Unnamed: 0
int64 0
241k
| Full-Document
stringlengths 96
265k
| Citation
stringlengths 1
50k
| Extract
stringlengths 34
30.6k
| Abstract
stringlengths 8
8.56k
| #CharsDocument
int64 96
265k
| #CharsAbstract
int64 8
8.56k
| #CharsExtract
int64 34
30.6k
| #WordsDocument
int64 20
41.6k
| #WordsAbstract
int64 4
1.34k
| #WordsExtract
int64 11
4.68k
| AbsCompressionRatio
float64 0
0.99
| ExtCompressionRatio
float64 0
1
| OriginalDebateFileName
stringlengths 19
104
| DebateCamp
stringclasses 30
values | Tag
stringclasses 15
values | Year
stringclasses 11
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2,300 |
A landmark federal study on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, shows no evidence that chemicals from the natural gas drilling process moved up to contaminate drinking water aquifers at a western Pennsylvania drilling site, the Department of Energy told The Associated Press.
|
Washington Post 07-19-2013 [APNewsbreak: First federal study finds natural gas fracking chemicals didn't spread", http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/apnewsbreak-first-ever-federal-study-finds-natural-gas-fracking-chemicals-didnt-spread/2013/07/19/85b75e4e-f03c-11e2-8c36-0e868255a989_story.html] bashir
|
A landmark federal study on or fracking, shows no evidence that chemicals from the natural gas drilling process moved up to contaminate drinking water aquifers
|
Fracking does not contaminate water - recent landmark study proves - first independent study on the issue
| 274 | 105 | 159 | 41 | 17 | 25 | 0.414634 | 0.609756 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,301 |
What is known as the "shale gale" has turned a natural gas shortage into a surplus of cheap gas. Energy companies are now engaged in producing shale gas in West Virginia, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, Louisiana and Arkansas. There are at least 20 untapped shale formations around the country that could turn Michigan, Colorado and other states into big gas producers. Estimates of the entire U.S. natural-gas resource base, including shale gas, are now as high as 2,500 trillion cubic feet. That amounts to more than a 100-year supply.
|
Lyons 2012 [Donald - staff writer, "Hydraulic fracturing can boost the economy", MIAMI HERALD-DISPATCH, March 03, http://www.herald-dispatch.com/opinions/x583028807/Donald-Lyons-Hydraulic-fracturing-can-boost-the-economy] bashir
|
What is known as the "shale gale" has turned a natural gas shortage into a surplus of cheap gas
|
Shale production has a proven safety record - fracking is being safely regulated
| 542 | 80 | 95 | 89 | 13 | 19 | 0.146067 | 0.213483 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,302 |
The Obama administration’s decision to delay approval for the construction of TransCanada Inc.’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline was based, in part, on concerns over the safety and reliability of oil and natural gas pipelines. The pipeline is intended to transport oil from Canada to U.S. refiners on the Gulf of Mexico. In announcing his decision, the president called for a full assessment of “the pipeline’s impact, especially on the health and safety of the American people.” Pipelines have been used to transport American natural gas or oil, including from Canada to the United States, for three quarters of a century. Almost 500,000 miles of interstate pipeline crisscross America, carrying crude oil, petroleum products, and natural gas. This extensive and operational infrastructure network is heavily regulated by the Department of Transportation, which monitors the very issues central to the Keystone controversy: safety and reliability. Thus it is possible to answer, based on experience, the question of whether pipeline transport of oil and gas is safe. It is, moreover, possible to compare the record of oil and gas pipelines to that of transport via rail and road. As the major alternative means of fuel shipment, transport by rail and road has been increasing as limitations on pipeline capacity have become manifest (the underlying reason for the Keystone proposal). A review of safety and accident statistics provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation for the extensive network of existing U.S. pipelines—including many linked to Canada—clearly show that, in addition to enjoying a substantial cost advantage, pipelines result in fewer spillage incidents and personal injuries than road and rail. Americans are more likely to get struck by lightning than to be killed in a pipeline accident.[1] The question of how to transport oil and gas safely and reliably is not a transitory one linked only to the Keystone controversy. Petroleum production in North America is now nearly 18 million barrels a day,[2] and could climb to 27 million barrels a day by 2020. Natural gas production in Canada and the United States could rise by a third over the same period, climbing to 22 billion cubic feet per day. This oil and gas will have to travel to where it is needed. Whether it is produced in Canada, Alaska, North Dakota, or the Gulf of Mexico, it will be used all over the country, especially since new environmental regulations are resulting in the rapid closures of coal-fired power plants, increasing the demand for natural gas as a substitute. Similarly, large fleets of buses and trucks are switching to natural gas, and General Motors and Chrysler are making dual-fuel pickup trucks. This paper compares the record of transport via pipeline to that of road and rail and finds that pipelines are the safer option. The first large-diameter long-distance pipelines were constructed during the Second World War, and they proliferated across the country over the ensuing two decades. Now America has 175,000 miles of onshore and offshore petroleum pipeline and 321,000 miles of natural gas transmission and gathering pipeline. In addition, over 2 million miles of natural gas distribution pipeline send natural gas to businesses and consumers.[3] This is expected to increase as households and businesses shift to natural gas to take advantage of low prices that are expected to last into the foreseeable future. Pipelines are the primary mode of transportation for crude oil, petroleum products, and natural gas. As shown in Table 1, approximately 70 percent of crude oil and petroleum products are shipped by pipeline on a ton-mile basis. Tanker and barge traffic accounts for 23 percent of oil shipments. Trucking accounts for 4 percent of shipments, and rail for the remaining 3 percent. Essentially all dry natural gas is shipped by pipeline to end users. If safety and environmental damages in the transportation of oil and gas were proportionate to the volume of shipments, one would expect the vast majority of damages to occur on pipelines. This paper finds the exact opposite. The majority of incidents occur on road and rail.
|
Furchtgott-Roth ’13 (Diana Furchtgott-Roth is a is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a columnist for RealClearMarkets.com, “Pipelines are Safest for Transportation of Oil and Gas”, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, June 23rd, 2013, http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ib_23.htm#.UfQrbo3Ouuk, SD)
|
Obama administration’s decision to delay approval for Keystone XL pipeline was based, in part, on concerns over the safety and reliability of oil and natural gas pipelines Pipelines have been used to transport American natural gas for three quarters of a century . It is , possible to compare the record of oil and gas pipelines to that of transport via rail and road This oil and gas will have to travel to where it is needed. . This paper compares the record of transport via pipeline to that of road and rail and finds that pipelines are the safer optio over 2 million miles of natural gas distribution pipeline send natural gas to businesses and consumers This is expected to increase Pipelines are the primary mode of transportation for crude oil, petroleum products, and natural gas If safety and environmental damages in the transportation of oil and gas were proportionate to the volume of shipments, one would expect the vast majority of damages to occur on pipelines The majority of incidents occur on road and rail.
|
Pipelines are the safest way to transport natural gas
| 4,157 | 54 | 1,026 | 669 | 9 | 177 | 0.013453 | 0.264574 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,303 |
Barrels and bombs It is no coincidence that so much of the cash filling terrorists' coffers come from the oil monarchies in the Persian Gulf. It is also no coincidence that those countries holding the world's largest oil reserves and those generating most of their income from oil exports, are also those with the strongest support for radical Islam. In fact, oil and terrorism are entangled. If not for the West's oil money, most Gulf states would not have had the wealth that allowed them to invest so much in arms procurement and sponsor terrorists organizations. Consider Saudi Arabia. Oil revenues make up around 90-95% of total Saudi export earnings, 70%-80% of state revenues, and around 40% of the country's gross domestic product (GDP). In 2002 alone, Saudi Arabia earned nearly $55 billion in crude oil export revenues. Most wealthy Saudis who sponsor charities and educational foundations that preach religious intolerance and hate toward the Western values have made their money from the petroleum industry or its subsidiaries. Osama bin Laden's wealth comes from the family's construction company that made its fortune from government contracts financed by oil money. It is also oil money that enables Saudi Arabia to invest approximately 40% of its income on weapons procurement. In July 2005 undersecretary of the Treasury Stuart Levey testifying in the Senate noted “Wealthy Saudi financiers and charities have funded terrorist organizations and causes that support terrorism and the ideology that fuels the terrorists' agenda. Even today, we believe that Saudi donors may still be a significant source of terrorist financing, including for the insurgency in Iraq." If Saudi Arabia is the financial engine of radical Sunni Islam, its neighbor Iran is the powerhouse behind the proliferation of radical Shiite Islam.
|
IAGS, 04 [Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, “Fueling Terror,” 2004, http://www.iags.org/fuelingterror.html] STRYKER
|
Barrels and bombs It is no coincidence that so much of the cash filling terrorists' coffers come from the oil monarchies in the Persian Gulf. It is also no coincidence that those countries holding the world's largest oil reserves and those generating most of their income from oil exports, are also those with the strongest support for radical Islam. In fact, oil and terrorism are entangled If not for the West's oil money, most Gulf states would not have had the wealth that allowed them to invest so much in arms procurement and sponsor terrorists organizations Oil revenues make up around 90-95% of total Saudi export earnings, 70%-80% of state revenues, and around 40% of the country's GDP Most wealthy Saudis who sponsor charities and educational foundations that preach religious intolerance and hate toward the Western values have made their money from the petroleum industry or its subsidiaries. Osama bin Laden's wealth comes from the family's construction company that made its fortune from government contracts financed by oil money It is also oil money that enables Saudi Arabia to invest approximately 40% of its income on weapons procurement Wealthy Saudi financiers and charities have funded terrorist organizations and causes that support terrorism and the ideology that fuels the terrorists' agenda Saudi donors may still be a significant source of terrorist financing, including for the insurgency in Iraq
|
<Insert terrorism impact here>
| 1,831 | 30 | 1,424 | 290 | 4 | 227 | 0.013793 | 0.782759 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,304 |
Big Oil, Big Terror Much of that imported oil comes from OPEC, a group made up of 13 of the world's most petroleum-rich nations: Saudi Arabia, Libya, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Angola, Indonesia, Nigeria, Qatar Venezuela and Ecuador. While these nations may have an abundance of oil, most of them lack democracy and human rights. Worse yet, some of them are state sponsors of terrorism -- and sworn enemies of the United States. "With only one or two exceptions, OPEC is effectively dictatorships and autocratic kingdoms," former C.I.A. director James Woolsey tells CBN News. Woolsey is a member of the Set America Free Coalition. The group highlights the national security and economic implications of America's dependence on foreign oil. "Ninety seven percent of our transportation is fueled by oil products of one sort or another," says Woolsey. "And two thirds of the world's proven reserves of conventional oil are in the Middle East, and about that share is also in the hands of OPEC." Gas and oil prices are currently at an all-time high - OPEC sets the market price. Woolsey says Saudi Arabia is using a chunk of its oil wealth to spread its brand of radical Wahhabi Islam worldwide. "The Saudis control about 90 percent of the world's Islamic institutions," he says. "And oil is the reason for that." Iran's big oil profits mean big money for that country's nuclear program and its terrorist proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas. Lately, Iranian Pesident Mahmoud Ahmadenijad has been joined by Venezuela's Hugo Chavez in threatening to help drive oil prices up even further.
|
Stakelbeck, 08 [Erick, CBN News Terror Analyst, “How America Is Funding Terrorism,” 7/5/08, https://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/356986.aspx] STRYKER
|
Big Oil, Big Terror Much of that imported oil comes from OPEC While these nations may have an abundance of oil, most of them lack democracy and human rights. Worse yet, some of them are state sponsors of terrorism -- and sworn enemies of the United States OPEC is effectively dictatorships and autocratic kingdoms national security and economic implications of America's dependence on foreign oil Saudi Arabia is using a chunk of its oil wealth to spread its brand of radical Wahhabi Islam worldwide Iran's big oil profits mean big money for that country's nuclear program and its terrorist proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas
|
Oil dependence on the Middle East leads to terrorism
| 1,603 | 52 | 619 | 266 | 9 | 103 | 0.033835 | 0.387218 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,305 |
The CIA's Illicit Transactions Group isn't listed in any phone book. There are no entries for it on any news database or Internet site. The ITG is one of those tidy little Washington secrets, a group of unsung heroes whose job is to keep track of smugglers, terrorists, and money launderers. In late 1998, officials from the White House's National Security Council called on the ITG to help them answer a couple of questions: How much money did Osama bin Laden have, and how did he move it around? The queries had a certain urgency. A cadre of bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorists had just destroyed two of America's embassies in East Africa. The NSC was determined to find a way to break the organization's back. Working with the Illicit Transactions Group, the NSC formed a task force to look at al Qaeda's finances. For months, members scoured every piece of data the U.S. intelligence community had on al Qaeda's cash. The team soon realized that its most basic assumptions about the source of bin Laden's money--his personal fortune and businesses in Sudan--were wrong. Dead wrong. Al Qaeda, says William Wechsler, the task force director, was "a constant fundraising machine." And where did it raise most of those funds? The evidence was indisputable: Saudi Arabia. America's longtime ally and the world's largest oil producer had somehow become, as a senior Treasury Department official put it, "the epicenter" of terrorist financing. This didn't come entirely as a surprise to intelligence specialists. But until the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, U.S. officials did painfully little to confront the Saudis not only on financing terror but on backing fundamentalists and jihadists overseas. Over the past 25 years, the desert kingdom has been the single greatest force in spreading Islamic fundamentalism, while its huge, unregulated charities funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to jihad groups and al Qaeda cells around the world. Those findings are the result of a five-month investigation by U.S. News. The magazine's inquiry is based on a review of thousands of pages of court records, U.S. and foreign intelligence reports, and other documents. In addition, the magazine spoke at length with more than three dozen current and former counterterrorism officers, as well as government officials and outside experts in Riyadh, the Saudi capital. Among the inquiry's principal findings: Starting in the late 1980s--after the dual shocks of the Iranian revolution and the Soviet war in Afghanistan--Saudi Arabia's quasi-official charities became the primary source of funds for the fast-growing jihad movement. In some 20 countries, the money was used to run paramilitary training camps, purchase weapons, and recruit new members. The charities were part of an extraordinary $70 billion Saudi campaign to spread their fundamentalist Wahhabi sect worldwide. The money helped lay the foundation for hundreds of radical mosques, schools, and Islamic centers that have acted as support networks for the jihad movement, officials say. U.S. intelligence officials knew about Saudi Arabia's role in funding terrorism by 1996, yet for years Washington did almost nothing to stop it. Examining the Saudi role in terrorism, a senior intelligence analyst says, was "virtually taboo." Even after the embassy bombings in Africa, moves by counterterrorism officials to act against the Saudis were repeatedly rebuffed by senior staff at the State Department and elsewhere who felt that other foreign policy interests outweighed fighting terrorism.
|
Kaplan, 03 [David, author and journalist on topics such as terrorism, intelligence, and organized violence, “The Saudi Connection: How billions in oil money spawned a global terror network,” 12/7/03, http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/031215/15terror.htm] STRYKER
|
Al Qaeda was "a constant fundraising machine." And where did it raise most of those funds? The evidence was indisputable: Saudi Arabia America's longtime ally and the world's largest oil producer had somehow become, as a senior Treasury Department official put it, "the epicenter" of terrorist financing Over the past 25 years, the desert kingdom has been the single greatest force in spreading Islamic fundamentalism Those findings are the result of a five-month investigation by U.S. News. The money helped lay the foundation for hundreds of radical mosques, schools, and Islamic centers that have acted as support networks for the jihad movement, officials say Examining the Saudi role in terrorism, a senior intelligence analyst says, was "virtually taboo." Even after the embassy bombings in Africa, moves by counterterrorism officials to act against the Saudis were repeatedly rebuffed by senior staff at the State Department and elsewhere who felt that other foreign policy interests outweighed fighting terrorism
|
Oil dependence on Saudi Arabia is funding terrorist efforts in the Middle East
| 3,536 | 78 | 1,020 | 559 | 13 | 156 | 0.023256 | 0.27907 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,306 |
Former CIA director R. James Woolsey drives a Toyota Prius, a gas-electric hybrid. Its bumper sticker boasts: "Bin Laden hates this car."[1] In 2005, Osama bin Laden told his followers that al Qaeda's operations in Iraq were costing more than $1,000,000 a month.[2] What's the connection between bin Laden's Iraq expenditures and James Woolsey's Prius? Since the 1970s, Islamic extremism and terrorists have been financially fueled by the world's two largest oil exporters, Saudi Arabia and Iran. [3] And those two countries have a lot of financial fuel to burn. Saudi Arabia's crude oil export revenues were $154 billion in 2006[4], which gave the Saudis a $57.1 billion budget surplus.[5] Iran's oil revenue jumped 25 percent in 2005[6], soaring to $55 billion in 2006.[7] By comparison, the United States had a $390 billion budget deficit in 2006.[8] Saudi Arabia's support for terror is made mostly through its quasi-official charities.[9] In Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia which have no income tax, they have mandatory, non-voluntary giving called zakat, which is collected by the government, mosques or Islamic centers. Voluntary contributions, or Sadaqah, are given directly to Islamic charities.[10]
|
Sharman, 07 [Michael, lawyer and author on legal affairs, “Fueling Terrorism with Foreign Oil,” 2/5/07, http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/article.php?articleid=1513] STRYKER
|
James Woolsey drives a Toyota Prius, a gas-electric hybrid. Its bumper sticker boasts: "Bin Laden hates this car. Osama bin Laden told his followers that al Qaeda's operations in Iraq were costing more than $1,000,000 a month. What's the connection between bin Laden's Iraq expenditures and James Woolsey's Prius? Since the 1970s, Islamic extremism and terrorists have been financially fueled by the world's two largest oil exporters, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Saudi Arabia's crude oil export revenues were $154 billion which gave the Saudis a $57.1 billion budget surplus Iran's oil revenue jumped 25 percent in 2005 soaring to $55 billion in 2006 Saudi Arabia's support for terror is made mostly through its quasi-official charities
|
Saudi and Iranian oil revenue funds terrorism
| 1,211 | 45 | 731 | 187 | 7 | 115 | 0.037433 | 0.614973 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,307 |
Mexico is already one of the world's largest oil producers, pumping out 2.5 billion barrels of crude oil per day in 2011, but production has steadily fallen since 2004, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which expects it to continue to decline if there are no major changes in technology or policy. There's little doubt that Pemex desperately needs and injection of capital and technical knowledge in order to boost flagging oil and gas production, especially in the country's deepwater and shale gas plays. While details of proposed reforms haven't been made public yet, experts say opening up Mexico's oil sector to private competition could spark a flood of investment from energy majors eager to tap the country's estimated 10 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, as well as one of the world's largest shale gas resource bases.
|
Goldberg, 6/19 [Keith, contributor to Law 360, New York, “Mexico's Oil Reform Plans Will Attract Intrepid Investors,” http://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/Law360_MexicoOilReformPlansAttractInvestors_19june13.pdf] STRYKER
|
Mexico is already one of the world's largest oil producers but production has steadily fallen since 2004, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration which expects it to continue to decline if there are no major changes in technology or policy There's little doubt that Pemex desperately needs and injection of capital and technical knowledge especially in the country's deepwater and shale gas plays one of the world's largest shale gas resource bases.
|
Plan gives Mexico a reliable supply of energy---largest shale gas supply in the world
| 856 | 85 | 465 | 139 | 14 | 73 | 0.100719 | 0.52518 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,308 |
Analysis of regulatory actions that will enhance stability in Mexico requires a framework to determine the relationship between these areas of governance and a method to isolate the industrial subsectors that pose the greatest threat. For the resulting conclusions to have any merit, they must address structural and enduring problems rather than the minor contours of a particular period or government administration. Using this approach, the Mexican oil industry emerges as the most heavily regulated sector and the one posing the greatest risk to stability. Reforming the nation’s energy sector is the most effective regulatory action Mexico can take to enhance stability. Petroleos Mexico (Pemex) is the second largest company in Latin America and the seventh largest producer of oil in the world. 1 The government of Mexico owns the company, and oil sales account for thirty-two percent of all government revenues annually. 2 In 2004, production of oil in Mexico began to decline due to a severe reduction in output from the nation’s most prolific oil field, and the failure of Pemex to develop additional reserves to compensate. 3 Since that time, the crisis in Mexico’s oil industry has emerged as an escalating threat to the government and the stability it provides through domestic spending.
|
Hogan, 11 [Jeffery, Lieutenant Colonel, USMC, “REFORMING MEXICO’S ENERGY SECTOR TO ENHANCE STABILITY,” 10/27/11, http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a555290.pdf] STRYKER
|
Mexican oil industry emerges as the most heavily regulated sector and the one posing the greatest risk to stability Reforming the nation’s energy sector is the most effective regulatory action Mexico can take to enhance stability Pemex) is the second largest company in Latin America and the seventh largest producer of oil in the world In 2004, production of oil in Mexico began to decline due to a severe reduction in output from the nation’s most prolific oil field, and the failure of Pemex to develop additional reserves to compensate crisis in Mexico’s oil industry has emerged as an escalating threat to the government and the stability it provides through domestic spending.
|
Strong Mexico energy sector key to stability---now is key
| 1,300 | 57 | 682 | 206 | 9 | 112 | 0.043689 | 0.543689 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,309 |
Mexico’s stability is of critical importance to the United States and the nature and the intensity of the violence has been of particular concern to the U.S. Congress. Mexico shares a nearly 2,000- mile border with the United States and has close trade and demographic ties. In addition to U.S. concern about this strategic partner and close neighbor, policy makers have been concerned that the violence in Mexico could “spill over” into U.S. border states (or further inland) despite beefed up security measures. According to the 2011 National Drug Threat Assessment prepared by the U.S. Department of Justice, the potential harm of Mexico’s criminal groups is formidable. Mexican DTOs and their affiliates “dominate the supply and wholesale distribution of most illicit drugs in the United States” and are present in more than 1,000 U.S. cities.
|
Beittel, 13 [June, Analyst in Latin American Affairs, “Mexico’s Drug Trafficking Organizations: Source and Scope of the Violence,” 4/15/13, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41576.pdf] STRYKER
|
Mexico’s stability is of critical importance to the United States and the nature and the intensity of the violence Mexico shares a nearly 2,000- mile border with the United States and has close trade and demographic ties. In addition to U.S. concern about this strategic partner and close neighbor, policy makers have been concerned that the violence in Mexico could “spill over” into U.S. border states despite beefed up security measures. the potential harm of Mexico’s criminal groups is formidable. Mexican DTOs and their affiliates “dominate the supply and wholesale distribution of most illicit drugs in the United States” and are present in more than 1,000 U.S. cities.
|
Mexico stability is key to a secure border---potential for violence is high
| 847 | 75 | 676 | 135 | 12 | 108 | 0.088889 | 0.8 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,310 |
Call it “terrorism” if a label helps you make sense of this madness. Find who did it and squash him—or them—with what President Obama called “the full weight of justice.” But in the broad scheme of things, such loose ends matter less than this: Life in America changed with the Boston Marathon bombings—again, and as with past attacks, for the much worse. The Oklahoma City bombing in April 1995 and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were knee-buckling blows that led to an obsession over domestic security and foreign wars that will mark—and mar—our generation. The last mass terrorist assault on U.S. soil was carried out by Maj. Nidal M. Hassan, an Army psychiatrist with loose connections to al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, who fatally shot 13 people and wounded 30 more at Fort Hood, Texas, in November 2009. There were attacks thwarted by the swelling ranks of federal police: The so-called shoe bomber, Richard Reid; an attempt to bomb the New York City subway system in 2009; and an unexploded car bomb in Times Square in 2010. Boston is another bridge too far. The Boston Marathon and its competitors reflect the best of America—always striving, forever resilient, and, as measured by population and cultural significance, enormous. You might say it’s unfair to compare Boston’s relatively low death toll to 9/11 and Oklahoma City, much less to the thousands of casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the daily total of gun deaths on U.S. streets. But the Boston attack is notable not for the number of deaths, but for its social significance. It’s one thing—a dastardly, evil thing—to strike symbols of economic and military power. It’s another to hit the heart of America. Death at the finish line in Boston makes every place (and everybody) less secure. Malls. Churches. Schools. Ask a mother or father who lived in Washington from 2001-02 what was more terrorizing to your family: The 9/11 attacks or the “Beltway sniper”? Many will say the sniper. Two men were later charged in the horrifyingly random killings of 10 people in several locations throughout the Washington area. The dead and injured included a 39-year-old man shot while cutting grass, a 54-year-old part-time taxi driver shot while pumping gas, a 34-year-old babysitter and housekeeper shot while reading a book on a bench, and a 13-year-old boy shot while entering his middle school. Parents kept their kids home from school or formed human barricades at “drop-off” spots. Malls emptied. For three Sundays, I sat in a back pew with my family and looked for terrorists among my fellow parishioners. From the nation’s founding, America has had two sharply delineated lives: one public and one private. The latter is meant to be safe and sacrosanct, part of what Thomas Jefferson called “the pursuit of Happiness.” The public life is rowdy and partisan, even violent as reflected in the Civil War. “What happened in Boston,” said Meg Mott, professor of politics at Marlboro College in Vermont, is that the private life got blown up and hit deep in the heart of our bifurcated American lives. The lines were blurred, and that’s scary.” They targeted life. They targeted liberty. Now somebody has attacked a pursuit of happiness.
|
Fournier, 4/16 [Ron, Editorial Director of National Journal, worked with AP for 20 years, “Why Boston Bombings Might Be Scarier Than 9/11,” 4/16/13, http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-boston-bombings-might-be-scarier-than-9-11-20130416] STRYKER
|
Life in America changed with the Boston Marathon bombings—again, and as with past attacks, for the much worse The last mass terrorist assault on U.S. soil was carried out by Hassan, an Army psychiatrist with loose connections to al-Qaida There were attacks thwarted by the swelling ranks of federal police: The so-called shoe bomber, Richard Reid; an attempt to bomb the New York City subway system in 2009; and an unexploded car bomb in Times Square in 2010. Boston is another bridge too far. The Boston Marathon and its competitors reflect the best of America always striving, forever resilient, and, as measured by population and cultural significance, enormous Boston attack is notable not for the number of deaths, but for its social significance. It’s one thing—a dastardly, evil thing—to strike symbols of economic and military power. It’s another to hit the heart of America From the nation’s founding, America has had two sharply delineated lives: one public and one private. The latter is meant to be safe and sacrosanct, part of what Thomas Jefferson called “the pursuit of Happiness.” The public life is rowdy and partisan, even violent as reflected in the Civil War. “What happened in Boston is that the private life got blown up and hit deep in the heart of our bifurcated American lives. The lines were blurred, and that’s scary.” They targeted life. They targeted liberty. Now somebody has attacked a pursuit of happiness.
|
Terrorism is the biggest impact---destroys lives, which leads to extinction, and destroys VTL
| 3,210 | 93 | 1,438 | 536 | 13 | 238 | 0.024254 | 0.44403 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,311 |
The world’s largest exporter of oil is consuming so much energy at home that its ability to play a stabilizing role in world oil markets is at stake. Saudi Arabia’s demand for its own oil and gas is growing at around 7% per year. At this rate of growth, national consumption will have doubled in a decade. On a ‘business as usual’ projection, this would jeopardize the country’s ability to export to global markets. Given its dependence on oil export revenues, the inability to expand exports would have a dramatic effect on the economy and the government’s ability to spend on domestic welfare and services. Following the political unrest in the Middle East since the start of 2011, the impulse of the Saudi authorities has been to give out more social benefits – including cheap energy. Yet the negligible cost of fuel to consumers is encouraging wasteful consumption and deterring investment in efficiency and alternative energy supplies. In a country powered entirely by domestically produced oil and gas, this is using up precious natural resources as well as having long-term environmental impacts. One indicator of the problem has been the rise in the burning of heavy fuel oil and crude oil to generate electricity when gas cannot meet the surge in demand for cooling during the summer months. At a local level, electricity shortages caused by demand outpacing infrastructure have already triggered rare protests in at least one province.
|
Lahn and Stevens, 11 [Glada, Research Fellow for Energy and Development at Chatham House, Professor Paul, Senior Research Fellow for Energy at Chatham House and Emeritus Professor at Dundee University, “Burning Oil to Keep Cool,” 12/2011, http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Energy,%20Environment%20and%20Development/1211pr_lahn_stevens.pdf] STRYKER
|
The world’s largest exporter of oil is consuming so much energy at home that its ability to play a stabilizing role in world oil markets is at stake. Saudi Arabia’s demand for its own oil and gas is growing at around 7% per year. At this rate of growth, national consumption will have doubled in a decade. On a ‘business as usual’ projection, this would jeopardize the country’s ability to export to global markets. the impulse of the Saudi authorities has been to give out more social benefits – including cheap energy. Yet the negligible cost of fuel to consumers is encouraging wasteful consumption and deterring investment in efficiency and alternative energy supplies. In a country powered entirely by domestically produced oil and gas, this is using up precious natural resources as well as having long-term environmental impacts
|
Dependence on Saudi collapses US oil supply---Saudi’s running out of oil
| 1,446 | 72 | 835 | 239 | 11 | 138 | 0.046025 | 0.577406 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,312 |
Our economy runs on oil. Most of the tractors used for growing food run on oil. Nearly all of today’s cars and trucks run on oil. It is popular to talk about changing to some other fuel, but the practicalities are that any such change will be very slow. There is a huge cost associated with replacing cars and trucks with vehicles using other fuels, assuming we could figure out the technology to do this. Since 2005, world crude oil supply has bumped up against what seems to be a limit of 75 million barrels of oil a day. No matter how hard companies try to extract more crude oil, and no matter how high world oil prices rise, they seem unable to extract more than 75 million barrels a day (MBD). The US Government is aware of this issue, and now issues data for Total Oil Supply. Total oil supply includes various other liquids that are somewhat like crude oil, including biofuels, natural gas liquids, and “refinery gain”. But even including the additional categories, growth in supply has been anemic. Oil prices started rising as early as 2004 because supply (whether defined as crude oil or more broadly) was not rising fast enough to meet increased demand around the world. With world oil supply virtually flat, countries have had to share what oil is available. Since 1985, there has been a big shift in which countries are the “winners” in the way the world’s limited oil supply is divided (Figure 2). Clearly the “winners” in the contest for who is able to buy the oil are the “Remainder” countries—countries like China and India and Korea, and the oil exporting nations. Over the period 1985 – 2010, the grouping “Europe, US, Japan, Australia” experienced an average real GDP growth rate of 2.4%; the Remainder group experienced an average growth rate of 4.7%. The Former Soviet Union experienced a peak to trough drop in real GDP of 41% after its breakup in 1991. The grouping Europe, US, Japan, and Australia experienced a major dip in oil consumption and a serious recession in 2008-2009, while the Remainder countries continued to grow. High oil prices are clearly a problem for oil importing countries, because funds that would have been used for discretionary spending suddenly need to be used for necessities—food that is grown and transported using oil, and gasoline used for commuting to work. It is precisely the big oil importing countries that have tended to have a problem with reduced economic growth when oil prices are high. In my view, what the world needs now is inexpensive oil, and lots of it. What we need is enough inexpensive oil to bring oil prices back down to $20 to $30 dollars a barrel, like it was in the 2001 to 2003 period. If we had inexpensive oil in this large quantity, there would be plenty of oil to go around. It wouldn’t be only the oil exporters and the countries with large coal-based manufacturing industries that would be able to consume as much oil as they need for economic growth. Countries like Greece and Spain, which need low oil prices to stoke world tourism, would be able to consume their share of the oil as well. One issue is of concern is the connection between economic growth and debt. If an economy is growing, as in Scenario 1, it makes financial sense to borrow money, even if it is necessary to pay it back with interest. Borrowing makes it possible to “pre-spend” a little of the economic growth that will be available in the future. This relationship is especially important for governmental borrowing, but it also plays a role for private borrowing. If an economy is shrinking, it is hard to make a case for borrowing. In such a case, the future is likely to have less to offer than what we have today. This might happen if there is not enough oil to go around, and oil prices are very high (at least until recession hits). A great deal has been said about decoupling economic growth from natural resource use. It is not clear to what extent this really is possible. We can move manufacturing to the Far East, and pretend that the resource use isn’t ours, but on a world basis, during the past decade, energy use has been rising as fast as world real GDP. This has happened largely because Asian growth in energy use has offset savings elsewhere. Theoretically, if world oil supply is inadequate, we should be able to make substitutions that would work—either find a different liquid fuel to substitute for oil, or create new vehicles or machines that use a different source of energy than petroleum products. The problem is that making these substitutions is a slow, expensive process. We are currently using millions of cars, trucks, trains, airplanes, boats, and machines that require petroleum products to operate. Most of them are nowhere near the ends of their normal lives, so replacing them would be expensive.
|
Tverberg, 12 [Gail, writer and journalist on international oil issues, “The Reality Is, Our Economy Runs On Oil And We Need More,” 2/7/12, http://www.businessinsider.com/the-reality-is-our-economy-runs-on-oil-and-we-need-more-2012-2] STRYKER
|
Our economy runs on oil Most of the tractors used for growing food run on oil. Nearly all of today’s cars and trucks run on oil. It is popular to talk about changing to some other fuel, but the practicalities are that any such change will be very slow. There is a huge cost associated with replacing cars and trucks with vehicles using other fuels, assuming we could figure out the technology to do this It is precisely the big oil importing countries that have tended to have a problem with reduced economic growth when oil prices are high. A great deal has been said about decoupling economic growth from natural resource use. It is not clear to what extent this really is possible The problem is that making these substitutions is a slow, expensive process. We are currently using millions of cars, trucks, trains, airplanes, boats, and machines that require petroleum products to operate. Most of them are nowhere near the ends of their normal lives, so replacing them would be expensive.
|
Elimination of US oil supply destroys the economy---we run on oil
| 4,795 | 65 | 992 | 840 | 11 | 173 | 0.013095 | 0.205952 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,313 |
While the world wasn't watching, the Saudis have been covering up a huge secret...A secret so big and game-changing, they've gone to great lengths to keep it hidden. A secret that, when the rest of the world wakes up to its implications, will send massive ripples through the energy markets. For those bold enough to see the truth and act quickly, the opportunity it presents is immense. Saudi Arabia is running out of oil. You didn't read that wrong. It's not a joke, nor is it just my opinion. And I'm most certainly not crazy. It's a stone-cold fact. The report I'm talking about is from the world-renowned think tank Chatham House. I'm sure you didn't see anything in the media touting this report or anything about the Saudis running out of oil on the evening news. Don't take my word for it... Here's an excerpt of the report from Chatham House: " Saudi Arabia's energy consumption pattern is unsustainable...That means on a 'business as usual' trajectory, it would become a net oil importer in 2038." That's right. If the Saudis continue at their current rate of oil consumption, they will become net oil importers even sooner than they want to admit. And truthfully, I think we're looking at much sooner than 2030. Because it seems Saudi Arabia has developed quite a penchant for wasting the one thing the world covets most... How much do they waste? To be blunt, too much. We're talking about nearly three MILLION barrels PER DAY. That's a staggering number, for sure. But get this: That's more than 25% of their oil production. According to the International Energy Agency, the Saudis consume more oil than Germany, a country with 3x the population. Talk about waste! The Saudis use as much oil per person as people in USA do and it has a far higher car-to-person ratio. This is a great opportunity for smart and savvy investors to take position in the global energy market. USA will dictate the global energy market by producing more and more Oil and Natural gas and becoming the net exporter globally.
|
Saeed, 5/20 [Shan, graduated from University of Chicago, Booth School of Business, USA with an MBA, has 12 years of solid financial industry experience, “Saudi Arabia is running out of oil,” 5/20/13, http://economistshan.blogspot.com/2013/05/saudi-arabia-is-running-out-of-oil-by.html] STRYKER
|
While the world wasn't watching, the Saudis have been covering up a huge secret Saudi Arabia is running out of oil It's a stone-cold fact. The report I'm talking about is from the world-renowned think tank Chatham House Saudi Arabia's energy consumption pattern is unsustainable If the Saudis continue at their current rate of oil consumption, they will become net oil importers even sooner than they want to admit we're looking at much sooner than 2030. Because it seems Saudi Arabia has developed quite a penchant for wasting nearly three MILLION barrels PER DAY That's more than 25% of their oil production Saudis consume more oil than Germany, a country with 3x the population
|
<Economic decline leads to war card>
| 2,013 | 36 | 680 | 351 | 6 | 114 | 0.017094 | 0.324786 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,314 |
Improved fuel efficiency of vehicles and rising oil production in North America are two factors that could cause oil prices to drop 50% by the end of the year, according to one oil company executive. Oftentimes a dramatic drop in oil prices – in this case down to $50 a barrel – portends a severe economic crisis; however, Gulf Oil CEO Joe Petrowski suggested the issue is matter of ample supply and lower demand. “Demand is weak internationally,” he said. “But domestically demand is even slightly weaker. Traveling (by car) is picking up, but we’re using much less oil. It is simply more fuel efficient cars and switching to alternate fuels.” Petrowski also noted that North America is “producing record amounts of oil and natural gas,” adding that OPEC suppliers are up as well. Additionally, demand from countries like China has ebbed, while the utilities sector has also cut its use of oil. While the demand is going down and the price for oil could drop significantly, there are still plenty of other factors that contribute to the price of gasoline. Petrowski estimates that a shortage of pipelines and the need to transport fuel via rail and truck adds about 40 cents a gallon to gas prices. “Remember: $50 oil does not translate into $2 gasoline,” he said. It should be noted that gasoline prices began dropping around the July 4th holiday and were predicted to continue dropping; however, that prediction was false as prices began rising. The national average for regular unleaded gasoline Wednesday was $3.65 a gallon, up from $3.50 last Wednesday and four cents above levels a month ago, according to AAA Fuel Gauge Report. The AAA daily tracking of gas prices rose another penny Thursday to $3.66 for a gallon of self-serve regular, the 11th straight day of rising prices. Gas is up nearly 20 cents a gallon, or about 6%, during that period. There’s at least a 50% chance gas could top the $3.78 a gallon high for the year reached in February, according to Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst for GasBuddy.com. A drop in the crude oil price has several implications, not the least of which is the potential for the destabilization of the governments who rely on oil income for social programs, such as Saudi Arabia. Any perceived lack of stability tends to inflate gasoline prices, Petrowski noted.
|
Strong 7/19 [Michael Strong is a writer for The Detroit Bureau “Efficient Cars Cut Demand and Oil Prices may Fall to $50 a Barrel” http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2013/07/efficient-cars-cut-demand-and-oil-prices-may-fall-to-50-a-barrel/ accessed on July 26, 2013] JAKE LEE
|
fuel efficiency of vehicles and rising oil production in North America are two factors that could cause oil prices to drop 50% a dramatic drop in oil prices – in this case down to $50 a barrel Petrowski estimates that a shortage of pipelines and the need to transport fuel via rail and truck adds about 40 cents a gallon to gas prices. “Remember: $50 oil does not translate into $2 gasoline,” $3.65 a gallon, up from $3.50 last Wednesday and four cents above levels a month ago, according to AAA Fuel Gauge Report. A drop in the crude oil price has several implications, not the least of which is the potential for the destabilization of the governments who rely on oil income for social programs, such as Saudi Arabia. Any perceived lack of stability tends to
|
1 - Non-unique - oil prices low now due to increased oil production in the US - prices will continue to drop
| 2,304 | 108 | 760 | 395 | 22 | 137 | 0.055696 | 0.346835 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,315 |
Despite the high prices for oil and other primary commodities, Russia should work to overcome its dependence on oil revenues, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Friday. “Whatever the situation on global markets, it is obvious that Russia should move away from its dependence on raw materials," he told a regional conference of the ruling United Russia party that he heads. "The favorable market situation for our raw materials, hydrocarbons, metals, and chemical products must not serve as cause for complacency or an excuse for not taking any action on pressing problems." The prime minister urged his party members to search for new growth points, incentives for industrial development, and ways of enhancing "national competitiveness." He praised United Russia's role in recent history as a key to political and economic stability but said that was no longer enough. "It is duty bound to find and propose to society optimal solutions to the current problems in the foreseeable future as well as in the long term," he said.
|
RIA Novosti 11 [RIA Novosti is a Russia's leading news agency in terms of multimedia technologies, website audience reach and quoting by the Russian media. Integrated multimedia newsroom, vast network covering over 45 countries of the world and the Russian regions allow RIA Novosti to deliver news and information in all possible formats, including video, animated infographics and cartoons to professional clients and the end user in 14 languages. RIA Novosti has proven expertise in creating tailored interactive news & information services for mobile operators and content providers. “Russia's Putin reiterates call for end to oil dependence” April 3, 2011 http://en.rian.ru/russia/20110304/162862553.html accessed on July 27, 2013] JAKE LEE
|
Russia should work to overcome its dependence on oil revenues, Putin said . “Whatever the situation on global markets, it is obvious that Russia should move away from its dependence on raw materials," The favorable market situation for our raw materials, hydrocarbons, metals, and chemical products must not serve as cause for complacency or an excuse for not taking any action on pressing problems He praised United Russia's role in recent history as a key to political and economic stability but said that was no longer enough. "It is duty bound to find and propose to society optimal solutions to the current problems in the foreseeable future as well as in the long term," he said.
|
And, no internal link - Russia's economy is no longer dependent on the oil sector
| 1,028 | 81 | 685 | 167 | 15 | 116 | 0.08982 | 0.694611 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,316 |
Since it came out from behind the socialist iron curtain in the closing days of 1991, Russia has taken sensational strides in transitioning from an isolated, centrally planned economy to a more integrated and market-driven one. the world’s richest resource reserves from oil to gas to precious metals, the Russia St Basil's Endowed with some of country rode the commodity boom of the opening decade of the new millennium with an envied average annual economic growth rate of 7%. And then came 2011, with the commodity super cycle running so hard it jumped its tracks and derailed. Russia, economists say, is now in a slow-motion derailment of its own. What happened to one of the darlings of emerging economies? Once esteemed as one of the best four emerging markets in the world – becoming the “R” in the “BRIC” group of nations – is Russia about to succumb to the economic pandemic sweeping across Europe? Rags to Riches – Thrice. Russia is not a novice when it comes to navigating financial crises. Its recent emergence as a free-market society actually stems from an economic crisis that ultimately brought down the ex-Soviet Union more than 20 years ago. As Russia transformed its economy wholesale from top to bottom in the decade immediately following the collapse of the communist block, industries were privatized and desperately-needed foreign investment poured in over its borders. It was an economic revolution that took the nation on its first journey from rags to riches in very short order. But transitions of that magnitude are never easy, and by 1998, the nation had stumbled into its first post-communist financial crisis, returning to the rags it so recently shed. Yet this turned out to be a mere respite along the road to prosperity, with a much more powerful second wave of riches coming Russia’s way. In the opening decade of the new millennium, with its economy averaging 7% annual growth, a Russian middle class emerged with a real disposable income that had more than doubled. Russia had become one of the four most promising emerging markets in which to invest – alongside Brazil, India, and China, the hailed “BRIC” group of nations. But as the new millennium’s first decade was coming to a close, the 2008-09 financial crisis that started in American and quickly engulfed the globe had invaded Russian territory as well. Russia’s ever increasing integration into the global market made contagion inevitable, especially given the nation’s heavy reliance on crude oil, which took a serious hit in price. But the resilience of the Russian people to bounce back from hardship had – for a third time – enriched them yet again, with oil providing the bulk of the windfall. By 2011, the commodity super cycle had propelled Russia ahead of even Saudi Arabia as the new top oil producer, in second place among natural gas producers, first place in gas reserves, and second place in coal reserves, plus the top spot among platinum-group-metals producers. Back to Rags Soon? Yet the disproportionately large reliance on commodities that pushed Russia screaming past most every resource-based economy on Earth has now turned out to be its Achilles’ heel. The collapse of the commodity space from 2011 until present is threatening to drag Russia into recession. While the nation’s economic planners have been steering the nation toward greater diversification since the 2008-09 crisis, with an increasing focus on manufacturing and technology, Russia is still too heavily dependant upon commodities to avoid a slowdown. Where 2012’s GDP grew at an acceptable 3.6%, 2013’s growth is expected to be less than half that at 1.6%. At a time when the country really needs manufacturing to help offset lower revenues in the resource sector, industrial production’s growth has instead fallen from 3.1% during 2012’s H1 to a snail’s pace at 0.1% in this year’s H1. As a sign that things will only get worse, construction output this year is already down an alarming 8%. Professors at the Moscow Higher School of Economics have strongly criticized the Russian government’s “unpredictable” economic policies. Income is on the decline as the foreign trade surplus is shrinking; while June’s exports rose 0.4% to $41.6 billion, imports rose by 5.7% to $27.9 billion. Rising inflation is making Russia’s reliance on imported finished goods more costly. Meanwhile, problems financing economic expansion are being exacerbated by a reduction in foreign investments by 3.7% and an increase in capital outflows from a previously forecasted €25 billion to a more recent expectation of €40 billion. Russian economic experts are convinced the nation’s only remaining option is to increase public debt – to borrow.
|
Cafariello 7/25 [Joseph Cafariello is a reporter for the Wealthy Daily “Russian Economic Collapse” July 25, 2013 http://www.wealthdaily.com/articles/russian-economic-crisis/4518 accessed on July 26, 2013] JAKE LEE
|
Russia has taken sensational strides in transitioning from an isolated, centrally planned economy to a more integrated and market-driven one. the world’s richest resource reserves from oil to gas to precious metals, envied average annual economic growth rate of 7%. Russia, economists say, is now in a slow-motion derailment of its own. What happened to one of the darlings of emerging economies Russia is not a novice when it comes to navigating financial crises. Its recent emergence as a free-market society actually stems from an economic crisis that ultimately brought down the ex-Soviet Union more than 20 years ago. It was an economic revolution that took the nation on its first journey from rags to riches in very short order. But transitions of that magnitude are never easy, and by 1998, the nation had stumbled into its first post-communist financial crisis In the opening decade of the new millennium, with its economy averaging 7% annual growth, a Russian middle class emerged with a real disposable income that had more than doubled Russia’s ever increasing integration into the global market made contagion inevitable, especially given the nation’s heavy reliance on crude oil, which took a serious hit in price. By 2011, the commodity super cycle had propelled Russia ahead of even Saudi Arabia as the new top oil producer, in second place among natural gas producers, first place in gas reserves, and second place in coal reserves, plus the top spot among platinum-group-metals producers. Back to Rags Soon The collapse of the commodity space from 2011 until present is threatening to drag Russia into recession Where 2012’s GDP grew at an acceptable 3.6%, 2013’s growth is expected to be less than half that at 1.6%. At a time when the country really needs manufacturing to help offset lower revenues in the resource sector, industrial production’s growth has instead fallen from 3.1% during 2012’s H1 to a snail’s pace at 0.1% in this year’s economic policies. Income is on the decline as the foreign trade surplus is shrinking; while June’s exports rose 0.4% to $41.6 billion, imports rose by 5.7% to $27.9 billion. Rising inflation is making Russia’s reliance on imported finished goods more costly. Meanwhile, problems financing economic expansion are being exacerbated by a reduction in foreign investments by 3.7 Russian economic experts are convinced the nation’s only remaining option is to increase public debt – to borrow
|
And, the impact is non-unique - Russia's economy collapsing now
| 4,707 | 63 | 2,450 | 770 | 10 | 397 | 0.012987 | 0.515584 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,317 |
LOS ANGELES - The average price of a gallon of self-serve regular gasoline in Los Angeles County dropped today for the 11th consecutive day, decreasing six-tenths of a cent to $4.043. The average price has dropped 9.8 cents over the past 11 days, including seven-tenths of a cent on Wednesday, according to figures from the AAA and Oil Price Information Service. The dropping prices were immediately preceded by a 15-day streak of increases totaling 15.8 cents. The average price is 6.7 cents less than one week ago, but 3.6 cents more than one month ago and 30.9 cents higher than one year ago. The average price is at its highest amount for Independence Day since 2008. The Orange County average price also decreased for the 11th consecutive day today, dropping nine-tenths of a cent to $4.021, 6.9 cents less than one week ago, but 5 cents more than one month ago and 33.7 cents higher than one year ago. The average price has dropped 10.1 cents over the past 11 days, including 1.2 cents on Wednesday. The string of declines was immediately preceded by a 16-day streak of increases totaling 17.6 cents. The average price is at its highest amount for Independence Day since 2008. The dropping pump prices follow a large decrease in wholesale gasoline prices as fears of a shortage have disappeared, according to Marie Montgomery Nordhues of the Automobile Club of Southern California.
|
Press Telegram 7/4 [Press Telegram is a newspaper in Los Angeles “L.A., Orange County gas prices drop for 11th consecutive day” July 4, 2013 http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_23599665/l-orange-county-gas-prices-drop-11th-consecutive accessed on July 27, 2013] JAKE LEE
|
The average price of a gallon of self-serve regular gasoline dropped decreasing six-tenths of a cent to $4.043. The average price has dropped 9.8 cents over the The dropping prices were immediately preceded by a 15-day streak of increases totaling 15.8 cents. The average price is 6.7 cents less than one week ago, but 3.6 cents more than one month ago and 30.9 cents higher than one year ago. but 5 cents more than one month ago and 33.7 cents higher than one year ago. The average price has dropped 10.1 cents The average price is at its highest amount for Independence Day since 2008. The dropping pump prices follow a large decrease in wholesale gasoline prices
|
Gas prices low now
| 1,387 | 18 | 665 | 236 | 4 | 117 | 0.016949 | 0.495763 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,318 |
The International Monetary Fund flagged higher oil prices as a rising threat to the global economy on Friday, urging policymakers to keep a close eye on western tensions with Iran, which is facing punitive measures against its crude supplies. Looming U.S. sanctions on Iran's oil buyers, as well as an impending European Union oil embargo, have forced countries to cut back on purchases from the world's fifth-largest exporter of crude, pushing up the price of the commodity. Policymakers from around the globe are converging on Mexico City for a meeting of finance ministers and central bankers from the Group of 20 economic powers, and several of them raised concerns over the spiralling crude costs. "A new risk on the horizon, or maybe not on the horizon, maybe right in front of us, is high oil prices," David Lipton, First Deputy Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, said in a presentation at the G20 gathering. "The situation in Iran is a risk that we have to be thinking about. Our assessment is that the global economy is not really out of the danger zone," Lipton added, noting, however, that it was too early to revise down the Fund's growth forecasts. Lipton was speaking just after U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Washington was weighing the circumstances that could warrant tapping the U.S. strategic oil reserve to counter the supply disruptions from Iran. The fear of tightening supplies, exacerbated by a threat from Tehran to close the Strait of Hormuz - the main Gulf oil shipping lane - have lifted prices to new highs. Western powers are increasingly at loggerheads with Iran over its efforts to generate nuclear power. Iran insists it wants to harness atomic energy for peaceful ends, but the West suspects it is trying to acquire nuclear weapons. A day after hitting a record high in euro terms, Brent crude jumped above $124 a barrel, raising worries that a run of sharp price gains could stymie the euro zone's growth prospects, making it harder for governments to meet budget targets and pull the currency bloc out of its debt crisis. Mexico, which is hosting the G20 meeting, has been pushing for the euro zone to take further steps to solve the debt crisis and for policymakers to make progress on increasing the IMF's firepower, lest it be needed to help in Europe. But some countries have said there can be no talk of more IMF resources without a stronger European firewall, which is to be discussed among European Union leaders next week. Angel Gurria, the Secretary-General of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, followed up on Geithner's comments by saying the jump in oil prices were due to politics and would not be solved by releasing reserves. "These prices are due to a great extent ... because there is a lot of tension, these discussions every day over the Straits of Hormuz and Israel," Gurria told Reuters in Mexico City. Gurria said there was no distortion in markets and oil prices of up to $100 per barrel were "the new normal". "We are not seeing a situation today where there is something wrong with (market) fundamentals, in fact, we are seeing a slowdown in the global economy. There should be a reduction in consumption," he said. The weak dollar also was cited by analysts as a supportive factor for oil. The dollar index weakened and the euro hit a fresh 2-1/2 month high against the dollar.
|
FOX 12 [FOX news is a news station in America “IMF: High Oil Prices Could Imperil Global Economy” February 24, 2012 http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/2012/02/24/imf-high-oil-prices-could-imperil-global-economy/#ixzz2aHOFeYaA accessed on July 27, 2013] JAKE LEE
|
The International Monetary Fund flagged higher oil prices as a rising threat to the global economy Looming U.S. sanctions on Iran's oil buyers, as well as an impending European Union oil embargo, have forced countries to cut back on purchases from the world's fifth-largest exporter of crude, pushing up the price of the commodit ," David Lipton, First Deputy Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, said in a presentation at the G20 gathering. "The situation in Iran is a risk that we have to be thinking about. the global economy is the danger zone," Iran. The fear of tightening supplies, exacerbated by a threat from Tehran to close the Strait of Hormuz - the main Gulf oil shipping lane - have lifted prices to new highs. Western powers are increasingly at loggerheads with Iran over its efforts to generate nuclear power. Brent crude jumped above $124 a barrel, raising worries that a run of sharp price gains could stymie the euro zone's growth prospects, making it harder for governments to meet budget targets and pull the currency bloc out of its debt crisis lest it be needed to help in Europe. But some countries have said there can be no talk of more IMF resources without a stronger European firewall, which is to be discussed among European Union leaders next week because there is a lot of tension, these discussions every day over the Straits of Hormuz and Israel," Gurria told Reuters in Mexico City. Gurria said there was no distortion in markets and oil prices of up to $100 per barrel were "the new normal we are seeing a slowdown in the global economy. The weak dollar also was cited by analysts as a supportive factor for oil. The dollar index weakened and the euro hit a fresh 2-1/2 month high against the dollar.
|
And, high global oil prices tanks the global economy
| 3,398 | 52 | 1,751 | 579 | 9 | 306 | 0.015544 | 0.528497 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,319 |
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent stales. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level. Pollins (20081 advances Modclski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that. As such, rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin. 19SJ) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fcaron. 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately. Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level. Copeland's (1996. 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Mom berg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write. The linkage, between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other (Hlomhen? & Hess. 2(102. p. X9> Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blombcrg. Hess. & Wee ra pan a, 2004). which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. "Diversionary theory" suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DcRoucn (1995), and Blombcrg. Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force arc at least indirecti) correlated. Gelpi (1997). Miller (1999). and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics arc greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked lo an increase in the use of force. In summary, rcccni economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict al systemic, dyadic and national levels.' This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.
|
Royal 2010, [Jedediah - Director Cooperative Threat Reduction @ DOD, “Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises” in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215]
|
economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power if the expectations of future trade decline particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources the likelihood for conflict increases as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level Hess find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict particularly during periods of economic downturn international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism ). which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict
|
And, Economic decline causes war
| 4,445 | 33 | 1,549 | 651 | 5 | 232 | 0.00768 | 0.356375 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,320 |
Russia will benefit from lower oil prices says Jim O’Neill, Chairman for Goldman Sachs Asset Management. This follows news that Russia is to adopt new policies to make its economy less dependent on the price of crude. "I think it will be good for Russia if oil prices go down”, Jim O’Neill told RT at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. Russia’s economy has long been heavily dependent on oil exports. Half of the budget revenues come from oil and gas. ”Russia certainly needs to be not so dependent on the drug of rising oil prices. It has to adopt and change to a quarter balance." And Russia seems to be heading in the right direction. President Vladimir Putin told the St. Petersburg Forum it was not enough to rely on an oil price of 115 dollars per barrel to achieve a deficit-free budget. “We need to diversify our economy away from total reliance on oil revenues, and turn to private capital as a source of growth,” he said. “Russia not only needs a deficit-free budget but a budget with a reserve of resilience.” Putin also said that “budget rules will be adopted soon under which "neither state liabilities, nor budgetary expenditure, nor long-term investment programs will depend on oil prices, and excess profits will go to replenish funds.” Analysts say Russia, one of the four BRIC countries, has become a particular surprise this year, Russia seems to be more sheltered from the current global economic crisis than it was during the 2008 and 2009 downturn. Its prospects are brighter than those of many other economies. The country’s economy is expected to grow between 4-5 percent this year -much higher than any developed country. “If it carries on growing at these rates it will contribute more to the world this decade than he whole of Europe,” said Jim O’Neill. Together with the other BRIC nations Russia is ready to tackle the global economic crisis. “Emerging countries, including BRICS should play a bigger role in the world economy,” Russian President Vladimir Putin told the Petersburg International Economic Forum. Brazil, Russia,
|
RT 12 [A news network on Russia “Lower oil price 'good for Russia” June 22, 2012 http://rt.com/business/oil-price-russia-economy-497/ accessed on July 26, 2013] JAKE LEE
|
Russia will benefit from lower oil prices This follows news that Russia is to adopt new policies to make its economy less dependent on the price of crude Russia’s economy has long been heavily dependent on oil exports. Russia certainly needs to be not so dependent on the drug of rising oil prices Vladimir Putin told the St. Petersburg Forum it was not enough to rely on an oil price of 115 dollars per barrel We need to diversify our economy away from total reliance on oil revenues, and turn to private capital as a source of growth,” he said. “Russia not only needs a deficit-free budget but a budget with a reserve of resilience.” Putin also said that “budget rules will be adopted soon under which "neither state liabilities, nor budgetary expenditure, nor long-term investment programs will depend on oil prices, Russia seems to be more sheltered from the current global economic crisis than it was during the 2008 and 2009 downturn If it carries on growing at these rates it will contribute more to the world this decade than he whole of Europe,” “Emerging countries, including BRICS should play a bigger role in the world economy,” Russian President Vladimir Putin
|
Turn – Low Oil Prices are key to Russia’s economy
| 2,070 | 49 | 1,173 | 349 | 10 | 202 | 0.028653 | 0.578797 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,321 |
Both the US and China deny they are competing with each other. Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Hong Lei said last week that the two countries can "carry out cooperation in Latin America by giving play to their respective advantages." ¶ Tao Wenzhao, a fellow of the Institute of American Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times that it is a coincidence that the two leaders chose to visit Latin America at a similar time, and that China has no intention to challenge US influence in the area.¶ "It's not like in the 19th century when countries divided their sphere of influence in a certain area. China and the US' involvement in Latin America is not a zero-sum game," Tao said, explaining that it is a good thing for Latin America.¶ Chinese and US leaders visit Latin America out of their respective strategic needs, Tao said. All countries need to interact and cooperate with other countries, and visits of such high-level are usually arranged long time before they starts, Tao said.
|
Global Time Agencies 5/31 (5/31/13, “China, US not competing over Latin America: Expert”, http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/785721.shtml#.UffRMJqWXck ) Okuno
|
the US and China deny they are competing with each other the two countries can "carry out cooperation in Latin America by giving play to their respective advantages that it is a coincidence that the two leaders chose to visit Latin America at a similar time China has no intention to challenge US influence in the area.¶ China and the US' involvement in Latin America is not a zero-sum game, it is a good thing for Latin America.¶ Chinese and US leaders visit Latin America out of their respective strategic needs visits of such high-level are usually arranged long time before they starts, Tao said.
|
And, no link - Latin America influence is not zero-sum
| 1,023 | 54 | 600 | 175 | 10 | 105 | 0.057143 | 0.6 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,322 |
China has been quietly taking steps to encircle the United States by arming western hemisphere states, seeking closer military, economic, and diplomatic ties to U.S. neighbors, and sailing warships into U.S. maritime zones.¶ The strategy is a Chinese version of what Beijing has charged is a U.S. strategy designed to encircle and “contain” China. It is also directed at countering the Obama administration’s new strategy called the pivot to Asia. The pivot calls for closer economic, diplomatic, and military ties to Asian states that are increasingly concerned about Chinese encroachment throughout that region.¶ “The Chinese are deftly parrying our ‘Pivot to the Pacific’ with their own elegant countermoves,” said John Tkacik, a former State Department Asia hand.¶ Chinese President Xi Jinping is expected to question President Barack Obama about the U.S. pivot during the summit meeting set to begin Friday afternoon in California. Chinese state-run media have denounced the new U.S. policy as an effort to “contain” China and limit its growing power.¶ The Chinese strategy is highlighted by Xi’s current visit to Trinidad, Costa Rica, and Mexico where he announced major loans of hundreds of millions of dollars that analysts say is part of buying influence in the hemisphere.¶ U.S. officials say the visit to the region has several objectives, including seeking to bolster Chinese arms sales to the region amid efforts by Russian arms dealers to steal market share.¶ States including Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Mexico recently purchased Chinese arms but are said to be unhappy with the arms’ low quality. For example, Chinese YLC radar sold to Ecuador in 2009 did not work properly and sales of Chinese tanks to Peru also ran into quality problems. Both states are now looking to buy Russian weaponry, a U.S. official said.¶ Venezuela, a key oil-producing U.S. adversary, announced Thursday that China agreed to a $4 billion loan for oil development.¶ And in Mexico this week, Xi announced China is extending a $1 billion line of credit for oil development and pledged another $1 billion trade deal.¶ A joint Mexico-China statement said Mexico pledged not to interfere in China’s affairs on Taiwan and Tibet, a reference to the previous government of Mexican President Felipe Calderon who in 2011 invited exiled Tibetan leader the Dalia Lama, a move that angered Beijing.¶ U.S. officials say there are concerns that the pro-Beijing shift by the current government of Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto, who visited China in April, will be exploited by China for such political goals, and could be used to generate support for China’s claims to Japan’s Senkaku Islands.¶ U.S. officials said there are growing fears that some type of military confrontation could break out between China and Japan over the disputed islands that are said to contain large underwater gas and oil reserves.¶ North of the U.S. border, Canada this week concluded a military cooperation agreement with China during the visit to Beijing by Canadian Defense Minister Peter G. Mackay. The agreement calls for closer cooperation between the two militaries, including bilateral military exchanges.¶ Chinese ambassador to Canada Zhang Junsai said China is deepening ties to Canada for infrastructure development, in Calgary last month. Chinese state-run companies have spent $30 billion for Canadian oil sands and natural gas, he said.¶ At a security conference in Singapore last month, the commander of U.S. military forces in the Pacific, Adm. Samuel Locklear, confirmed the earlier disclosure by a Chinese military officer that China’s military has been conducting naval incursions into the 200-mile U.S. Economic Exclusion Zone around U.S. territory.¶ The locations of the incursions were not given but they likely included submarine or warship visits to the western Pacific island of Guam, a key U.S. military base.¶ A Chinese military official initially stated at the conference that the incursions were part of a People’s Liberation Army Navy effort at “reciprocating” for frequent U.S. Navy transits through China’s 200-mile EEZs along the coasts. The zones are technically international waters and China has claimed U.S. transits are “illegal” under international law.¶ It is not clear why China is conducting naval operations it considers illegal for its maritime boundaries inside U.S. EEZs.¶ “They are, and we encourage their ability to do that,” Locklear said, without explaining why the activity was encouraged or where the Chinese vessels had transited.¶ Larry Wortzel, a former military intelligence official and specialist on China, said the Chinese military has sent intelligence collection ships into Guam’s economic zone and also the zone around the Hawaiian islands.¶ “The EEZ transits may indicate that in the future they could revise their position on the Law of the Sea and military activities,” Wortzel said.¶ Wortzel said he does not see China’s efforts in South and Central America as a counter to the U.S. Asia pivot.¶ Chinese arms sales, military exchanges, investment and developmenet has been underway for a decade, he said.¶ The Financial Times, which first disclosed the Chinese EEZ forays, quoted one Chinese military source as saying, “we are considering this as a practice, and we have tried it out, but we clearly don’t have the capacity to do this all the time like the U.S. does here.”¶ On Chinese inroads in the western hemisphere, Rick Fisher, a China military affairs analyst, said China is moving strategically on Latin America, working methodically as part of a decades-long effort to build economic and political clout there.¶ “It has cultivated far better military relations with the openly anti-American regimes in the region and could become a sort of political-economic godfather to ensure the survival of the Castro dictatorship system in Cuba,” said Fisher, with the International Assessment and Strategy Center.¶ Intelligence cooperation with Cuba is “substantial,” Fisher says, and will expand sharply in the region through the activities of its state-run telecommunications firms such as Huawei Technologies and ZTE in the region.¶ China currently is “promoting almost all of its non-nuclear weapons in that region,” Fisher said.¶ “It has promoted the Chengdu J-10 4th generation fighter in Venezuela and Argentina, and even Peru may be considering the J-10 for its future fighter program,” he said.¶ A State Department spokeswoman declined to comment.¶ At a recent arms expo in Peru, China was selling a 22,000-ton helicopter amphibious assault ship and an export version of its relatively advanced Yuan-class attack submarine.¶ In Venezuela, China is helping the Caracas government circumvent U.S. arms embargoes by helping repair Venezuela’s U.S.-made gas turbine engines on frigates, he said.¶ “Another company was marketing several short range ballistic missiles—with no apparent consideration about how it might promote a regional missile arms race,” Fisher said. “The basic U.S. policy is to ‘welcome’ China’s growing influence in Latin America but it is now time for Washington to use both positive and negative pressures to limit China’s strategic military reach into this hemisphere.”¶ Tkacik said China is quietly evolving on the global stage and implanting itself across the map with major overseas Chinese communities.¶ “And if they [Chinese nationals] get in trouble, as they did in Libya in 2011, China’s navy and air forces can coordinate to support them,” he said. “This support of émigré Chinese communities around the world has become an overt dictum of China’s new security policy.”¶ China also has set up commercial bases in key chokepoints around the Caribbean, through its Chinese-run port facilities in Panama, Bahamas, Trinidad, and Venezuela over the past decade.¶ Tkacik said those facilities are partly aimed at drawing American attention and easing U.S. geopolitical pressure in Asia.¶ China also is investing heavily in Africa, the Middle East, and Indian Ocean region.¶ “At bottom, however, China’s strategic targets are closer to home: East Asia, Southeast Asia and the Pacific,” Tkacik said. “That’s why Washington’s Pivot to the Pacific unsettles Beijing so. It threatens to check Beijing’s rising new influence in the Asia-Pacific.¶ Tkacik said Chinese naval patrols in U.S. economic zones have been carried out for years through Chinese ocean fishing fleets.¶ “It doesn’t need to send out military vessels to Guam or Hawaii or the Aleutians except to ‘tweak’ the U.S.,” he said.
|
Gertz 6/7 (Bill, Bill Gertz is an American editor, columnist and reporter for The Washington Free Beacon and The Washington Times. He is the author of six books and writes a weekly column on the Pentagon and national security issues called "Inside the Ring". During the administration of Bill Clinton Gertz was known for his stories exposing government secrets.[1][2] He is also an editor for the Washington Free Beacon., 6/7/13, Washington Free Beacon, http://interamericansecuritywatch.com/china-moves-against-u-s-pivot-to-asia-with-stepped-up-military-diplomatic-economic-ties-to-americas/ ) Okuno
|
China has been quietly taking steps to encircle the U S by seeking closer military, economic, and diplomatic ties to U.S. neighbors, The strategy is a Chinese version of what Beijing has charged is a U.S. strategy designed to encircle and “contain” China directed at countering the Obama ’s pivot to Asia. The Chinese are deftly parrying our ‘Pivot to the Pacific’ with their own elegant countermoves,” Chinese state-run media have denounced the new U.S. policy as an effort to “contain” China The Chinese strategy is highlighted by Xi’s announced major loans that analysts say is part of buying influence in the hemisphere. the visit has several objectives, including seeking to bolster Chinese arms sales to the region amid efforts by Russian arms dealers to steal market share purchased Chinese arms but are said to be unhappy with the arms’ low quality China agreed to a $4 billion loan for oil development. Xi announced China is extending a $1 billion line of credit for oil development and pledged another $1 billion trade deal. A joint Mexico-China statement said Mexico pledged not to interfere in China’s affairs on Taiwan and Tibet U.S. officials say there are concerns that the pro-Beijing shift by the current government of Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto, will be exploited by China for such political goals, military confrontation could break out between China and Japan over the disputed islands that are said to contain large underwater gas and oil reserves. the commander of U.S. military forces in the Pacific, Adm. Samuel Locklear, confirmed the earlier disclosure by a Chinese military officer that China’s military has been conducting naval incursions into the 200-mile U.S. Economic Exclusion Zone around U.S. territory. . A Chinese military official initially stated at the conference that the incursions were part of a People’s Liberation Army Navy effort at “reciprocating” for frequent U.S. Navy transits through China’s 200-mile EEZs along the coasts the Chinese military has sent intelligence collection ships into Guam’s economic zone and also the zone around the Hawaiian islands. they could revise their position on the Law of the Sea and military activitie Chinese arms sales, military exchanges, investment and developmenet has been underway for a decade, he said we are considering this as a practice, and we have tried it out, but we clearly don’t have the capacity to do this all the time like the U.S. does here.” “It has cultivated far better military relations with the openly anti-American regimes in the region and could become a sort of political-economic godfather to ensure the survival of the Castro dictatorship system in Cuba A State Department spokeswoman declined to comment. At a recent arms expo in Peru, China was selling a 22,000-ton helicopter amphibious assault ship and an export version of its relatively advanced Yuan-class attack submarine Another company was marketing several short range ballistic missiles—with no apparent consideration about how it might promote a regional missile arms race,” The basic U.S. policy is to ‘welcome’ China’s growing influence in Latin America but it is now time for Washington to use both positive and negative pressures to limit China’s strategic military reach into this hemisphere.” .” China also has set up commercial bases in key chokepoints around the Caribbean . China also is investing heavily in Africa, the Middle East, and Indian Ocean region. “At bottom, however, China’s strategic targets are closer to home: East Asia, Southeast Asia and the Pacific “That’s why Washington’s Pivot to the Pacific unsettles Beijing so. It threatens to check Beijing’s rising new influence in the Asia-Pacific U.S. economic zones have been carried out for years through Chinese ocean fishing fleets.
|
And, No internal link – The pivot will never happen – China is gearing up
| 8,570 | 73 | 3,812 | 1,337 | 15 | 606 | 0.011219 | 0.453254 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,323 |
After Japan’s defeat in the Second World War, the Pacific became an “American Lake.” Hundreds of new U.S. military bases were established in Japan, Korea, Australia, the Marshall Islands, and other Pacific nations to reinforce those in the Philippines, Guam, and Hawaii, which were greatly expanded. Together these bases “contained” Beijing and Moscow throughout the Cold War, serving as launching pads for the Korean and Vietnam wars as well as for military interventions and political subversion from the Philippines and Indonesia to the Persian Gulf.¶ In the late 1990s, when China was first seen a potential strategic competitor for Asia-Pacific hegemony, the Clinton administration adopted a two-track policy of engagement and containment. Deng Xiaoping was welcomed to Disneyland, President Clinton was welcomed in Beijing, and China was given the green light to join the World Trade Organization. Meanwhile, the U.S.-Japan military alliance, which has long functioned as the NATO equivalent in East Asia, was reinforced. The Clinton administration sent nuclear-capable aircraft carriers through the Taiwan Strait and accelerated missile defense deployments designed to neutralize China’s missile capabilities. Before they were sidetracked by the “war on terror,” President George W. Bush and company promised to “diversify” U.S. Asia-Pacific military bases, reducing their concentration in Northeast Asia in order to distribute them more widely along China’s periphery.¶ Although the Bush administration extended the “war on terror” to Indonesia, the Philippines, and southern Thailand, it otherwise largely neglected Asia and the Pacific. This opened the way for growing Chinese influence, deepening the integration of ASEAN nations into China’s surging economic orbit. With the pivot, the Obama administration has signaled its determination, according to the Guardian’s Simon Tidal, “to beat back any Chinese bid for hegemony in the Asia-Pacific,” even at the expense of a new Cold War. As General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, put it, “the U.S. military may be obliged to overtly confront China just as it faced down the Soviet Union.”
|
Gerson 2012 (Joseph, currently Director of Programs and Director of the Peace and Economic Security Program for the AFSC in New England. focuses on challenging and overcoming U.S. global hegemony, its preparations for and threats to initiate nuclear war, and its military domination of the Asia-Pacific and the Middle East., Foreign Policy in focus, 9/13/13, http://fpif.org/reinforcing_washingtons_asia-pacific_hegemony/ ) Okuno
|
After the Second World War the Pacific became an “American Lake.” Hundreds of new U.S. military bases were established in Japan, Korea, Australia, the Marshall Islands, and other Pacific nations to reinforce those in the Philippines, Guam, and Hawaii, which were greatly expanded these “contained” Beijing and Moscow serving as launching pads for the Korean and Vietnam wars In the 1990s, when China was first seen a potential strategic competitor for Asia-Pacific hegemony Clinton administration adopted a two-track policy of engagement and containment Clinton was welcomed in Beijing, China was given the green light to join the World Trade Organization the U.S.-Japan military alliance, which has long functioned as the NATO equivalent was reinforced President George W. Bush and company promised to “diversify” U.S. Asia-Pacific military bases distribute them more widely along China’s periphery.¶ Bush administration extended the “war on terror” to Indonesia This opened the way for growing Chinese influence, deepening the integration of ASEAN nations into China’s surging economic orbit With the pivot, the Obama administration has signaled its determination, according to the Guardian’s Simon Tidal, “to beat back any Chinese bid for hegemony in the Asia-Pacific
|
The pivot is key to sustaining US heg – checks back Chinese influence
| 2,170 | 69 | 1,270 | 325 | 13 | 189 | 0.04 | 0.581538 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,324 |
The White House's top national security official defended the Obama administration's rebalancing toward Asia and pledged to continue that policy in President Barack Obama's second term in a speech Monday.¶ National Security Advisor Tom Donilon addressed the Asia Society in New York Monday afternoon on the U.S. government's Asia policy and said that changing administrations in China, Japan, and South Korea this year marked a crucial point in the future of Asian diplomacy and America's role in the region. The U.S. rebalancing toward Asia, also known as the "pivot," was Obama's premier strategic foreign policy initiative in the first term, he said.¶ "It was clear [in 2009] that there was an imbalance in the projection and focus of U.S. power. It was the president's judgment that we were over-weighted in some areas and regions, including our military actions in the Middle East," Donilon said. "At the same time, we were underweighted in other regions, such as the Asia-Pacific. Indeed, we believed this was our key geographic imbalance."¶ For a definition of the strategy, Donilon pointed Asia hands to Obama's Nov. 2011 address to the Australian Parliament in Canberra, which coincided with the announcement of greater U.S. military deployment in Australia and Southeast Asia.¶ "So make no mistake, the tide of war is receding, and America is looking ahead to the future that we must build," Obama said then. "Our new focus on this region reflects a fundamental truth -- the United States has been, and always will be, a Pacific nation."¶ But Donilon focused on defending the pivot against accusations that it necessarily denotes a turn away from American engagement in the Middle East or Europe. He also pushed back against the widely held regional view that the strategy is meant to contain China's rise.¶ "Here's what rebalancing does not mean. It doesn't mean diminishing ties to important partners in any other region. It does not mean containing China or seeking to dictate terms to Asia. And it isn't just a matter of our military presence," Donilon said. "It is an effort that harnesses all elements of U.S. power -- military, political, trade and investment, development and our values."¶ He also emphasized that America's commitment to the Asia-Pacific region will not be diminished by the country's fiscal woes or the defense cuts that will have come as a result of the sequester. Donilon pledged to keep former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's promise to commit 60 percent of the U.S. naval fleet to the Pacific by 2020 and he promised the United States would "prioritize" the region when rolling out new military platforms and technologies.¶ "In these difficult fiscal times, I know that some have questioned whether this rebalance is sustainable. After a decade of war, it is only natural that the U.S. defense budget is being reduced. But make no mistake: President Obama has clearly stated that we will maintain our security presence and engagement in the Asia-Pacific," he said. "Specifically, our defense spending and programs will continue to support our key priorities -- from our enduring presence on the Korean Peninsula to our strategic presence in the western Pacific."
|
Rogin 3/11 (Josh, covers national security and foreign policy and writes the daily Web column The Cable. His column appears bi-weekly in the print edition of The Washington Post, 3/11/13, Foreign Policy, http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/03/11/donilon_defends_the_asia_pivot ) Okuno
|
The White House's top national security official defended the Obama administration's rebalancing toward Asia National Security Advisor Tom Donilon on the U.S. government's Asia policy and said that changing administrations in China, Japan, and South Korea this year marked a crucial point in the future of Asian diplomacy and America's role in the region The U.S. rebalancing toward Asia, also known as the "pivot, that there was an imbalance in the projection and focus of U.S. power. we were over-weighted in some areas and regions, including our military actions in the Middle East, we were underweighted in other regions, we believed this was our key geographic imbalance .¶ "So make no mistake, the tide of war is receding, and America is looking ahead to the future that we must build," Obama said then. "Our new focus on this region reflects a fundamental truth -- the United States has been, and always will be, a Pacific nation Here's what rebalancing does not mean. It doesn't mean diminishing ties to important partners in any other region. It does not mean containing China or seeking to dictate terms to Asia. And it isn't just a matter of our military presence," It is an effort that harnesses all elements of U.S. power -- military, political, trade and investment, development and our values." America's commitment to the Asia-Pacific region will not be diminished by the country's fiscal woes or the defense cuts that will have come as a result of the sequester commit 60 percent of the U.S. naval fleet to the Pacific by 2020 United States would "prioritize" the region I know that some have questioned whether this rebalance is sustainable. After a decade of war, it is only natural that the U.S. defense budget is being reduced. But make no mistake: President Obama has clearly stated that we will maintain our security presence and engagement in the Asia-Pacific," , our defense spending and programs will continue to support our key priorities -- from our enduring presence on the Korean Peninsula to our strategic presence in the western Pacific."
|
Asia Pivot key to Heg – strengthens economy, hard, and soft power
| 3,203 | 65 | 2,070 | 520 | 12 | 345 | 0.023077 | 0.663462 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,325 |
In November 2011, President Obama embarked on an unusually lengthy ten day tour of the Asia Pacific during which he met with over 25 heads of state, reiterating America’s commitment to and presence in the Asia Pacific and, most significantly, reaffirming the new Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).¶ The TPP aims to create a tariff-eliminating, free trade zone through a network of expansive trade agreements with eligible Pacific Rim economies. Launched in 2006 as a free trade pact between Brunei Darussalam, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore, the TPP has expanded to include negotiations with the Australia, Malaysia, Peru and Vietnam. It forms a key part of the Obama administration’s new ‘Asia pivot’ policy, which calls for a shift of security priorities from the Middle East and Europe to the Asia Pacific.¶ Yet China, the world’s second-largest economy and Asia’s dominant economic and trading power, is noticeably absent from the TPP. China views the TPP, and other aspects of the Washington’s pivot strategy (including the US Marine’s revived presence in Australia and strengthened ties to countries such as Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan) as part of a new containment policy not unlike that employed against the former Soviet Union. According to state-run Chinese Xinhua news, American intervention in South China Sea disputes is seen as part of a set of ongoing ‘provocative moves’ under the guise of freedom of navigation. Overseas, Obama’s Asia pivot has also played out as a clear attempt to comprehensively contain China and to counterbalance a perceived China threat.¶ But Washington’s pivot strategy is better understood within a new framework of mutually assured prosperity (MAP) — a twist on the Cold War containment practices backed by a doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD).¶ First, at present, strong interdependent economic relations exist as importer–exporter, debtor–creditor and consumer–producer between the United States and China. This already forces the two countries to caution and resort to trade diplomacy within the WTO framework, rather than retaliatory competition or military threats to resolve differences.¶ Second, Sino–American trade and commercial history suggests that convergence between the two largest economies — intensifying indirectly and multilaterally through the TPP — may instead solidify this existing symbiotic economic relationship. Since America’s founding, commerce has been the uniting factor among states and with foreign nations. To achieve Thomas Jefferson’s vision of an ‘Empire of Liberty,’ Alexander Hamilton devised an ingenious strategy that entailed a strong manufacturing base, a national banking system, the centralised federal government and an export-led economic and trade scheme protected by the US Navy. Similarly, Deng Xiaoping’s export-led liberalisation of Chinese economic policy also implicitly recognised the role of trade and commerce as a unifier of peoples.¶ There are three dimensions to the new MAP framework — geopolitics, geo-economics and geo-security — intertwined to the extent that the lines of distinction between each are blurred. Geopolitically, Washington’s re-engagement with the Asia Pacific after a decade of distraction is not so much a paradigm shift as the revival of a traditional and historic role. Since the Cold War, the United States has underwritten the regional security architecture through bilateral ties with allies such as Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Thailand. In recent years as South China Sea tensions have intensified, Beijing’s perceived use of force in its own neighborhood causes weaker states to question the necessity of its current status as a regional hegemon, and to look for a balancer. America’s return to the Asian region reassures stakeholders that China will not overwhelm its neighbors.¶ Economically, through trade engagement and transparency via the TPP, Washington affords smaller countries the opportunity to collectively rebalance asymmetries in bilateral trade with China without undermining China as a valued and vital trade partner. This simultaneously eliminates the need for naval competition, reducing the likelihood of hostile engagement over South China Sea disputes of the so-called gunboat diplomacy sort — a term often applied to Washington’s historically preferred method of advancing foreign trade policy objectives in Asia.¶ Meanwhile, from a security perspective, China will be able to continue to prosper from regional stability. The expansion of Chinese military capabilities and the establishment of ports of call for PLA Navy ships will seem less threatening if the US Navy is engaged in the region in a cooperative, multilateral fashion, avoiding direct confrontation but implicitly projecting the show of force without war to restrain the adversarial behaviour. This may give China the space to ease into its role as the dominant — but not domineering — regional power in a way that will best serve its own economic growth and national security interests. It is also the finest insurance policy for China that holds over $1 trillion worth of American treasury securities.¶ Ultimately, a regional TPP-led free trade zone is the best ‘pacifying’ security architecture for long-term stability between the two economic superpowers in the Pacific Ocean. The TPP will deliver benefits for individual restraint between the two power centres, and may advance regional development, encourage the integration of the Chinese economy, and allow surrounding nations to hedge their bets on (and therefore contribute to) China’s ‘Peaceful Rise.’ In the Asian century, alliances are complex, and multilateralism and flexibility are the new currency. This era of Sino–American relations will require measured diplomacy.
|
Mendis 3/6 (Patrick, Patrick Mendis is Senior Fellow and Affiliate Professor at the School of Public Policy, George Mason University, 3/6/13, East Asia Forum, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/03/06/how-washingtons-asia-pivot-and-the-tpp-can-benefit-sino-american-relations/ ) Okuno
|
President Obama embarked on an unusually lengthy ten day tour of the Asia Pacific reiterating America’s commitment to and presence in the Asia Pacific reaffirming the new Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP TPP aims to create a tariff-eliminating, free trade zone through a network of expansive trade agreements with eligible Pacific Rim economies the TPP has expanded to include negotiations with the Australia, Malaysia, Peru and Vietnam. It forms a key part of the Obama administration’s new ‘Asia pivot’ policy, calls for a shift of security priorities from the Middle East and Europe to the Asia Pacific.¶ Yet China is noticeably absent from the TPP China views the TPP, and other aspects of the Washington’s pivot strategy as part of a new containment policy not unlike that employed against the former Soviet Union American intervention in South China Sea disputes is seen as part of a set of ongoing ‘provocative moves’ Obama’s Asia pivot has also played out as a clear attempt to comprehensively contain China and to counterbalance a perceived China threat.¶ pivot strategy is better understood within a new framework of mutually assured prosperity (MAP) — a twist on the Cold War containment practices backed by a doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD).¶ , strong interdependent economic relations exist as importer exporter, debtor–creditor and consumer–producer between the United States and China. This forces the two to caution and resort to trade diplomacy Second, Sino–American trade history suggests that convergence between the two largest economies intensifying indirectly and multilaterally through the TPP solidify this existing symbiotic economic relationship. There are three dimensions to the new MAP framework — geopolitics, geo-economics and geo-security Geopolitically, Washington’s re-engagement with the Asia Pacific after a decade the revival of a traditional and historic role United States has underwritten the regional security architecture through bilateral ties with allies such as Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Thailand. South China Sea tensions have intensified, Beijing’s perceived use of force in its own neighborhood causes weaker states to question the necessity America’s return to the Asian region reassures stakeholders that China will not overwhelm its neighbors the TPP, Washington affords smaller countries the opportunity to collectively rebalance asymmetries in bilateral trade with China without undermining China as a valued and vital trade partner. eliminates the need for naval competition, reducing the likelihood of hostile engagement over South China Sea disputes from a security perspective, China will be able to continue to prosper from regional stability. The expansion of Chinese military capabilities and the establishment of ports of call for PLA Navy ships will seem less threatening if the US Navy is engaged in the region This may give China the space to ease into its role as the dominant — but not domineering — regional power in a way that will best serve its own economic growth and national security interests. , a regional TPP-led free trade zone is the best ‘pacifying’ security architecture for long-term stability between the two economic superpowers in the Pacific Ocean will deliver benefits for individual restraint between the two power centres, and may advance regional development, China’s ‘Peaceful Rise.’ In the Asian century, This era of Sino–American relations will require measured diplomacy.
|
Asia pivot key to US-China relations, stopping SCS conflict, and the economy – leverage in TPP key
| 5,838 | 98 | 3,504 | 875 | 17 | 531 | 0.019429 | 0.606857 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,326 |
The Obama administration’s response to the steady drumbeat of threats issuing from North Korea in recent weeks could not have been clearer. “The United States will, if needed, defend our allies and defend ourselves,” U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said during his April 12 visit to South Korea. The American F-22 stealth fighter jets and nuclear-capable B-2 bombers that flew drills over South Korea in March and the two missile-defense ships that sidled up to South Korea earlier this month undoubtedly sent the same message. ¶ As a crisis management policy, that message was exactly right. As a strategic signal of America’s future in the Pacific, its implications go far beyond the Korean Peninsula. ¶ The immediate U.S. response was well-calibrated to this particular crisis. North Korean provocation is nothing new, but it has reached a hysterical pitch, even by North Korean standards, under its unpredictable young leader, Kim Jong Un. Kim’s intentions, whether they be extracting concessions from the international community or burnishing his military credentials for a domestic audience, are unknown. But the unambiguous U.S. position made it clear that the cost to North Korea of an attack on the South would be military retaliation. It also reassured South Korea that the United States would come to its defense. ¶ Both of these signals reduced the risk of miscalculation either by the North or the South and the potential for the tensions to turn into an actual exchange of fire. The situation could still escalate, particularly if North Korea launches a missile at South Korea or Japan, but signals over the past week suggest that concerns about an attack have subsided. ¶ The broader, strategic implications of the robust American response, for the consumption of allies and nonallies, was that the United States is and intends to remain a Pacific power. The Obama administration has not made a secret of this point and Kerry reiterated it last week in Japan. After more than a decade of intense focus on the Middle East and Afghanistan, the U.S. is “pivoting” to Asia, directing diplomatic, economic and military resources toward this increasingly important region, reassuring allies of U.S. support and deepening trade cooperation. However, the pivot also represents a U.S. commitment to remaining the predominant power in Asia over the long run as China grows stronger. Even if the administration avoids saying so out loud, it is hard to read the policy any other way.¶ Nonetheless, many of America’s Asian partners that have historically welcomed the U.S. as the guarantor of regional stability have been skeptical of the pivot. The basis of American influence in the region is U.S. military power, but operationally speaking, the military rebalancing has been marginal, consisting of a deployment of a couple thousand Marines to Australia and increased littoral ship rotations in Southeast Asia. This has raised questions, especially among states that are increasingly rattled by Chinese assertiveness in territorial disputes, about the real level of commitment of the U.S. to preserving regional stability. The fact that the U.S. has remained relatively quiet about escalating tensions between China and Japan, America’s most important Asian ally, over the disputed Senkaku Islands has not helped. ¶ In this context, the crisis on the Korean Peninsula can be seen as the first test of the U.S. pivot to Asia, and the U.S. passed. It is clear that the U.S. remains deeply invested in a stable Asia and in forestalling conflict that would have serious consequences for Asia and America alike. In the Korean case, war would kill a million or more people by one prediction, including thousands of Americans, and pit the U.S. against an unpredictable autocrat with weapons, possibly nuclear weapons, trained on South Korea. Even limited war would send shock waves through global markets, negatively impacting economies throughout the region, not to mention the still recovering U.S. economy.
|
Morris 4/22 (Anna, writer for world politics review, 4/22/13, World Politics Review, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12887/u-s-pivot-to-asia-passes-first-test-in-korea-crisis ) Okuno
|
The Obama administration’s response to the steady drumbeat of threats from North Korea The U S will , defend our allies and defend ourselves As a crisis management policy, that message was exactly right. As a strategic signal of America’s future in the Pacific, Kim’s intentions, whether they be extracting concessions from the international community or burnishing his military credentials for a domestic audience are unknown It also reassured South Korea that the United States would come to its defense. signals reduced the risk of miscalculation The broader, strategic implications of the robust American response, for the consumption of allies and nonallies, was that the United States is and intends to remain a Pacific power the U.S. is “pivoting” to Asia, directing diplomatic, economic and military resources toward this increasingly important region, reassuring allies of U.S. support and deepening trade cooperation. , it is hard to read the policy any other way. America’s Asian partners that have historically welcomed the U.S. as the guarantor of regional stability have been skeptical of the pivot. . The fact that the U.S. has remained relatively quiet about escalating tensions between China and Japan ¶ In this context, the crisis on the Korean Peninsula can be seen as the first test of the U.S. pivot to Asia, and the U.S. passed the U.S. remains deeply invested in a stable Asia and in forestalling conflict that would have serious consequences for Asia and America alike war would kill a million or more people by one prediction, including thousands of Americans, and pit the U.S. against an unpredictable autocrat with weapons, possibly nuclear weapons, trained on South Korea. negatively impacting economies throughout the region, not to mention the still recovering U.S. economy.
|
Pivot Solves conflict – empirically proven
| 4,010 | 42 | 1,804 | 642 | 6 | 286 | 0.009346 | 0.445483 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,327 |
Mexican relations with China at lowest ebb in recent years according to experts¶ Mexico is ‘completely clueless when it comes to China… There’s no strategy that adequately reflects China’s global importance and does justice to our second leading trade partner. I don’t think economic and trade relations can get any worse.’ This damning assessment of Sino-Mexican relations came from Enrique Dussel, director of the Center for China-Mexico Studies of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.¶ Mr Dussel is not alone in his view; indeed he is one of a group of 100 academics, businessmen and politicians who have devised a Strategic Agenda for Mexico-China Relations, which was presented to President Peña Nieto shortly after he took office. The proposed agenda covers the economy, culture, environment and education, and highlights the absence of a coherent short and long term plan for China. It also stresses the need to prioritise forming a strategy, in conjunction with Beijing, otherwise trade and economic ties will suffer.¶ This issue has been brought into sharp focus in recent weeks over the Dragon Mart controversy, (see last week’s article). Plans to build Chinese-financed retail complex near Cancun have received widespread criticism in Mexico from environmental groups and public figures who questioned the transparency of China’s trade practices. It is the latest incident in a somewhat chequered history; last year Mexico filed a complaint against China in the WTO over malpractice in the textile industry, and in 2011 Mexico failed in its bid for the International Monetary Fund’s head position when China refused to back candidate Agustin Carstens.¶ Such tensions will not help Mexico in resolving issues within the bilateral economic relationship. Mexico has a starkly negative trade deficit with China, importing $52bn worth of Chinese goods in 2011 while exporting just $2bn worth in return. Furthermore China’s FDI in Mexico is surprisingly low; the two countries disagree widely about the exact figure (Mexico estimates the 2011 figure to be $157m while China puts it at $614m), however put into perspective both figures are noticeably paltry compared to the US 2011 contribution of $8bn.¶ As yet the Mexican government has made scant effort to redress the trade imbalance or attract further investment.
|
Powell 2/3 (Helena, Writer, author, and columnist for varies news sites, 2/3/13, Pulsa America, http://www.pulsamerica.co.uk/2013/02/03/chinalatin-america-mexican-relations-with-china-at-lowest-ebb-in-recent-years-according-to-experts/ ) Okuno
|
Mexican relations with China at lowest ebb in recent years Mexico is ‘completely clueless when it comes to China I don’t think economic and trade relations can get any worse.’ Mr Dussel is not alone in his view; indeed he is one of a group of 100 academics, businessmen and politicians who have devised a Strategic Agenda for Mexico-China Relations, The proposed agenda covers the economy, culture, environment and education, and highlights the absence of a coherent short and long term plan for China It also stresses the need to prioritise forming a strategy, in conjunction with Beijing, otherwise trade and economic ties will suffer.¶ This issue has been brought into sharp focus in recent weeks over the Dragon Mart controversy, received widespread criticism in Mexico from environmental groups and public figures who questioned the transparency of China’s trade practices It is the latest incident in a somewhat chequered history; Mexico filed a complaint against China in the WTO over malpractice in the textile industry China refused to back candidate Agustin Carstens. tensions will not help Mexico in resolving issues within the bilateral economic relationship Mexico has a starkly negative trade deficit with China China’s FDI in Mexico is surprisingly low the Mexican government has made scant effort to redress the trade imbalance or attract further investment
|
Sino-Mexican relations at lowest point in years - economic relations low - prefer our evidence which is a consensus of over 100 experts
| 2,331 | 135 | 1,373 | 364 | 23 | 217 | 0.063187 | 0.596154 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,328 |
Still, mutually perceived rivalry remains a challenge for cooperation in other areas. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Cancún, Mexico, where resistance to the construction of the commercial complex known as “Dragon Mart” has flared. Dragon Mart is a joint venture between Mexican businessmen, Chengkai Investment Company, and the Chinamex Middle East Investment and Trade Promotion Centre—a business promotion company under the supervision of China’s Ministry of Commerce. The Dragon Mart complex will function as an exhibition center featuring Chinese products and goods from other countries, including Mexico. According to the Chinese media, the project represents a $1.54 billion investment.¶ 1¶ Comment on this post¶ Promoters of Dragon Mart have stated that the complex will add 8,550 jobs, but it offers even farther-reaching benefits as it can serve as a point of communication for Chinese and Mexican governments and private enterprises. ¶ Mexican manufacturers have overlooked the fact that Dragon Mart would draw Chinese business at a point when Mexico’s capabilities to export high-value-added goods, such as telecommunications equipment and automobiles, have taken off. ¶ The project’s critics have claimed that Dragon Mart would ease the flow of inexpensive Chinese imports into Latin America, the Caribbean and North American markets. Negative reactions from domestic producers have contributed to local authorities’ recent decision to deny the project’s license, which is likely to cause further delays in construction.¶ In the past, China and Mexico were pitted as rivals because they depended on exports to the United States. But now, times have changed and the paradigm casting China and Mexico as competitors is obsolete. Rising wages have driven up the price of manufacturing in China, so China must find ways to maintain economic competitiveness. As Dragon Mart shows, Chinese enterprises are considering moving some manufacturing to Mexico to lower costs.
|
Helu and Wong 6/6 (Alfredo, Masters Degree in Political Science and reporter for Quarterly Americas, and Jessica, Reporter for Quarterly americas, 6/6/13, Quarterly Americas, http://www.americasquarterly.org/dragon-mart-controversy-implications-china-mexico-trade-relationship ) Okuno
|
mutually perceived rivalry remains a challenge for cooperation Nowhere is this more apparent than in Cancún, Mexico, where resistance to the construction of the commercial complex known as “Dragon Mart” has flared. a business promotion company under the supervision of China’s Ministry of Commerce. will function as an exhibition center featuring Chinese products and goods from other countries, including Mexico. can serve as a point of communication for Chinese and Mexican governments and private enterprises manufacturers have overlooked the fact that Dragon Mart would draw Chinese business at a point when Mexico’s capabilities to export high-value-added goods Dragon Mart would ease the flow of inexpensive Chinese imports into Latin America, the Caribbean and North American markets domestic producers have contributed to local authorities’ recent decision to deny the project’s license, China and Mexico were pitted as rivals because they depended on exports to the United States. Rising wages have driven up the price of manufacturing in China, so China must find ways to maintain economic competitiveness.
|
China and Mexico moving away from cooperation – competition and controversy
| 1,982 | 75 | 1,116 | 298 | 11 | 166 | 0.036913 | 0.557047 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,329 |
Plans to build a large, permanent exposition center for Chinese-made goods near Cancún have triggered an outcry from Mexican industrialists who struggle to compete with Chinese manufacturing.¶ Promoters of Dragon Mart Cancún, a $180 million project that would inhabit 1,370 acres south of Mexico's Caribbean resort, say the center seeks to spur greater trade between China and the Americas and to promote cross-cultural ties.¶ Enlarge Image¶ Dragon Mart Cancun¶ The Cancún center's chief, Mr. López, speaks in front of its proposed site.¶ The Dragon Mart development plan, modeled after one in Dubai, includes 722 homes for Chinese administrators of more than 3,000 storefronts promoting toys, construction materials, electronics and other goods. The village would also host events to spotlight Chinese music, dance and culture.¶ But so far the center is generating anxiety. Its large scale and proximity to a protected coral reef have triggered objections from environmentalists and hotel operators. And locals and business leaders fear it would flood Mexico with Chinese products and function as a self-contained colony with little benefit for Mexican workers. The mayor of Cancún is vowing to deny the construction permits.¶ "This project has many detractors," Cancún Mayor Julian Ricalde said, explaining that the expo center's promoters have failed to convince the local community that Dragon Mart Cancún is beneficial for Mexico.¶ Trade relations between Mexico and China have long been tense as the countries vie for market share of U.S. imports. Once the star of emerging-market nations, Mexico bled manufacturing jobs after China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, as thousands of factories relocated to China.¶ Bilateral trade is also heavily skewed, with Chinese exports to Mexico accounting for about 90% of the roughly $60 billion of goods that flow each year between the two countries, according to Mexican government data. The trade deficit has fueled resentment and xenophobia in Mexico, he added.¶ For China, the expo represents a way to diversify its exports, which are still heavily dependent on the shaky economies of the U.S., Europe and Japan. It also comes as Chinese companies try to build global brands that command higher profits rather than acting merely as final assemblers of parts made elsewhere or suppliers of generic components.¶ Dragon Mart Cancún is a joint venture between Mexican investors and a unit of Chinamex, an overseas promotion effort of China's Ministry of Commerce. A precursor to Chinamex helped develop the Dubai site.
|
Guthrie 1/17 (Amy, Mexican correspondent for the Wall Street Journal, The Wall Street Journal, 1/17/13, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324595704578243880802729850.html ) Okuno
|
Plans to build a large, permanent exposition center for Chinese-made have triggered an outcry from Mexican industrialists who struggle to compete with Chinese manufacturing.¶ The Cancún center's chief, Mr. López, speaks in front of its proposed site The village would also host events to spotlight Chinese music, dance and culture.¶ But so far the center is generating anxiety. Its large scale and proximity to a protected coral reef have triggered objections from environmentalists and hotel operators And locals and business leaders fear it would flood Mexico with Chinese products and function as a self-contained colony with little benefit for Mexican workers mayor of Cancún is vowing to deny the construction permits.¶ .¶ Trade relations between Mexico and China have long been tense as the countries vie for market share of U.S. imports Chinese exports to Mexico accounting for about 90% of the roughly $60 billion of goods that flow each year between the two countries, according to Mexican government data trade deficit has fueled resentment and xenophobia in Mexico, he added.¶ the expo represents a way to diversify its exports,
|
Mexico does not see China as a good partner – wants them out
| 2,577 | 60 | 1,139 | 400 | 13 | 180 | 0.0325 | 0.45 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,330 |
However the Strategic Agenda seeks to change this, recommending a $50m credit programme to promote Mexican exports to China and a $40m a year Chinese Investment Attraction Fund to bring in capital from Beijing¶ Mexico has accused China of breaking World Trade Organization rules by giving tax breaks and other favorable deals to its own clothing and textile businesses, the global trade body said on Monday.¶ Other Chinese support that Mexico said broke WTO regulations included cash payments from government agencies and discounts on loans, land rights and electricity prices.¶ It was Mexico's fourth WTO complaint against China, a competitor in many sectors including clothing and textiles.¶ China's use of subsidies and its failure to disclose them to the WTO have been the subject of strong criticism, especially from the United States. The brief WTO statement announcing the latest dispute did not provide details about the size of the alleged Chinese support or its impact on Mexico's trade.¶ Mexico's textile (CANAINTEX) and clothing industry (CANAIVE) associations, in a joint statement, called Mexico's official complaint "a highly important move."¶ "The existence of subsidies in China, which violate WTO regulations, give producers from that country an unfair advantage, distort international markets and seriously damage Mexican industry," they said.¶ Under WTO rules, China has 60 days to resolve the dispute by explaining its actions or changing its behavior. If no deal is reached, Mexico could ask the WTO to rule on the case.¶ In December 2011, Mexico and China signed off on a series a trade agreements that sought to protect Latin America's second largest economy from cheap Chinese imports.¶ The treaty - negotiated over a period of seven years - formed part of China's conditions for entering the WTO.
|
Miles 2012 (Tom, Mexico correspondent for Reuters, 10/15/12, The Christian Science Monitor, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2012/1015/Mexico-accuses-China-of-breaking-world-trade-rules ) Okuno
|
the Strategic Agenda seeks to change this, recommending a $50m credit programme exports to China and a $40m a year Chinese Investment Attraction Fund to bring in capital from Beijing Mexico has accused China of breaking World Trade Organization rules by giving tax breaks and other favorable deals to its own businesses, Other Chinese support that Mexico said broke WTO regulations included cash payments from government agencies and discounts on loans, land rights and electricity prices.¶ Mexico's fourth WTO complaint against China, a competitor in many sectors China's use of subsidies have been the subject of strong criticism, especially from the United States called Mexico's official complaint "a highly important move."¶ "The existence of subsidies in China violate WTO regulations give producers from that country an unfair advantage, seriously damage Mexican industry Mexico could ask the WTO to rule on the case Mexico and China signed off on a series a trade agreements that sought to protect Latin America's second largest economy from cheap Chinese imports
|
Mexico pushing China away - they are not seeking further involvement - WTO rules violations
| 1,822 | 91 | 1,071 | 287 | 15 | 166 | 0.052265 | 0.578397 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,331 |
So what does China want exactly in entering Latin American? Is it to obtain a stable supply of energy and resources, and thus inadvertently acquire political influence? Or the other way round?
|
Xiaoxia 5/6 (Wang, Professor at Normal University and political reporter on international affairs, 5/6/13, World Crunch, http://www.worldcrunch.com/china-2.0/in-america-039-s-backyard-china-039-s-rising-influence-in-latin-america/foreign-policy-trade-economy-investments-energy/c9s11647/ ) Okuno
|
what does China want exactly in entering Latin American to obtain a stable supply of energy and resources, Or the other way round
|
Latin America Influence is not a zero-sum game – both can cooperative
| 192 | 69 | 129 | 32 | 12 | 23 | 0.375 | 0.71875 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,332 |
Finally, China does not wish to be used as a “card” against the United States. It has no enthusiasm for getting entangled in the problems of U.S.-Latin American relations.¶ ¶ It is encouraging to see that in the U.S. there are other voices commenting about Sino-Latin American relations. For instance, Manuel Rocha, former U.S. ambassador to Bolivia, also said, “Were it not for China, Latin America would probably be showing a much more lackluster [economic] performance.” In testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, in June 2008, Daniel P. Erikson, then a senior researcher at the Inter-American Dialogue, pointed out that “while China’s expansion into Latin America may imply a potential loss for some U.S. business sectors, it is important to note that trade is not a zero sum game. To the extent that China’s involvement is sparking economic growth in Latin America, it may contribute to economic stability and well-being in a manner that suits the U.S. desire to see a prosperous and healthy neighborhood.” Erikson added, “China’s engagement in Latin America is not yet a major concern for the United States, and there are few signs of any real frictions between the two countries on that score.”¶ ¶ So, President Monroe does not need to roll over in his grave.
|
Shixue 2011 (Jiang, a professor at Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and Vice President of Chinese Association of Latin American Studies, 11/3/11, http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/the-u-s-worry-factor-in-sino-latin-american-relations/ ) Okuno
|
China does not wish to be used as a “card” against the United States has no enthusiasm for getting entangled in the problems of U.S.-Latin American relations.¶ Were it not for China, Latin America would probably be showing a much more lackluster [economic] performance.” Erikson, then a senior researcher at the Inter-American Dialogue, pointed out that “while China’s expansion into Latin America may imply a potential loss for some U.S. business sectors, it is important to note that trade is not a zero sum game that China’s involvement is sparking economic growth in Latin America, it may contribute to economic stability and well-being in a manner that suits the U.S. desire China’s engagement in Latin America not a major concern ¶ So, President Monroe does not need to roll over in his grave
|
Cooperation is not a zero-sum game – Latin America wants both
| 1,323 | 61 | 798 | 218 | 11 | 133 | 0.050459 | 0.610092 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,333 |
More telling, however, are the results of a similar Gallup poll carried out in 2006. Five years ago, U.S. approval ratings stood at 30 percent while disapproval reached 45 percent. Regarding China, although 28 percent approved of its leadership, 22 disapproved. Comparing the 2006 with the 2010 results, it is clear that Washington has gained an advantage in soft power over Beijing, especially given China’s repression of human rights activists.¶ China’s economic activities in Latin America, especially South America, are not a zero-sum game. Although China’s engagement results in more influence, Beijing’s methods also decrease its effectiveness.¶ Nevertheless, the self-serving U.S. strategy in the region may be counterproductive. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton articulated Washington’s vision: “Enhancing our competitiveness, accelerating innovation, achieving energy security, and expanding our exports — all of these require robust engagement with Latin America.” Focusing on only increasing U.S. exports to the region while decreasing aid may push countries to fully embrace China’s type of economic engagement. Washington would be wiser to encourage imports of manufactured goods from Latin America that compete directly with Chinese goods and create good jobs in the region.
|
Castaneda 2011 (Sebastian, is a graduate student at the University of Hong Kong and a contributor to Foreign Policy in Focus., 4/18/11, Foreign Policy in Focus, http://fpif.org/chinese_take-over_of_south_america/ ) Okuno
|
U.S. approval ratings stood at 30 percent while disapproval reached 45 percent Regarding China, although 28 percent approved of its leadership, 22 disapproved. Washington has gained an advantage in soft power over Beijing China’s economic activities in Latin America, especially South America, are not a zero-sum game China’s engagement results in more influence, Beijing’s methods also decrease its effectiveness. Enhancing our competitiveness, accelerating innovation, achieving energy security, and expanding our exports require robust engagement with Latin America.” Washington would be wiser to encourage imports of manufactured goods from Latin America that compete directly with Chinese goods and create good jobs in the region.
|
US and China can cooperate – Latin America is not a zero-sum game
| 1,290 | 65 | 735 | 187 | 13 | 103 | 0.069519 | 0.550802 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,334 |
Nothing could be a better sign from the administration of President Barack Obama than a decision to kill the “pivot.”¶ The pivot, of course, is the vastly expensive, counterproductive and highly provocative shift of American military resources from the war-weary Middle East to China and the Pacific. At best, the pivot is a transparent effort by the military-industrial complex to justify its bloated spending on “defense” by yapping about the supposed threat from China. At worst, the pivot is an actual, on-the-ground (and on-the-sea and in-the-air) effort to “contain” China.¶ Sequester aside, with levels of spending on the Department of Defense likely to fall during the 2010s, the United States can’t afford the pivot. Much of it would involve vastly expensive naval and air force weapons systems programs that Washington cannot pay for.¶ Already, the right-wing Washington Times is reporting:¶ National security officials in the military and at the Pentagon are voicing growing worries that the second Obama administration is preparing to jettison the new policy focus on Asia known as the “pivot” or rebalancing.¶ And worry they should. The paper also reports:¶ Evidence cited by these officials includes a recent Chinese government visitor who was told that the White House plans to kill the shift to Asia in mid-2013 as part of its conciliatory approach to China. Beijing is the key, but unspoken, target of the major military and diplomatic effort to increase security in Asia and calm the fears of US allies alarmed by what they see as the new Chinese hegemon in Asia.¶ The new Obama foreign policy team, especially Chuck Hagel, are reported not to be enamored of the idea of an Asian pivot, says the Times.¶ Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!¶ And then there’s the messy Middle East, including a hot war in Syria and a still-simmering one in Afghanistan, that doesn’t want to be pivoted away from. As the Wall Street Journal reports today:¶ The Obama administration hopes to “pivot” away from a hyper-focus on the Middle East during its second term, but John Kerry’s maiden overseas mission as secretary of state—a nine-nation odyssey across Europe and the Persian Gulf—highlighted why that goal may be elusive.¶
|
Dreyfuss 3/7 (Bob, A national contributor and editor specializing in American Security and Asian Affairs, 3/7/13, The Nation, http://www.thenation.com/blog/173247/dods-asia-pivot-dead# ) Okuno
|
Nothing could be a better sign than a decision to kill the “pivot. At best, the pivot is a transparent effort by the military-industrial complex to justify its bloated spending on “defense” effort to “contain” China Sequester aside, with levels of spending on the Department of Defense likely to fall during the 2010s United States can’t afford the pivot it would involve vastly expensive naval and air force weapons systems programs Washington cannot pay for National security officials in the military and at the Pentagon are voicing growing worries that the second Obama administration is preparing to jettison the new policy focus on Asia known as the “pivot” or rebalancing. White House plans to kill the shift to Asia in mid-2013 conciliatory approach to China And then there’s the messy Middle East, including a hot war in Syria and a still-simmering one in Afghanistan, that doesn’t want to be pivoted away from. :¶ The Obama administration hopes to “pivot” away from a hyper-focus on the Middle East during its second term, but John Kerry’s maiden overseas mission as secretary of state—a nine-nation odyssey across Europe and the Persian Gulf—highlighted why that goal may be elusive.¶
|
Pivot wont happen – administration is going to kill the effort
| 2,265 | 62 | 1,195 | 368 | 11 | 195 | 0.029891 | 0.529891 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,335 |
Ever since the Obama administration first rolled out its signature Asia pivot policy, the effort seemed ambitious. The United States was wrapping up its war in Iraq and still surging troops in Afghanistan -- and yet, policymakers planned to "rebalance" military forces to the Pacific while strengthening business and diplomatic ties with partners in the region. Since then, events have stymied the administration's policy at seemingly every turn.¶ In the latest example, President Obama's summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping on Friday was overshadowed by new revelations of an extensive domestic surveillance program. But Asia getting pushed to the backburner is nothing new. The administration's series of high-profile trips to the region last fall had to jockey for attention with the news that Israel might any day launch a ground invasion of the Gaza Strip (and now there's Secretary of State John Kerry's initiative to restart Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations). Since then, the administration's Asia policy has also been a bone of contention in the fight over cuts to the defense budget.¶ Even the administration's modest successes have suffered setbacks. Earlier this week, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel showed off the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship USS Freedom in Singapore in an effort to showcase the increased U.S. naval presence in Southeast Asian waters. But that came after the ship was stranded in port when its propulsion system gave out on its maiden deployment. Then there's the deployment of U.S. Marines to Australia -- when the first 180 Marines arrived in Darwin in April 2012, they were supposed to be followed by more than 2,000 more. That might never happen, though, as Australian enthusiasm for the project has waned. Despite plans for 2,500 U.S. Marines to be stationed in Australia by 2017, Australia is still evaluating the effects of a force less than half that size.¶ With all the setbacks, maybe the administration is happy that the media isn't paying attention to the pivot
|
Stuster 6/7 (Dana, a Joseph S. Nye National Security Research Intern at Center for a New American Security, is a writer living in Washington, DC, 6/7/13, Foreign Policy, http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/06/07/the_obama_administration_just_cant_seem_to_get_its_asia_pivot_right ) Okuno
|
Ever since the Obama administration first rolled out its signature Asia pivot policy, the effort seemed ambitious wrapping up its war in Iraq and yet, policymakers planned to "rebalance" military forces to the Pacific Since then, events have stymied the administration's policy at seemingly every turn. Obama's summit was overshadowed by new revelations of an extensive domestic surveillance program the administration's Asia policy has also been a bone of contention in the fight over cuts to the defense budget Even the administration's modest successes have suffered setbacks. . But that came after the ship was stranded in port when its propulsion system gave out on its maiden deployment when the first 180 Marines arrived in Darwin in April 2012, they were supposed to be followed by more than 2,000 more. That might never happen, though, as Australian enthusiasm for the project has waned With all the setbacks, maybe the administration is happy that the media isn't paying attention to the pivot
|
Asia Pivot won’t happen – Obama can’t overcome setbacks
| 2,016 | 55 | 1,003 | 322 | 9 | 161 | 0.02795 | 0.5 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,336 |
A U.S. ‘pivot’ to Asia is the foreign policy talk of the moment, but I think Americans are unlikely to embrace it.¶ True, Asia outweighs other global regions as a U.S. interest. Europe and Latin America are mostly democratic, fairly prosperous and at peace. Africa, sadly, remains a U.S. backwater. The Middle East is overrated. Israel and oil are important but hardly justify the vast U.S. presence. The terrorist threat is ‘overblown.’¶ By contrast, Asia’s economies are growing fast. Asian savers and banks fund the U.S. deficit. Asia’s addition of two billion people to the global labor pool kept world inflation down for a generation. Asian markets are now major export destinations for American industries. Five hundred million people live in the Middle East but three times that just in India. Half the world’s population lives in South, Southeast, and Northeast Asia.¶ Lots of people mean friction, and lots of money means weapons. Big, tightly packed, fast-growing economies spend more for bigger militaries, while nationalism and territorial grievances create sparks. Regional conflict would dwarf anything the world has seen since the Cold War. China’s rise to regional hegemony would have obvious ramifications for the U.S.¶ But four trends in U.S. domestic politics contravene this narrative:¶ 1. Americans don’t care that much about Asia¶ Which constituency in America cares enough about this region to drive a realignment away from long-standing U.S. interests in Europe and the Middle East? The business community might, but they’re souring today because of China’s relentless mercantilism. Asian-Americans are few and have not loudly organized to demand this. Asian security is still scarcely on the media radar compared to the coverage of U.S. domestic politics or the Middle East.¶ Does Obama’s electoral coalition care? As a rule of thumb, the less wealthy you are, the less you care about far-off issues like foreign policy. So it’s unlikely that the underprivileged and youth who helped Obama win care much. While college-educated whites, who also broke for Obama, likely support this, the rest of the Democratic coalition traditionally focuses on domestic issues.¶ By contrast, the GOP deeply cares about the Middle East. Something like 30-40% of Americans claim to have had a born-again experience. For them, Israel is, easily, America’s most important ally, which the Republican primary on made very obvious. A Kulturkampf with Islam, not Asia, mobilizes these ‘Jacksonian-Christianist’ voters.¶ What does the Tea Party know or care about China or India, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Shintoism, or Taoism? It’s all about culture and religion to the base of the American right these days, and Asia is like another planet to those voters.¶ 2. Americans know less about Asia than any other region bar central Africa¶ Of course, it’s true Americans don’t know a lot about the world generally. As a superpower, we don’t have to know about others; others have to know about us. But Asia is the most culturally different social space in the world from the U.S. I can think of, with the possible exception of Bantu Africa.¶ Latin America, Europe, Oceania, and Russia are all in, or close enough to, Western Civilization that our memory of high school civics classes applies. They look like us (kind of); they eat like us, their languages are fairly similar (Indo-European roots); they dress like us; they worship like us. The tribal cultural gap (how others eat, dress, talk, worship, look, write, etc.) is not that wide.¶ But consider how many Americans can speak a non-Latinate Asian language, identify a major Asian author, discuss even the basics of Buddhism or Confucianism, use chopsticks properly, distinguish Hindu gods, recognize Angkor Wat, etc.?¶ What does that say about the American electorate’s cultural-intellectual interest in this pivot? The U.S. public, mostly descended from European immigrants, had a fair idea of Europe, so a ‘North Atlantic Treaty Organization’ was a coherent concept.
|
Kelly 2012 (Robert, Senior Analyst at Wikistrat, is a professor of political science at Pusan National University, South Korea, 3/29/13, CNN World, http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/29/why-america-wont-pivot-to-asia-anytime-soon/ ) Okuno
|
A U.S. ‘pivot’ to Asia is the foreign policy talk of the moment, but I think Americans are unlikely to embrace it. Europe and Latin America are mostly democratic, . Africa, sadly, remains a U.S. backwater. The Middle East is overrated. Israel and oil are important Asia’s economies are growing fast. China’s rise to regional hegemony would have obvious ramifications for the U.S.¶ But four trends in U.S. domestic politics contravene this narrative: Americans don’t care that much about Asia The business community might, but they’re souring today because of China’s relentless mercantilism Asian-Americans are few and have not loudly organized to demand this. Asian security is still on the media radar Does Obama’s electoral coalition care? the less wealthy you are, the less you care about far-off issues like foreign policy So it’s unlikely that the underprivileged and youth who helped Obama win care much While college-educated whites, who also broke for Obama, likely support this, the rest of the Democratic coalition traditionally focuses on domestic issues. the GOP deeply cares about the Middle East. 30-40% of Americans claim to have had a born-again experience. . Americans know less about Asia than any other region bar central Africa Americans don’t know a lot about the world generally. we don’t have to know about others But Asia is the most culturally different social space in the world from the U.S. I can think of, with the possible exception of Bantu Africa .) is not that wide. But consider how many Americans can speak a non-Latinate Asian language, identify a major Asian author, What does that say about the American electorate’s cultural-intellectual interest in this pivot The U.S. public, mostly descended from European immigrants, had a fair idea of Europe, so a ‘North Atlantic Treaty Organization’ was a coherent concept.
|
No pivot coming - American public does not support
| 4,030 | 50 | 1,854 | 639 | 9 | 299 | 0.014085 | 0.467919 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,337 |
MEXICO CITY—The construction of a natural gas pipeline from southern Texas to central Mexico will allow for a tripling of imports from the U.S. to meet increasing demand from industry, an official from Petroleos Mexicanos has said. Alejandro Martinez Sibaja, the director of the state-owned company's gas division, said that Mexican industry is currently hampered by its reliance on more expensive fuels because of the lack of pipeline capacity for natural gas to come across the border. Pemex Gas Director Alejandro Martínez Discusses Pipeline Project "The lack of gas means that our industries are having to burn fuel oil," which is currently about three times as expensive as natural gas, Mr. Martinez said in an interview on Wednesday. "A lot of investment is looking to come to Mexico, so we have to respond by providing natural gas as part of our offer to get these companies to come." The gas supply problem is expected to be alleviated with the Los Ramones project, a pipeline that Mr. Martinez said will carry around 3 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day by 2015 from southern Texas to the central Mexican state of Guanajuato, which is a hub for the Mexican auto industry. Pemex plans to release bidding rules next week for the longest part of the pipeline, a 740-kilometer (460-mile) stretch from Nuevo León to Guanajuato. Mr. Martinez said the estimated cost of section of the pipeline being tendered is about $1.8 billion. The first two sections of the pipeline have already been assigned. The 200-kilometer section from the Agua Dulce gas hub in Texas to the Mexican border will require an investment of about $800 million, and the 114-kilometer section from the border to the Ramones gas hub in Nuevo León state will cost about $600 million, he said. Meanwhile, the state-owned electricity company Comision Federal de Electricidad, or CFE, is building a separate natural gas pipeline on the Pacific side of Mexico. Pemex and CFE are currently importing liquefied natural gas by ship from Nigeria and other nations at about four to five times the price of piped-in gas from the U.S., where increased production from shale formations has lowered prices in recent years. The imported LNG is just enough to keep Pemex pipelines from reaching a critical state due to a lack of pressure. Critical alerts in the past have forced industry to cut back on their use of the fuel. Mr. Martinez said that while Pemex's immediate goal is to guarantee sufficient natural gas supplies, he expects the company to eventually increase its own production from the current 6.4 billion cubic feet per day by exploiting Mexican shale-gas deposits, which are now in the exploration phase. President Enrique Peña Nieto has proposed changes to Mexico's government-dominated energy industry that would allow more private investment, and the three main political parties are negotiating an energy package. Mexico nationalized the oil industry in 1938 and relies on oil revenue for about a third of the federal budget.
|
Iliff 5/16 [Laurence Iliff is the Mexico correspondent for WSJ “Mexico Aims to Triple Natural Gas Imports from U.S.” May 16, 2013 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323582904578487104065985868.html accessed on July 31, 2013] JAKE LEE
|
The construction of a natural gas pipeline from southern Texas to central Mexico will allow for a tripling of imports from the U.S. to meet increasing demand from industry, because of the lack of pipeline capacity for natural gas to come across the border. Pemex Gas Director Alejandro Martínez Discusses Pipeline Project A lot of investment is looking to come to Mexico, so we have to respond by providing natural gas as part of our offer to get these companies to come." The gas supply problem is expected to be alleviated with the Los Ramones project, a pipeline that Mr. Martinez said will carry around 3 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day by 2015 from southern Texas to the central Mexican state of Guanajuato, which is a hub for the Mexican auto industry. Pemex plans to release bidding rules next week for the longest part of the pipeline, a 740-kilometer (460-mile) stretch from Nuevo León to Guanajuato. Mr. Martinez said the estimated cost of section of the pipeline being tendered is about $1.8 billion. is building a separate natural gas pipeline on the Pacific side of Mexico. Pemex and CFE are currently importing liquefied natural gas by ship from Nigeria and other nations at about four to five times the price of piped-in gas from the U.S., where increased production from shale formations has lowered prices in recent years Martinez said that while Pemex's immediate goal is to guarantee sufficient natural gas supplies, he expects the company to eventually increase its own production from the current 6.4 billion cubic feet per day by exploiting Mexican shale-gas deposits Mexico nationalized the oil industry in 1938 and relies on oil revenue for about a third of the federal budget.
|
And, non-unique - Mexico is already developing some natural gas now
| 3,009 | 67 | 1,711 | 498 | 11 | 289 | 0.022088 | 0.580321 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,338 |
This winter, the United States reached a striking milestone. Carbon-dioxide emissions from the energy sector sank to their lowest levels in 20 years. At a glance, the country appears to be making major progress in tackling climate change. And many analysts give credit to the recent flood of cheap natural gas, which is shoving aside coal as America’s top source of electricity. Yet some environmentalists have argued that the accolades for natural gas are premature. True, the shale gas boom has led to lower carbon pollution from U.S. power plants. But the process to extract natural gas from shale rock — known as “fracking” — can release plenty of methane into the atmosphere, which also heats the planet. That muddies the climate picture a bit. What’s more, natural gas is still a fossil fuel. Even if it produces less carbon than coal, it still produces a fair amount of carbon. So how do all these factors shake out? Below is a primer, but here’s the short version: It’s still uncertain how big an improvement natural gas is over coal, because of those methane leaks. The good news is that those leaks can be plugged. The bad news is that even if the leaks are plugged, a flood of cheap natural gas isn’t, by itself, enough to prevent the planet from heating up significantly. There’s only so much more carbon the world can emit if it wants to avoid a 2°C rise in global temperatures. Natural gas can help avert drastic global warming, but only if paired with a broader set of efforts to curtail emissions. 1) Producing electricity from natural gas is less carbon-intensive than producing it from coal. If you burn natural gas to produce a certain amount of energy, you get, on average, about half as much carbon-dioxide as you get from burning coal. What’s more, modern natural-gas power plants tend to be more efficient than coal plants. So natural gas beats coal from a carbon perspective. And carbon-dioxide is the main gas warming the planet. That’s a key point. 2) But the production of natural gas also emits heat-trapping methane. Natural gas is itself mainly methane. And methane, when it escapes into the air, is a potent greenhouse gas — it lingers in the atmosphere for a shorter period than carbon dioxide, but it’s far, far more effective at trapping heat. So every time some methane seeps out, during drilling or from pipeline leaks, natural gas’s contribution to global warming goes up. 3) If these methane leaks are high enough, the climate benefit from switching to natural gas dwindles. A recent PNAS study found that if the leakage rate from natural-gas production rises to 6 percent, then a natural gas plant would contribute more to global warming than a coal plant would over the first 25 years of their lifespans. After that, however, the natural gas plant starts to win out. (That’s because methane breaks down in the atmosphere more quickly, while carbon dioxide persists for hundreds of years.) But the leakage rates are one key question here. 4) Judging from existing research, natural gas appears to be an improvement over coal, though it’s still not clear how much. Officially, the EPA estimates that those methane leakage rates are about 3 percent. That would make natural gas a clear winner. But the EPA number is only an estimate, and it’s based on industry data that is hard to verify. One recent independent study sampled the air over a natural gas field in Colorado and found that the leakage rate might well be twice as high. So there’s a great deal of uncertainty over how much cleaner natural gas is than coal. As David McCabe, an atmospheric scientist with the Clean Air Task Force, explains, many of the half-dozen recent studies that have tried to compare coal with natural gas are plagued by questionable assumptions and flaws. “From the best of the collective work,” McCabe notes, “we believe that burning natural gas for electricity produces about 30-50% less greenhouse gas than burning coal.” But that’s not a definitive number, and more research needs to be done here. 5) It’s possible to plug those methane leaks and clean up natural gas further. The good news on natural gas is that those methane leaks can be reduced. Gas producers can employ a range of technologies, from better pipeline maintenance to dry seals on compressors, that can reduce the amount of methane escaping into the air. The Clean Air Task Force estimates that “more than half of [the leaked methane] could be eliminated, in just a few years, at little or no cost to the industry.” That would make natural gas look a lot better from a climate perspective. Yet the industry will actually need to use these technologies. Currently, the EPA is proposing new rules on fracking wells that would help curb leaks from drilling. 6) Natural gas is still a fossil fuel and can’t, on its own, avert significant global warming. The International Energy Agency has outlined some “golden rules” for natural-gas production that include plugging those pesky leaks at relatively low cost. If all those rules came to pass and natural gas use surged around the world, displacing coal in countries like China and India, then the IEA estimates that worldwide greenhouse gases would be about 1.3 percent lower in 2035. That’s a real dent, though only a partial one. (See Andrew Revkin for a longer look at what would happen if China shifted from coal to gas.) Now, if this was the only change made to our energy system, the IEA estimates that the world would still be on track to increase atmospheric carbon emissions to about 650 parts per million, “a trajectory consistent with a probable temperature rise of more than 3.5°C in the long term, well above the widely accepted 2°C target.” In other words, relying solely on natural gas to clean up emissions would put the world on pace for global warming that Tyndall Center director Kevin Anderson says is “likely to be beyond ‘adaptation.’ ” This basically comes down to what Bill McKibben has called the “new math” of global warming. The best climate science suggests that world can only emit about 500 more gigatons of carbon by mid-century if we want a shot at staying below that 2°C threshold. Even if natural gas displaced coal entirely, we’d likely still reach that point soon (albeit at a slower pace). 7) At the moment, cheap natural gas appears to be hindering the development of even lower-carbon energy sources. In addition to pushing aside dirty coal, the flood of cheap shale gas in the United States has also undermined the advance of lower-carbon sources such as wind, solar, and nuclear power. And some analysts fear that could prove counterproductive in the long run. One study from MIT suggested that cheap natural gas could actually lead to higher greenhouse-gas emissions in the United States by 2050 if it stunts the growth of renewable energy. MIT study author Henry Jacoby said in January. ”But it is so attractive that it threatens other energy sources we ultimately will need.” 8) Overall, natural gas can help tackle climate change if it’s part of a larger, more comprehensive climate policy. As Michael Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations has pointed out, having a climate policy that explicitly reduces emissions (say, a carbon cap or tax) is likely to have a far bigger influence on the future course of climate change than how much cheap natural gas is available. To see why, check out the graph from the U.S. Energy Information Administration below: The top two lines predict the trajectory of U.S. power-sector emissions through 2035 if there’s no climate policy at all. Whether or not there’s lots and lots of natural gas doesn’t make much difference. Emissions keep growing. The bottom two lines, meanwhile, assume that the United States puts a hard cap on carbon emissions. Emissions go down whether or not there’s abundant natural gas. (Although cheap gas would make the transition much easier.) “The lesson is simple,” Levi notes. “It’s the policy, not the gas resource, that matters most.” So what more could be done on the policy front? As Jesse Ausebel explains here, there are ways to curb the emissions from natural gas even further. Natural gas plants might one day employ carbon-capture technology (CCS) to store their carbon underground, a technology that’s still being developed. And natural gas could, in theory, help support a renewable energy system that eventually zeroes out emissions. Yet it’s still not clear that either of these developments will automatically occur, unless there are changes in energy policy that actually push these steps forward.
|
Plumer 12 [Brad Plumer is a reporter at the Washington Post writing about domestic policy, particularly energy and environmental issues. “Can natural gas help tackle global warming? A primer.” August 20, 2012 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/20/can-natural-gas-really-help-tackle-global-warming-heres-everything-you-need-to-know/ accessed on July 31, 2013] JAKE LEE
|
the United States reached a striking milestone. Carbon-dioxide emissions from the energy sector sank to their lowest levels in 20 years. At a glance, the country appears to be making major progress in tackling climate change. And many analysts give credit to the recent flood of cheap natural gas, . Yet some environmentalists have argued that the accolades for natural gas are premature. True, the shale gas boom has led to lower carbon pollution from U.S. power plants. But the process to extract natural gas from shale rock — known as “fracking” — can release plenty of methane into the atmosphere, which also heats the planet. That muddies the climate picture a bit. What’s more, natural gas is still a fossil fuel Natural gas can help avert drastic global warming, but only if paired with a broader set of efforts Producing electricity from natural gas is less carbon-intensive than producing it from coal. modern natural-gas power plants tend to be more efficient than coal plants. So natural gas beats coal from a carbon perspective. And carbon-dioxide is the main gas warming the planet. That’s a key point. 2) But the production of natural gas also emits heat-trapping methane. Natural gas is itself mainly methane. And methane, when it escapes into the air, is a potent greenhouse gas — it lingers in the atmosphere for a shorter period than carbon dioxide, but it’s far, far more effective at trapping heat. So every time some methane seeps out, during drilling or from pipeline leaks, natural gas’s contribution to global warming goes up. But the leakage rates are one key question here. 4) Judging from existing research, natural gas appears to be an improvement over coal, though it’s still not clear how much. Officially, the EPA estimates that those methane leakage rates are about 3 percent. That would make natural gas a clear winner. we believe that burning natural gas for electricity produces about 30-50% less greenhouse gas than burning coal The International Energy Agency has outlined some “golden rules” for natural-gas production that include plugging those pesky leaks at relatively low cost. If all those rules came to pass and natural gas use surged around the world, displacing coal in countries like China and India, then the IEA estimates that worldwide greenhouse gases would be about 1.3 percent lower in 2035. ). 7) At the moment, cheap natural gas appears to be hindering the development of even lower-carbon energy sources. In addition to pushing aside dirty coal, the flood of cheap shale gas in the United States has also undermined the advance of lower-carbon sources such as wind, solar, and nuclear power. And some analysts fear that could prove counterproductive in the long run. One study from MIT suggested that cheap natural gas could actually lead to higher greenhouse-gas emissions in the United States by 2050 if it stunts the growth of renewable energy. Overall, natural gas can help tackle climate change if it’s part of a larger, more comprehensive climate policy Natural gas plants might one day employ carbon-capture technology (CCS) to store their carbon underground, a technology that’s still being developed. And natural gas could, in theory a renewable energy system that eventually zeroes out emissions
|
And, we solve your impact - natural gas solves global warming
| 8,565 | 61 | 3,262 | 1,453 | 11 | 536 | 0.007571 | 0.368892 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,339 |
On Latin America’s two biggest economies—Brazil and Mexico—there is close to nothing. Apart from saluting Mexico’s cooperation in the drug war, the more important mention is on energy. The GOP heralds the abundant resources of Mexico, Canada, and the United States and presents a long term vision of North American energy independence. While a good idea, making this a reality depends much more on Mexico’s next president, Enrique Peña Nieto (and his willingness and ability to change the Mexican constitution), than on the next U.S. president.
|
O’Neil 12 (Shannon K. O'Neil, senior fellow for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a nonpartisan foreign-policy think tank and membership organization. Her interests and expertise include politics and economics in Latin America and immigration. She is the director of the U.S.-Mexico Initiative at CFR.[1] O’Neil publishes the blogs Latin America’s Moment and Latintelligence. The GOP Platform on Latin America, 8-29-12, http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2012/08/29/the-gop-platform-on-latin-america/ ) Martel
|
On Latin America’s two biggest economies—Brazil and Mexico—there is close to nothing the more important mention is on energy. The GOP heralds the abundant resources of Mexico, Canada, and the United States and presents a long term vision of North American energy independence. making this a reality depends much on Peña Nieto
|
GOP lawmakers support policies to make North America more energy independent - they want Nieto to increase energy activity
| 544 | 122 | 325 | 86 | 19 | 52 | 0.22093 | 0.604651 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,340 |
Republicans bashed the Environmental Protection Agency's three-year investigation of the effects hydraulic fracturing has on drinking water, calling the agency's efforts a "witch hunt" that demonizes a job-creating system of developing cheap natural gas.
|
Abbott 7/25 (Ryan Abbott, Ryan Abbott, M.D., J.D., M.T.O.M., is Associate Professor of Law at Southwestern Law School and Visiting Assistant Professor of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. Professor Abbott has published widely on issues associated with health care law and intellectual property protection in legal, medical, and scientific peer-reviewed journals. EPA's Fracking 'Witch Hunt' Decried by GOP, 2013, http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/25/59697.htm ) Martel
|
Republicans bashed the E P A 's investigation of the effects hydraulic fracturing calling the agency's efforts a "witch hunt" that demonizes a job-creating system of developing cheap natural gas
|
GOP lawmakers support an increase in the natural gas sector due to job creation- they bash arguments about the dangers of fracking
| 254 | 130 | 194 | 34 | 22 | 30 | 0.647059 | 0.882353 |
Mexico Energy Affirmative - Wave 2 - Northwestern 2013 Sophomores.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,341 |
Jay-Z and Beyoncé are discovering that fame provides no immunity from the Cuba Lobby's animus for anyone who has the audacity to act as if Cuba is a normal country rather than the heart of darkness. After the pop icons' recent trip to the island to celebrate their wedding anniversary, the Cuba Lobby's congressional contingent -- Sen. Marco Rubio, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart -- castigated the couple, demanding that they be investigated for violating the half-century-old U.S. embargo. (As it turned out, the trip had been authorized by the U.S. Treasury Department as a cultural exchange.) Still, celebrity trips to Cuba make headlines, and condemnation by the Cuba Lobby is always quick to follow. But what seems like a Hollywood sideshow is actually symptomatic of a much deeper and more dangerous problem -- a problem very much like the one that afflicted U.S. policy toward China in the 1950s and 1960s. Then, as now, an aggressive foreign-policy lobby was able to prevent rational debate about an anachronistic policy by intimidating anyone who dared challenge it. "A wasteland." That's how W. Averell Harriman described the State Department's Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs when he took it over for President John F. Kennedy in 1961. "It's a disaster area filled with human wreckage.… Some of them are so beaten down they can't be saved. Some of those you would want to save are just finished. They try and write a report and nothing comes out. It's a terrible thing." As David Halberstam recounts in The Best and the Brightest, the destruction of the State Department's expertise on Asia was the result of the China Lobby's decade-long assault on everyone, from professors to Foreign Service officers, who disputed the charge that communist sympathizers in the United States had "lost China." The China Lobby and its allies in Congress forced President Harry Truman and President Dwight Eisenhower to purge the State Department of its most senior and knowledgeable "China hands," while continuing to perpetuate the fiction that the Nationalist government in Taiwan was the "real" China, rather than the communist government on the mainland -- a policy stance that persisted long after the rest of the world had come to terms with Mao Zedong's victory. The result was a department that had little real knowledge about Asia and was terrified of straying from far-right orthodoxy. This state of affairs contributed directly to the debacle of Vietnam. Today, U.S. relations with Latin America are suffering from an equally irrational policy toward Cuba -- a policy designed in the 1960s to overthrow Fidel Castro's government and which, more than 50 years later, is no closer to success. Like U.S. policy toward China in the 1950s and 1960s, policy toward Cuba is frozen in place by a domestic political lobby, this one with roots in the electorally pivotal state of Florida. The Cuba Lobby combines the carrot of political money with the stick of political denunciation to keep wavering Congress members, government bureaucrats, and even presidents in line behind a policy that, as President Barack Obama himself admits, has failed for half a century and is supported by virtually no other countries. (The last time it came to a vote in the U.N. General Assembly, only Israel and the Pacific island of Palau sided with the United States.) Of course, the news at this point is not that a Cuba Lobby exists, but that it astonishingly lives on -- even during the presidency of Obama, who publicly vowed to pursue a new approach to Cuba, but whose policy has been stymied thus far. Like the China Lobby, the Cuba Lobby isn't one organization but a loose-knit conglomerate of exiles, sympathetic members of Congress, and nongovernmental organizations, some of which comprise a self-interested industry nourished by the flow of "democracy promotion" money from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). And like its Sino-obsessed predecessor, the Cuba Lobby was launched at the instigation of conservative Republicans in government who needed outside backers to advance their partisan policy aims. In the 1950s, they were Republican members of Congress battling New Dealers in the Truman administration over Asia policy. In the 1980s, they were officials in Ronald Reagan's administration battling congressional Democrats over Central America policy. At the Cuba Lobby's request, Reagan created Radio Martí, modeled on Radio Free Europe, to broadcast propaganda to Cuba. He named Jorge Mas Canosa, founder of the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF), to chair the radio's oversight board. President George H.W. Bush followed with TV Martí. Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) and Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) authored the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, writing the economic embargo into law so no president could change it without congressional approval. Founded at the suggestion of Richard V. Allen, Reagan's first national security advisor, CANF became one of the most powerful ethnic foreign-policy organizations in the United States and was the linchpin of the Cuba Lobby until Mas Canosa's death in 1997. "No individual had more influence over United States policies toward Cuba over the past two decades than Jorge Mas Canosa," the New York Times editorialized. In Washington, CANF built its reputation by spreading campaign contributions to bolster friends and punish enemies. In 1988, CANF money helped Joe Lieberman defeat incumbent Sen. Lowell Weicker, whom Lieberman accused of being soft on Castro because he visited Cuba and advocated better relations. Weicker's defeat sent a chilling message to other members of Congress: challenge the Cuba Lobby at your peril. In 1992, according to Peter Stone's reporting in National Journal, New Jersey Democrat Sen. Robert Torricelli, seduced by the Cuba Lobby's political money, reversed his position on Havana and wrote the Cuban Democracy Act, tightening the embargo. Today, the political action arm of the Cuba Lobby is the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC, which hands out more campaign dollars than CANF's political action arm did even at its height -- more than $3 million in the last five national elections. In Miami, conservative Cuban-Americans have long presumed to be the sole authentic voice of the community, silencing dissent by threats and, occasionally, violence. In the 1970s, anti-Castro terrorist groups like Omega 7 and Alpha 66 set off dozens of bombs in Miami and assassinated two Cuban-Americans who advocated dialogue with Castro. Reports by Human Rights Watch in the 1990s documented the climate of fear in Miami and the role that elements of the Cuba Lobby, including CANF, played in creating it. Today, moderate Cuban-Americans have managed to carve out greater space for political debate about U.S. relations with Cuba as attitudes in the community have changed -- a result of both the passing of the old exile generation of the 1960s and the arrival of new immigrants who want to maintain ties with family they left behind. But a network of right-wing radio stations and right-wing bloggers still routinely vilifies moderates by name, branding anyone who favors dialogue as a spy for Castro. The modus operandi is the same as the China Lobby's in the 1950s: One anti-Castro crusader makes dubious accusations of espionage, often based on guilt by association, which the others then repeat ad nauseam, citing one other as proof. Like the China Lobby before it, the Cuba Lobby has also struck fear into the heart of the foreign-policy bureaucracy. The congressional wing of the Cuba Lobby, in concert with its friends in the executive branch, routinely punishes career civil servants who don't toe the line. One of the Cuba Lobby's early targets was John J. "Jay" Taylor, chief of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, who was given an unsatisfactory annual evaluation report in 1988 by Republican stalwart Elliott Abrams, then assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, because Taylor reported from Havana that the Cubans were serious about wanting to negotiate peace in southern Africa and Central America. "CANF had close contact with the Cuban desk, which soon turned notably unfriendly toward my reporting from post and it seemed toward me personally," Taylor recalled in an oral history interview. "Mas and the foundation soon assumed that I was too soft on Castro." The risks of crossing the Cuba Lobby were not lost on other foreign-policy professionals. In 1990, Taylor was in Washington to consult about the newly launched TV Martí, which the Cuban government was jamming so completely that Cubans on the island dubbed it, "la TV que no se ve" ("No-see TV"). But TV Martí's patrons in Washington blindly insisted that the vast majority of the Cuban population was watching the broadcasts. Taylor invited the U.S. Information Agency officials responsible for TV Martí to come to Cuba to see for themselves. "Silence prevailed around the table," he recalled. "I don't think anyone there really believed TV Martí signals were being received in Cuba. It was a Kafkaesque moment, a true Orwellian experience, to see a room full of grown, educated men and women so afraid for their jobs or their political positions that they could take part in such a charade." In 1993, the Cuba Lobby opposed the appointment of President Bill Clinton's first choice to be assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, Mario Baeza, because he had once visited Cuba. According to Stone, fearful of the Cuba Lobby's political clout, Clinton dumped Baeza. Two years later, Clinton caved in to the Cuba Lobby's demand that he fire National Security Council official Morton Halperin, who was the architect of the successful 1995 migration accord with Cuba that created a safe, legal route for Cubans to emigrate to the United States. One chief of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Cuba told me he stopped sending sensitive cables to the State Department altogether because they so often leaked to Cuba Lobby supporters in Congress. Instead, the diplomat flew to Miami so he could report to the department by telephone. During George W. Bush's administration, the Cuba Lobby completely captured the State Department's Latin America bureau (renamed the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs). Bush's first assistant secretary was Otto Reich, a Cuban-American veteran of the Reagan administration and favorite of Miami hard-liners. Reich had run Reagan's "public diplomacy" operation demonizing opponents of the president's Central America policy as communist sympathizers. Reich hired as his deputy Dan Fisk, former staff assistant to Senator Helms and author of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. Reich was followed by Roger Noriega, another former Helms staffer, who explained that Bush's policy was aimed at destabilizing the Cuban regime: "We opted for change even if it meant chaos. The Cubans had had too much stability over decades.… Chaos was necessary in order to change reality." In 2002, Bush's undersecretary for arms control and international security, John Bolton, made the dubious charge that Cuba was developing biological weapons. When the national intelligence officer for Latin America, Fulton Armstrong, (along with other intelligence community analysts) objected to this mischaracterization of the community's assessment, Bolton and Reich tried repeatedly to have him fired. The Cuba Lobby began a steady drumbeat of charges that Armstrong was a Cuban agent because his and the community's analysis disputed the Bush team's insistence that the Castro regime was fragile and wouldn't survive the passing of its founder. The 2001 arrest for espionage of the Defense Intelligence Agency's top Cuba analyst, Ana Montes, heightened the Cuba Lobby's hysteria over traitors in government in the same way that the spy cases of the 1950s -- Alger Hiss and the Amerasia magazine affair -- gave the China Lobby ammunition. Armstrong was subjected to repeated and intrusive security investigations, all of which cleared him of wrongdoing. (He completed a four-year term as national intelligence officer and received a prestigious CIA medal recognizing his service when he left the agency in 2008.) When Obama was elected president, promising a "new beginning" in relations with Havana, the Cuba Lobby relied on its congressional wing to stop him. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), the senior Cuban-American Democrat in Congress and now chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, vehemently opposes any opening to Cuba. In March 2009, he signaled his willingness to defy both his president and his party to get his way. Menendez voted with Republicans to block passage of a $410 billion omnibus appropriations bill (needed to keep the government running) because it relaxed the requirement that Cuba pay in advance for food purchases from U.S. suppliers and eased restrictions on travel to the island. To get Menendez to relent, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner had to promise in writing that the administration would consult Menendez on any change in U.S. policy toward Cuba. Senate Republicans also blocked confirmation of Arturo Valenzuela as Obama's assistant secretary for Western Hemisphere affairs until November 2009. With the bureau managed in the interim by Bush holdovers, no one was pushing from below to carry out Obama's new Cuba policy. After Valenzuela stepped down in 2012, Senator Rubio (R-Fla.), whose father left Cuba in the 1950s, held up confirmation of Valenzuela's replacement, Roberta Jacobson, until the administration agreed to tighten restrictions on educational travel to Cuba, undercutting Obama's stated policy of increasing people-to-people engagement. When Obama nominated career Foreign Service officer Jonathan Farrar to be ambassador to Nicaragua, the Cuba Lobby denounced him as soft on communism. During his previous posting as chief of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Havana, Farrar had reported to Washington that Cuba's traditional dissident movement had very little appeal to ordinary Cubans. Menendez and Rubio teamed up to give Farrar a verbal beating during his confirmation hearing for carrying out Obama's policy of engaging the Cuban government rather than simply antagonizing it. When they blocked Farrar's confirmation, Obama withdrew the nomination, sending Farrar as ambassador to Panama instead. Their point made, Menendez and Rubio did not object.
|
Leogrande 4/11 William M. Leogrande, professor in the department of government at American University's School of Public Affairs in Washington, D.C., 2013, “The Cuba Lobby” The most powerful lobby in Washington isn't the NRA. It's the Castro-hating right wing that has Obama's bureaucrats terrified and inert, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/11/the_cuba_lobby_jay_z?page=0,0
|
the Cuba Lobby's congressional contingent Rubio Ros-Lehtinen, and Diaz-Balart an aggressive foreign-policy lobby able to prevent rational debate about an anachronistic policy by intimidating anyone who dared challenge it. the destruction of the State Department's expertise on Asia was the result of the China Lobby's decade-long assault on everyone from professors to Foreign Service officers, who disputed the charge that communist sympathizers in the United States had "lost China." The China Lobby forced Truman and Eisenhower to purge the State Department of its most senior and knowledgeable "China hands," while continuing to perpetuate the fiction that the Nationalist government in Taiwan was the "real" China a policy stance that persisted Today U.S. relations with Latin America are suffering from an equally irrational policy toward Cuba a policy designed in the 1960s to overthrow Fidel Castro's government policy toward Cuba is frozen in place by a domestic political lobby with roots in the electorally pivotal state of Florida The Cuba Lobby combines the carrot of political money with the stick of political denunciation to keep wavering Congress members, government bureaucrats, and even presidents in line a Cuba Lobby astonishingly lives on during the presidency of Obama, who publicly vowed to pursue a new approach to Cuba, but whose policy has been stymied thus far. moderate Cuban-Americans have managed to carve out greater space for political debate But a network of right-wing radio stations and right-wing bloggers still routinely vilifies moderates by name, branding anyone who favors dialogue as a spy for Castro the Cuba Lobby has struck fear into the heart of the foreign-policy bureaucracy The congressional wing of the Cuba Lobby routinely punishes career civil servants who don't toe the line One of the Cuba Lobby's early targets was John Taylor who was given an unsatisfactory annual evaluation report in 1988 by Republican stalwart Elliott Abrams because Taylor reported that the Cubans were serious about wanting to negotiate peace in southern Africa and Central America "CANF had close contact with the Cuban desk, which soon turned notably unfriendly toward my reporting from post and it seemed toward me personally In 1993, the Cuba Lobby opposed the appointment of President Clinton's first choice to be assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs because he had once visited Cuba According to Stone, fearful of the Cuba Lobby's political clout, Clinton dumped Baeza Two years later, Clinton caved in to the Cuba Lobby's demand that he fire National Security Council official Halperin who was the architect of the successful 1995 migration accord with Cuba During Bush's administration, the Cuba Lobby completely captured the State Department's Latin America bureau Senate Republicans blocked confirmation of Valenzuela as Obama's assistant secretary until November 2009 no one was pushing from below to carry out Obama's new Cuba policy Rubio held up confirmation of Valenzuela's replacement Jacobson, until the administration agreed to tighten restrictions on educational travel to Cuba, undercutting Obama's stated policy When Obama nominated Farrar to be ambassador to Nicaragua the Cuba Lobby denounced him as soft on communism When they blocked Farrar's confirmation, Obama withdrew the nomination, sending Farrar as ambassador to Panama instead. Their point made, Menendez and Rubio did not object.
|
The plan sparks massive opposition from the Cuban-American Lobby—destroys Obama’s PC
| 14,455 | 84 | 3,461 | 2,287 | 11 | 528 | 0.00481 | 0.23087 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,342 |
Political considerations also factor into excluding countries from the “state sponsor” list, he said, pointing to Pakistan as a prime example. Although Islamabad “very clearly supports terrorist and insurgent organizations,” he said, the U.S. government has long refused to provoke its ally in the region with the official censure.
|
Williams 5/3 International Affairs writer for the LA Times, Carol, “Political calculus keeps Cuba on U.S. list of terror sponsors”, 5/3/13, http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/03/world/la-fg-wn-cuba-us-terror-list-20130502
|
Political considerations factor into excluding countries from the “state sponsor” list pointing to Pakistan as a prime example
|
Plan saps political capital—state sponsor list is determined by politics
| 331 | 72 | 126 | 49 | 10 | 18 | 0.204082 | 0.367347 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,343 |
Cuban-American lawmakers are pressing the Obama administration to keep Cuba on its list of state sponsors of terrorism as the State Department prepares to release its annual assessment next week. The four Cuban-Americans in the House are drafting a joint letter to Secretary of State John Kerry laying out why they think the communist island still meets the criteria established by the 1979 sanctions law. And the Senate's three Cuban-Americans are also vocally opposed to delisting Cuba, which was first added in 1982. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) told The Hill she's collaborating with Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), Albio Sires (D-N.J.) and Joe Garcia (D-Fla.) on a letter urging the State Department to retain Cuba alongside Iran, Syria and Sudan. The push comes amid reports – vehemently denied by the State Department – that U.S. diplomats have concluded Cuba should be removed from the list to pave the way for better relations with President Raul Castro. “We will be laying out a very concrete plan in this coming week about why Cuba deserves to maintain its place in this rogues' gallery,” Ros-Lehtinen said. She said she was particularly encouraged by Thursday's news that the Justice Department has indicted a former U.S. Agency for International Development employee, Marta Rita Velazquez, for allegedly helping a convicted former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst spy for Cuba. The Obama administration is seeking her extradition from Sweden. “It's a recent indication again of the threat that the Castro regime poses to U.S. national security interests,” Ros-Lehtinen said. It “means that somebody in the administration is still aware of the threat that Castro poses.” To delist a country, the State Department must make the case to Congress that a country has seen a change in leadership and policies or that it has not engaged in acts of international terrorism in the past six months and has provided assurances it won't in the future. Cuba says it has stopped supporting Colombia's leftist rebels and is hosting peace talks, but U.S. lawmakers say the country is still running afoul of the law by serving as a safe haven for fugitives from U.S. law and keeping USAID contractor Alan Gross in prison on charges he sought to undermine the Cuban state by distributing communications equipment. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said he is also drafting a letter to Kerry. “We've certainly communicated with them, we have,” he said. “We think it's critically important they remain on the list, for multiple reasons.” “But certainly I think Cuba continues to classify as a country that supports terrorism and has actively supported it in the past – increasingly against its own people, unfortunately,” Rubio said, a reference to recent incidents such as the death of Cuban activist Oswaldo Payá in a car crash. His driver has said he was driven off the road by a car with government license plates. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, declined to share what outreach he's been engaged in. “I would expect that there would be no change, because all the elements of why Cuba was on the terror list in the first place still continue to be the same,” he said. “We'll look forward to the State Department's decision but I would not expect a change.” Likewise, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) declined to detail his interactions with the State Department but has made his feelings about the Castro regime clear. “Hopefully, in the not too distant future, Fidel Castro and Raul Castro will join Hugo Chavez, and all three will face the ultimate judgment,” he told the annual Cuba-Democracy PAC luncheon in Miami last month, according to Florida's Shark Tank blog. America, he said, needs a “president that will stand up today and say, Mr. Castro, let the Cuban people go. Mr. Castro, open up the ballot box. Mr. Castro, empty the jails.”
|
Pecquet 4/28 Julian Pecquet, writer for The Hill, “Cuban-American lawmakers press White House to keep Cuba on terror list” http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/americas/296521--cuban-american-lawmakers-keep-cuba-on-terror-list
|
Cuban-American lawmakers are pressing Obama to keep Cuba on its list of state sponsors of terrorism The four Cuban-Americans in the House are drafting a joint letter to Kerry laying out why they think the communist island still meets the criteria the Senate's three Cuban-Americans are also vocally opposed to delisting Cuba Lehtinen told The Hill she's collaborating with Reps. Balart Sires and Garcia urging the State Department to retain Cuba We will be laying out a very concrete plan in this coming week about why Cuba deserves to maintain its place in this rogues' gallery,” Ros-Lehtinen said Rubio is also drafting a letter to Kerry We think it's critically important they remain on the list, for multiple reasons.” Sen Ted Cruz has made his feelings clear Hopefully, in the not too distant future, Fidel Castro and Raul Castro will join Hugo Chavez, and all three will face the ultimate judgment he told the annual Cuba-Democracy PAC luncheon
|
Cuban-American lobby hates the plan
| 3,888 | 35 | 950 | 641 | 5 | 158 | 0.0078 | 0.24649 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,344 |
And two backers of immigration reform have emerged as key players since Congress took up the issue last week with hearings of the Senate Judiciary Committee. One is President Obama. In February, the leak of a White House bill—including provisions that would be anathema to Republicans—threatened to upset the pro-reform coalition. Since then, the president has promised to stay out of the congressional deliberations.
|
Barnes 4/24 Fred Barnes, writer for the Wall Street Journal “Fred Barnes: Immigration Reform Is Starting to Roll” 2013 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324874204578441133717872550.html
|
two backers of reform have emerged as key players One is Obama
|
Rubio key to passage
| 417 | 20 | 62 | 64 | 4 | 12 | 0.0625 | 0.1875 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,345 |
Washington, D.C. - Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) appalled by the Obama Administration's decision to ease sanctions regarding travel and remittance to Cuba. Diaz-Balart states the following: "Any kind of appeasement toward a terrorist regime is unacceptable and endangers our national security. The Administration should not permit the loosening of these sanctions while the Castro regime holds an American hostage. Appeasement will only empower and promote the regime while hindering the freedom of the Cuban people. “Every time the Obama Administration has granted the regime new concessions the Cuban people in return get increased repression. The Obama Administration must realize that appeasing to a ruthless dictator is not the answer today, tomorrow, or ever. Rather than channeling additional U.S. dollars to an ailing regime and state sponsor of terror, the administration should focus on strengthening the brave pro-democracy opposition, which continues to gain ground in Cuba. ”
|
Diaz-Balart 11 Congressman Diaz-Balart, Press Release, “Diaz-Balart condemns the Obama Administration continued appeasement to a Terrorist Regime” http://mariodiazbalart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/diaz-balart-condemns-the-obama-administration-continued-appeasement-to-a
|
Congressman Diaz-Balart appalled by Obama 's decision to ease sanctions regarding travel and remittance states Any kind of appeasement toward a terrorist regime is unacceptable and endangers our national security The Administration should not permit the loosening of these sanctions while Castro holds an American hostage Appeasement will only empower the regime Obama must realize that appeasing to a ruthless dictator is not the answer Rather than channeling additional dollars to an ailing regime the administration should focus on strengthening the opposition
|
Congressman Diaz-Balart hates the plan
| 995 | 38 | 563 | 146 | 5 | 82 | 0.034247 | 0.561644 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,346 |
Mario Diaz-Balart spoke bluntly to his fellow U.S. House Republicans during a closed-door meeting at Washington’s Capitol Hill Club. “Immigration is the 800-pound gorilla,” the Miami congressman told the room of vote-counting whips just seven days after last November’s election. “The 800-pound gorilla just punched us in the face.” Indeed, Hispanic voters had turned from Republicans in record numbers, in heavy measure because of the way the party’s candidates handled immigration. But beyond the political numbers, Diaz-Balart said, the immigration policy data mattered even more. About 11 million immigrants illegally live in the country. The system is broken. The time to fix it, he said, is during a non-election year. “After I was done speaking, unlike in previous years, a huge number of my colleagues on the whip team came up to me to tell me it was time to do it,” Diaz-Balart told The Herald. “What really changed,” he said, “was a willingness by many to confront the small handful of members who have been very vocal against doing anything, against doing anything realistic.” That day, Nov. 13, marks not just a turning point in the immigration debate, but a significant moment in Diaz-Balart’s political career. Today, the longtime lawmaker plays one of the most-crucial Washington roles in immigration that many have never heard about. The scion of Miami’s preeminent Cuban exile family, Diaz-Balart is a former state legislator, five-term congressman and former nephew by marriage of Fidel Castro and cousin to the dictator’s first son and namesake. Diaz-Balart’s oldest brother, Lincoln, left Congress in 2010, having passed a significant Central American immigration-citizenship law and a codification of the Cuban embargo. As Lincoln (they’re known by many in Miami by just their first names) served in his last term, Mario emerged as an even more important immigration-reform player. The contrast with his fellow Miami Republican and friend, Sen. Marco Rubio, is sharp. Rubio, a fixation of the national press, has saturated the news media as a leading member of the Senate’s bipartisan “Gang of Eight,” which has met for the past four months. By comparison, Mario Diaz-Balart has operated far more in the shadows, where his friendly back-slapping consensus building style has smooth over partisan rifts. Ever since 2009, Diaz-Balart and a bipartisan group of House members have clandestinely met on and off to hammer out an immigration-reform bill. The bill was about 90 percent finished when it was shelved in 2011, as the new Republican House leadership showed as little interest in tackling reform as the old Democratic House leadership. The bill is being updated and, as the Senate votes on its similar version, will be publicly introduced soon either as one mammoth piece of legislation or in parts. Regardless of its final form, the House bill sounds like a blueprint for what became the more publicized Senate deal. Because immigration reform has to go through a House run by Republicans — a party less inclined over the years to support comprehensive immigration reform — Diaz-Balart’s part in getting a final law out of Congress rivals, if not surpasses, that of Rubio, who serves in a Democrat-controlled chamber. Diaz-Balart and his fellow members of the group won’t talk about their bill, their deals, discussions or progress. The House group has no flashy nicknames. Unlike the sieve-like Senate, the House members and staffers didn’t leak info for years. They weren’t regular features on the Sunday talk-show circuit. The House group meetings were held in different rooms in Washington. Some staffers made sure they weren’t seen congregating outside meeting so as not to arouse attention. A few wouldn’t acknowledge each other in a friendly fashion in public.. Was there a secret handshake? “I’d tell you, but I’d have to kill you," Diaz-Balart quipped. The club was, members say, the best-kept secret in Washington, where secrets have a shelf life about three minutes. The club was anti-Washington in this regard as well: It was all about consensus, finding common ground and not scoring points. No votes are taken. Harsh words, threats and posturing are looked down upon. “No one feels like a loser,” said U.S. Rep. Luis Gutiérrez, an Illinois Democrat. “One day, Mario said ‘Luis, we really have to never end a sentence with the phrase: ‘this will kill the deal.’ It was a great idea. And ever since, we don’t do it. And it’s not only me. It’s everyone in the group.” Among Diaz-Balart’s better qualities, Gutiérrez said, is his ability to “take off his partisan hat” — a feat for a member of the Republican whip team.
|
Caputo 4/20 Marc Caputo, writer for the Miami Herald, “From shadows to spotlight, Mario Diaz-Balart plays powerful role in immigration talks” http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/04/20/3355230/from-shadows-to-spotlight-mario.html
|
Mario Diaz-Balart spoke bluntly to his fellow Republicans during a closed-door meeting the longtime lawmaker plays one of the most-crucial Washington roles in immigration that many have never heard about. The scion of Miami’s preeminent Cuban exile family, Diaz-Balart is a former state legislator As Lincoln served in his last term Mario emerged as an even more important immigration-reform player. Mario Diaz-Balart has operated far more in the shadows, where his friendly back-slapping consensus building style has smooth over partisan rifts. Diaz-Balart and a bipartisan group of House members have clandestinely met on and off to hammer out an immigration-reform bill. The bill was about 90 percent finished when it was shelved in 2011 Because immigration reform has to go through a House run by Republicans Diaz-Balart’s part in getting a final law out of Congress rivals, if not surpasses, that of Rubio The club was, members say, the best-kept secret in Washington, where secrets have a shelf life about three minutes It was all about consensus, finding common ground and not scoring points. Among Diaz-Balart’s better qualities is his ability to “take off his partisan hat
|
That’s key to immigration passage in the House
| 4,655 | 47 | 1,181 | 759 | 8 | 187 | 0.01054 | 0.246377 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,347 |
The Cuba Lobby's power to derail diplomatic careers is common knowledge among foreign-policy professionals. Throughout Obama's first term, midlevel State Department officials cooperated more closely and deferred more slavishly to congressional opponents of Obama's Cuba policy than to supporters like John Kerry, the new secretary of state who served at the time as Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman. When Senator Kerry tried to get the State Department and USAID to reform the Bush administration's democracy-promotion programs in 2010, he ran into more opposition from the bureaucracy than from Republicans. If Obama intends to finally keep the 2008 campaign promise to take a new direction in relations with Cuba, the job can't be left to foreign-policy bureaucrats, who are so terrified of the Cuba Lobby that they continue to believe, or pretend to believe, absurdities -- that Cubans are watching TV Martí, for instance, or that Cuba is a state sponsor of terrorism. Only a determined president and a tough secretary of state can drive a new policy through a bureaucratic wasteland so paralyzed by fear and inertia.
|
Leogrande 4/11 William M. Leogrande, professor in the department of government at American University's School of Public Affairs in Washington, D.C., 2013, “The Cuba Lobby” The most powerful lobby in Washington isn't the NRA. It's the Castro-hating right wing that has Obama's bureaucrats terrified and inert, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/11/the_cuba_lobby_jay_z?page=0,0
|
The Cuba Lobby's power to derail diplomatic careers is common knowledge among foreign-policy professionals State Department officials cooperated more closely and deferred more slavishly to congressional opponents of Obama's Cuba policy than to supporters like John Kerry When tried to get the State Department and USAID to reform the Bush administration's democracy-promotion programs he ran into more opposition from the bureaucracy than from Republicans Only a determined president and a tough secretary of state can drive a new policy through a bureaucratic wasteland so paralyzed by fear and inertia
|
The plan means Obama must be involved
| 1,131 | 37 | 603 | 177 | 7 | 89 | 0.039548 | 0.502825 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,348 |
Washington – More than a year after the United States and Mexico signed a much-lauded deal that would remove obstacles to expanding deepwater drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico, the agreement still has not been finalized by the United States. The delay, for which people close to the administration blame Congress while Republicans in Congress blame the administration, is certain to be discussed when President Barack Obama visits Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto in Mexico City on Thursday. Mexico immediately ratified the pact in April 2012, but the United States has so far been unable to pass a simply worded, one-page law to put the agreement into force. The deal, formally known as the Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement, provides legal guidelines for deepwater drilling in the 1.5 million acres (600,000 hectares) of the Gulf that straddle the U.S.-Mexico boundary. It is seen as the key to opening a new era of cooperation on oil production between the two countries. Mexico’s state-owned oil company Pemex needs technology and investment to boost its stagnant production, and U.S. companies are eager to help. “The U.S. has a real opportunity now to put energy back on the agenda with Mexico in a way that it really hasn’t been able to be on the agenda for the last several years,” said Neil Brown, who worked on the issue during the last Congress as lead Republican international energy aide in the Senate. But the final step of implementing the deal has languished. “I’m not aware of strong opposition to it. I think it’s been a little more inertia,” said Jason Bordoff, a top energy official at the White House until January who now runs Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy. In the past several weeks, there have been some signs that the implementing legislation may move forward, but there also could be new complications related to disclosure requirements. DEAL COULD OPEN THE DOOR Oil is critical for the Mexican economy, paying for a third of the government’s budget. But production peaked in 2004 at 3.4 million barrels per day and has slipped below 2.6 million bpd. Pemex says it can revive production with deepwater wells in the Gulf, but needs technical and financial help. The agreement would be the first step toward joint projects for reservoirs that cross the boundary, providing a way for Pemex and other oil companies to share production and creating a framework to solve disputes that could arise. “Without the agreement, it creates a barrier to investment,” said Erik Melito, a director at the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry’s lobby group. The agreement could help calm Mexico’s fears about what is termed the “popote” or drinking-straw effect — fears that U.S. oil companies are going to drain reservoirs that extend into Mexico’s side of the border, robbing Mexico of its share, said David Goldwyn, a former State Department official who helped launch negotiations. “This has been an urban myth in Mexico for decades,” said Goldwyn, now president of Goldwyn Global Strategies, a consulting firm. Peña Nieto is working toward reforms for Pemex that would allow for more production and cooperation in projects generally — a delicate issue in a country where Pemex and oil are symbols of national pride. “If they can see some success here (with the transboundary deal), that’s going to change the political conversation in Mexico,” Goldwyn said. To finalize the deal, Congress needs to pass legislation that gives the Interior Department the authority it needs to implement the technical aspects of the agreement. But in the Senate last year, dissension over an unrelated Law of the Sea treaty and the heated politics of the U.S. presidential election effectively put the deal on hold.
|
Reuters, 4/30 Roberta Rampton, “Washington Stalling on US-Mexico Oil Deal,” http://www.thenews.com.mx/index.php/mexico-articulos/8983-washington-stalling-us-mexico-oil-deal
|
More than a year after the United States and Mexico signed a deal that would remove obstacles to expanding deepwater drilling for oil in the Gulf the agreement still has not been finalized by the United States. The delay, for which people close to the administration blame Congress while Republicans in Congress blame the administration is certain to be discussed the final step of implementing the deal has languished. it’s been a little more inertia there have been some signs that the implementing legislation may move forward, but there also could be new complications related to disclosure requirements. To finalize the deal, Congress needs to pass legislation that gives the Interior Department the authority it needs to implement the technical aspects of the agreement. dissension over an unrelated Law of the Sea treaty and the heated politics of the U.S. presidential election effectively put the deal on hold.
|
Plan unpopular – disclosure agreements and blame game
| 3,756 | 53 | 919 | 618 | 8 | 148 | 0.012945 | 0.239482 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,349 |
A House GOP bill to implement a U.S.-Mexico offshore energy accord exempts oil companies operating under the pact from controversial federal rules that force energy producers to disclose their payments to foreign governments. The provision could become a sticking point in enacting the Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreement, a 2012 accord to enable cooperation in development of oil-and-gas along a maritime boundary in the Gulf of Mexico. “I don’t see how that provision can be taken out,” said Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), the chairman of a House subcommittee that reviewed the bill Thursday. The U.S.-Mexico energy accord has strong support from Republicans and the Obama administration. Backers note it will open a substantial offshore region to oil production and enable new cooperation between U.S. companies and PEMEX, Mexico’s state-owned oil giant. But Interior and State Department officials declined, at Thursday's hearing, to weigh in on the GOP implementing bill’s limited exemption from Securities and Exchange Commission disclosure rules. The legislation appears to be the first bill introduced to alter the resource payments disclosure provision in the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial law, a provision that faces heavy opposition from oil industry and business groups. Dodd-Frank requires SEC-listed oil, natural gas and mining companies to disclose payments to foreign governments related to projects in their countries, such as money for production licenses, royalties and so forth. On Thursday, Republicans and officials with oil industry groups said the exemption in the GOP bill is needed to prevent a collision with confidentiality provisions in the U.S.-Mexico accord. “The treaty that we are hammering out with Mexico does address confidentiality and allows for it for competitive reasons for both their company and American companies, so that right there puts that agreement at odds with Dodd-Frank,” Lamborn, chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, told reporters. Daniel Simmons of the Institute for Energy Research (IER) told the subcommittee that the U.S.-Mexico accord and the Dodd-Frank mandate could together “create an impossible situation for American companies” weighing expensive deepwater projects in the transboundary region. “Any legal uncertainty brought about by disclosure law could easily dissuade American companies from undertaking what is already an expensive decision, in turn reducing opportunities for new jobs for Americans,” said Simmons, director of regulatory and state affairs for IER, which receives fossil fuel industry backing. Obama administration officials declined to weigh in on the exemption. Tommy Beaudreau, the Interior Department’s acting assistant secretary for land and minerals management, said during the hearing that he doesn’t have a view of the provision at this point and wants more information. “It is something that we are going to have to talk with the committee about, try and understand what the committee is getting at there, and work with them on it,” he told reporters after his appearance before lawmakers. But Oxfam America, which is a major backer of the SEC rules, criticized the exemption and is concerned the bill is part of a wider effort to repeal the Dodd-Frank provision. “We agree with the SEC that no exemptions to the payment reporting requirements of [Dodd-Frank] Section 1504 are warranted and believe that oil industry arguments in favor of exemptions are groundless. The exemptions language in this proposed legislation implementing a US-Mexico transboundary hydrocarbons agreement is irrelevant and unnecessary,” said Ian Gary, senior policy manager of Oxfam America’s oil, gas and mining program, in a statement. The American Petroleum Institute, which also backed the exemption Thursday, is currently challenging the SEC rule in court, and has said it may seek legislation to thwart the regulation. Lamborn, for his part, suggested the provision in the U.S.-Mexico energy bill could be a “model” going forward, and expressed concern that similar conflicts could arise between the Dodd-Frank provision and confidentiality laws in other nations. The Dodd-Frank disclosure provision is aimed at undoing the “resource curse,” in which some impoverished countries in Africa and elsewhere are plagued by corruption and conflict alongside their energy and mineral wealth. Human rights and anti-poverty groups say greater transparency will help ensure the public in these nations benefits from their natural resource wealth. Backers also argue the disclosure will provide greater information to investors. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) criticized the exemption is the transboundary bill during Thursday's hearing, stating that the Dodd-Frank mandate “goes to the core” of the SEC’s investor protection mission. But oil industry and business groups challenging the SEC rule in court say it will impose costly burdens and hinder competitiveness, especially by placing SEC-listed oil companies at a disadvantage when competing for contracts overseas against state-owned Russian and Chinese firms. The industry unsuccessfully appealed to the SEC to include various exemptions in the rule, including an exemption when or if foreign government bars the disclosure. As the administration weighs its position on the Dodd-Frank exemption in the House U.S.-Mexico bill, the topic looms as a potential stumbling block to enacting an energy accord that has support from the oil industry, Republicans and the Obama administration.
|
The Hill, 4/25 Ben Geman, “House GOP moves to shield oil companies from disclosure rule” http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/296235-house-gop-moves-to-shield-oil-companies-from-disclosure-rules
|
A bill to implement a U.S.-Mexico offshore energy exempts oil companies operating under the pact from controversial federal rules The provision could become a sticking point in enacting the Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreement “I don’t see how that provision can be taken out,” Interior and State Department officials declined to weigh in on the GOP implementing bill’s limited exemption from disclosure rules. the U.S.-Mexico accord and the Dodd-Frank mandate could together “create an impossible situation for American companies” Any legal uncertainty brought about by disclosure law could easily dissuade American companies from undertaking what is already an expensive decision, in turn reducing opportunities for new jobs for Americans Oxfam America criticized the exemption and is concerned the bill is part of a wider effort to repeal the Dodd-Frank provision. no exemptions to the payment reporting requirements of [Dodd-Frank ection 1504 are warranted and believe that oil industry arguments in favor of exemptions are groundless. Grijalva criticized the exemption is the transboundary bill d stating that the Dodd-Frank mandate “goes to the core” of the SEC’s investor protection mission. the topic looms as a potential stumbling block to enacting an energy accord
|
Plan causes political controversy – SEC exemptions
| 5,524 | 51 | 1,273 | 825 | 7 | 190 | 0.008485 | 0.230303 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,350 |
President Barack Obama’s offshore drilling proposal has shaken up the Capitol Hill climate change fight. The White House has been emphasizing its support for nuclear power and oil drilling as it courts Republican — and centrist Democratic — endorsements of greenhouse gas emissions curbs. Under the administration plan, the Interior Department will proceed with a lease sale for companies interested in drilling 50 miles off the Virginia coast before 2012. Leasing off the coasts of other mid-Atlantic and Southeastern states would be authorized in Interior’s 2012-2017 program. The White House is also calling for opening a major swath of the eastern Gulf of Mexico, which is mostly off-limits under a 2006 Gulf drilling law. While most of the drilling proposal can be undertaken using executive power, expanded drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico would require congressional approval. That will surely play a role in the fight over energy and climate legislation that Democrats hope to bring to the floor. Republicans called Obama’s plan too narrow, as it closes off or delays leasing or sales in other areas. The energy consulting firm ClearView Energy Partners, in a research note Wednesday, said the limits of the White House plan give architects of the Senate energy and climate bill an opening to woo new support. “One obvious implication of today’s announcement: delaying and canceling OCS [Outer Continental Shelf] sales gives lawmakers the opportunity to ‘sweeten’ a climate bill by restoring or accelerating sales,” ClearView states. But the White House and the architects of Senate legislation — Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) — risk losing support among liberal Democrats and environmentalists as they seek expanded drilling. For instance, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) attacked the plan Wednesday. “Drilling off the Virginia coast would endanger many of New Jersey’s beaches and vibrant coastal economies,” Lautenberg said in a prepared statement. Environmental groups that are on board with efforts to craft a compromise climate change and energy bill — such as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council — also slammed the proposal.
|
The Hill, 10 Ben Geman, “Obama’s offshore drilling push shakes up congressional fight over climate bill” http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/90137-drilling-push-shakes-up-climate-fight-
|
Obama’s drilling proposal has shaken up the Capitol Hill climate change fight. The White House is calling for opening a major swath of the eastern Gulf of Mexico, which is mostly off-limits under a 2006 Gulf drilling law. expanded drilling in the Gulf would require congressional approval That will play a role in the fight over energy and climate legislation Republicans called Obama’s plan too narrow, as it closes off or delays leasing or sales in other areas. the White House risk losing support among liberal Democrats and environmentalists as they seek expanded drilling. Lautenberg attacked the plan Environmental groups that are on board with efforts to craft a compromise energy bill such as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council — also slammed the proposal.
|
Expanded gulf drilling causes backlash from environmentalists and the left
| 2,216 | 74 | 787 | 345 | 10 | 128 | 0.028986 | 0.371014 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,351 |
An environmental group was less complimentary. A report yesterday by Oceana charged that the measures adopted by government and industry are "woefully inadequate." As the 2012 presidential campaign heats up and gasoline prices remain stuck near $4 per gallon, Obama's offshore oil development policies aren't winning him any political capital. The environmental community hates the drilling proposals. The Republicans and oil industry officials complain that the White House hasn't gone far enough. And independent voters are confused by the president's rhetoric. According to the GOP political firm Resurgent Republic, independent voters in Colorado and Virginia don't understand what Obama's "all of the above" energy mantra means. The report said, however, that once the policy was "described as oil, gas, coal, nuclear power, solar and other alternative energies, participants became enthusiastic and view such a strategy as credible and necessary to becoming more energy independent." A recent Gallup poll indicated that American voters are polarized on energy issues. The survey found that 47 percent of the public believes energy development is more important than environmental protection, while 41 percent of the public ranks protecting the environment as a bigger priority. In that political climate, Obama's offshore oil development policies are not likely to affect the nation's most conservative or liberal voters, noted Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. "The environmentalists have no place to go except Obama, and Obama isn't going to convince any conservatives or Republicans to back him" based on his oil and gas proposals, Sabato said. "He's obviously aiming at swing independents," Sabato added. "He's trying to show that he's pursuing a middle path, the one many independents like. Maybe it will work." Back to the original plan, minus 2 pieces Obama's all-of-the-above energy policy is in keeping with his pre-oil-spill offshore oil and gas development proposal. After the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the White House slapped a six-month moratorium on all new oil and gas development. Since the moratorium ended, Obama has systematically reintroduced most of the early oil development proposals. Two pieces of the old plan are missing. Obama backtracked on his proposal to allow oil exploration off Virginia's coast. The new East Coast offshore plan lays the groundwork for seismic studies, but not drilling, along the mid- and south Atlantic. The White House also dropped a proposal to allow exploration in the eastern Gulf of Mexico within 125 miles of Florida, an area off limits due to a congressional moratorium. During 2010 negotiations, the administration offered to allow oil leasing in the region if Congress lifted the moratorium and passed a global warming bill. When the climate change legislation died, however, the drilling provision lost White House favor. Since the Republicans took control of the House in 2011, GOP leaders have advanced a series of bills that would go far beyond Obama's offshore oil drilling policies, essentially allowing development along all U.S. shores. But those measures have been thwarted by the Democrat-controlled Senate. The Republicans and industry officials long for the offshore oil and gas plan floated by former President George W. Bush during his last days in office. That proposal would have offered 31 federal lease sales and included regions off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. By comparison, Obama's 2012 to 2017 leasing blueprint includes a dozen sites in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico and excludes the West Coast and northern East Coast. American Petroleum Institute officials say that Obama's policies have kept 87 percent of federal offshore acreage off limits to oil and gas development. "We need more certainty in the process and knowledge that things are going to move forward at a much better pace so that companies can plan for and make investments in U.S. projects," argued Erik Milito, API's group director for upstream and industry operations But White House officials take issue with API's explanation. Interior Department officials say that thanks to Obama administration policies, more than 75 percent of undiscovered technically recoverable offshore oil and natural gas resources will be open to exploration and development in the next five years. "Those who claim that the areas that will be offered constitute few total acres aren't paying attention to where the oil and gas resources are," Heather Zichal, Obama's deputy assistant for energy and climate change, wrote in a White House blog. "[T]hat's where we are focusing our attention, in places like the Western Gulf and the Central Gulf, an offshore area which, according to our resource estimates, has nearly double the resource potential of any other." Meanwhile, environmentalists are fighting the administration's return to Obama's pre-oil spill energy policies. Charging that the White House and Congress are ignoring the lessons of the BP oil spill, the green groups are focusing their opposition on the president's plans to advance oil and gas development along the Alaska shores and parts of the East Coast. "We're exactly where we were before the oil spill, not only in terms of the amount of drilling that's happening but in terms of drilling safety and [oil spill] response capability," said Regan Nelson, senior oceans advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "The government lacks the resources necessary to police the industry. And Congress has failed to make any new safety reforms following that horrific disaster."
|
E&E, 12 Margaret Kritz Hobson, reporter for Environment & Energy Publishing, the leading source for comprehensive, daily coverage of environmental and energy policy and markets. “Offshore Drilling: Obama’s development plans gain little political traction in years since Gulf spill,” http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059963022
|
A report yesterday by Oceana charged that the measures adopted by government and industry are "woefully inadequate." Obama's offshore oil development policies aren't winning him any political capital The environmental community hates the drilling proposals. The Republicans and oil industry officials complain that the White House hasn't gone far enough. And independent voters are confused by the president's rhetoric. ince the Republicans took control of the House in 2011, GOP leaders have advanced a series of bills that would go far beyond Obama's offshore oil drilling policies, essentially allowing development along all U.S. shores. But those measures have been thwarted by the Democrat-controlled Senate. environmentalists are fighting the administration's return to Obama's pre-oil spill energy policies. We're exactly where we were before the oil spill, not only in terms of the amount of drilling that's happening but in terms of drilling safety and [oil spill] response capability
|
Democrats hate the plan – empirics on our side
| 5,633 | 46 | 993 | 875 | 9 | 147 | 0.010286 | 0.168 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,352 |
President Obama enters a second term in the White House free to toughen regulations on domestic drilling despite industry objections - and to approve natural gas exports and the controversial Keystone XL pipeline without fear of alienating environmentalists he needed at the ballot box. But the newly unfettered president will be navigating many of the same political obstacles he faced during the first term, when his administration balanced new pollution regulations by delaying mercury rules for power plants and giving the oil industry big concessions as part of other environmental mandates. Obama also will be facing a sharply divided Congress, with Republicans eager to use their House control to undercut new environmental requirements and Democrats in charge of the Senate pushing back against efforts to weaken them. "The president faces checks and balances from Congress," noted Benjamin Salisbury, an analyst with FBR Capital Markets. "He also faces checks and balances from litigation, from industry and negotiations and environmental groups."
|
Dlouhy, 12 Jennifer A. Dlouhy, reporter in the Hearst Newspapers Washington bureau, published in the San Francisco Chronicle. “Obama and the environment – a new path” http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Obama-and-the-environment-a-new-path-4018611.php
|
the newly unfettered president will be navigating many of the same political obstacles he faced during the first term Obama also will be facing a sharply divided Congress, with Republicans eager to use their House control to undercut new environmental requirements and Democrats in charge of the Senate pushing back against efforts to weaken them. He also faces checks and balances from litigation, from industry and negotiations and environmental groups."
|
All energy meausres are explosive – divided Congress
| 1,056 | 52 | 456 | 159 | 8 | 70 | 0.050314 | 0.440252 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,353 |
A Senate Republican offshore drilling bill died Wednesday due to opposition from Democrats and criticism from within the GOP that the measure didn't go far enough in enabling new production. The 42-57 vote left sponsors well short of the needed 60 for the motion to proceed to pass. Five Republicans voted no — Sens. Jim DeMint, Mike Lee, Richard Shelby, Olympia Snowe and David Vitter. No Democrats voted yes; Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus didn't vote. Shelby said he voted no "'cause it was limited" and included "another layer of bureaucracy." "I want to open it all up," he told reporters. "I think this bill is OK but we could do better." Vitter and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) noted their opposition was in part to the lack of revenue sharing for Gulf producing states. The also opposed the measure due to language requiring third-party review of well containment plans.
|
Goode, 11 Darren Goode, senior energy & environment reporter for POLITICO Pro. He brings more than a decade of experience reporting on energy and environmental issues. “Senate slams GOP drilling bill,” 5/18/11 http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55241.html
|
A Senate Republican offshore drilling bill died Wednesday due to opposition from Democrats and criticism from within the GOP that the measure didn't go far enough in enabling new production. The 42-57 vote left sponsors well short of the needed 60 for the motion to proceed to pass. Five Republicans voted no No Democrats voted yes Shelby said he voted no "'cause it was limited" and included "another layer of bureaucracy." Vitter and Landrieu noted their opposition was in part to the lack of revenue sharing for Gulf producing states The also opposed the measure due to language requiring third-party review of well containment plans.
|
0 risk of a link turn - empirics
| 883 | 32 | 637 | 149 | 8 | 105 | 0.053691 | 0.704698 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,354 |
There is a consensus in Washington's foreign policy circles that the Congress that took office earlier this month after the GOP victory in the midterm election will put pressure on the administration to take a harder line on the authoritarian regimes of Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Cuba. Key congressional committees have changed hands, and are now led by Republican foreign policy hawks who have long criticized President Barack Obama for allegedly being too soft on Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez and his allies in the region. In an interview last week, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Miami, the new chairwoman of the House's powerful Committee on Foreign Affairs, told me that there will be subcommittee hearings and investigations into issues such as Chavez's suspected aid to Middle Eastern terrorist groups and his links to Iran's secret nuclear weapons program. "It will be good for congressional subcommittees to start talking about Chavez, about (Bolivian President Evo) Morales, about issues that have not been talked about," she said. "We are going to have a discussion about all of these issues." Ros-Lehtinen, who has scheduled a trip to Brazil, Argentina, Colombia and Honduras in March, said that the House subcommittee on Western Hemisphere affairs is likely to hold hearings on whether to place Venezuela on the State Department's list of terrorist countries. The subcommittee's new chairman, Rep. Connie Mack of Florida, supports the idea. Ros-Lehtinen suggested to me that she doesn't, for practical reasons. The House is also likely to hold hearings on whether to impose economic sanctions on Venezuela's oil monopoly PDVSA and Venezuelan banks, she said. Won't these discussions be counterproductive, and give Chavez great ammunition to support his claims that he is a victim of the "U.S. empire," I asked her. "The United States must have principles. It's very nice to think that one can be friends of the entire world, but if we do that, we don't have principles," she said. She added that Chavez and his allies are going to blame the United States for everything anyway, regardless of what Washington does. Ros-Lehtinen will not be the only new powerful voice in Congress demanding a tougher line on Venezuela. The new Republican chairmen of the House's Intelligence Committee and Judiciary Committee are also more likely to press for inquiries into Venezuela's ties with Iran and terrorism, Republican foreign affairs analysts say. "They will start asking questions, and they will make a difference," says Roger Noriega, who was head of the State Department's Latin American affairs during the George W. Bush administration. "They will demand accountability from the administration, and that will bring about consequences." Obama supporters concede that the new Congress is likely to have an impact on the administration's Latin America policy, but warn that it will be a negative one. "Ileana Ros-Lehtinen has already said that she wants to cut the State Department budget and foreign assistance," said Jeffrey Davidow, who served as head of the State Department's Latin American affairs office during the Clinton administration.
|
Andres Oppenheimer 2011 (staff writer January 18, 2011 New Congress to push Obama on Latin America http://www.newstimes.com/opinion/article/New-Congress-to-push-Obama-on-Latin-America-964030.php)
|
There is a consensus in Washington's foreign policy circles that Congress will put pressure on the administration to take a harder line on Venezuela Key congressional committees have changed hands, and are now led by Republican foreign policy hawks who have long criticized Obama for being too soft on Venezuela Ros-Lehtinen the new chairwoman of the House's powerful Committee on Foreign Affairs, said that the House subcommittee on Western Hemisphere affairs is likely to hold hearings on whether to place Venezuela on the State Department's list of terrorist countries The House is also likely to hold hearings on whether to impose economic sanctions on Venezuela's oil monopoly The United States must have principles. ," she said Ros-Lehtinen will not be the only powerful voice in Congress demanding a tougher line on Venezuela. The new Republican chair of the House's Intelligence Committee and Judiciary Committee are also more likely to press for inquiries into Venezuela's ties with Iran and terrorism Obama supporters concede that Congress is likely to have an impact on the administration's Latin America policy, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen has already said that she wants to cut the State Department budget and foreign assistance,"
|
Republicans want hardline Venezualan policies and will fight Obama.
| 3,162 | 68 | 1,236 | 498 | 9 | 193 | 0.018072 | 0.38755 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,355 |
As in past years, there were concerns in the 112th Congress regarding the state of Venezuela’s democracy and human rights situation and its deepening relations with Iran, and these concerns will likely continue in the 113th Congress. The 112th Congress approved H.R. 3783 (P.L. 112- 220), which requires the Administration to conduct an assessment and present “a strategy to address Iran’s growing hostile presence and activity in the Western Hemisphere.” Other initiatives that were not approved include: H.R. 2542, which would have withheld some assistance to the Organization of American States unless that body took action to invoke the Inter-American Democratic Charter regarding the status of democracy in Venezuela; H.R. 2583, which included a provision prohibiting aid to the government of Venezuela; and H.Res. 247, which would have called on the Secretary of State to designate Venezuela as a state sponsor of terrorism.
|
Sullivan ‘13. Mark P. Sullivan, Specialist in Latin American Affairs, Congressional Research Service. January 10, 2013. “Venezuela: Issues for Congress” [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40938.pdf]
|
there were concerns in Congress regarding the state of Venezuela’s democracy and human rights situation and its deepening relations with Iran, these concerns will likely continue Congress approved H.R. 3783 which requires the Administration to conduct an assessment and present “a strategy to address Iran’s growing hostile presence and activity in the Western Hemisphere
|
Plan ensures fights over human rights, democracy, and Iran—
| 930 | 59 | 371 | 143 | 9 | 54 | 0.062937 | 0.377622 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,356 |
The United States traditionally has had close relations with Venezuela, a major supplier of foreign oil, but there has been friction in relations under the Chávez government. Over the years, U.S. officials have expressed concerns about human rights, Venezuela’s military arms purchases, its relations with Iran, and its efforts to export its brand of populism to other Latin American countries. Declining cooperation on anti-drug and anti-terrorism efforts has been a major concern. The United States has imposed sanctions: on several Venezuelan government and military officials for allegedly helping the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) with drug and weapons trafficking; on three Venezuelan companies for providing support to Iran; and on several Venezuelan individuals for providing support to Hezbollah. Despite tensions in relations, the Obama Administration remains committed to seeking constructive engagement with Venezuela, focusing on such areas as anti-drug and counter-terrorism efforts. In the aftermath of President Chávez’s reelection, the White House, while acknowledging differences with President Chávez, congratulated the Venezuelan people on the high level of participation and the relatively peaceful election process.
|
Sullivan ‘13. Mark P. Sullivan, Specialist in Latin American Affairs, Congressional Research Service. January 10, 2013. “Venezuela: Issues for Congress” [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40938.pdf]
|
The United States traditionally has had close relations with Venezuela but there has been friction in relations U.S. officials have expressed concerns about human rights, military arms purchases Iran, and efforts to export populism Declining cooperation on anti-drug and anti-terrorism efforts has been a major concern United States has imposed sanctions: on several Venezuelan government and military officials for allegedly helping the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) with drug and weapons trafficking; on three Venezuelan companies for providing support to Iran; and on several Venezuelan individuals for providing support to Hezbollah
|
Major concerns over Venezuelan politics make the aff politically explosive—
| 1,254 | 75 | 653 | 175 | 10 | 92 | 0.057143 | 0.525714 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,357 |
This week Republican congress[member] man and Head of the House of Representatives Sub-Committee on Foreign Affairs for the Western Hemisphere, Connie Mack, called on the Obama administration to impose an economic embargo against Venezuela, citing alleged links to terrorist groups as justification. Mack, a neoconservative representing Southern Florida, also requested the US include Venezuela on this year's "state sponsors of terrorism" list, a petition the congressman has made unsuccessfully during the last three years. During a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Mack referred to the democratically-elected Venezuelan President as a "thugocrat" who uses "weapons" such as "oppression, aggression, terrorism and drugs" to "destroy liberty and democracy in Latin America". Mack did not present any evidence to back his outrageous claims. The Floridian Republican went so far as to allege that President Hugo Chavez "has become the Osama bin Laden and the Ahmadineyad of the Western Hemisphere". During the past several years, right-wing sectors in Washington have escalated calls for direct aggression and intervention against Venezuela. Their cries have been accompanied by an increased funding for anti-Chavez groups with the hopes of fomenting destabilization and unrest in Venezuela, while working internationally to "isolate" the Venezuelan government and demonize President Chavez himself. Nonetheless, the Venezuelan head of state retains a near 60% popularity at home and is one of the most admired leaders worldwide.
|
Eva Golinger 2011 (Correo del Orinoco International, February 18th Obama Requests Funding for Venezuelan Opposition in 2012 Budget Venezuelanalysis.com is a project of Venezuela Analysis, Inc., which is registered as a non-profit organization in New York State and of the Fundación para la Justicia Económica Global, which is a foundation that is registered in Caracas, Venezuela. http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/6006)
|
Republican congress[member] called on the Obama administration to impose an economic embargo against Venezuela, citing alleged links to terrorist groups as justification. During the past several years, right-wing sectors in Washington have escalated calls for direct aggression and intervention against Venezuela. while working internationally to "isolate" the Venezuelan government
|
Republicans oppose the plan--Gender modified
| 1,558 | 44 | 382 | 225 | 5 | 49 | 0.022222 | 0.217778 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,358 |
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is refusing to recognize Venezuelan President-elect Nicolas Maduro and says a recount of this week's election should occur. Testifying before Congress, Secretary of State John Kerry backed the call by opposition leader Henrique Capriles for the vote count of Sunday's presidential election to be re-examined. Venezuela's National Electoral Council says Maduro won by 262,000 votes out of 14.9 million cast. But asked directly at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing Wednesday if he recognized Maduro as the winner, Kerry wouldn't say yes or no.
|
BRADLEY KLAPPER April 17 2013 (Venezuela Elections: Nicolas Maduro, President-Elect, Not Recognized By Obama Administration Yet http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17/venezuela-elections-nicolas-maduro-obama-administration-not-recognized_n_3100994.html_
|
The Obama administration is refusing to recognize Venezuelan President-elect Nicolas Maduro Secretary of State Kerry backed the call by opposition leader for the vote count to be re-examined
|
Plan is a flip flop: Obama refuses to recognize Venezuela’s president Maduro
| 587 | 76 | 190 | 89 | 12 | 28 | 0.134831 | 0.314607 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,359 |
Caracas, September 23 2012 (Venezuelanalysis.com) – Republican nominee for Vice-President of theU.S., Paul Ryan, has vowed that a Romney administration would get “tough on Castro, tough on Chavez” and to end what he described as a “policy of appeasement” applied by the Obama administration towards both Cuba and Venezuela. Ryan made the comments from the Versailles Restaurant in Miami, Florida last Saturday, where he was accompanied by staunch members of the anti-Castro lobby, including Republican Representative, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Ros-Lehtinen is a member of the Cuban-American Lobby and the Congressional Cuban Democracy Caucus; organisations which claim to be aimed at speeding up Cuba’s “transition to democracy”. "In a Mitt Romney administration, we will not keep practising this policy of appeasement, we will be tough on this brutal dictator (Castro). All it has done is reward more despotism... We will help those pro-democracy groups. We will be tough on Castro, tough on Chavez. And it's because we know that's the right policy for our country,” said Ryan. The nominee had reportedly travelled to Florida in a bid to win over the majority Latino vote two months ahead of the US elections. Florida is currently thought to be a “swing state” and could prove a determining vote for the overall election results. Results of a recent voter intention poll in the state carried out by NBC news show that Obama currently has a 5% lead over Romney, with a voting intention of 49% to 44%. ‘I learned from these friends, from Mario (Diaz-Balart), from Lincoln (Diaz-Balart), from Ileana (Ros-Lehtinen), just how brutal the Castro regime is, just how this president's policy of appeasement is not working. They've given me a great education, lots of us in Congress, about how we need to clamp down on the Castro regime,” said Ryan. According to Ros-Lehtinen, Ryan is now a “loyal friend” to those who campaign on Cuba-related political issues. Ryan's statements have caused some Democrats to accuse him of hypocrisy after he appears to have dramatically changed his stance on Cuba-US relations. Prior to 2007, the Republican had called for “free trade” between all nations, which included voting to lift the trade embargo on Cuba. "To paraphrase President Clinton, it takes real brass to vote three times against economic sanctions on the Cuban regime and then come to Little Havana and ask Cuban-Americans for their vote," said Giancarlo Sopo, a Cuban-American supporter who told the US' Sun Sentinel that he would vote for Obama. "It's one thing to have a genuine disagreement with someone on a policy. It's something else to change your position from one day to the next just to pander in order to win votes,” added Sopo. Recently leaked footage of a meeting between Romney and party donors also showed the presidential hopeful lambasting Obama for believing that “his magnetism and his charm, and his persuasiveness is so compelling that he can sit down with people like Putin and Chávez and Ahmadinejad, and that they'll find that we're such wonderful people that they'll go on with us, and they'll stop doing bad things”. The leaked recording also shows Romney referring to Iranian President Ahmadinejad as a “crazed fanatic” and Iranian mullahs as “crazy people”. He also commented that, in his view, the Palestinian people have “no interest whatsoever in establishing peace”. With the presidential elections now drawing near, the Republican party is beginning to increasingly outline its prospective domestic and foreign policy, which Romney has said would be principally based on an attempt to implement a neo-liberal “Reagan economic zone” in Latin America and other regions, such as the Middle East.
|
Rachel Boothroyd 2012 (journalist in Caracas, Venezuela. September 25, Venezuelanalysis.com is a project of Venezuela Analysis, Inc., which is registered as a non-profit organization in New York State and of the Fundación para la Justicia Económica Global, which is a foundation that is registered in Caracas, Venezuela. http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/7283 Republicans Vow to Halt “Policy of Appeasement” in Venezuela)
|
Paul Ryan would get “tough on Chavez” and to end a “policy of appeasement” applied by the Obama administration towards Venezuela he was accompanied by staunch members of the anti-Castro lobby, including Ros-Lehtinen a member of the Cuban-American Lobby and the Congressional Cuban Democracy Caucus . According to Ros-Lehtinen, Ryan is now a “loyal friend” to those who campaign on Cuba-related political issues. the Republican party is beginning to increasingly outline its foreign policy
|
Republicans view the plan as appeasement, sparking opposition
| 3,715 | 61 | 488 | 599 | 8 | 74 | 0.013356 | 0.123539 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,360 |
Above, you can see a street in Trinidad, Cuba. Since 1988, Trinidad has been a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Of course, if you are an American, spending a single US dollar in Trinidad (or anywhere else in Cuba) means breaking American law. Apart from special circumstances, US travel to Cuba has been effectively banned for decades now. But the US Congress is currently considering a measure that would end the travel ban. Both sides have been arguing their case passionately. Some say there is no reason to punish the Cuban people by depriving them of needed US tourist dollars. Others say every dollar spent in Cuba only props up the nation’s Communist government. In this episode of our Talking Travel podcast, Lonely Planet’s Robert Reid and Tom Hall offer their assessments on what the lifting of the travel ban might mean for you as a tourist, and for the Cuban people.
|
Boyd 10 [Clark Boyd, a reporter for The World, July 20, 2010, “Talking Travel: Congress debates Cuba travel ban” http://www.theworld.org/2010/07/talking-travel-congress-debates-cuba-travel-ban/]
|
, if you are an American, spending a single US dollar in Trinidad (or anywhere else in Cuba) means breaking American law. Apart from special circumstances, US travel to Cuba has been effectively banned for decades now. But the US Congress is currently considering a measure that would end the travel ban. Both sides have been arguing their case passionately. Some say there is no reason to punish the Cuban people by depriving them of needed US tourist dollars. Others say every dollar spent in Cuba only props up the nation’s Communist government.
|
Changing travel restrictions is highly controversial
| 873 | 52 | 548 | 151 | 6 | 93 | 0.039735 | 0.615894 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,361 |
A congressional debate over whether all Americans should be able to travel freely to Cuba appears to be heating up. The House Agriculture Committee last month approved a measure that allows travel to Cuba and eases restrictions on U.S. commodities sold there. The measure still needs approval from the Foreign Affairs Committee before it can come to the floor for a vote, but Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-Calif.) has indicated that he supports lifting the ban. ”I have long believed that the nearly fifty year old travel ban to Cuba simply has not worked to help the Cuban people in any way,” he said in prepared remarks. “It has not hurt the Castros as it was intended to do, but it has hurt U.S. citizens.” The legislation builds upon efforts by President Obama in 2009 to ease travel restrictions for Cuban-Americans and would allow virtually all Americans to visit the island. Proponents for ending the ban contend it will boost trade between the two countries. But not everyone is on board with opening the travel door to Cuba. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) on Friday reiterated his strong opposition to lifting the ban. “I want to make it absolutely clear that I will oppose — and filibuster if need be — any effort to ease regulations that stand to enrich a regime that denies its own people basic human rights,” he said. “The fact is the big corporate interests behind this misguided attempt to weaken the travel ban could not care less whether the Cuban people are free,” Menendez said. “They care only about opening a new market and increasing their bottom line. This is about the color of money, not the desire for freedom.” Like Menendez, opponents to the ban argue easing travel restrictions will funnel money to the Castro regime and essentially fund activities that will provide little benefit to the Cuban people. “The very fact that a travel bill has moved through the House Agriculture Committee makes one wonder why American agriculture interests would even care about travel to Cuba,” Menendez said. “One can only assume it’s about generating increased tourism dollars for the Castro regime to buy more agricultural products.” Mauricio Claver-Carone, director of the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC, which supports the travel ban, told The Hill that lawmakers in favor of easing restrictions understand that the votes are not there and have resorted to hiding the provision in noncontroversial bills to get it passed. “What they’re trying to do is package it with an agricultural bill in order to get it through the back door,” he said, adding, “They’re basically trying to maneuver this any way they possibly can without addressing the travel issue specifically.” Last month, Claver-Carone’s organization joined nearly 500 organizations that oppose lifting the ban and warned Congress that nothing good would come from allowing free travel between the two countries. “[The] below signatories believe that the freedom of Cuba will not arrive by means of the pocketbook nor the lips of libidinous tourists, who are aseptic to the pain of the Cuban family,” their letter states, adding, “For that reason we suggest that you maintain a firm and coherent policy of pressure and condemnation against the tyranny of Havana.” When, or if, the Foreign Affairs Committee will vote on the legislation remains to be seen. A Berman spokesman did not respond to a call about timing for the measure. “That’s where the current question is at,” Claver-Carone said. ”But it’s pretty clear that they do not have the votes on the floor.”
|
Heflin 10 [Jay Heflin writer for The Hill, July 19, 2010 “Debate Over Travel to Cuba Heats Up” http://thehill.com/homenews/house/109593-debate-over-travel-to-cuba-heats-up]
|
A congressional debate over whether all Americans should be able to travel freely to Cuba appears to be heating up. The House Agriculture Committee last month approved a measure that allows travel to Cuba and eases restrictions on U.S. commodities sold there. The measure still needs approval from the Foreign Affairs Committee before it can come to the floor for a vote, The legislation builds upon efforts by President Obama in 2009 to ease travel restrictions for Cuban-Americans and would allow virtually all Americans to visit the island. not everyone is on board with opening the travel door to Cuba. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) on Friday reiterated his strong opposition to lifting the ban. “I want to make it absolutely clear that I will oppose — and filibuster if need be — any effort to ease regulations that stand to enrich a regime that denies its own people basic human rights,” he said. “The fact is the big corporate interests behind this misguided attempt to weaken the travel ban could not care less whether the Cuban people are free,” Menendez said. “They care only about opening a new market and increasing their bottom line. This is about the color of money, not the desire for freedom.” Like Menendez, opponents to the ban argue easing travel restrictions will funnel money to the Castro regime and essentially fund activities that will provide little benefit to the Cuban people. “The very fact that a travel bill has moved through the House Agriculture Committee makes one wonder why American agriculture interests would even care about travel to Cuba,” Menendez said. “One can only assume it’s about generating increased tourism dollars for the Castro regime to buy more agricultural products.” Mauricio Claver-Carone, director of the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC, which supports the travel ban, told The Hill that lawmakers in favor of easing restrictions understand that the votes are not there and have resorted to hiding the provision in noncontroversial bills to get it passed. “What they’re trying to do is package it with an agricultural bill in order to get it through the back door,” he said, adding, “They’re basically trying to maneuver this any way they possibly can without addressing the travel issue specifically.” Last month, Claver-Carone’s organization joined nearly 500 organizations that oppose lifting the ban and warned Congress that nothing good would come from allowing free travel between the two countries. “[The] below signatories believe that the freedom of Cuba will not arrive by means of the pocketbook nor the lips of libidinous tourists, who are aseptic to the pain of the Cuban family,” their letter states, adding, “For that reason we suggest that you maintain a firm and coherent policy of pressure and condemnation against the tyranny of Havana. ”But it’s pretty clear that they do not have the votes on the floor.”
|
Reducing travel restrictions is a huge controversy and unlikely to pass without pressure
| 3,537 | 89 | 2,873 | 589 | 13 | 472 | 0.022071 | 0.801358 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,362 |
Proponents of doing just that insist there's more consensus than ever in the U.S. to ditch the Cuba embargo and its travel ban, which, after almost 50 years, have utterly failed to dislodge the Castro regime. Opening Cuba to Americans, they believe, will do more to stimulate democratization there than isolating it has. Even a majority of Cuban Americans now agree. Still, for all the good vibes the bill's backers feel from the White House right now, some note warily that Obama has been loath to spend political capital in Cuba, or the rest of Latin America for that matter. Critics, for example, point to his decision last year to stop applying pressure against coup leaders in Honduras, who'd ousted a leftist President, when conservative Republicans in Congress objected. Embargo supporters, including Cuban-American Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, a Democrat, are already blasting Obama's plans to relax Cuba travel. "This is not the time to ease the pressure on the Castro regime," Menendez said this month, insisting it will only give the brothers "a much needed infusion of dollars that will only extend their reign of oppression." As a result, says one congressional aide who asked not to be identified, when it comes time for the White House to give the bill more full-throated support, "there's a fear they may just decide that the fight's not worth it." But Democratic Congressman Howard Berman of California, a co-sponsor of the bill, says tearing down the travel ban is about more than Cuban rights — it's also about the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens to travel freely abroad. "Letting U.S. citizens travel to Cuba is not a gift to the Castros — it is in the interest of our own citizens," Berman said after the House committee vote this summer. "It's time to trust our own people and restore their right to travel." It's the sort of argument Obama usually agrees with. But now he may need to show how strongly he concurs when Congress returns next month.
|
Padgett 10 (Tim Padgett joined TIME in 1996 as Mexico City bureau chief covering Latin America. In 1999 he moved to Florida to become TIME’s Miami & Latin America bureau chief, reporting on the hemisphere from Tallahassee to Tierra del Fuego. “Will the White House Fight to End the Cuba Travel Ban?” Time Magazine. Aug. 23, 2010 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2013820,00.html)
|
for all the good vibes the bill's backers feel from the White House right now, some note warily that Obama has been loath to spend political capital in Cuba, or the rest of Latin America for that matter Embargo supporters including Menendez are already blasting Obama's plans to relax Cuba travel. "This is not the time to ease the pressure on the Castro regime," when it comes time for the White House to give the bill more full-throated support, "there's a fear they may just decide that the fight's not worth it
|
Huge opposition to relaxing travel restrictions
| 1,986 | 47 | 514 | 337 | 6 | 92 | 0.017804 | 0.272997 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,363 |
Many recent policy reports have recommended that the United States take some unilateral steps to roll back sanctions on Cuba. The removal of sanctions, however, would be just one step in the process of normalizing relations. Such a process is sure to be controversial, as indicated by the heated congressional debate spurred in March 2009 by attempts to include provisions easing travel and trade restrictions in a large appropriations bill. These provisions passed in a March 10 vote. "Whatever we call it-- normalization, detente, rapproachement--I think it is clear that the policy process risks falling victim to the politics of the issue," says Sweig.
|
Hanson 9 - associate director and coordinating editor for the website of the Council on Foreign Relations (Stephanie, “U.S.-Cuba Relations”, 4-14, Council on Foreign Relations, http://gees.org/documentos/Documen-03412.pdf)//ID
|
recent policy reports recommended that the United States take unilateral steps to roll back sanctions on Cuba Such a process is sure to be controversial, as indicated by the heated congressional debate spurred in March 2009 by attempts to include provisions easing travel and trade restrictions in a large appropriations bill. think it is clear that the policy process risks falling victim to the politics of the issue
|
Even lifting the travel ban is controversial in Congress
| 656 | 56 | 418 | 104 | 9 | 68 | 0.086538 | 0.653846 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,364 |
What, then, accounts for the anomaly of the empty Cuban seat at these international organizations? The principal answer is as simple as it is disturbing: a relatively small but well placed and hard-charging community of Cuban-American exiles . As will be explained toward the end of this section, U .S . legislation mandates the U .S . executive director in the IFIs to oppose the admission of Cuba, and to withhold U .S . payments to the IFIs should they approve assistance to Cuba over U .S . opposition . Moreover, influential congressional representatives stand ready to hold legislation or personnel confirmations of interest to the executive branch hostage to their Cuba-related concerns . To a remarkable degree, the unyielding Cuban-American lobby has bullied the U .S . executive branch and the IFI leadership into submission, even as many of their economists and staff understand that excluding Cuba—or any country, for that matter—on political grounds runs counter to U .S . strategic interests and core IFI norms . In U .S . debates on Cuba policy, there is no equally insistent counter-lobby to balance the hard-line pro-sanctions faction .
|
Feinberg 11 - professor of international political economy at UC San Diego, nonresident senior fellow with the Latin America Initiative at Brookings (Richard E., “Reaching Out: Cuba’s New Economy and the International Response”, November, Brookings, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2011/11/18%20cuba%20feinberg/1118_cuba_feinberg.pdf)//ID
|
What accounts for the empty Cuban seat at these international organizations a relatively small but well placed and hard-charging community of Cuban-American exiles . . legislation mandates the U .S . executive director in the IFIs to oppose the admission of Cuba, and to withhold U .S . payments to the IFIs should they approve assistance to Cuba over U .S . opposition influential representatives stand ready to hold legislation or confirmations of interest to the executive branch hostage to their Cuba-related concerns . the unyielding Cuban-American lobby has bullied the executive and IFI leadership into submission even as many economists understand excluding Cuba on political grounds runs counter to U .S . strategic interests and core IFI norms there is no equally insistent counter-lobby to balance the pro-sanctions faction
|
Pursuing IFI membership is massively unpopular – Cuban-American lobby bullies Congress even if the executive acts
| 1,153 | 113 | 834 | 189 | 16 | 130 | 0.084656 | 0.687831 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,365 |
Does this mean that the administration is no longer thinking about delisting Cuba? Should those of us who support a more rational relationship between the United States and Cuba throw up our hands in despair? No and no. The President can remove Cuba from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism at any time. In fact, few observers expected Cuba to be removed from the terrorist list this spring anyway, given the major legislative battles on immigration and gun violence prevention.
|
Thale and Anderson, 13 – Program director and WOLA and a Senior Associate for Cuba at the Latin America Working Group (Geoff and Mavis, “Cuba, the Terrorism Report, and the Terrorist List”, 24 May 2013, http://www.wola.org/commentary/cuba_the_terrorism_report_and_the_terrorist_list)//eek
|
The President can remove Cuba from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism at any time few observers expected Cuba to be removed from the terrorist list this spring anyway, given the major legislative battles on immigration
|
Executive delisting Cuba diverts focus from immigration reform
| 482 | 62 | 223 | 81 | 8 | 37 | 0.098765 | 0.45679 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,366 |
Importantly, the State Department will have many opportunities over the course of the year to take the sensible step of removing Cuba from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. In fact, it is because of this possibility that opponents of change are working so hard to convince the administration to sit on its hands. Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Mario Diaz-Balart, and Albio Sires recently sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry asking him to keep Cuba on the list.
|
Thale and Anderson, 13 – Program director and WOLA and a Senior Associate for Cuba at the Latin America Working Group (Geoff and Mavis, “Cuba, the Terrorism Report, and the Terrorist List”, 24 May 2013, http://www.wola.org/commentary/cuba_the_terrorism_report_and_the_terrorist_list)//eek
|
State Department will have many opportunities over the course of the year to take the sensible step of removing Cuba from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism opponents of change are working so hard to convince the administration to sit on its hands. Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Mario Diaz-Balart, and Albio Sires recently sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry asking him to keep Cuba on the list.
|
Delisting links – it is perceived and disliked
| 474 | 46 | 408 | 81 | 8 | 70 | 0.098765 | 0.864198 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,367 |
At a time when Mexico is poised to experience robust economic growth, a manufacturing renaissance is underway in North America and bilateral trade is booming, the United States and Mexico have an important choice to make: sit back and reap the moderate and perhaps temporal benefits coming naturally from the evolving global context , or implement a robust agenda to improve the competitiveness of North America for the long term . Given that job creation and economic growth in both the United States and Mexico are at stake, t he choice should be simple, but a limited understanding about the magnitude, nature and depth of the U.S.-Mexico economic relationship among the public and many policymakers has made serious action to support regional exporters more politically divisive than it ought to be.
|
Wilson ’13 Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International. Center for Scholars (Christopher E., January, “A U.S.-Mexico Economic Alliance: Policy Options for a Competitive Region,” http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/new_ideas_us_mexico_relations.pdf)
|
the United States and Mexico have an important choice to make Given that job creation and economic growth in both the United States and Mexico are at stake, t he choice should be simple, but a limited understanding about the magnitude, nature and depth of the U.S.-Mexico economic relationship among the public and many policymakers has made serious action to support regional exporters more politically divisive than it ought to be.
|
Economic engagement with Mexico’s politically divisive
| 803 | 55 | 433 | 131 | 6 | 71 | 0.045802 | 0.541985 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,368 |
A majority of Democratic representatives (132 out of 191) have expressed that they are “troubled that important policy decisions are being made without full input from Congress.” They have written to U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk to urge him and his staff to “engage in broader and deeper consultations with members of the full range of committees of Congress whose jurisdiction touches on the wide-ranging issues involved, and to ensure there is ample opportunity for Congress to have input on critical policies that will have broad ramifications for years to come." In their letter, the representatives also challenge “the lack of transparency of the treaty negotiation process, and the failure of negotiators to meaningfully consult with states on the far-reaching impact of trade agreements on state and local laws, even when binding on our states, is of grave concern to us.” U.S. Senators, for their part, have also sent a letter complaining of the lack of congressional access to the negotiations. What openness and transparency can we in Canada and Mexico expect when the decision to join the TPP, under humiliating conditions, was made without any public consultation? NAFTA turns 20 years old in 2014. Instead of expanding it through the TPP we must learn from NAFTA’s shortcomings, starting with the historic lack of consultation with unions and producers in the three member countries. It is necessary to correct the imbalances in NAFTA, which as the North American union statement explains enhanced corporate power at the expense of workers and the environment. In particular, we need to categorically reject the investor-state dispute settlement process that has proven so costly, in real terms and with respect to our democratic options in Canada and Mexico. The unions’ statement of solidarity provides a strong foundation for the growing trinational opposition to the TPP in Leesburg, Virginia, and beyond.
|
Perez-Rocha and Trew 12 (Stuart Trew is the trade campaigner for the Council of Canadians.Manuel Pérez Rocha is a Mexican national and an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington D.C. They are both contributors to Foreign Policy In Focus. “Don't Expand NAFTA” July 26, 2012. Foreign Policy in Focus, a project of the Institute for Policy Studies. http://www.fpif.org/articles/dont_expand_nafta)
|
A majority of Democratic representatives have expressed that they are “troubled that important policy decisions are being made without full input from Congress.” the representatives also challenge “the lack of transparency of the treaty negotiation process, and the failure of negotiators to meaningfully consult with states on the far-reaching impact of trade agreements on state and local laws, even when binding on our states, is of grave concern to us.” It is necessary to correct the imbalances in NAFTA, which as the North American union statement explains enhanced corporate power at the expense of workers and the environment. In particular, we need to categorically reject the investor-state dispute settlement process that has proven so costly
|
Democrats are strongly opposed to NAFTA revisions – labor concerns
| 1,928 | 66 | 753 | 305 | 10 | 115 | 0.032787 | 0.377049 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,369 |
Many Mexican law enforcement activities with respect to combating alien smuggling and human trafficking receive some degree of U.S. financial support. One way to increase Mexico's role in migration enforcement may be for Congress to consider additional investments in these programs. The United States also could include migration control as an explicit priority within other existing programs, such as the Mérida Initiative. On the other hand, Mexico is already among the largest recipients of U.S. anti-TIP assistance in the Western Hemisphere, and some Members of Congress may be reluctant to invest more resources in such programs.
|
Seelke 13 (Clare Ribando Seelke; Specialist in Latin American Affairs; January 29, 2013; “Mexico and the 112th Congress”; Congressional Research Service; http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32724.pdf)//KDUB
|
Mexican law enforcement activities with respect to combating alien smuggling and human trafficking receive U.S. financial support One way to increase Mexico's role in migration enforcement may be for Congress to consider additional investments The United States also could include migration control as an explicit priority On the other hand, Mexico is already among the largest recipients of U.S. anti-TIP assistance in the Western Hemisphere Members of Congress may be reluctant to invest more resources in such programs
|
Human trafficking aid is ineffective and unpopular in congress
| 635 | 62 | 521 | 96 | 9 | 78 | 0.09375 | 0.8125 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,370 |
The White House said Tuesday that it opposes House legislation to implement a 2012 administration pact with Mexico on Gulf of Mexico drilling cooperation, citing “unnecessary, extraneous provisions that seriously detract from the bill.” The formal statement of administration policy backs the “goal” of the bill that’s coming to the House floor Wednesday to implement the U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement. But it cites provisions in the GOP-crafted bill that exempts oil companies operating under the pact from controversial federal rules that force energy producers to disclose their payments to foreign governments. “As a practical matter, this provision would waive the requirement for the disclosure of any payments made by resource extraction companies to the United States or foreign governments in accordance with a transboundary hydrocarbon agreement. The provision directly and negatively impacts U.S. efforts to increase transparency and accountability, particularly in the oil, gas, and minerals sectors,” the White House Office of Management and Budget said. The White House statement, however, stops short of a veto threat despite saying it "cannot support" the measure. It says the administration looks forward to working with Congress on an implementing bill.
|
Geman 6/25 (Ben Geman 6/25/13; “White House ‘cannot support’ House US-Mexico drilling bill”; The Hill; http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/307769-white-house-cannot-support-house-us-mexico-drilling-bill)//KDUB
|
The White House opposes House legislation to implement a 2012 administration pact with Mexico on Gulf of Mexico drilling cooperation administration policy backs the “goal” of the bill But it cites provisions in the bill that exempts oil companies operating under the pact from controversial federal rules that force energy producers to disclose their payments to foreign governments The White House statement says the administration looks forward to working with Congress on an implementing bill
|
Offshore drilling cooperation with Mexico is contentious
| 1,290 | 56 | 495 | 188 | 7 | 75 | 0.037234 | 0.398936 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,371 |
Not everyone agrees about the merits of the North American Free Trade Agreement, but it's hard to argue that the North American Development Bank, created under NAFTA, hasn't brought overwhelmingly positive changes to the border region. NADBank's good work needs to continue, and that won't happen if Congress continues to whittle down its funding.¶ Before NAFTA, the border region was an environmental disaster zone. Mexican border towns dumped millions of gallons of raw sewage into area rivers. Tap water was undrinkable. Pollution and industrial waste abounded. It's better now, but much cleanup work remains to be done.¶ Through grants and low-interest loans, NADBank has sparked more than $1.4 billion in public infrastructure projects on both sides of the border. This is not sexy stuff. Much of it involves sewage-treatment plants, landfill sites, water projects and road work. NADBank officials estimate that such projects have halted the dumping of about 300 million gallons per day of sewage into the Rio Grande and other waterways.¶ Washington's skepticism about NADBank has grown in recent years, partly because the bank has been slow to disburse its funds. Bank officials say the backlog was caused by the two-year average lead time needed to study, plan and approve each project before it could be funded. Steps are under way to streamline its processes, bolster accountability and reduce backlogs.¶ As the fervor over NAFTA has died down, so has Capitol Hill's enthusiasm for funding NADBank. Initial U.S. appropriations of nearly $100 million a year have steadily been slashed since NAFTA took effect 14 years ago. The requested 2009 appropriation is only $10 million.¶ Texas Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn have been enthusiastic supporters of NADBank in the past. A renewed funding push by them and other border-state legislators would help ensure that the bank's important work stays on track in the future.
|
Dallas Morning News July 2008 “EDITORIAL: NADBank deserves U.S. funding” ProQuest
|
the North American Development Bank hasn't brought overwhelmingly positive changes to the border region. NADBank's good work needs to continue, and that won't happen if Congress continues to whittle down its funding. Washington's skepticism about NADBank has grown in recent years, partly because the bank has been slow to disburse its funds. Bank officials say the backlog was caused by the two-year average lead time needed to study, plan and approve each project before it could be funded.
|
Plan is unpopular – bureaucracy causes backlash
| 1,937 | 47 | 492 | 307 | 7 | 78 | 0.022801 | 0.254072 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,372 |
Déjà Vu? Washington's War on Cuba and Venezuela: From the Kissinger Files to 'Cable Gate' If the polls are to be believed, Hugo Chávez's successor Nicolás Maduro will probably defeat the political opposition in Sunday's presidential election, thus securing and solidifying Cuban-Venezuelan ties yet further. Such an outcome will come as a severe disappointment to Washington, which has spent the better part of 40 years trying to prevent such a diplomatic alliance from developing in the first place. For evidence of U.S. paranoia over Cuba, one need only consult the so-called "Kissinger files," sensitive State Department cables recently made accessible by whistle-blowing outfit WikiLeaks. The correspondence, which dates between 1973 and 1976, underscores Henry Kissinger's single-minded obsession with quarantining Cuba lest Castro's influence be felt far afield. In late 1973, U.S. diplomats expressed concern about Venezuelan moves to end Cuba's diplomatic isolation, and were particularly worried that Caracas might "put together Organization of American States [OAS] majority in support resolution permitting reestablishment relations with Cuba." Washington was also perturbed by reports that Venezuelan Navy vessels had departed for Cuba in order to load up on large shipments of sugar, and diplomats contemplated a possible cutoff of aid to Caracas in retaliation. Not only had the State Department grown alarmed about such developments, but rightist anti-Castro exiles were becoming restive as well. According to the U.S. Embassy in Caracas, the exiles were "appalled" at the prospect that COPEI, the current party in power, might renew relations with Cuba. In an ominous move, the exiles planned to publish full page newspaper ads against the COPEI administration. Hoping to punish COPEI at the polls, exiles threw their support to opposing party Acción Democrática (or AD) in the 1973 presidential election. Ultimately, the Americans noted, such support proved critical and "highly influential Cuban-Venezuelan entrepreneurs, backed by Cuban money from Miami" helped AD candidate Carlos Andrés Pérez secure an electoral victory. The Rise of CAP If Kissinger or the Cuban exile community however hoped that Pérez, sometimes known simply as "CAP," would prove amenable to their designs they would be sorely disappointed. History has not been kind to CAP, largely due to the latter's second and disastrous presidency which lasted from 1989 to 1993, during which time the veteran politician followed the diktats of the International Monetary Fund and nearly drove Venezuela to the point of social collapse. Nevertheless, during his first incarnation in the 1970s CAP was regarded as a nationalist and something of a galvanizing figure on the Third World circuit. From 1974 to 1979, during his first presidency, CAP nationalized U.S. oil companies and oversaw a program of massive social spending. Writing to Kissinger in Washington, the U.S. ambassador in Caracas fretted that Venezuela now had "the economic strength and political leadership in president Pérez to make her will felt beyond her borders." Indeed, the diplomat added, "the energy crisis and president Carlos Andrés Pérez's electoral victory in December 1973 coincided and together have changed Venezuela's perception of herself and her world role." Just like Chávez some 20 years later, CAP was "rapidly emerging as a hemisphere figure." Taking advantage of windfall oil prices, CAP had turned Venezuela into a large international donor of development assistance. Personally, the ambassador feared that CAP had grown too large for his britches as the youthful firebrand politician was fast becoming "a Latin American spokesman for the developing third world countries vis-a-vis the developed nations, especially the Unites States." Reading through the Kissinger files, one is possessed with an incredible sense of déjà vu. Combing through paranoid U.S. telegrams, it's easy to imagine that diplomats might have been referring not to CAP but to charismatic Hugo Chávez. Indeed, if anything the correspondence underscores just how hostile Washington has been to any nationalist politician emerging in Venezuela, particularly if such a figure threatened U.S. priorities in the Caribbean. Specifically, U.S. diplomats and anti-Castro exiles worried that CAP might use his newfound diplomatic clout to edge closer to Fidel.
|
Kozloff, 13 (Nikolas, doctorate in Latin American history from Oxford University, author of Hugo Chavez: Oil, Politics and the Challenge to the U.S. (Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), Revolution! South America and the Rise of the New Left (Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), No Rain in the Amazon: How South America's Climate Change Affects the Entire Planet (Palgrave Macmilan, 2010), Huffington Post, 4/14, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nikolas-kozloff/maduro-elections-venezuela_b_3078387.html)
|
Washington's War on Cuba and Venezuela Chávez's successor Maduro will defeat the opposition securing and solidifying Cuban-Venezuelan ties yet further Such an outcome will come as a severe disappointment to Washington which has spent the better part of 40 years trying to prevent such a diplomatic alliance from developing For evidence of U.S. paranoia over Cuba, one need only consult cables recently made accessible The correspondence underscores single-minded obsession with quarantining Cuba lest Castro's influence be felt far afield. .S. diplomats expressed concern about Venezuelan moves to end Cuba's diplomatic isolation and contemplated a cutoff of aid to Caracas in retaliation. Not only had the State Department grown alarmed but rightist anti-Castro exiles were becoming restive as well exiles were "appalled highly influential Cuban-Venezuelan entrepreneurs, backed by Cuban money from Miami" helped secure electoral victory the U.S. ambassador in Caracas fretted that Venezuela now had "the economic strength and political leadership to make her will felt beyond her borders one is possessed with an incredible sense of déjà vu. if anything the correspondence underscores just how hostile Washington has been to any nationalist politician emerging in Venezuela, particularly if such a figure threatened U.S. priorities Specifically, U.S. diplomats and anti-Castro exiles worried that CAP might use his newfound diplomatic clout to edge closer to Fidel.
|
Powerful cuba lobby hates Venezuela economic engagement – even under maduro
| 4,393 | 75 | 1,467 | 661 | 11 | 215 | 0.016641 | 0.325265 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,373 |
Facing deep resistance among House Republicans to citizenship for the estimated 11 million immigrants in the country illegally, GOP leaders are trying to muster support for a stripped-down immigration reform bill that would offer citizenship only to those brought into the country as children. The plan, which would almost certainly be a nonstarter for President Obama and Democrats who control the Senate, makes clear there will be no quick agreement on a Senate-passed bill and illustrates how wide the gap remains over fundamental immigration reform. The immigration bill that passed the Senate last month would provide provisional legal status followed by a 13-year path to citizenship for most of those who currently live in the country without legal authorization. Democratic leaders repeatedly have said they would not accept any bill that falls short of that. But, along with border security provisions that House committees already have worked on, the "kids first" plan, as supporters refer to it, might provide an alternative on which the House could act, keeping alive the possibility of an eventual compromise. The proposal, pushed by Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), has gained ground among Republicans. Cantor discussed it during a free-flowing, two-hour, closed-door meeting of House Republicans on Wednesday in which lawmakers lined up dozens deep in the Capitol's basement to air their views on the best way to proceed. Party leaders repeatedly warned their members about the dangers of inaction on immigration. Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told his troops the House would not consider the Senate bill, which most House Republicans oppose. But he warned them the party would pay a price for failing to pass some immigration legislation. Boehner said at the meeting that "we need to move something," said Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), an ally. Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), last year's Republican vice presidential nominee, said at the meeting that immigration reform would be good for economic growth. He echoed Boehner in saying that doing nothing was not an option.
|
Los Angeles Times July 11th [2013 “House GOP scales back on immigration”]
|
GOP leaders are trying to muster support for a stripped-down immigration reform bill along with border security provisions the "kids first" plan, might provide an alternative on which the House could act, keeping alive the possibility of an eventual compromise. The proposal, has gained ground among Republicans. Party leaders repeatedly warned their members about the dangers of inaction on immigration.
|
House moving towards compromise on immigration
| 2,087 | 46 | 404 | 329 | 6 | 60 | 0.018237 | 0.182371 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,374 |
Still, the timing and substance of Bush's remarks were reminders of the imperative that many national party leaders feel that Republicans must broaden their appeal among Hispanic voters to compete successfully in future presidential elections. President Barack Obama took more than 70 percent of their votes in winning a second term last fall. "America can be a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time," Bush said at a naturalization ceremony at his presidential library in Dallas. For their part, Democrats quickly embraced the former president's message, challenging House Speaker John Boehner to proceed in the same spirit. The meeting in the Capitol was arranged as a listening session for the House GOP, their first such meeting since the Senate approved sweeping legislation last month on a bipartisan vote of 68-32. Lawmakers said after the session there was strong support for a bill to create a path to citizenship for immigrants who were brought to the country as children illegally by family members, an idea advanced by Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia. Rep. Robert Goodlatte, R-Va.., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said his panel would soon begin work on legislation covering that group. Several members of the rank and file said Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., had made a particularly strong appeal for a comprehensive approach, which includes possible citizenship for the 11 million.
|
Associated Press July 11th [2013 “Bush nudges GOP on immigration as lawmakers meet”]
|
the timing and substance of Bush's remarks were reminders of the imperative that many national party leaders feel that Republicans must broaden their appeal among Hispanic voters Lawmakers said after the session there was strong support for a bill members of the rank and file had made a particularly strong appeal for a comprehensive approach,
|
Republicans will pass immigration because they need to appeal to Hispanics
| 1,425 | 74 | 344 | 227 | 11 | 55 | 0.048458 | 0.242291 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,375 |
On the House side, the bipartisan group working on an immigration package would require that border security measures be in place before any process toward residency for undocumented immigrants could begin. GOP legislators endorsed that strategy after Wednesday's caucus meeting. "The American people want our border secured, our laws enforced, and the problems in our immigration system fixed to strengthen our economy," said a joint statement by House GOP leaders that expressed distrust in Obama and Democrats to fully enact tougher security laws before legalizing undocumented immigrants. GOP Republican Rep. Darrell Issa of California told reporters the end result in the House would be "fully comprehensive immigration reform" that would address undocumented immigrants.
|
CNN News July 11th [2013 “House GOP split over immigration reform”]
|
On the House side, the bipartisan group working on an immigration package would require that border security measures be in place GOP legislators endorsed that strategy the end result in the House would be "fully comprehensive immigration reform" that would address undocumented immigrants
|
House coming to agreement on immigration reform
| 776 | 47 | 289 | 113 | 7 | 43 | 0.061947 | 0.380531 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,376 |
WASHINGTON — President Obama and allies are ramping up efforts to apply political pressure to House Republicans over immigration. Obama plotted strategy Wednesday with Democratic members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, while his team released a report saying "common sense immigration reform" would have major economic benefits. "It's time for the House to act," White House spokesman Jay Carney said.
|
USA Today July 10th [2013 “Obama, allies pressure GOP on immigration”]
|
Obama and allies are ramping up efforts to apply political pressure to House Republicans over immigration. "It's time for the House to act," White House spokesman Carney said
|
Obama pressuring GOP on immigration
| 407 | 35 | 174 | 60 | 5 | 28 | 0.083333 | 0.466667 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,377 |
George W Bush dipped a toe into the turbulent waters of the immigration debate on Wednesday when he urged Congress to find a "positive resolution" to a problem that proved to be resistant to change during his presidency. The 43rd incumbent of the White House used a naturalization ceremony at his recently-opened presidential center in Dallas, Texas as a stage from which to make a rare entry to the current political debate. Since he stepped down from office on 20 January 2009, Bush has kept a scrupulously low profile at home in Dallas and at the family ranch in Crawford. But with the highly partisan battle over comprehensive immigration reform reaching a crucial state in the House of Representatives, Bush told the 20 newly-naturalized US citizens in front of him: "The laws governing the immigration system aren't working. The system is broken. We are now in an important debate on reforming those laws, and that's good." Bush said he had no intention to "get involved in the politics or the specifics of policy". But he added: "I do hope there is a positive resolution to the debate, and I hope during the debate we keep a benevolent spirit in mind and that we understand the contributions immigrants make to our country. "We are a nation of immigrants and we must uphold that tradition which has strengthened our country in so many ways." The Bush comments could not have come at a more critical moment within the tortuous immigration debate. House Republicans began meeting on Wednesday about how to find a way forward in the heated dispute, having roundly rejected a Senate bill that passed last month. The Senate version would offer the 11 million mainly Latino migrants in the US without documentation a pathway to citizenship, but only after 13 years, and on the proviso that the border with Mexico has been substantially secured by then. The reforms envisage a "border surge" of patrol officers and high-tech gadgetry that would cost a total of $46bn. But Republican leaders in the House have expressed dissatisfaction with the Senate bill, and are proposing their own iteration that may involve splitting up the reforms into individual parcels, beginning with border security. House speaker John Boehner has bluntly stated that he will not allow the Senate bill to be considered on the floor of his chamber. The fractious relations between parties, and between chambers, must appear all too familiar to Bush, whose own attempt at bringing millions of undocumented migrants out of the shadows collapsed in 2007. His plan had contained similar elements of increased border security and a pathway to citizenship, but came unstuck after members of his own party described the pathway as a form of "amnesty" for illegal behaviour. Bush paid lip service to the enduring political rifts over immigration in his speech on Wednesday, but implied there was a way of bridging the gap. "We can uphold our traditions of assimilating immigrants and honouring our heritage of a nation built on the rule of law. America can be a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time," he said. The search for a solution to the US immigration conundrum has provided a rare element of ideological consistency between Bush and his successor in the White House. President Obamapraised his predecessor at the inauguration of the Bush presidential center in April for having "restarted an important conversation by speaking with the American people about our history as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants".
|
The Guardian July 10th [2013 “George W Bush urges Congress to find a 'positive resolution' on immigration”]
|
Bush dipped a toe into the turbulent waters of the immigration debate The Bush comments could not have come at a more critical moment Republicans began meeting on Wednesday about how to find a way forward in the heated dispute, The fractious relations between parties must appear all too familiar to Bush, Bush implied there was a way of bridging the gap The search for a solution to the US immigration conundrum has provided a rare element of ideological consistency between Bush and his successor
|
Bush’s support will push immigration over the top
| 3,512 | 49 | 498 | 587 | 8 | 85 | 0.013629 | 0.144804 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,378 |
Some fear immigration reform is dead on arrival in the Republican-led U.S. House. However, Democrats such as Texas Congressman Gene Green remains hopeful a pathway to citizenship is still possible.¶ “A lot of them have U.S. Citizen children, we need to treat them fairly if they haven't broken any laws other than coming here without permission, and we ought to deal with that and let them get on the road toward citizenship,” he says.¶ Border security also is a big concern for both sides.¶ “We are doing a lot better job than we were 10 years ago, or even 15 years ago for that matter, but that doesn't mean we should stop doing it,” says Green.¶ Democrat leaders have released a list of Republicans who could possibly help push the legislation through. They believe 20 is all they'll need, but that's only if House leaders agree to take up much of the Senate's plan.¶ Congressman Henry Cuellar also believes reform can pass, if it includes three key elements.¶ “Will it have border security? I think so. Will it have some sort of guest worker plan with visas? I think so,” Cuellar tells KTRH News. “But the big question will be does it have some sort of legalization for the 11 or 12 million of undocumented we already have?”¶ Cuellar says it's now or never for comprehensive reform.¶ “Which means the 2014 elections will be here, and of course the 2016 presidential election,” he says. “There's a window this year, and if we don't do it this year the window will close.”
|
Rajkovic 7/9 [2013. Nik Rajkovic, an award-winning journalist who joined the KTRH newsroom in August 2010."TX Dems Hopeful Immigration Reform Will Pass." Online. (Dhruv Soni)] http://www.ktrh.com/articles/houston-news-121300/tx-dems-hopeful-immigration-reform-will-11464285/
|
Democrats remain hopeful a pathway to citizenship is still possible Democrat leaders have released a list of Republicans who could possibly help push the legislation through 20 is all they'll need, but that's only if House leaders agree to take up much of the Senate's plan it's now or never for comprehensive reform There's a window this year, and if we don't do it this year the window will close
|
Immigration Reform will pass the House
| 1,474 | 38 | 398 | 261 | 6 | 70 | 0.022989 | 0.268199 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,379 |
Immigration reform entered an uncertain new phase on Wednesday as House Republicans signaled some willingness to compromise with President BarackObama and Democrats but rejected a Senate-passed bill and insisted they would take their time drafting their own version. Following more than two hours of talks on how to proceed, GOP legislators said the biggest question was whether to give the 11 million immigrants living illegally in the United States a path to eventual citizenship, as provided by the Senate measure. Participants in the Republican caucus meeting described a 50-50 split over the undocumented immigrant issue, with more consensus on the need to produce some kind of legislation to show the party's commitment to fixing a broken system and addressing concerns of Hispanic Americans -- the nation's largest minority demographic.
|
CNN News July 11th [2013 “House GOP split over immigration reform”]
|
Immigration reform entered an uncertain new phase on Wednesday as House Republicans signaled some willingness to compromise but rejected a Senate-passed bill Participants in the Republican caucus meeting described a 50-50 split over the undocumented immigrant issue
|
House split on immigration—It could go either way
| 843 | 49 | 265 | 129 | 8 | 37 | 0.062016 | 0.286822 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,380 |
CAMP, BAUCUS DITCH BELTWAY TO BUILD TAX REFORM SUPPORT. From Kelsey Snell in St. Paul, Minn., “House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) kicked off a summer-long “road show” with a pair of campaign-style stops here. They played with new technology from manufacturing giant 3M and ditched their suit coats for hard hats to tour the new facilities of a family-owned bakery. They cracked jokes, listened to workers and, at one point, even held hands. “There is a bit of a bubble in Washington. It’s true,” Baucus told an auditorium filled with about 100 employees at the 3M innovation center. “We are trying to break it.”…[But] It’s not clear that such events will move the dial on tax reform. There was no talk about how they expect to move a complex overhaul package when the congressional calendar is currently dominated by immigration reform and will soon become consumed by efforts to raise the debt ceiling.” Read more here: http://politi.co/13I01N7
|
Politico July 9th [2013 “IRS releases thousands of Social Security numbers - $200 billion budget could help tax reform – Camp, Baucus ditch beltway to build tax reform support”
|
the congressional calendar is currently dominated by immigration reform and will soon become consumed by the debt ceiling
|
Immigration is dominating the agenda now—Debt ceiling comes down the road
| 1,029 | 73 | 121 | 169 | 11 | 18 | 0.065089 | 0.106509 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,381 |
At this point, it's unclear when Treasury will hit its debt ceiling – a date lawmakers refer to as “X-date.” After the January extension, the deadline for raising the debt limit has steadily moved back, thanks to lower spending levels and higher tax revenues. And it could continue to do so. Lawmakers are already looking to mid-October and November, and one member even said he wouldn't be surprised if the negotiations wound up butting up against December's holiday recess, again. No matter the actual date, Republicans expect Obama to wait until the last minute to negotiate.
|
National Journal July 7th [2013 “House Republicans Draft Their Debt-Ceiling Playbook”
|
it's unclear when Treasury will hit its debt ceiling After the January extension, the deadline for raising the debt limit has steadily moved back, thanks to lower spending levels and higher tax revenues. And it could continue to do so. one member even said he wouldn't be surprised if the negotiations wound up butting up against December's holiday recess, again. Republicans expect Obama to wait until the last minute to negotiate
|
Debt negotiations won’t begin until Christmas—
| 578 | 46 | 431 | 96 | 6 | 71 | 0.0625 | 0.739583 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,382 |
President Barack Obama finally signed the Sequester into law, locking the infamous spending cuts into place, at least until this September. It is rare for a president to sign into a law a program that he actively opposes – President Obama called them "dumb" – so why did this one allow these cuts with relatively little confrontation? At the risk of seeming weak, President Obama is engaging in a tactical withdrawal here, not a retreat. The president sees that no more can be done on the budget stalemate at this time; with public opinion favoring him, and a popular mandate still only four months fresh, he is better off using his political capital on other reforms. With over half of his term gone, and a huge laundry list of initiatives still tabled, every move Obama makes is a time management puzzle. And with another inevitable fight on the budget scheduled for the summer, it is time for him to focus on other things for the spring. What is next for the president now that the budget is, for the moment, a settled issue? According to the White House, he is going to emphasize projects that do not require budgetary support: a raise to the minimum wage, immigration, and housing, for example.
|
John Ford, PolicyMic, 3/28/13, Why Obama Signing Sequestration Into Law Was a Strategic Move , www.policymic.com/articles/31012/why-obama-signing-sequestration-into-law-was-a-strategic-move/421387
|
Obama finally signed the Sequester into law It is rare for a president to sign into a law a program that he actively opposes why did this one allow these cuts with relatively little confrontation Obama is engaging in a tactical withdrawal not a retreat The president sees that no more can be done on the budget stalemate with public opinion favoring him, and a popular mandate still only four months fresh, he is better off using his political capital on other reforms With a laundry list of initiatives still tabled, every move Obama makes is a time management puzzle And with another fight on the budget scheduled for the summer is time for him to focus on other things for the spring What is next for the president now that the budget is, a settled issue he is going to emphasize projects that do not require budgetary support immigration
|
No debt thumper—empirics: Obama backed off budget fights to get immigration through
| 1,199 | 83 | 841 | 211 | 12 | 150 | 0.056872 | 0.7109 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,383 |
Obama gave what might turn out to be his most substantive, not to mention controversial, address on climate change since he took office over four years ago. I say might turn out to be, because the devil, as they say, is in the details, and the details are not yet in. It's not clear, for example, how much of his diminishing stock of "political capital" Obama will be willing to spend on aggressively pushing for the climate relief package that he outlined today. It is also not clear whether the three years plus that remain in his soon-to-be lame duck presidency will be enough time to accomplish his ambitious goals, still less insure that they won't be reversed by the next resident of the White House.
|
The Guardian June 25th [2013 “President Obama is talking big on climate change, but will he act?”
|
Obama gave what might turn out to be his most substantive It's not clear, how much of his diminishing stock of "political capital" Obama will be willing to spend on climate
|
Obama not yet committed political capital to climate
| 706 | 53 | 172 | 126 | 8 | 31 | 0.063492 | 0.246032 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,384 |
US President Barack Obama made an outspoken pitch for a Senate bill on comprehensive immigration reform on Tuesday, branding those opposed to it insincere about fixing a badly broken system. Obama has gently pushed the bill from behind the scenes for months, fearing his open support would swell the ranks of conservatives who see the bill as offering amnesty to illegal immigrants and who are determined to kill it. But as the legislation faced a crucial test vote in the Senate, Obama waded into the fray, leveraging the political capital on the issue he won during last year's election campaign, particularly among Hispanic voters. "This week, the Senate will consider a common-sense, bipartisan bill that is the best chance we've had in years to fix our broken immigration system," Obama said at an event at the White House. The president also sought to disarm conservative Republicans -- even some who support immigration reform -- who argue that the bill should not be passed without tough new border security measures. "I know there's a lot of talk right now about border security so let me repeat: today illegal crossings are near their lowest level in decades. "If passed, the Senate bill, as currently written and as hitting the floor, would put in place the toughest border enforcement plan that America has ever seen. So nobody's taking border enforcement lightly." Obama also took direct aim at the motives of lawmakers who are opposed to the bill, which was drawn up in the Senate by a bipartisan group of lawmakers known as the "Gang of Eight." "There's no reason Congress can't get this done by the end of the summer," Obama said, but cast doubt on the motives of those wanting to block the bill.
|
Hindustan Times 6/24 “Obama back in fray on immigration reform” http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/Americas/Obama-back-in-fray-on-immigration-reform/Article1-1074774.aspx
|
Obama made an outspoken pitch for a Senate bill on comprehensive immigration reform on Tuesday branding those opposed to it insincere about fixing a badly broken system. Obama has gently pushed the bill from behind the scenes for months fearing his open support would swell the ranks of conservatives as the legislation faced a crucial test vote in the Senate, Obama waded into the fray, leveraging political capital The president sought to disarm conservative Republicans who argue that the bill should not be passed without tough new border security measures. Obama also took direct aim at the motives of lawmakers who are opposed to the bill, which was drawn up in the Senate There's no reason Congress can't get this done by the end of the summer," Obama said
|
Obama’s spending PC now—
| 1,712 | 24 | 763 | 292 | 4 | 129 | 0.013699 | 0.441781 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,385 |
The prospects for major immigration reform are now the brightest in years, but for key players in Washington, a shadow still looms: the ghost of 2006. That was the last time the stars were aligned for a breakthrough. Immigration reform that included a path to citizenship for those in the United States illegally had the support of President Bush, a broad labor-business-faith coalition, and a bipartisan Senate majority. Yet that armada ultimately splintered against the stony refusal of House Republican leaders to consider a bill opposed by a majority of their majority. Any of that sound familiar? Already many of the same dynamics are developing, with President Obama stamping immigration reform as a top priority, a bipartisan Senate coalition reassembling, a broad outside alliance of support groups coalescing—and most House Republicans rejecting anything that hints at “amnesty” for illegal immigrants. Yet the contrasts between now and 2006, particularly in the political climate, are also significant. Understanding both the similarities and the differences will be critical for reform advocates if they are to avoid replicating the disappointment they suffered under Bush. Presidential interest was then, as it is now, critical in elevating immigration reform. Since his days as Texas governor, Bush had courted Hispanics, and—even during the 2000 GOP presidential primary campaign—he strikingly defended illegal immigrants as “moms and dads” trying to make a better life for their children. Together with his political “architect,” Karl Rove, Bush saw comprehensive reform that coupled a path to citizenship with tougher enforcement as an opportunity to consolidate the beachhead that allowed him to capture more than 40 percent of Hispanic voters in his 2004 reelection. But Bush largely looked away when Republicans who controlled the House channeled that impulse in a very different direction. In December 2005, they passed an enforcement-only bill drafted by Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, that, for the first time, designated all undocumented immigrants as felons. (Previously, illegal presence in the U.S. had been a civil, not criminal, violation.) Initially, debate in the GOP-controlled Senate drifted. Majority Leader Bill Frist, considering a 2008 presidential bid, pushed his own enforcement-only bill. But amid the backdrop of huge public rallies against Sensenbrenner’s proposal, Sen. Arlen Specter unexpectedly joined with three other Republicans and all eight Judiciary Committee Democrats in late March to approve a comprehensive plan, including a path to citizenship, that followed a blueprint negotiated by Sens. Edward Kennedy and John McCain. When broader Senate agreement teetered over the terms of legalization, Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel and Mel Martinez devised a compromise that divided illegal immigrants into three categories, requiring those here less than two years to leave but allowing those with deeper roots to eventually earn citizenship by paying fines and learning English. After Bush finally delivered a national address on immigration, a bill embodying that plan cleared the Senate with 62 votes, including support from 23 Republicans. House Republicans immediately signaled their disinterest by refusing to appoint a conference committee and instead scheduled hearings in border communities to highlight security lapses. “Border security reigned supreme,” recalls Ron Bonjean, the communications director for then-Speaker Dennis Hastert. “I remember being in a meeting with … the leadership where pollsters came in and said border security was the key to our reelection.” Even in 2006, something like the Senate plan likely could have attracted 218 votes in the House—but not a majority of Republicans. Faced with a collision between his two political imperatives—courting Hispanics and mobilizing conservatives—Bush blinked, allowing House leaders to replace the Senate bill with enforcement-only legislation, which he signed that fall. These choices began the GOP’s slide among Hispanics that continues unabated: Hispanic support for Republican House candidates plummeted from 44 percent in 2004 to just 29 percent in 2006, presaging Mitt Romney’s disastrous 27 percent showing among those voters in 2012. That slippage is one of the two most important differences in the political environment around immigration between 2006 and today. Back then, as Bonjean notes, hardly any House Republicans argued that the GOP needed to pass a plan attractive to minorities. But many GOP leaders now see that as self-preservation. “The political imperative has shifted the tectonic plates,” says Frank Sharry, a key player in the 2006 debate who remains central as executive director of America’s Voice, which backs full citizenship for immigrants. “Immigration was viewed as a wedge issue for Republicans in 2006. Now it’s viewed as a wedge issue for Democrats.” The “Gang of Eight” proposal released this week makes it likely that, as in 2006, the Senate will eventually pass a bipartisan immigration bill. Once again, there are probably 218 House votes for such a plan, but not a majority of the majority Republicans. That raises another key difference from 2006: Hastert faced little pressure to consider the Senate bill, because Bush bit his tongue when the speaker buried it. If House Republicans shelve another bipartisan Senate plan in 2013, they should expect much more public heat, because Obama won’t be as deferential.
|
Ronald Brownstein, National Jouranl, 1/31/13, On Immigration, What Obama Can Learn From Bush's Failed Efforts, www.nationaljournal.com/columns/political-connections/on-immigration-what-obama-can-learn-from-bush-s-failed-efforts-20130131
|
The prospects for major immigration reform are bright but for key players in Washington, a shadow still looms the last time the stars were aligned that armada ultimately splintered against the stony refusal of House Republican leaders opposed by a majority of their majority. dynamics are developing with Obama stamping immigration reform as a top priority a bipartisan Senate coalition reassembling a broad outside alliance of support groups coalescing and House Republicans rejecting amnesty Yet the contrasts are significant Understanding differences will be critical Presidential interest is now, critical in elevating immigration reform But Bush largely looked away when Republicans channeled that impulse in a very different direction they passed an enforcement-only bill in 2006, something like the Senate plan likely could have attracted 218 votes but not a majority of Republicans Faced with a collision between his two political imperatives—courting Hispanics and mobilizing conservatives Bush blinked, allowing House leaders to replace the Senate bill with enforcement-only legislation The political imperative has shifted the tectonic plates the Senate will pass a bipartisan immigration bill there are 218 House votes for such a plan, but not a majority of Republicans That raises a key difference Hastert faced little pressure to consider the Senate bill because Bush bit his tongue the speaker buried it. If House Republicans shelve another bipartisan Senate plan they should expect public heat, because Obama won’t be deferential
|
Political capital is key—elevates the issue and keeps congressional focus—empirics prove
| 5,505 | 88 | 1,545 | 831 | 11 | 230 | 0.013237 | 0.276775 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,386 |
President Barack Obama will step up his efforts to drive an immigration bill through the U.S. House by using a tool that has failed him on issues from gun control to budget cuts -- the bully pulpit. The White House realizes the legislation is in danger and a public campaign is the last option at the president’s disposal, said a former Obama adviser, who asked not to be identified to speak candidly about administration strategy. “He’s had trouble when he’s done this,” said Julian Zelizer, a presidential historian at Princeton University. “It didn’t work on health care. The budget ended up with sequestration,” he said, referring to the automatic federal spending cuts that Obama unsuccessfully tried to halt. The president’s prospects for a second-term legislative legacy are at stake in the battle over immigration, with his gun-control push defeated, Republicans opposed to action on climate change, and partisan gridlock jeopardizing work on the budget. While the Senate passed immigration legislation last month with a 68-vote majority, House Republicans are signaling opposition to key provisions. The president’s advisers recognize that if, at some point, the legislation is headed for failure they must first mount an all-out public campaign that demonstrates a commitment to an immigration overhaul to supporters, including Hispanic and Asian voters, said the former White House official. Electoral Battlegrounds Obama, who mostly stayed in the background during debate on the Senate bill, is considering visiting electoral battlegrounds with important Hispanic constituencies such as Nevada, Colorado or Florida to press for action in the Republican-run House, administration officials said. Plans are already under way to send Cabinet members around the country and for Obama to rally support through interviews with Spanish-language media. The administration officials asked not to be identified discussing internal deliberations. Sensitive to the prospect that a more prominent role by the Democratic president will antagonize Republicans determined to deny him a victory, the White House will calibrate the campaign, based on the bill’s momentum in the House, said one administration official. Obama is ready to increase his efforts if prospects for a bill are flagging or to scale them back if the legislation is on track, the official said. “It’s a tricky balance,” said Patrick Griffin, who was chief lobbyist for President Bill Clinton. Obama needs to put pressure on opposition party leaders and promote an expectation among voters that “something should get done and will get done” while trying not to fuel resistance from party members hostile to him, he said.
|
Businessweek July 11th [2013 “Obama Set to Make Public Case Amid Immigration Opposition”]
|
Obama will step up his efforts to drive an immigration bill through the U.S. House by using the bully pulpit. the legislation is in danger and a public campaign is the last option at the president’s disposal, The president’s advisers recognize that if, at some point, the legislation is headed for failure they must mount an all-out campaign Obama is ready to increase his efforts if prospects for a bill are flagging Obama needs to put pressure on opposition party leaders and promote an expectation among voters that “something should get done and will get done
|
Obama’s political pressure key to passing immigration
| 2,686 | 53 | 563 | 415 | 7 | 96 | 0.016867 | 0.231325 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,387 |
But Obama even as his popularity numbers slightly fell among Latinos did not totally ignore the issue. He lashed the GOP for torpedoing comprehensive immigration reform legislation in Congress on the two occasions when it appeared that an immigration bill might be reintroduced.¶ Obama was not to blame that this didn't happen. The crushing problems and bruising fights over deficit reduction, spending, health care reform, coupled with high soaring gas prices and the jobless crisis were endless and time consuming. The fights required every bit of his political capital and arm twisting to make any headway against an obstructionist, intransigent and petty GOP determined to make him pay a steep political price for every inch of legislative ground he sought to gain.¶ The 2012 election changed only one thing with the GOP. That was its in your face, xenophobic rants against illegals supposedly stealing jobs from Americans and breaking the law. GOP leaders had no choice but to tamp down their saber rattle immigration rhetoric for the simple fact that Latino voters punished the party mightily in 2012 for that rhetoric, and sent an even stronger signal that it would continue to punish the GOP if it didn't change at least its tone on immigration. The 2012 election changed one other thing. It gave Obama the long sought and awaited opening he needed to go full throttle on immigration reform. ¶ The election result was not the only strong point for Obama on reform. In 2007, then President George W. Bush was widely and unfairly blamed for making a mess of the immigration reform fight in Congress by not pushing hard enough for passage of the bill. Immigrant rights groups lambasted Republican senators for piling crippling demands for tight amnesty, citizenship and border security provisions in the bill. Leading Republican presidential contenders didn't help matters by flatly opposing the bill as much too soft on amnesty and border enforcement. ¶ This did much to kill whatever flickering hope there was for the bill's passage. This undid the inroads that Bush made in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections when he scored big with Latino voters. A big part of that then was due to the perception (and reality) that Bush would push hard for immigration reform. But the GOP didn't learn a thing from this. It was almost as if Bush's Latino vote ramp up was an aberration. The GOP's metallic ear on immigration culminated in the idiotic quip from GOP presidential loser Mitt Romney that the best way to solve the immigration crisis was for undocumented workers to "self-deport." ¶ Obama's battle for the Latino vote in 2012 was never intended to head off any mass defection of Latino voters to the GOP. There was never any chance of that. The polls that showed Latinos less than enthusiastic about Obama also showed absolutely no enthusiasm for any GOP would-be presidential candidate, let alone that there would be a massive vote for GOP candidates. ¶ Still, Obama's frontal challenge to the GOP to do something about immigration reform is not only a long overdue move to right a long simmering policy wrong, but a move that if handled right can do much to shove the wrenching issue of what to do about the nation's millions that are here without papers, and are here to stay, off the nation's political table. There's absolutely no risk, only gain, for Obama in taking the point on immigration reform to try and make that happen.
|
Earl Ofari Hutchinson 2-1, author and political analyst, associate editor of New America Media, host of the weekly Hutchinson Report on KPFK-Radio and the Pacifica Network, and KTYM Radio Los Angeles, 2/1/13, “No Risk for President Obama in Immigration Reform Fight,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/no-risk-for-obama_b_2591792.html
|
Obama lashed the GOP for torpedoing immigration on two occasions The bruising fights over deficit reduction health care were endless and time consuming The fights required every bit of his political capital and arm twisting to make any headway against an obstructionist, intransigent GOP determined to make him pay a steep political price for every inch of legislative ground The 2012 election gave Obama the opening to go full throttle on immigration Bush was blamed for not pushing hard enough Obama's challenge to the GOP about immigration if handled right can do much to shove the issue off the political table
|
Previous immigration pushes failed because Obama spent too much PC on other issues and couldn’t arm-twist the GOP effectively
| 3,444 | 126 | 614 | 581 | 19 | 101 | 0.032702 | 0.173838 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,388 |
Amateur meteorologists claim to have spotted other flickers of the bipartisan phenomena. President Obama and Republican leaders reached a deal on a three-month extension of the debt limit and a bill to aid the victims of Hurricane Sandy. These are not historic acts, but why not raise a glass in tribute if for no other reason than to break the monotony of having to constantly raise a glass to drown our frustration. But let's not mistake this for genuine bipartisanship. Or, if this is the new standard for bipartisanship, then we should change our definition of it. These examples of ghost bipartisanship are born from pressure, not cooperation. Lawmakers aren't reasoning together; one side is crying uncle. That will almost certainly be true of any immigration reform measure that passes (if the reform effort doesn’t break down under the weight of the partisanship itself). The folk story of bipartisanship goes like this: The two parties tackle a common problem, they fight like hell, but both sides ultimately give up something to get a deal. In 1983, Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill negotiated a compromise over Social Security. In 1990, George H.W. Bush forged a deal to reduce the deficit with Democratic leaders. In 1997, Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich hammered out a balanced budget agreement. These bipartisan moments were not simply the product of reason divorced from acrimony and politics. As President Truman said, "There was never a nonpartisan in politics. A man cannot be a nonpartisan and be effective in a political party." But today’s droplets of bipartisanship are distinct from that tradition. They come not from shared sacrifice but from one side giving in. Charles Krauthammer says Republicans got rolled on the fiscal cliff talks. The Weekly Standard and Sen. Rand Paul say Republicans blinked on the debt limit fight. On the issue of immigration, the bipartisan opportunities exist not because wise men from both parties have decided to solve one of the nation's most pressing issues, but because Republicans are giving in to the pressure created by the last election. This fact is clear by the host of Republicans who once opposed or were skeptical of any immigration-reform package that included “amnesty” but who are now supporting it. It’s not about policy; it’s about politics. Similarly, on the question of gun control, there is an emerging consensus that Congress will support background checks for gun purchases. This too could be called bipartisanship, except that it’s an emergency event brought on by the Newtown, Conn., massacre, which means it tells us nothing about the baseline health of bipartisanship. If recent cooperation shouldn’t be confused with new bipartisan vigor, there’s another new reason to be skeptical: history. Barack Obama's re-election marks only the second time that three consecutive presidents have served consecutive two-year terms. The last time was Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe. This gives us three modern examples of the presidential learning curve. After re-election, presidents of both parties draw the same conclusion: Bipartisanship is a pipe dream. In Bill Clinton's second inaugural address, he declared his election would bring about a new bipartisan era. "The American people returned to office a president of one party and a Congress of another. Surely they did not do this to advance the politics of petty bickering and extreme partisanship they plainly deplore." This was true long enough for the president to reach a budget deal with Republicans—just before his second term devolved into impeachment hearings. When Republicans pursued him for lying to a grand jury and obstructing justice, Clinton interpreted it as nothing more than blind partisanship. In 2004, after George W. Bush was re-elected, the man who once promised to unite and not divide entered his second term with a far dimmer view of compromise. "I've got the will of the people at my back," he said despite his narrow victory. Bush’s definition of bipartisanship meant other people falling in line: "I'll reach out to everyone who shares our goals." Bush later admitted that when giving his State of the Union address, he relished the partisan reaction it provoked. "Sometimes I look through that teleprompter and see reactions. I'm not going to characterize what the reactions are, but nevertheless it causes me to want to lean a little more forward into the prompter, if you know what I mean. Maybe it's the mother in me." Like Clinton, President Obama faces the prospect of hammering out deals with a divided government, but he reached the opposite conclusion. The president’s aggressive second-term trajectory was evident even before he gave his inauguration speech, but the speech set the emotional tone for a second term full of conflicts. When Obama’s top political adviser argues that Democrats don’t have “an opposition party worthy of the opportunity,” it cemented the proof. There may be bipartisan progress in the months to come, but it will be of a tougher kind. Members of the two parties may join arms and make a deal, but it won’t be the result of fellow feeling, conciliation, or understanding. If there’s going to be gang-like behavior that achieves bipartisanship, it’s more likely to come through a headlock than a hug.
|
John Dickerson, 1/31/13, Bipartisan Baloney, www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/01/gang_of_eight_immigration_reform_why_republicans_and_democrats_agreeing.html
|
Amateur meteorologists claim to have spotted other flickers of the bipartisan phenomena But let's not mistake this for genuine bipartisanship. , if this is the new bipartisanship, then we should change our definitio bipartisanship are born from pressure, not cooperation Lawmakers aren't reasoning one side is crying uncle That will certainly be true of any immigration reform measure that passes On immigration bipartisan opportunities exist because Republicans are giving in to pressure It’s not about policy; it’s about politics recent cooperation shouldn’t be confused with new bipartisan vigor Bipartisanship is a pipe dream. Obama faces the prospect of hammering out deals with a divided government, There may be bipartisan progress in the months to come, but it will be of a tougher kind
|
PC is key to forcing the political calculations for bipartisanship which gets a deal
| 5,289 | 84 | 794 | 858 | 14 | 123 | 0.016317 | 0.143357 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,389 |
But the pendulum has not swung entirely against Obama. The economy is improving, albeit more slowly than the president would like. If the recovery gains strength, it will lift Obama and the general mood of the nation. The president’s recent speech on climate change also underlined that he is capable of taking action without always having to deal with Congress. On that topic, he intends to use executive actions and regulations. Some independent observers argue that Obama is being hamstrung by the political dynamics of the day rather than because of any failure of leadership on his part. “Second terms are hard and, in an era of polarization, even harder. The idea that he was going to be able to get a very big legislative agenda through was pretty much a dream,” said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. “We’re in an era where you get a kind of hatred,” Zelizer added. “Half the country votes for the president and the other half hates him. And that’s the kind of political environment you have to govern in.” Zelizer, along with others who spoke to The Hill, noted that one key element in Obama’s second term and in securing his historical legacy will be the effort to bed down the legislative achievements of his first four years. No achievement is more important than the Affordable Care Act, now more widely known as ObamaCare. This, in turn, explains why the recent decision to delay the requirement for employers to provide healthcare for their workers was met with such consternation, even from people who support the administration. “Look, I know it’s a complicated law with many levers and buttons, but they should have had all this figured out before it appeared like it was ready to go,” one former administration official said. “It’s a good law, it will help so many people who need it, but it looks sloppy.” The danger for Obama is that people’s faith both in him personally and in the more activist role of government that he favors will decline. “The people’s trust in his leadership has fallen,” said Susan MacManus, a professor of political science at the University of South Florida. But, she added, “people are increasingly disgusted with both political parties. For the average American, you really don’t have anyone who seems like they can craft solutions. People are losing faith that their government can do so much.” Republicans are, predictably, even less charitable. “You’re in a bad place when scandals far outnumber your legislation achievements,” said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). “The president spent a billion dollars to get reelected and still has nothing to show for it.” Yet Obama might benefit from fights with the GOP. A recent Gallup poll showed just 39 percent of respondents holding a favorable view of the Republican Party. The last major legislative victories Obama secured came in early January when the GOP stumbled during debates over the fiscal cliff and a Hurricane Sandy relief package. Even as the president has been frustrated in recent months, his allies take heart from their belief that he is lucky in his enemies.
|
The Hill, 7/8 Niall Stanage and Amie Parnes, “Obama loses altitude, needs solid wins,” http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/309485-obama-loses-altitude-needs-solid-wins-six-months-into-second-term
|
the pendulum has not swung entirely against Obama. The economy is improving If the recovery gains strength, it will lift Obama and the general mood of the nation. The president’s recent speech on climate change also underlined that he is capable of taking action Obama might benefit from fights with the GOP 39 percent of respondents holding a favorable view of the Republican Party. his allies take heart from their belief that he is lucky in his enemies.
|
Obama’s pc is high – this assumes recent losses
| 3,152 | 47 | 456 | 530 | 9 | 78 | 0.016981 | 0.14717 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,390 |
The Supreme Court's rulings this past week on gay marriage signal that social conservatives looking to advance their fight against same-sex unions could be in for a rocky road ahead. In its more modest decision this week, the court issued a narrowly tailored ruling that had the effect of reinstating gay marriage in California. But it was the decision on the Defense of Marriage Act that provided the strongest language, and the best indication of where the court's majority stands on the broader issue -- whenever it returns to the nation's most powerful justices for review. The majority opinion, authored by swing justice Anthony Kennedy, was unequivocal, at times suggesting efforts to limit gay marriage are morally indefensible. The opinion said the DOMA law, which defined marriage as between a man and woman, "humiliates" the children raised by gay couples. "Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways," the majority wrote. The court's conservative justices fumed at this language, with Justice Antonin Scalia accusing his colleagues of deeming gay marriage foes "enemies of the human race." The opinion, though, was an outright victory for Obama -- who has actually endured a string of defeats before the high court this year. Perhaps the biggest blow came Tuesday when the court stopped the Justice Department from singling out certain states for challenges to their voting laws. One report estimated the administration lost two-thirds of the cases it had before the court this session. But on gay marriage, Obama won big. The court effectively backed him up on two controversial moves -- the decision not to defend the Clinton-era marriage law in court, and the president's personal endorsement of gay marriage last year. Importantly, on the merits of the gay marriage debate, the ruling put two of the three branches of the federal government on the same page. Going forward, the ruling establishes an Obama-Supreme Court alliance that will loom large over future efforts to restrict same-sex marriage. On that point, conservative justices and social conservative activists blasted the high court for the scope of its opinion. Scalia, who voiced seething frustration, accused the court of overstepping its bounds in order to "pronounce the law." Further, he said that assertions that DOMA would humiliate children and impose inequality will in effect stack the deck against any state trying to limit gay marriage going forward. "By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition," Scalia wrote. "The result will be a judicial distortion of our society's debate over marriage." The gay marriage debate at the state level will continue to play out, as the California Proposition 8 decision stopped short of declaring a universal right to same-sex marriage. Thomas Reese, a senior analyst for National Catholic Reporter, argued that the bishops in states across the country are now faced with a tough choice, depending on where they are. "Bishops in states that have legalized gay marriage may conclude that it is politically impossible to reverse the decision in their states and (therefore) admit defeat and move on," he wrote. "Bishops in red states where gay marriage is not legal may judge the fight worth making because with other allies they have a good chance of maintaining the status quo. The tough call will be for bishops in blue states where polls show growing support for gay marriage. Here they must choose between fighting gay marriage or negotiating exemptions for the church as a price for their silence." The court's majority opinion on the issue may be more a sign of the times and the tenor of the national debate -- fueled by Obama's pronouncements -- than a product of the president's appointments. The two reliably liberal justices that Obama has appointed, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, indeed sided with the majority. But the balance of the court is the same as it's ever been, as those two replaced two other traditionally liberal justices.
|
Fox News 6/29 “Obama-Court alliance on gay marriage sets up tough road ahead for same-sex union foes,” http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/29/obama-court-alliance-on-gay-marriage-sets-up-tough-road-ahead-for-same-sex/
|
The Supreme Court's rulings on gay marriage signal that social conservatives could be in for a rocky road ahead The opinion was an outright victory for Obama Obama won big The court effectively backed him up on two controversial moves The court's majority opinion on the issue may be sign of tenor of the national debate -- fueled by Obama's pronouncements
|
PC high – gay marriage
| 4,201 | 22 | 356 | 680 | 5 | 61 | 0.007353 | 0.089706 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,391 |
As 2009 opened, three weeks before Barack Obama took office, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 9034 on January 2, its highest level since the autumn panic. Yesterday the Dow fell another 4.24% to 6763, for an overall decline of 25% in two months and to its lowest level since 1997. The dismaying message here is that President Obama's policies have become part of the economy's problem. Americans have welcomed the Obama era in the same spirit of hope the President campaigned on. But after five weeks in office, it's become clear that Mr. Obama's policies are slowing, if not stopping, what would otherwise be the normal process of economic recovery. From punishing business to squandering scarce national public resources, Team Obama is creating more uncertainty and less confidence -- and thus a longer period of recession or subpar growth. The Democrats who now run Washington don't want to hear this, because they benefit from blaming all bad economic news on President Bush. And Mr. Obama has inherited an unusual recession deepened by credit problems, both of which will take time to climb out of. But it's also true that the economy has fallen far enough, and long enough, that much of the excess that led to recession is being worked off. Already 15 months old, the current recession will soon match the average length -- and average job loss -- of the last three postwar downturns. What goes down will come up -- unless destructive policies interfere with the sources of potential recovery. And those sources have been forming for some time. The prices of oil and other commodities have fallen by two-thirds since their 2008 summer peak, which has the effect of a major tax cut. The world is awash in liquidity, thanks to monetary ease by the Federal Reserve and other central banks. Monetary policy operates with a lag, but last year's easing will eventually stir economic activity. Housing prices have fallen 27% from their Case-Shiller peak, or some two-thirds of the way back to their historical trend. While still high, credit spreads are far from their peaks during the panic, and corporate borrowers are again able to tap the credit markets. As equities were signaling with their late 2008 rally and January top, growth should under normal circumstances begin to appear in the second half of this year. So what has happened in the last two months? The economy has received no great new outside shock. Exchange rates and other prices have been stable, and there are no security crises of note. The reality of a sharp recession has been known and built into stock prices since last year's fourth quarter. What is new is the unveiling of Mr. Obama's agenda and his approach to governance. Every new President has a finite stock of capital -- financial and political -- to deploy, and amid recession Mr. Obama has more than most. But one negative revelation has been the way he has chosen to spend his scarce resources on income transfers rather than growth promotion. Most of his "stimulus" spending was devoted to social programs, rather than public works, and nearly all of the tax cuts were devoted to income maintenance rather than to improving incentives to work or invest.
|
WSJ 9 [The Wall Street Journal 3/3 “The Obama Economy”]
|
The dismaying message here is that President Obama's policies have become part of the economy's problem it's become clear that Mr. Obama's policies are slowing, if not stopping What is new is the unveiling of Mr. Obama's agenda and his approach to governance. Every new President has a finite stock of capital -- financial and political -- to deploy, and amid recession Mr. Obama has more than most. But one negative revelation has been the way he has chosen to spend his scarce resources on income transfers rather than growth promotion. Most of his "stimulus" spending was devoted to social programs, rather than public works, and nearly all of the tax cuts were devoted to income maintenance rather than to improving incentives to work or invest
|
Obama capital finite, spending it now without positive returns
| 3,201 | 62 | 748 | 544 | 9 | 126 | 0.016544 | 0.231618 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,392 |
Second, the administration believed that success would breed success—that the momentum from one legislative victory would spill over into the next. The reverse was closer to the truth: with each difficult vote, it became harder to persuade Democrats from swing districts and states to cast the next one. In the event, House members who feared that they would pay a heavy price if they supported cap-and-trade legislation turned out to have a better grasp of political fundamentals than did administration strategists.
|
Galston 10 (William,11-4, Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, Brookings, “President Barack Obama’s First Two Years: Policy Accomplishments, Political Difficulties” Brookings Institute)
|
the administration believed that success would breed success—that the momentum from one legislative victory would spill over into the next. The reverse was closer to the truth: with each difficult vote, it became harder to persuade Democrats from swing districts and states to cast the next one. House members who feared that they would pay a heavy price if they supported cap-and-trade legislation turned out to have a better grasp of political fundamentals than did administration strategists
|
Empirically winners win doesn’t apply to Obama
| 517 | 47 | 494 | 81 | 7 | 77 | 0.08642 | 0.950617 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,393 |
Paul Light, an expert on the presidency and a professor at New York University, said the president's problems with Capitol Hill reflect "a miscalculation by the Obama administration on how political capital gets spent in Washington." Light said that capital, even for a president who enjoys immense personal popular support like Obama, is spent a bit at a time on each initiative or piece of legislation. "I think the Obama administration has been spending political capital at roughly the same rate the federal government spends money," Light said. "Eventually, it runs out." Light quoted President Lyndon Johnson, who said that "if you don't get it done in six months, you're not going to get it done." One of the reasons Obama has spent so much capital, aside from his ambitious agenda, has been his willingness to cede so much control to Congress, Light said While lawmakers like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) are allies of the president, his political capital is not necessarily a priority of theirs. To that end, Light says, Obama has made a mistake in making Pelosi his "broker," spending his political capital but not always to his benefit.
|
The Hill 09 (7-27, “Analysis: July has been disaster for Obama, Hill Dems”, http://img.thehill.com/homenews/administration/52107-analysis-july-has-been-disaster-for-obama-hill-dems.)
|
Paul Light, an expert on the presidency and a professor at New York University, said the president's problems with Capitol Hill reflect "a miscalculation by the Obama administration on how political capital gets spent in Washington." Light said that capital, even for a president who enjoys immense personal popular support like Obama, is spent a bit at a time on each initiative or piece of legislation. "I think the Obama administration has been spending political capital at roughly the same rate the federal government spends money if you don't get it done in six months, you're not going to get it done." One of the reasons Obama has spent so much capital, aside from his ambitious agenda, has been his willingness to cede so much control to Congress, Light said While lawmakers like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) are allies of the president, his political capital is not necessarily a priority of theirs. To that end, Light says, Obama has made a mistake in making Pelosi his "broker," spending his political capital but not always to his benefit.
|
Capital can only deflate for Obama-prefer our ev quotes Paul Light
| 1,203 | 67 | 1,108 | 199 | 11 | 185 | 0.055276 | 0.929648 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,394 |
CAMBRIDGE – The United States is a nation of immigrants. Except for a small number of Native Americans, everyone is originally from somewhere else, and even recent immigrants can rise to top economic and political roles. President Franklin Roosevelt once famously addressed the Daughters of the American Revolution – a group that prided itself on the early arrival of its ancestors – as “fellow immigrants.”¶ In recent years, however, US politics has had a strong anti-immigration slant, and the issue played an important role in the Republican Party’s presidential nomination battle in 2012. But Barack Obama’s re-election demonstrated the electoral power of Latino voters, who rejected Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney by a 3-1 majority, as did Asian-Americans.¶ As a result, several prominent Republican politicians are now urging their party to reconsider its anti-immigration policies, and plans for immigration reform will be on the agenda at the beginning of Obama’s second term. Successful reform will be an important step in preventing the decline of American power.¶ Fears about the impact of immigration on national values and on a coherent sense of American identity are not new. The nineteenth-century “Know Nothing” movement was built on opposition to immigrants, particularly the Irish. Chinese were singled out for exclusion from 1882 onward, and, with the more restrictive Immigration Act of 1924, immigration in general slowed for the next four decades.¶ During the twentieth century, the US recorded its highest percentage of foreign-born residents, 14.7%, in 1910. A century later, according to the 2010 census, 13% of the American population is foreign born. But, despite being a nation of immigrants, more Americans are skeptical about immigration than are sympathetic to it. Various opinion polls show either a plurality or a majority favoring less immigration. The recession exacerbated such views: in 2009, one-half of the US public favored allowing fewer immigrants, up from 39% in 2008.¶ Both the number of immigrants and their origin have caused concerns about immigration’s effects on American culture. Demographers portray a country in 2050 in which non-Hispanic whites will be only a slim majority. Hispanics will comprise 25% of the population, with African- and Asian-Americans making up 14% and 8%, respectively.¶ But mass communications and market forces produce powerful incentives to master the English language and accept a degree of assimilation. Modern media help new immigrants to learn more about their new country beforehand than immigrants did a century ago. Indeed, most of the evidence suggests that the latest immigrants are assimilating at least as quickly as their predecessors.¶ While too rapid a rate of immigration can cause social problems, over the long term, immigration strengthens US power. It is estimated that at least 83 countries and territories currently have fertility rates that are below the level needed to keep their population constant. Whereas most developed countries will experience a shortage of people as the century progresses, America is one of the few that may avoid demographic decline and maintain its share of world population.¶ For example, to maintain its current population size, Japan would have to accept 350,000 newcomers annually for the next 50 years, which is difficult for a culture that has historically been hostile to immigration. In contrast, the Census Bureau projects that the US population will grow by 49% over the next four decades.¶ Today, the US is the world’s third most populous country; 50 years from now it is still likely to be third (after only China and India). This is highly relevant to economic power: whereas nearly all other developed countries will face a growing burden of providing for the older generation, immigration could help to attenuate the policy problem for the US.¶ In addition, though studies suggest that the short-term economic benefits of immigration are relatively small, and that unskilled workers may suffer from competition, skilled immigrants can be important to particular sectors – and to long-term growth. There is a strong correlation between the number of visas for skilled applicants and patents filed in the US. At the beginning of this century, Chinese- and Indian-born engineers were running one-quarter of Silicon Valley’s technology businesses, which accounted for $17.8 billion in sales; and, in 2005, immigrants had helped to start one-quarter of all US technology start-ups during the previous decade. Immigrants or children of immigrants founded roughly 40% of the 2010 Fortune 500 companies.¶ Equally important are immigration’s benefits for America’s soft power. The fact that people want to come to the US enhances its appeal, and immigrants’ upward mobility is attractive to people in other countries. The US is a magnet, and many people can envisage themselves as Americans, in part because so many successful Americans look like them. Moreover, connections between immigrants and their families and friends back home help to convey accurate and positive information about the US.¶ Likewise, because the presence of many cultures creates avenues of connection with other countries, it helps to broaden Americans’ attitudes and views of the world in an era of globalization. Rather than diluting hard and soft power, immigration enhances both.¶ Singapore’s former leader, Lee Kwan Yew, an astute observer of both the US and China, argues that China will not surpass the US as the leading power of the twenty-first century, precisely because the US attracts the best and brightest from the rest of the world and melds them into a diverse culture of creativity. China has a larger population to recruit from domestically, but, in Lee’s view, its Sino-centric culture will make it less creative than the US.¶ That is a view that Americans should take to heart. If Obama succeeds in enacting immigration reform in his second term, he will have gone a long way toward fulfilling his promise to maintain the strength of the US.
|
Nye 12 Joseph S. Nye, a former US assistant secretary of defense and chairman of the US National Intelligence Council, is University Professor at Harvard University. “Immigration and American Power,” December 10, Project Syndicate, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/obama-needs-immigration-reform-to-maintain-america-s-strength-by-joseph-s--nye
|
The U S is a nation of immigrants. In recent years US politics has had a strong anti-immigration slant But several prominent Republican politicians are now urging their party to reconsider its anti-immigration policies, and plans for immigration reform will be on the agenda at the beginning of Obama’s second term. Successful reform will be an important step in preventing the decline of American power.¶ immigration strengthens US power. at least 83 countries and territories currently have fertility rates that are below the level needed to keep their population constant. America is one of the few that may avoid demographic decline and maintain its share of world population.¶ Today, the US is the world’s third most populous country; 50 years from now it is still likely to be third This is highly relevant to economic power: whereas nearly all other developed countries will face a growing burden of providing for the older generation, immigration could help to attenuate the policy problem for the US.¶ skilled immigrants can be important to long-term growth. There is a strong correlation between the number of visas for skilled applicants and patents filed in the US. At the beginning of this century, Chinese- and Indian-born engineers were running one-quarter of Silicon Valley’s technology businesses Immigrants or children of immigrants founded roughly 40% of the 2010 Fortune 500 companies. Equally important are immigration’s benefits for America’s soft power. The fact that people want to come to the US enhances its appeal, and immigrants’ upward mobility is attractive to people in other countries. The US is a magnet, and many people can envisage themselves as Americans, in part because so many successful Americans look like them. connections between immigrants and their families and friends back home help to convey accurate and positive information about the US. it helps to broaden Americans’ attitudes and views of the world in an era of globalization. Rather than diluting hard and soft power, immigration enhances both.¶ China will not surpass the US as the leading power of the twenty-first century, precisely because the US attracts the best and brightest If Obama succeeds in enacting immigration reform in his second term, he will have gone a long way toward fulfilling his promise to maintain the strength of the US.
|
Immigration reform is key to heg
| 6,087 | 32 | 2,350 | 956 | 6 | 377 | 0.006276 | 0.394351 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,395 |
"Comprehensive immigration reform will see expansion of skilled labor visas," predicted B. Lindsay Lowell, director of policy studies for the Institute for the Study of International Migration at Georgetown University. A former research chief for the congressionally appointed Commission on Immigration Reform, Lowell said he expects to see at least a fivefold increase in the number of highly skilled labor visas that would provide "a significant shot in the arm for India and China." There is widespread consensus among economists and academics that skilled migration fosters new trade and business relationships between countries and enhances links to the global economy, Lowell said. "Countries like India and China weigh the opportunities of business abroad from their expats with the possibility of brain drain, and I think they still see the immigration opportunity as a bigger plus than not," he said.
|
LA Times 11/9/12 [Other countries eagerly await U.S. immigration reform, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/11/us-immigration-reform-eagerly-awaited-by-source-countries.html]
|
Comprehensive immigration reform will see expansion of skilled labor visas," predicted Lowell, director of policy studies for the Institute for the Study of International Migration at Georgetown University Lowell said he expects to see at least a fivefold increase in the number of highly skilled labor visas that would provide "a significant shot in the arm for India and China." There is widespread consensus among economists and academics that skilled migration fosters new trade and business relationships between countries and enhances links to the global economy, Lowell said. "Countries like India and China weigh the opportunities of business abroad and they see the immigration opportunity as a bigger plus than not," he said
|
Immigration reform expands skilled labor—spurs relations and economic growth in China and India.
| 909 | 96 | 734 | 139 | 13 | 113 | 0.093525 | 0.81295 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,396 |
Washington's increased interest in India since the late 1990s reflects India's economic expansion and position as Asia's newest rising power. New Delhi, for its part, is adjusting to the end of the Cold War. As a result, both giant democracies see that they can benefit by closer cooperation. For Washington, the advantages include a wider network of friends in Asia at a time when the region is changing rapidly, as well as a stronger position from which to help calm possible future nuclear tensions in the region. Enhanced trade and investment benefit both countries and are a prerequisite for improved U.S. relations with India. For India, the country's ambition to assume a stronger leadership role in the world and to maintain an economy that lifts its people out of poverty depends critically on good relations with the United States.
|
Schaffer 2 [Spring 2002, Teresita—Director of the South Asia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Security, Washington Quarterly, Lexis]
|
Washington's increased interest in India reflects India's economic expansion and position as Asia's newest rising power both giant democracies see that they can benefit by closer cooperation. For Washington, the advantages include a wider network of friends in Asia as well as a stronger position from which to help calm possible future nuclear tensions in the region. Enhanced trade benefit both countries and are a prerequisite for improved U.S. relations with India
|
US-Indian relations avert South Asian nuclear war.
| 841 | 50 | 468 | 139 | 7 | 72 | 0.05036 | 0.517986 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,397 |
The consular element of national diplomatic power plays an essential, but often underrated and overlooked role in international relations. This consular dimension of diplomacy has often taken the backseat to the political and military aspects of foreign policy in the past. This situation has changed dramatically with the end of the Cold War and the rapid globalization of the world economy. This shift to a unipolar world, but global marketplace, emphasizes the increasing importance of so-called 'low politics' - trade, commerce, tourism, migration - all traditional consular areas of interest. While one superpower, the United States, may currently dominate the military and political aspects of the international environment, the economic and commercial interplay among nations is more diffuse and requires a nuanced and multilateral diplomatic approach. This environment is caused largely by the increasingly complex interdependencies among the world's economies, which no longer recognize political, commercial, geologic, or technological borders as barriers. The line between domestic and foreign events has been blurred by the impact of external forces ranging from diseases like Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) to technological developments like Chat. Indeed, technology has tended to transcend borders, crossing them and turning them into obstacles to progress.1 In this type of international world, a nuanced and multilateral approach requires the flexible application of a variety of diplomatic instruments, either In solo or in unison with other countries, to influence positively or negatively, the actions of other state actors and non-state actors, to achieve national interest goals. This type of environment places emphasis on all operative aspects of diplomacy, one of which is its consular component. With the use of force between stairs more and more restricted as a policy option in the International system, alternative diplomatic options must be sought. Nowhere is the partial fulfillment of this need for a variety of diplomatic instruments better illustrated than in the often overlooked, and seemingly mundane area of consular visa operations. The lowly visa serves an important purpose in international relations and is a well-used, but little studied, instrument of foreign policy in today's system of sovereign states.' In fact, its use may be more diplomatically opportune when other, blunter instruments are nor available or possible. This paper will attempt to illustrate the practical uses of 'visa diplomacy" as an integral device in the conduct of international relations. Visa diplomacy is defined as the use of visa issuance or denial at an individual, group or interstate level, to influence another state's policies. The first section will provide a brief overview of consular visa diplomacy. The second section will focus on examples of visa issuance as a symbolic diplomatic measure to express a shift in foreign policy to greater cooperation or recognition. The third section will consider examples of diplomatic retorsion1 with visa usage as an expression of protest, a step in conflict escalation, a measure for diplomatic coercion, or as part of a wider sanctions package targeted towards specific, decision-making groups. Visa regimes as a component of the national security system and border control will not be addressed in this paper'. The conclusion will assess where the use of visa diplomacy seems most effective in international relations. 1. Consular Visa Diplomacy in General The Importance of consular services as an integral part of a country's diplomacy in general is insufficiently understood and appreciated. It is insufficiently understood not only by the general public but also by persons who make the study of foreign policy their specialty - even by many practitioners of diplomacy/ Consular operational services generally divide themselves into two areas: the provision of assistance to citizens abroad and the issuance of visas to qualified foreigners seeking entry Into the represented state. The first area plays an important role in how a country's consular service is perceived in domestic politics. This citizen service will not be addressed in this paper. The second area, visas, influences how a country is perceived abroad and serves as a tool in a country's overall foreign policy. Broadly speaking, the consular aspects of foreign policy issues have become much more prominent and complex in the 20th and 21st centuries. The movements of people - voluntary and forced, individual and mass - are a growing international phenomenon caused by global trends in technology and demography, income disparities, and political instabilities.6 The division of the world between developed and developing countries, coupled with advanced telecommunications and internet technology which allows both camps to view each other instantaneously, encourages both legal and illegal migration from one to the other. This trend is abetted by an ease of travel that puts any destination within reach of a long haul flight. In taking the United States example, many people wish to come to the United States, not Just to travel, but for business, study, family visits, and of course immigration.' This interest makes the use of visa denial or issuance an influential tool - but not necessarily a powerful one in comparison to force or trade sanctions - for foreign policy applications. The visa component of consular diplomacy can be visualized as the foreign policy bridge between the foreign individual and his government. The application of a specific visa policy can affect international relations between states at a personal (individual applicant), group (tourists, businessmen, students, government officials) or intergovernment level. Briefly viewing visa diplomacy at these three levels gives an Indication of its influence on international relations. From the first level perspective, consular work should be esteemed in the diplomatic service because it concerns the individual. Consular officers are the first, and sometimes only people who represent their country to foreigners abroad.5 Consular officers may well be the first government representatives aliens abroad will meet. The impression consular officers make on these people may be lasting. The skill, the patience, the civility, the decency they bring to their tasks in dealing with foreigners can do much to enhance the image of a government, institution, society, or people.3 At this level, consular diplomats are exposed to local people, culture, and language directly through visa application interactions."0 A foreign culture and society are intensively learned by interviewing visa applicants. One could argue that the consular visa interview is the most basic level of bilateral diplomatic interaction between two countries. This viewpoint is buttressed by Herbert Butterfield's emphasis on the importance of individual personalities in shaping events, because "every public action which was ever taken can be regarded as a private act. the personal decision of somebody'." Nowhere Is this more true than at the level of the visa interview, where the foreign policy of a government is directly communicated to and affects the individual foreigner. As one foreign service officer noted. 'Consular officers affect lives retail, in concrete terms, one body at a time'. The issuance or withholding of visas is retail diplomacy at its best. Yet this form of retail diplomacy can have serious bilateral implications – both political and economic – in terms of visa issuance or denial at the private citizen, governing elite, or state level. This position is echoed by US Congressman Peter Rodino, who stated, the exercise of those powers, duties, and functions conferred upon consular officers relating to the granting or refusal of visas has far reaching effects on the lives of persons seeking admission to the United States: it affects our foreign policy and foreigners' perception of this nation: and most importantly, it affects our national security and national interest." Thousands of visa cases are sensitive in political and foreign policy terms. The issuance or refusal of a visa to a controversial person invariably embroils a nation in foreign policy issues.14 Long lines of visa applicants snaking through the streets, beginning at ridiculously early hours, can lead to public relations problems in host countries.15 Restrictions on visas for specific groups like students or athletes can also have implications ranging from demonstrations to host government intervention. In one anecdotal example, when the visa of a noted South African boxer was revoked during the apartheid era. the Foreign Minister of that country telephoned the US Secretary of State to point out that unless reversed, that action could have a deleterious effect on the ongoing Namibian negotiations.16 Clearly then, a nation's visa policy towards another state, and hence its citizens, has both symbolic diplomatic inferences and practical economic implications.
|
Stringer 4 (Dr. Kevin D., Visiting Professor – Thunderbird School of Global Management and Ph.D. in History and International Security – University of Zurich, “The Visa Dimension of Diplomacy”, Discussion Papers in Diplomacy, http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2004/20040300_cli_paper_dip_issue91.pdf)
|
The consular element of national diplomatic power plays an essential, but often underrated role in international relations This consular dimension of diplomacy has often taken the backseat to the political and military aspects of foreign policy in the past This situation has changed dramatically with the rapid globalization of the world economy This shift emphasizes the increasing importance of 'low politics' - trade, commerce, tourism, migration - all traditional consular areas of interest the interplay among nations requires a nuanced approach Nowhere is the need for a variety of diplomatic instruments better illustrated than in visa operations The lowly visa serves an important purpose in international relations and is a well-used instrument of foreign policy Visa diplomacy is issuance to influence another state's policies visas influences how a country is perceived abroad and serves as a tool in a country's overall foreign policy movements of people are a growing international phenomenon caused by global trends in technology and demography, income disparities, and political instabilities This interest makes the use of visa issuance an influential tool for foreign policy applications specific visa policy can affect international relations between states at a intergovernment level The issuance of visas can have serious bilateral implications – both political and economic – at the state level the exercise of those powers has far reaching effects on the lives of persons seeking admission to the U S it affects our foreign policy and foreigners' perception of this nation Thousands of visa cases are sensitive in political and foreign policy terms Long lines of visa applicants can lead to public relations problems in host countries unless reversed could have a deleterious effect Clearly then, a nation's visa policy towards another state has
|
It’s key to cooperation—
| 9,086 | 24 | 1,868 | 1,381 | 4 | 285 | 0.002896 | 0.206372 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,398 |
There is no reason to think that the present system of governing migration is optimal. Migration is a dynamic process, while the migration policy-making machinery is slow and cumbersome. The possibility that policy-makers will fail to capitalize on opportunities for mutual gain among sending and receiving countries is especially large for high-skill migration. At first glance, the case of India — U.S. relations would appear to contradict this point. As noted, both India and the U.S. have experienced significant benefits from migration and circulation. Yet many Indians still live in poverty and many Americans see India, its immigrants and offshore services, as a threat to their jobs and wages. Thus there is a growing tension between these countries that could impede, if not derail, further progress. Absent a program of cooperation, and perhaps exacerbated by the economic downturn, there is a risk that each country would be inclined to act unilaterally in pursuit of its own interests. However, these typically protectionist or nationalistic actions may impede the flow of immigrants, but it could impede the flow of ideas, reduce knowledge spillovers, and ultimately inhibit innovation and growth.¶ Cooperation on migration offers an opportunity for countries to address the tensions that arise from immigration while opening avenues for pursuing common objectives and mutual prosperity. Though it may be desirable to consider a common system of migration across countries that transcend bilateral arrangements, such a system may not be able to address the unique dynamics that exist between countries. Nor should these relationships be viewed uniformly. Differences exist between sectors, such as technology services and medical services that call for their own strategies. This paper represents only a beginning point for understanding these ideas. Further research is planned to explore high-skill migration, the conditions that distinguish sectoral and country characteristics that contribute to the diverse nature of migration, and the varying governance mechanisms and their abilities to produce win-win results for high-skill migrants, domestic workers, firms, and countries.
|
Davis ‘10 (Ted, School of Public Policy @ George Mason University, Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, 2/18-20, “The Global Dynamic: of High-Skill Migration: The Case of U.S./India Relations”, https://www.appam.org/conferences/international/maastricht2010/sessions/downloads/389.1.pdf)
|
There is no reason to think that the present system of governing migration is optimal At first glance India .S. relations would appear to contradict this point India experienced benefits from migration Yet many Indians still live in poverty and Americans see India as a threat to their jobs and wages there is a growing tension that could derail further progress Absent cooperation each country would be inclined to act unilaterally migration offers an opportunity to address tensions that arise while opening avenues for common objectives and mutual prosperity
|
CIR is the vital internal link to resiliency- collapse possible without deeper ties
| 2,195 | 83 | 561 | 326 | 13 | 89 | 0.039877 | 0.273006 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,399 |
Relations between the world's two largest democracies, India and the United States, have encountered many obstacles over the years. Until recently, the two countries had limited interactions and few cooperative endeavours. However, the relationship has improved dramatically over the past several years, and today is better than at any previous point in history'. Through dialogue on a number of issues, at various levels of government, academia, and the press, the current relationship has achieved great depth and maturity.¶ This is the kind of interaction that both India and the United States will need to keep working at rather than take for granted. Candid exchange of ideas is the key to ensuring that natural differences of interests and perspectives do not lead back to the estrangement that characterized die relationship between the two countries for the last half a century.
|
Lal & Rajagopalan ’05 (Rollie, Assistant Professor at Vlerick Management School in Leuven, Belgium and political scientist for RAND, Rajesh, Associate Professor in International Politics, Center for International Politics, “US-India Strategic Dialogue”, http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/2005/RAND_CF201.pdf)
|
Relations between India and the U S have encountered obstacles Until recently, the countries had limited interactions and few cooperative endeavours the current relationship has achieved great depth and maturity This is the kind of interaction India and the U S will need to keep working at rather than take for granted exchange of ideas is the key to ensuring differences do not lead back to estrangement
|
Spillover highly possible- deep relations are a new development- CIR needed to cement ties
| 886 | 90 | 405 | 139 | 14 | 67 | 0.100719 | 0.482014 |
Politics Core - UTNIF 2013.html5
|
Texas (UTNIF)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.