditworthiness and it will be the end of us, we tell you, the END!" If that statement were actually accurate, it would be one thing, but it isn't. In this context, "the Treasury won't be able to pay its bills" means "the Treasury will have to give IOUs to vendors, contractors and government pension plans." But Uncle Sam's failing to pay the cable guy for a month isn't a default. Default means one thing, and one thing only: failing to make principal or interest payments on government debt. That's it. Failing to lift the debt ceiling will not force America to default. Actually, most evidence suggests it can't. The 14th Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, requires America to pay its debts above all else. As long as the Treasury has money coming in, it can't say "well, sorry, can't pay the interest this month, we gotta pay the cable guy instead."No ! UQ - RepublicansNon-unique: economic decline is happening now because Republican failure to pass any major legislationZumbrun, Wall Street Journal national economics correspondent, 7/13/17[Josh Zumbrun, 7-13-2017, Fox Business, " Forecasters Lower Economic Outlook Amid Congressional Gridlock," , accessed 7/14/17]Early optimism that President Donald Trump would be able to revitalize the U.S. economy is fading as Congress struggles to pass major legislation. Forecasters in The Wall Street Journal's monthly survey of economists marked down their outlooks for growth, inflation and interest rates this month, a partial reversal of a postelection bump. "I think the probability of at least a temporary government shutdown over government funding this year is almost a 50/50 proposition," said Scott Anderson, chief economist of Bank of the West. "Congress appears more divided and less likely to compromise than ever." An agreement has yet to emerge over how to pass a GOP health-care bill to replace President Barack Obama's signature law. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell postponed the Senate's usual August recess by two weeks, to give senators more time to hash out agreements on health, government funding and other issues. This wasn't the outcome many forecasters had expected after the election. The prospect of Republicans controlling the White House and both chambers of Congress led many to conclude that fiscal policy could provide a swift boost to the growth outlook, if a substantial tax overhaul and Mr. Trump's proposed infrastructure package were quickly implemented. "We expect this Congress will ultimately pass a far more modest fiscal policy, one that will disappoint business leaders, investors, and consumers," said Bernard Baumohl of the Economic Outlook Group. Forecasters assess whether they think the economy is more likely to outperform or underperform their forecasts. The number of economists seeing those risks to the downside climbed to 57% in this month's survey, the highest since before the election. That's up from 51% last month and 37% just two months ago. The survey of 63 business, financial and academic economists was conducted from July 7 to July 11. Not every economist answered every question. Growth forecasts for the last three quarters of 2017 are all down from May. Forecasts for growth in 2018 were unchanged at 2.4%, but the average forecast for 2019 dropped to 1.9%, the first time the year's outlook has dipped under 2%. Economists also slightly downgraded their forecasts for housing starts over the next year. ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download