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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2,800 |
Now there's the question of how Obama gets there. While confrontation might work with Republicans on other issues -- the debt ceiling, for example -- the consensus is that the GOP is serious enough about reform that the president can, and must, play the role of broker and statesman to get a deal.¶ It starts with a lesson from his first term. Republicans have demanded that the border be secured first, before other elements of immigration reform. Yet the administration has been by many measures the strictest ever on immigration enforcement, and devotes massive sums to policing the borders. The White House has met many of the desired metrics for border security, although there is always more to be done, but Republicans are still calling for more before they will consider reform. Enforcing the border, but not sufficiently touting its record of doing so, the White House has learned, won't be enough to win over Republicans.
|
Elise Foley, 1/15/2013 (staff writer, “Obama Gears Up For Immigration Reform Push In Second Term,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/obama-immigration-reform_n_2463388.html, Accessed 1/23/2013, rwg)
|
While confrontation might work with Republicans on other issues the consensus is that the GOP is serious enough about reform that the president can, and must, play the role of broker to get a deal Enforcing the border the White House has learned, won't be enough to win over Republicans.
|
Presidential brokering is key to immigration reform:
| 931 | 52 | 287 | 156 | 7 | 50 | 0.044872 | 0.320513 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,801 |
Later in the interview, Obama said that he hopes a bill could be passed as early as this summer.¶ But cognizant of deep divisions a topic like immigration has sewn in the past, Obama said that's contingent on bipartisan negotiations continuing to proceed well.¶ "The only way this is going to get done is if the Republicans continue to work with Democrats in Congress, in both chambers, to get a bill to my desk," he said. "And I'm going to keep on pushing as hard as I can. I believe that the mood is right."
|
JORDAN FABIAN, 1/30/2013 (staff writer, “Obama Confident Immigration Reform Passes This Year,” http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/president-obama-confident-immigration-reform-passes-year/story?id=18358660, Accessed 1/30/2013, rwg)
|
Obama said that he hopes a bill could be passed as early as this summer Obama said that's contingent on bipartisan negotiations continuing to proceed well The only way this is going to get done is if the Republicans continue to work with Democrats in Congress, in both chambers, to get a bill to my desk," And I'm going to keep on pushing as hard as I can. I believe that the mood is right."
|
Obama push is key—causes a bill to passed by this summer:
| 509 | 57 | 391 | 95 | 11 | 75 | 0.115789 | 0.789474 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,802 |
Looking at the legislative map, there appear to be few opportunities for such dealmaking in the second term. The White House has refused, as a matter of principle, to negotiate over the debt ceiling. But it will likely make concessions elsewhere to avoid a government shutdown. Axelrod did predict a constructive compromise on immigration reform. "It would be a suicidal impulse for Republicans in Congress to continue to block that," he said.
|
Sam Stein, 1/21/2013 (staff writer, “Obama's Post-Partisan Promise Mellows Amid First Term Gridlock,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/21/obama-post-partisan-promise_n_2490700.html?utm_hp_ref=the-road-forward, Accessed 1/23/2013, rwg)
|
The White House has refused, as a matter of principle, to negotiate over the debt ceiling. But it will likely make concessions elsewhere to avoid a government shutdown. Axelrod did predict a constructive compromise on immigration reform. "It would be a suicidal impulse for Republicans in Congress to continue to block that,"
|
Obama will negotiate and deal make on immigration reform:
| 443 | 57 | 325 | 72 | 9 | 52 | 0.125 | 0.722222 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,803 |
In other words, it's not the place for steamrolling. "He needs to be an honest broker here," said Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, which works on bipartisan consensus for reform. "Instead of the politician forcing immigration reform, Obama needs to be the statesman creating immigration reform."
|
Elise Foley, 1/15/2013 (staff writer, “Obama Gears Up For Immigration Reform Push In Second Term,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/obama-immigration-reform_n_2463388.html, Accessed 1/23/2013, rwg)
|
it's not the place for steamrolling. "He needs to be an honest broker here," Instead of the politician forcing immigration reform, Obama needs to be the statesman creating immigration reform."
|
Political capital is key—Obama can’t steamroll his way to victory on immigration reform:
| 329 | 88 | 192 | 50 | 13 | 30 | 0.26 | 0.6 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,804 |
But getting to "yes" with the GOP on other topics will require a bit of legislative craft. The macro solutions, such as changing the way congressional districts are drawn, won't happen till after Obama leaves office. On a micro level, White House allies are pushing for the administration to engage directly with individual Republicans rather than the leadership of the party, in hopes of building majority support for legislation by peeling off moderate members of the GOP. The underlying theory is that it's better to find consensus with a few than to fail with the mass.
|
Sam Stein, 1/21/2013 (staff writer, “Obama's Post-Partisan Promise Mellows Amid First Term Gridlock,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/21/obama-post-partisan-promise_n_2490700.html?utm_hp_ref=the-road-forward, Accessed 1/23/2013, rwg)
|
getting to "yes" with the GOP on other topics will require a bit of legislative craft On a micro level, White House allies are pushing for the administration to engage directly with individual Republicans rather than the leadership of the party, in hopes of building majority support for legislation by peeling off moderate members of the GOP
|
Obama will negotiate with individual Republicans to peel them off:
| 573 | 66 | 342 | 96 | 10 | 57 | 0.104167 | 0.59375 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,805 |
Meanwhile, immigrants across the country will undoubtedly pay close attention as to whether or not the immigration reform that they have looked forward to for so long will indeed become reality.¶ "We need this president to push as hard as he can, because Latinos care about immigration and the election showed it," Erika Andiola, a well-known immigrant rights activist in Arizona, told CBS News this week. "Our families can no longer be separated."
|
Jean-Paul Salamanca, 1/22/2013 (staff writer, “Immigration Reform Obama 2013,” http://www.latinospost.com/articles/10158/20130122/immigration-reform-obama-2013-inauguration-speech-hints.htm, Accessed 1/23/2013, rwg)
|
immigrants across the country will undoubtedly pay close attention as to whether or not the immigration reform that they have looked forward to for so long will indeed become reality.¶ "We need this president to push as hard as he can
|
Obama push key to immigration reform:
| 448 | 37 | 234 | 73 | 6 | 41 | 0.082192 | 0.561644 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,806 |
The reason is politics. Mr. Obama knows that amnesty excites his base. The 78 percent of the Hispanic vote he received focuses the mind of Democrats on potential new voters. Mr. Obama was criticized in his last term for not addressing immigration. Now, with refreshed political capital from the election, he’s ready to make amends.¶ Mr. Obama also knows amnesty could potentially divide Republicans. Many in the GOP are deeply worried about losing the Hispanic vote, and Mr. Obama likely thinks some of them could be picked off in a promised grand bargain. That is not likely to happen. Democrats are not serious about real reforms.
|
Kim R. Holmes, 1/23/2013 (former assistant secretary of state, “A problem-solving approach to immigration,” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news /2013/jan/23/holmes-a-problem-solving-approach-to-immigration/, Accessed 1/24/2013, rwg)
|
Obama was criticized in his last term for not addressing immigration. Now, with refreshed political capital from the election, he’s ready to make amends
|
Obama will use political capital to support immigration reform:
| 632 | 63 | 152 | 106 | 9 | 24 | 0.084906 | 0.226415 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,807 |
The road to immigration reform begins with President Obama. He needs to distance himself from a disappointing first term that amplified immigrants' suffering and criminalization. He has the power and moral imperative to be the first to respond to his own call to action. It's time the president's policies on immigration reflect the virtues of democracy, freedom, and equality he spoke of at his second inauguration.
|
Sarahi Uribe, 1/22/2013 (staff writer, “Immigration reform: Obama needs to close gap between rhetoric and reality,” http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree /2013/jan/22/immigration-reform-obama-rhetoric-reality, Accessed 1/24/2013, rwg)
|
The road to immigration reform begins with President Obama. He has the power and moral imperative to be the first to respond to his own call to action
|
Obama push key to immigration reform:
| 416 | 37 | 150 | 66 | 6 | 28 | 0.090909 | 0.424242 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,808 |
Obama, like all second-term presidents, will only have a short window of time to push his issues. There is one way this conventional wisdom could turn out to be wrong, but it is a long shot, at best. If Democrats can manage to hold their edge in the Senate and take control of the House in the 2014 midterm elections, then Obama could defy second-term expectations and actually get a lot done in his final two years in office. But, as I said, this should be seen as a remote possibility at this point. Remember 2010, in other words.¶ Realistically, Obama's only going to have anywhere from a few months to (at most) a year and a half to get anything accomplished. Which is why he is right to push his agenda immediately, as evidenced by his inaugural speech. But even he must realize that he's not going to get everything he wants, so it will be interesting to see what makes it through Congress and what dies an ignoble legislative death.
|
Chris Weigant, 1/23/2013 (staff writer, “Handicapping Obama's Second Term Agenda,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/obama-second-term_b_2537802.html, Accessed 1/23/2013, rwg)
|
Obama, like all second-term presidents, will only have a short window of time to push his issues. Realistically, Obama's only going to have anywhere from a few months to (at most) a year and a half to get anything accomplished. Which is why he is right to push his agenda immediately
|
Obama only has a narrow window to push his issues—Immediate push is key:
| 939 | 72 | 283 | 172 | 13 | 51 | 0.075581 | 0.296512 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,809 |
She was happy to take in all the pomp and circumstance surrounding the inauguration – but she remained focused on the future.¶ "We have a small window of opportunity after this inauguration to make sure that promises like immigration reform are not forgotten,” she said.
|
Jessica Coscia, 1/21/2013 (staff writer, “Obama Inauguration: Latinos Take in History, Plan to Hold President Accountable,” http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2013/01/21/obama-inauguration-latinos-take-in-history-plan-to-hold-president-accountable/, Accessed 1/23/2013, rwg)
|
We have a small window of opportunity after this inauguration to make sure that promises like immigration reform are not forgotten
|
Small window of opportunity on immigration reform:
| 270 | 50 | 130 | 45 | 7 | 21 | 0.155556 | 0.466667 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,810 |
Both men said they recognize that they're not going to get unanimous agreement on such a contentious issue, but said getting as much Republican support in the Senate as possible will be crucial to any bill's passage in the House. McCain said that the group hopes to attract as many as 80 votes in the Senate, an ambitious goal.¶ While McCain said he has not spoken directly to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), he is encouraged by his support for the idea of immigration reform. He said the gang also "wants to work" with a group of House members currently discussing immigration reform.
|
EMILY DERUY, 1/30/2013 (staff writer, “Gang of Eight Accelerates Immigration Reform Pace,” http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/gang-accelerates-immigration-reform-pace/story?id=18354593, Accessed 1/30/2013, rwg)
|
Both men said they recognize that they're not going to get unanimous agreement on such a contentious issue, but said getting as much Republican support in the Senate as possible will be crucial to any bill's passage in the House he is encouraged by his support for the idea of immigration reform
|
(--) Republican support key on immigration reform:
| 590 | 50 | 295 | 103 | 7 | 52 | 0.067961 | 0.504854 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,811 |
But, as the looming confrontation over the borrowing limit suggests, Obama’s ability to work with the Republican Party, through a mix of persuasion and confrontation, will probably determine his success – and his legacy, for better or worse.¶ “There’s a moment of opportunity now that’s important,” Pfeiffer said. “What’s frustrating is that we don’t have a political system or an opposition party worthy of the opportunity.”
|
Scott Wilson, 1/21/2013 (staff writer, The Washington Post, “Obama thinking big for term No. 2,” Accessed 1/24/2013, rwg)
|
as the looming confrontation over the borrowing limit suggests, Obama’s ability to work with the Republican Party, through a mix of persuasion and confrontation, will probably determine his success There’s a moment of opportunity now that’s important
|
(--) Republicans key to Obama’s agenda
| 425 | 38 | 250 | 66 | 6 | 37 | 0.090909 | 0.560606 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,812 |
As a step toward a security research plan that includes such capabilities, we should identify endstates— goals in terms of how we want our systems to ideally operate. This fresh perspective includes the overall strategic picture and connects clearly with strategic actions that significantly mitigate strategic vulnerabilities. If, for example, the nation has a capability to quickly recover its critical information infrastructure, then the end-state is that strategic attack damages are mitigated and critical services are restored quickly, possibly deterring adversaries from attempting a future attack. Desired End-States. The National Cyber Defense Initiative (NCDI) Opening Moves Workshop [4] identified important end-states, the outcome of a 10- year research effort to create critical capabilities. The following end-states appear in the workshop proceedings: --Continuity of Critical Information Infrastructure Operations. Create technology that would be the basis for a resilient US cyber infrastructure that would sustain critical functions in the face of attacks, including those that could be affected by determined adversaries. --Well-Defended Critical Assets. Make it economically prohibitive for an adversary to cause strategic damage to critical US infrastructures. Currently, adversaries can attack critical systems without investing substantial resources.
|
O. Sami Saydjari (Cyber Defense Agency, LLC) 2008. Retrieved May 29, 2013 from Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, http://www.acsac.org/2008/program /keynotes/saydjari.pdf
|
If, for example, the nation has a capability to quickly recover its critical information infrastructure, then the end-state is that strategic attack damages are mitigated and critical services are restored quickly, possibly deterring adversaries from attempting a future attack Create technology that would be the basis for a resilient US cyber infrastructure that would sustain critical functions in the face of attacks
|
Cyber-defenses are necessary to solve and deter cyber-attacks.
| 1,374 | 63 | 420 | 187 | 8 | 62 | 0.042781 | 0.331551 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,813 |
We have seen, when you look at the table of the top 20 firms that are H1-B visa requestors, at least 15 of those are IT firms. And as we're seeing across industry, much of the hardware and software that's used in this country is not only manufactured now overseas, but it's developed overseas by scientists and engineers who were educated here in the United States.¶ We're seeing a lot more activity around cyber-security, certainly noteworthy attacks here very recently. It's becoming an increasingly dominant set of requirements across not only to the Department of Defense, but the Department of Homeland Security and the critical infrastructure that's held in private hands. Was there any discussion or any interest from DOD or DHS as you undertook this review on the security things about what can be done to try to generate a more effective group of IT experts here in the United States, many of which are coming to the U.S. institutions, academic institutions from overseas and often returning back? This potentially puts us at a competitive disadvantage going forward.¶ MCLARTY: Yes. And I think your question largely is the answer as well. I mean, clearly we have less talented students here studying -- or put another way, more talented students studying in other countries that are gifted, talented, really have a tremendous ability to develop these kind of technology and scientific advances, we're going to be put at an increasingly disadvantage. Where if they come here -- and I kind of like Dr. Land's approach of the green card being handed to them or carefully put in their billfold or purse as they graduate -- then, obviously, that's going to strengthen, I think, our system, our security needs.
|
McLarty 9 (Thomas F. III, President – McLarty Associates and Former White House Chief of Staff and Task Force Co-Chair, “U.S. Immigration Policy: Report of a CFR-Sponsored Independent Task Force”, 7-8, http://www.cfr.org/ publication/19759/us_immigration_policy.html)
|
when you look at the top 20 firms that are H1-B visa requestors, at least 15 of those are IT firms it's developed overseas We're seeing a lot more activity around cyber-security, certainly attacks very recently Was there any discussion things about what can be done to generate a more effective group of IT experts here in the U S many of which are coming to the U.S. institutions from overseas and returning back? This puts us at a competitive disadvantage clearly we have less talented students here studying talented students have a tremendous ability to develop these kind of technology and scientific advances I like the green card being handed to them that's going to strengthen our security needs
|
Increasing green cards generates effective IT experts to combat cyber war
| 1,714 | 73 | 703 | 288 | 11 | 120 | 0.038194 | 0.416667 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,814 |
Cyber warfare will become the military technology of the future and will ultimately be the blitzkrieg of the 21 st century. This is because cyberwars are fast and cheap and require fewer participants. Cyber warfare is more controlled than nuclear, biological, or chemical warfare. Cyber weapons will begin a war where the winner will truly be the commander that makes the best use of state-of-the-art technology to disrupt an enemy’s economy. Even though technology has become more deadly, future war will have fewer human casualties than any other major war in the history of the world. The countries of NATO should start looking toward the deactivation and disuse of all biological and nuclear capacities during warfare. Cyber warfare has rendered these capacities to be too powerful for use by any nation or organization for any reason. Nuclear and biological warfare have been a technology of the past, and cyberwar will be the technology of the future. Albert Einstein predicted that, “I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones (Sublette).” Nuclear warfare and biological warfare were yesterday’s weapons, but cyber warfare is the weapon of tomorrow’s armies. Will the new technologies of tomorrow ultimately lead to the self-destruction of humans? People have developed the technology that leads to world destruction. Vince Incardona, a networking specialist at Rochester Institute of Technology says that, “[Humans] have already perfected the art of eliminating each other so well that continuing to perfect these technologies only leads in one direction: extinction (*Incardona).”
|
Heinbockel 00 (William, cyber warfare expert, “Press ‘Enter’ to Win World War III” <http://www.rit.edu/~wjh3710/pub/senior_paper.pdf> November 2000)
|
Cyber warfare will be the blitzkrieg of the 21 st century cyber warfare is the weapon of tomorrow’s armies. People have developed the technology that leads to world destruction. Vince Incardona, a networking specialist at Rochester Institute of Technology says that, “[Humans] have already perfected the art of eliminating each other so well that continuing to perfect these technologies only leads in one direction: extinction
|
Cyber war causes extinction.
| 1,664 | 29 | 428 | 262 | 4 | 65 | 0.015267 | 0.248092 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,815 |
So, from a theoretical standpoint, I think his concerns are well founded. But the current state of U.S. policy may be cause for even greater concern. It’s not just worrisome that a hypothetical blinding attack via cyberspace could send a signal of imminent attack and therefore trigger an irrational response from the adversary. What is also cause for concern is that current U.S. policy indicates that “kinetic attacks” (i.e. physical use of force) are seen as potentially legitimate responses to cyber attacks. Most worrisome is that current U.S. policy implies that a nuclear response is possible, something that policy makers have not denied in recent press reports.¶ The reason, in part, is that the U.S. defense community has increasingly come to see cyberspace as a “domain of warfare” equivalent to air, land, sea, and space. The definition of cyberspace as its own domain of warfare helps in its own right to blur the online/offline, physical-space/cyberspace boundary. But thinking logically about the potential consequences of this framing leads to some disconcerting conclusions.¶ If cyberspace is a domain of warfare, then it becomes possible to define “cyber attacks” (whatever those may be said to entail) as acts of war. But what happens if the U.S. is attacked in any of the other domains? It retaliates. But it usually does not respond only within the domain in which it was attacked. Rather, responses are typically “cross-domain responses”–i.e. a massive bombing on U.S. soil or vital U.S. interests abroad (e.g. think 9/11 or Pearl Harbor) might lead to air strikes against the attacker. Even more likely given a U.S. military “way of warfare” that emphasizes multidimensional, “joint” operations is a massive conventional (i.e. non-nuclear) response against the attacker in all domains (air, land, sea, space), simultaneously.¶ The possibility of “kinetic action” in response to cyber attack, or as part of offensive U.S. cyber operations, is part of the current (2006) National Military Strategy for Cyberspace Operations [5]:¶ Of course, the possibility that a cyber attack on the U.S. could lead to a U.S. nuclear reply constitutes possibly the ultimate in “cross-domain response.” And while this may seem far fetched, it has not been ruled out by U.S. defense policy makers and is, in fact, implied in current U.S. defense policy documents. From the National Military Strategy of the United States (2004):¶ “The term WMD/E relates to a broad range of adversary capabilities that pose potentially devastating impacts. WMD/E includes chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and enhanced high explosive weapons as well as other, more asymmetrical ‘weapons’. They may rely more on disruptive impact than destructive kinetic effects. For example, cyber attacks on US commercial information systems or attacks against transportation networks may have a greater economic or psychological effect than a relatively small release of a lethal agent.” [6]
|
Sean Lawson (PhD, expert in information-age warfare) May 13, 2009. Retrieved May 29, 2013 from www.seanlawson.net/?p=477
|
the current state of U.S. policy may be cause for even greater concern What is also cause for concern is that current U.S. policy indicates that “kinetic attacks” (i.e. physical use of force) are seen as potentially legitimate responses to cyber attacks. Most worrisome is that current U.S. policy implies that a nuclear response is possible, something that policy makers have not denied
|
Cyber-attacks risk a nuclear war.
| 2,974 | 34 | 387 | 464 | 5 | 63 | 0.010776 | 0.135776 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,816 |
The authors of a 2009 National Academies of Science report on cyberwarfare respond to this by saying,¶ “Coupled with the declaratory policy on nuclear weapons described earlier, this statement implies that the United States will regard certain kinds of cyberattacks against the United States as being in the same category as nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and thus that a nuclear response to certain kinds of cyberattacks (namely, cyberattacks with devastating impacts) may be possible. It also sets a relevant scale–a cyberattack that has an impact larger than that associated with a relatively small release of a lethal agent is regarded with the same or greater seriousness.” [7]
|
Sean Lawson (PhD, expert in information-age warfare) May 13, 2009. Retrieved May 29, 2013 from www.seanlawson.net/?p=477
|
Coupled with the declaratory policy on nuclear weapons described earlier, this statement implies that the United States will regard certain kinds of cyberattacks against the United States as being in the same category as nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and thus that a nuclear response to certain kinds of cyberattacks may be possible
|
Cyber-attacks risk a nuclear war.
| 694 | 34 | 345 | 108 | 5 | 53 | 0.046296 | 0.490741 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,817 |
Would a cyberattack ever call for a nuclear response? In a recent op-ed for the Washington Post, former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke and former Clinton NSC official Steve Andreasen argue that the United States should definitively take the threat of nuclear retaliation off the table in response to major cyber attacks. The two were responding to a January report of a task force of the Defense Science Board (DSB), whose recommendation to include existential cyber attacks in the scope of U.S. nuclear deterrence they see as destabilizing, dangerous and inimical to broader U.S. goals. Clarke and Andreasen argue that by giving notice that we will count massive cyber assaults as a possible basis for a nuclear response we would exacerbate instability and tensions, provoke mimicking responses from Russia and China, and block progress on reducing nuclear risks.¶ But are they right that such a policy linking nuclear and cyber is unwise? Intuitively it certainly seems that a nuclear response to even significant cyber attacks would be grossly disproportionate. Would the United States really believe itself justified in launching a nuclear strike against a country responsible for disrupting, say, your bank’s servers or the oil refinery that services your gas station? Or would it seriously consider a nuclear response to a successful cyber attack against a non-nuclear military asset, such as a fighter wing or a ship?¶ Obviously not. But the DSB Task Force wasn’t focused on those kinds of attacks. Rather, they were looking at what they referred to as “existential cyber attacks”: large-scale, brutally effective attacks on critical elements of the U.S. military and civilian infrastructure that would impose significant loss of life and tremendous degradation of our national welfare. What they meant was attacks which lead to planes falling out of the sky, water and power shutting off, communications dying, food rotting, and the like. As Task Force Chairman (and Under Secretary of Defense in the Clinton administration) Paul Kaminski made clear, any cyber attack meriting consideration of nuclear use would “have to be extreme. It would have to be the kind of attack that we would judge would be threatening our survival.”¶ The Task Force was saying that if an enemy hits us with a cyber attack of a scale comparable to a nuclear blow, we should be ready to retaliate with a nuclear strike. This is in line with longstanding U.S. nuclear doctrine, most recently restated in the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, that the United States reserves the right to retaliate with nuclear weapons in response to non-nuclear attacks of great severity or danger—in “extreme circumstances,” in the Review’s apt parlance.¶ But Clarke and Andreasen argue that reserving this right is both unnecessary and dangerous. They readily concede that cyberthreats are real, but contend that we should rely on a combination of defenses, non-nuclear retaliation, and diplomacy to guard against such attacks. Meanwhile, they argue, introducing the nuclear element into the cyber balance will only exacerbate instability and provoke nuclear-cyber arms races with Russia, China and others.¶ The problem with this argument is that it both understates the value and overstates the danger of the nuclear element in deterring (both actual and threatened) existential cyber attacks. They understate the value because the United States needs deterrence, as we simply can’t practically defend against large-scale, sophisticated cyber assaults. A central finding of the Task Force was that “the full spectrum cyber threat [of a top-tier cyber power] is of such magnitude and sophistication that it [cannot] be defended against. As such, a defense-only strategy against this threat is insufficient to protect U.S. national interests and is impossible to execute. Therefore, a successful DoD cyber strategy must include a deterrence component.” In other words, a military strategy relying only on defenses against cyber attacks is a recipe for failure. This makes sense—the problems of attribution, the costliness of cyber defenses, and the affordability of cyber offenses all make the contemporary cyber domain a classic offense-dominant arena, one in which the attacker has huge advantages and which can be very unstable unless the offense dominance is balanced by the credible threat of retaliation.¶ Now, Clarke and Andreasen would presumably argue that the United States should indeed rely on deterrence to deal with this offense dominance problem—but only by using non-nuclear forces. The flaw in this approach, however, is twofold. First, even under favorable conditions it is unclear that our conventional forces alone could do enough damage to outweigh the advantages from crippling the United States that would accrue to a committed adversary in a conflict. More to the point, if the United States found itself under existential cyber attack it would have to reckon that its conventional military forces would be under intense pressure and might well be significantly degraded in capability. (Indeed, the Task Force took the threats to our military forces so seriously that it recommended basically taking a portion of our forces “off the grid,” compromising the evident advantages of cyber-enabled connectivity in favor of greater resilience in the event of an effective cyber onslaught from a capable opponent.)
|
Colby Elbridge (Staff writer) June 24, 2013. Retrieved June 25, 2013 from http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/cyberwar-the-nuclear-option-8638
|
Would the United States really believe itself justified in launching a nuclear strike against a country responsible for disrupting, say, your bank’s servers or the oil refinery that services your gas station? ?¶ Obviously not. But the DSB Task Force wasn’t focused on those kinds of attacks. Rather, they were looking at what they referred to as “existential cyber attacks”: large-scale, brutally effective attacks on critical elements of the U.S. military and civilian infrastructure that would impose significant loss of life and tremendous degradation of our national welfare. It would have to be the kind of attack that we would judge would be threatening our survival.”¶ The Task Force was saying that if an enemy hits us with a cyber attack of a scale comparable to a nuclear blow, we should be ready to retaliate with a nuclear strike. This is in line with longstanding U.S. nuclear doctrine, most recently restated in the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, that the United States reserves the right to retaliate with nuclear weapons in response to non-nuclear attacks of great severity or danger—in “extreme circumstances,”
|
Cyber-attacks risk nuclear conflict
| 5,399 | 35 | 1,125 | 843 | 4 | 181 | 0.004745 | 0.214709 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,818 |
Unlike other wars the United States has fought, this one is on our territory and the frontline troops are increasingly the IT departments of American corporations. To date, those troops have been both outnumbered and outfought by the enemy. The rates of infiltration by organized gangs or state-sponsored hackers are escalating. In a multinational study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the three countries ranked as most vulnerable to attacks were the U.S., Russia and China, while the biggest potential source of attacks was our own country.
|
Bill Schmick (staff writer) “The Independent Investor: Cyber Attacks: Who Is On The Frontline?” May 10, 2012. Retrieved May 11, 2012 at http://www.iberkshires.com/blog/Independent InvestortheMarket/1659 /The-Independent-Investor-Cyber-Attacks-Who-Is-On-The-Frontline-.html?source=blogs_block
|
Unlike other wars the United States has fought, this one is on our territory and the frontline troops are increasingly the IT departments of American corporations. To date The rates of infiltration by organized gangs or state-sponsored hackers are escalating. In a multinational study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the three countries ranked as most vulnerable to attacks were the U.S., Russia and China, while the biggest potential source of attacks was our own country
|
Rates of cyber-hacking are increasing now.
| 565 | 43 | 495 | 89 | 6 | 78 | 0.067416 | 0.876404 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,819 |
“Are we doing a lot of work already? Yes,” she added. “We’ve responded to 106,000 attacks across the United States into various systems. We know they are going on, they’re increasing in sophistication. We know that tactics and techniques are increasingly available online to wrongdoers so, again, we need a statutory push. We need help from Congress now.”
|
Margo D. Beller, (staff writer) 3/22/2012 (staff writer, “US Unsure How Exposed Firms Are to Cyber Attacks: Official,” Mar. 22, 2012. Retrieved May 11, 2012 at http://www.cnbc.com/id/46822133
|
We’ve responded to 106,000 attacks across the United States into various systems. We know they are going on, they’re increasing in sophistication. We know that tactics and techniques are increasingly available online to wrongdoers so We need help from Congress now.”
|
Cyber-attacks are increasing now.
| 355 | 33 | 266 | 58 | 4 | 41 | 0.068966 | 0.706897 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,820 |
There is a war being waged today in this country, one that could have severe repercussions for each and every one of us. It is costing us billions of dollars a year and yet neither business nor government wants to spend the money necessary to fight back. This week on Capitol Hill lawmakers are getting down to debating the pros and cons of passing one of several versions of a cyber-security bill. Everyone hopes the eventual legislation will launch a counterattack on an army of highly sophisticated hackers bent on some serious mayhem. The debate boils down to who is going to pay for a defense system that will prevent the bad guys from accomplishing a "fire sale," a la the last "Die Hard" film.
|
Bill Schmick (staff writer) “The Independent Investor: Cyber Attacks: Who Is On The Frontline?” May 10, 2012. Retrieved May 11, 2012 at http://www.iberkshires.com/blog/Independent InvestortheMarket/1659 /The-Independent-Investor-Cyber-Attacks-Who-Is-On-The-Frontline-.html?source=blogs_block
|
There is a war being waged today in this country, one that could have severe repercussions for each and every one of us. It is costing us billions of dollars a year and yet neither business nor government wants to spend the money necessary to fight back. This week on Capitol Hill lawmakers are getting down to debating the pros and cons of passing one of several versions of a cyber-security bill.
|
Cyber-attacks cost the US billions of dollars each year.
| 700 | 57 | 398 | 125 | 9 | 72 | 0.072 | 0.576 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,821 |
Today, we only hear of the biggest cyber-attacks such as the 2011 theft of over 200,000 customer names, account numbers and contact details from Citigroup or the 100 million accounts pilfered from Sony Online Entertainment's PlayStation Network. I was on the receiving end of the Citigroup theft, and believe me, it drives home the danger like nothing else. These attacks are costing American companies big money. It costs on average over $7.2 million in costs (lost business, legal defense and compliance) or $214 per customer record in costs. If it is a first time breach, it can cost 30 percent more, not to mention the inconvenience to its customers like me. Yet, the real danger is not in the consumer sector. It is in the potential for a breach in the nation's infrastructure system.
|
Bill Schmick (staff writer) “The Independent Investor: Cyber Attacks: Who Is On The Frontline?” May 10, 2012. Retrieved May 11, 2012 at http://www.iberkshires.com/blog/Independent InvestortheMarket/1659 /The-Independent-Investor-Cyber-Attacks-Who-Is-On-The-Frontline-.html?source=blogs_block
|
Today, we only hear of the biggest cyber-attacks These attacks are costing American companies big money. It costs on average over $7.2 million in costs
|
Cyber-attacks are costing American companies big money.
| 789 | 56 | 151 | 134 | 7 | 25 | 0.052239 | 0.186567 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,822 |
American companies are losing billions of dollars’ worth of intellectual property, research and development, and trade secrets. Outside attackers burrow into company networks and remain undiscovered for months or even years. It is much like having termites in your house—often, by the time you discover them, the damage is done. And “hacktivist” groups are pioneering their own forms of digital anarchy. Here in the Bay Area, you witnessed their work firsthand when individuals hacked the BART website and released personal data of BART customers. We also must consider that hostile nations or terrorist groups could launch cyber attacks against our critical infrastructure. The anonymity of the Internet makes it difficult to discern the identity, the motives, and the location of an intruder. And the proliferation of portable devices that connect to the Internet only increases the opportunity to steal vital information. We in the FBI cannot merely react to computer intrusions. Hackers will seek to exploit every vulnerability, and we must be able to anticipate their moves. Let me share one example. In April, the FBI brought down an international “botnet” known as Coreflood. Botnets are those networks of virus-infected computers controlled remotely by an attacker. To shut down Coreflood, the FBI took control of five servers the hackers had used to infect some two million computers with malware. This malware allowed the hackers to steal personal and financial information by recording users’ keystrokes. We not only shut down the servers—we took another unprecedented step. With court approval, the FBI responded to signals sent from infected computers in the United States. We sent those computers a command that stopped the malware, preventing harm to hundreds of thousands of users.
|
Robert S. Mueller, (Director of FBI), “Changing Threats in a Changing World: Staying Ahead of Terrorists, Spies, and Hackers,” Nov. 17, 2011. Retrieved May 11, 2012 at http://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/changing-threats-in-a-changing-world-staying-ahead-of-terrorists-spies-and-hackers
|
American companies are losing billions of dollars’ worth of intellectual property, research and development, and trade secrets. Outside attackers burrow into company networks and remain undiscovered for months or even years We also must consider that hostile nations or terrorist groups could launch cyber attacks against our critical infrastructure
|
Hackers undermine US competitiveness:
| 1,797 | 37 | 349 | 279 | 4 | 49 | 0.014337 | 0.175627 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,823 |
Clark: That's not the only threat, and you shouldn't overstate the ease with which people can do this. An ordinary person can't go in and wreck a financial system, but when you have skilled professionals with malign intent, with the right funding and the right technology -- and, maybe, inside information -- we don't know what damage is possible. We suspect it could be significant and we have to expend a lot of effort to safeguard the system.
|
Richard Adhikari, (staff writer) (“Civilization's High Stakes Cyber-Struggle: Q&A With Gen. Wesley Clark” 2009. Retrieved May 11, 2012 at http://www.technewsworld.com/story/68787.html)
|
That's not the only threat, and you shouldn't overstate the ease with which people can do this. An ordinary person can't go in and wreck a financial system, but when you have skilled professionals with malign intent, with the right funding and the right technology -- and, maybe, inside information -- we don't know what damage is possible.
|
Cyber-attacks can wreck financial systems:
| 445 | 42 | 340 | 78 | 5 | 58 | 0.064103 | 0.74359 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,824 |
"Wanted: ethical hackers willing to launch repeated cyberattacks on a major U.S. bank to test its defenses. Competitive pay and discretion assured."¶ I made up the advertisement—there are few ads in the world of hacking—but the trend is real.¶ Enlarge Image¶ At least one large U.S. lender has hired hackers in recent months to simulate full-blown attacks on its systems. Cyber-experts say that many other firms do it in-house, splitting their technology whiz kids into groups of attackers (the "red team") and defenders ("the blue team") to get as close as possible to real-life assaults on their firewalls.¶ As cyberterrorists train their sights on U.S. financial infrastructure, banks, regulators and savers need to up their game. Lenders, especially smaller ones, should be afraid. Very afraid.¶ Regulators have awoken to the problem, telling banks to get their act together or risk ending up as victims of foreign governments or terrorist organizations.¶ Some already have. Late last year, a spate of "denial of service attacks," later traced to Iranian hackers, disrupted the websites of several financial firms for days, providing a worrying example of what a cyberwar on Wall Street and Main Street banks could look like.¶ Cybersecurity is a critical issue for every company but, as often, financial-services firms are a special case. Each and every attack can undermine the public's faith not just in the individual institution, but in the entire financial system.¶ The financial-services sector accounted for "just" 3% of all data breaches that led to identity theft in 2012, according to a recent report by Symantec Corp. SYMC +0.57% But each of the average of 400,000 identities that were revealed during every one of those incidents represents a dent in the wall of trust between customers and their financial institutions.¶ Wall Street lawyer Rodgin Cohen put it best last week when he called cybersecurity an "existential risk."¶ "Unless we do better in aligning the private sector and the public sector in hardening our systems, sooner or later there is going to be a very serious problem," Mr. Cohen, a partner at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, told the WSJ's CFO Network conference.¶ Enlarge Image¶ Agence France-Presse/Getty Images¶ AUTOMATIC THREAT MACHINE? Regulators have warned banks to tighten defenses against hacking from terrorists or foreign organizations.¶ Is enough being done? Well, there is good news and bad news.¶ The good news is that big banks are alert to the issue. Lenders hate to talk publicly about their efforts, but behind the scenes, large institutions are spending millions of dollars to stay a step ahead of foreign governments and malicious hackers.¶ Richard Bejtlich, chief security officer at Mandiant Corp., a cybersecurity company, ranks defense contractors and large financial institutions as the best at responding to these threats. "They have the full spectrum of issues to deal with," he says. "Financial-services companies have to deal with malicious insiders, people who leave the company and take information with them, fraud, espionage and denial of service attacks."¶ Bank executives agree. "We have to be on top of this. We have millions of customers and even if just 1% is affected, we could be in serious trouble," one told me recently.¶ The bad news is that community banks are lagging badly behind their larger brethren. The even worse news is that hackers love to target smaller businesses. Across the economy, half of the cyberattacks launched in 2012 hit businesses with fewer than 2,500 employees, according to Symantec. Nearly a third of the incidents occurred at firms with fewer than 250 staff.¶ "With our smaller institutions, we find that they are less prepared because they can't throw millions and millions of dollars at the problem," says Benjamin Lawsky, the superintendent of New York's Department of Financial Services.¶ So how can small banks, often strapped for staff and resources, oppose the hacking might of, say, Iran or China? The answer may lie in something rather unusual in finance: cooperation.¶ Experts like Mr. Bejtlich argue that there is safety in numbers. They point to other industries, notably universities, where pooling resources and knowledge has helped bolster defenses.¶ Banks are loath to share information, especially technology and customer data. And even if lenders suddenly discovered their brotherly spirits, there are antitrust provisions designed to keep cooperation to a minimum.¶ But if ever there was a need for an exception to usual practice and competition law, this is it. Valerie Abend, the senior officer for critical infrastructure at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, recently said communication and coordination between banks is key when facing cyberthreats.¶ "A bank that's experiencing this may have connections or interdependencies with other banks or third parties who may also be attacked," Ms. Abend said.¶ In the face of ever more potent attacks from organized bad guys, strengthening the weak link in the U.S. financial chain seems like an end that could justify the means.
|
Wall Street Journal June 24, 2013. “Cyberattacks: Banks' Latest 'Existential Risk'” Retrieved June 25, 2013 from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323998604578565410546088212.html
|
, a spate of "denial of service attacks," later traced to Iranian hackers, disrupted the websites of several financial firms for days, providing a worrying example of what a cyberwar on Wall Street and Main Street banks could look like.¶ Cybersecurity is a critical issue for every company but, as often, financial-services firms are a special case. Each and every attack can undermine the public's faith not just in the individual institution, but in the entire financial system.¶ Wall Street lawyer Rodgin Cohen put it best last week when he called cybersecurity an "existential risk."¶ "Unless we do better in aligning the private sector and the public sector in hardening our systems, sooner or later there is going to be a very serious problem," In the face of ever more potent attacks from organized bad guys, strengthening the weak link in the U.S. financial chain seems like an end that could justify the means.
|
Cyber-attacks pose an existential threat to financial systems
| 5,110 | 62 | 919 | 811 | 8 | 154 | 0.009864 | 0.189889 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,825 |
Now its time to look at the consequences of a failing world economy. With five offical nations having nuclear weapons, and four more likely to have them there could be major consequences of another world war. The first thing that will happen after an economic collapse will be war over resources. The United States currency will become useless and will have no way of securing reserves. The United States has little to no capacity to produce oil, it is totatlly dependent on foreign oil. If the United States stopped getting foreign oil, the government would go to no ends to secure more, if there were a war with any other major power over oil, like Russia or China, these wars would most likely involve nuclear weapons. Once one nation launches a nuclear weapon, there would of course be retaliation, and with five or more countries with nuclear weapons there would most likely be a world nuclear war. The risk is so high that acting to save the economy is the most important issue facing us in the 21st century.
|
Broward 9 ((Member of Triond) http://newsflavor.com/opinions/will-an-economic-collapse-kill-you/)
|
Now its time to look at the consequences of a failing world economy. With five offical nations having nuclear weapons, and four more likely to have them there could be major consequences of another world war. The first thing that will happen after an economic collapse will be war over resources. If the United States stopped getting foreign oil, the government would go to no ends to secure more, if there were a war with any other major power over oil, like Russia or China, these wars would most likely involve nuclear weapons. Once one nation launches a nuclear weapon, there would of course be retaliation, and with five or more countries with nuclear weapons there would most likely be a world nuclear war. The risk is so high that acting to save the economy is the most important issue facing us in the 21st century.
|
Economic collapse causes nuclear war- extinction
| 1,014 | 48 | 823 | 179 | 6 | 146 | 0.03352 | 0.815642 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,826 |
What are the economic incentives for immigration reform?¶ There's a $1.5 trillion economic impact, according to the Center for American Progress. The Dreamers alone, it's estimated, will have a $329 billion impact over a 10-year period. And the reason is this: You're bringing these people from out of the dark and into the light. What happens when you do that? You encourage them to get an education, you encourage them to improve their job skills. They're encouraged to seek better jobs. They contribute more to our Social Security system. President Obama has said that we should attach a green card to the diploma of people who come here getting bachelor's degrees, particularly in science and math. [Also, H-1B] visas need to be expanded, and we need to make sure that we have a program that makes sense in the agricultural sector.
|
Brooke Berger, 1/23/2013 (staff writer, “Villaraigosa: Comprehensive Immigration Reform Is Not Amnesty,” http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2013/01/23/villaraigosa-comprehensive-immigration-reform-is-not-amnesty, Accessed 1/23/2013, rwg)
|
What are the economic incentives for immigration reform?¶ There's a $1.5 trillion economic impact, according to the Center for American Progress the reason is this: You're bringing these people from out of the dark and into the light. What happens when you do that? You encourage them to get an education, you encourage them to improve their job skills. They're encouraged to seek better jobs. They contribute more to our Social Security system.
|
Immigration reform key to the economy:
| 835 | 38 | 445 | 141 | 6 | 73 | 0.042553 | 0.51773 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,827 |
(Reuters) - The sluggish U.S. economy could get a lift if President Barack Obama and a bipartisan group of senators succeed in what could be the biggest overhaul of the nation's immigration system since the 1980s.¶ Relaxed immigration rules could encourage entrepreneurship, increase demand for housing, raise tax revenues and help reduce the budget deficit, economists said.¶ By helping more immigrants enter the country legally and allowing many illegal immigrants to remain, the United States could help offset a slowing birth rate and put itself in a stronger demographic position than aging Europe, Japan and China.¶ "Numerous industries in the United States can't find the workers they need, right now even in a bad economy, to fill their orders and expand their production as the market demands," said Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration specialist at the libertarian Cato Institute.¶ The emerging consensus among economists is that immigration provides a net benefit. It increases demand and productivity, helps drive innovation and lowers prices, although there is little agreement on the size of the impact on economic growth.¶ President Barack Obama plans to launch his second-term push for a U.S. immigration overhaul during a visit to Nevada on Tuesday and will make it a high priority to win congressional approval of a reform package this year, the White House said.¶ The chances of major reforms gained momentum on Monday when a bipartisan group of senators agreed on a framework that could eventually give 11 million illegal immigrants a chance to become American citizens.¶ Their proposals would also include means to keep and attract workers with backgrounds in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. This would be aimed both at foreign students attending American universities where they are earning advanced degrees and high-tech workers abroad.¶ An estimated 40 percent of scientists in the United States are immigrants and studies show immigrants are twice as likely to start businesses, said Nowrasteh.¶ Boosting legal migration and legalizing existing workers could add $1.5 trillion to the U.S. economy over the next 10 years, estimates Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda, a specialist in immigration policy at the University of California, Los Angeles. That's an annual increase of 0.8 percentage points to the economic growth rate, currently stuck at about 2 percent.
|
Krudy 1/29 (Edward, “Analysis: Immigration reform could boost U.S. economic growth”, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/29/us-usa-economyimmigration-idUSBRE90S06R20130129, CMR)
|
The sluggish U.S. economy could get a lift if Obama and a bipartisan group of senators succeed in overhaul of the nation's immigration system Relaxed immigration rules could encourage entrepreneurship, increase demand for housing, raise tax revenues and help reduce the budget deficit the U S could help offset a slowing birth rate and put itself in a stronger demographic position Numerous industries can't find the workers they need said an immigration specialist at Cato The emerging consensus among economists is that immigration provides a net benefit. The chances of major reforms gained momentum when a bipartisan group of senators agreed on a framework that could eventually give 11 million illegal immigrants a chance to become American citizens.¶ immigrants are twice as likely to start businesses, Boosting legal migration and legalizing existing workers could add $1.5 trillion to the U.S. economy over the next 10 years, estimates a specialist in immigration at the University of California, Los Angeles.
|
Key to the economy – every indicator – experts agree
| 2,386 | 53 | 1,017 | 369 | 10 | 158 | 0.0271 | 0.428184 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,828 |
Despite years of a stalemate between Republicans and Democrats on immigration reform, the other side of the border appears to be in view.¶ The standoff, to put it simply, came down to Republicans’ opinion that issues of “amnesty” would be perceived as rewarding illegal behavior. Democrats, conversely, have a long history of claiming humanitarian reasons for looser immigration laws.¶ Arguably, though, the baseline is political motivation for gaining votes.¶ That the interests of these odd political bedfellows are now aligning is integral -- especially considering that the future of our economy and our identity as a nation will be shaped by the outcome of this debate.¶ Following President Barack Obama’s landslide second-tern victory, with record-setting support from Hispanic voters, key GOP members now speak about reform as a possibility -- instead of a burden -- for the first time in 100 years.¶ Hispanic voters backed Obama over his competitor former Gov. Mitt Romney 71 percent to 27 percent. This demographic has put their name on the map in 2012, voting at a record 23.7 million, up 80 percent since the 2000 presidential election, according to the Pew Research Center.¶ On. Jan. 28, the so-called “Gang of Eight,” comprised of four Democrats and four Republican senators, proposed a comprehensive reform package, including updating the current legal immigration system and a “tough but fair path” to citizenship for the 11 million or more undocumented immigrants throughout the country.¶ This bipartisan call to action comes not a moment too soon. Successful immigration reform could improve the nation’s image, broaden the tax base, retain much needed human capital, and revitalize the commitment to the country’s founding principals of freedom and opportunity.¶ It’s been almost 30 years since immigration gained this much traction, when President Ronald Reagan introduced the Immigration and Control Act of 1986. Amnesty was granted for the country’s three million or more undocumented immigrants, yet the reform portion of the act failed to take place. ¶ Today, broad support for reform underlines the need to modernize U.S. immigration policies to accommodate and capitalize on our 21st century economy. We are not a nation homogeneous in race and religion. The economy and demographics in this country are no longer a “traditional” America.¶ The U.S. reached a tipping point in 2011 when the Census Bureau reported the first year in which Caucasian births were the minority (49.6 percent), compared to non-white births (50.4 percent), including Hispanics, blacks, Asians and mixed-race. A generation is being born in which so-called “minorities” are the majority. ¶ Reform is critical in ensuring the next century of this country as rich and vibrant as the last. An alternative plan must be demanded from those opposing comprehensive reform. Radical pundits and opinion leaders on both sides of the isle cannot cling to the immigration status quo.¶ Vested politicians stand to benefit from spearheading reform. Asian and Hispanic voters represent the two fastest-growing demographics in the nation. Today, there are approximately 16.3 million U.S.-born underage Latinos that will more than double the current Hispanic electorate by 2030.¶ There is much to gain by using the nation’s founding principles of freedom and economic opportunity to appeal to the country’s immigrants. We should take the long-view when it comes reform.¶ The country is in a unique place where good policy, good politics, and wide-reaching support for immigration reform could revitalize the economy and the energy of what it means to be an American.¶ Immigration has a long history as a positive force in America’s economic and cultural life. Streamlining the process for foreigners to enter the country legally and documenting current illegal immigrants in a systematic and responsible way would boost the nation’s recent lethargic economy. Immigration increases productivity and helps drive innovation.¶ Alex Nowrasteh, immigration specialist at the Cato Institute, estimates 40 percent of scientists in the U.S. are foreign-born. Additionally, Nowrasteh claims U.S. immigrants are twice as likely to start a business than native-born citizens.¶ The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2007 that current proposed immigration reform would generate $48 billion in revenue over a 10-year period, while costing an estimated $23 billion in assisted welfare and health care payments. With comprehensive reform that incentivizes immigration of educated and skilled labor, the cost would likely be much lower.¶ Although progress seems within reach, key thorny issues still divide Congress. While it’s too early to celebrate a bipartisan success in Washington, the historic broad-backing support of reform puts more pressure and possibility on Washington than anytime in recent history.
|
Christian 2/8/2013 (Amber Christian, International Business Times, “Immigration Reform: Possibilities And Prospects,” 2/8/13 http://www.ibtimes.com/immigration-reform-possibilities-prospects-1072864)
|
Despite years of a stalemate the other side of the border appears to be in view The country is in a unique place where good policy, good politics, and wide-reaching support for immigration reform could revitalize the economy Streamlining the process to enter the country and documenting current illegal immigrants would boost the nation’s recent lethargic economy. Immigration increases productivity and helps drive innovation Although progress seems within reach, key thorny issues still divide Congress While it’s too early to celebrate a bipartisan success in Washington, the historic broad-backing support of reform puts more pressure and possibility on Washington than anytime in recent history
|
Immigration reform passage is likely, but not guaranteed – it’s key to reviving the economy
| 4,883 | 91 | 699 | 747 | 15 | 104 | 0.02008 | 0.139224 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,829 |
Comprehensive immigration reform is coming. For those that don’t speak D.C. doublespeak, that means more costly, useless, and privacy-invading border drones, more guards and fences, more employer prosecutions, and national identification for all Americans. On the other hand, it means much more legal immigration and legalization for immigrants already here illegally. Looking at only these last two parts, what will the economic impact be?¶ 1) Fewer deportations mean less wasteful federal spending. College of William and Mary professor of economics Rajeev Goyle estimated in 2005 that if we could find all 11 million deportable immigrants, the cost of mass deportation to be $206 billion over 5 years, or $41 billion annually. Five years later, the Center for American Progress put the number at $285 billion over 5 years. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has found that it costs at the margin $12,500 to deport a single person. This translates to $138.8 billion, ignoring the capital costs.¶ 2) Fewer deportations raise GDP. Ignoring the unlikely event we can force out all 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants, even a strong enforcement effort that reduces the number of unskilled workers by 28% would lower GDP by $80 billion or 0.5% of the income of U.S. households, according to economists Peter Dixon and Maureen Rimmer in 2009. In 2012, Berkley Econ Professor Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that the number would likely be $2.6 trillion in lost GDP over ten years, not including the actual fiscal cost of deportation (Prof. Goyle found the same number in 2005). In 2012, the Department of Agriculture looked at the economic impact of cutting the unauthorized population in half over 15 years. It found that it would reduce U.S. wages by 0.3 to 0.6%. In 2009, the dairy industry concluded similarly that eliminating 50 percent of migrant workers would reduce its sales by $6.7 billion, cutting GDP $11 billion.¶ 3) Legalization would increase GDP. In 2012, Hinojosa-Ojeda found in 2012 that the just wage increases due to legalization for immigrants would raise GDP $30 billion to $36 billion over just three years. Economists Manuel Pastor and Justin Scoggins estimated the “wage premium” that immigrants receive from naturalization and concluded that it would add $21 to $45 billion in GDP over ten years. If unauthorized immigrants gained the average wage increase from legalization during the last legalization in 1986, as the Public Policy Institute of California found, GDP would get an annual $35.52 billion bump or $355.2 billion over ten years.¶ 4) More immigration would increase U.S. wages. Immigrants complement the skills over U.S. workers, creating better job opportunities and higher wages. The White House Council of Economic Advisers found in 2007 that annual wage gains from immigration are between $30 and $80 billion. Economist Giovanni Peri found in 2007 that wages for workers with at least a high school degree grew by 2 percent due to immigration between 1990 and 2004. Peri and Gianmarco Ottaviano, using a model that takes into account comparative advantage gains, found that immigration in 2010 increased the wages of all Americans by 0.6% with a positive effect on low-skilled Americans. UC Berkley economist David Card discovered the same thing in 2005 looking at city specific data.¶ 5) More immigration lowers prices. Economist Saul Lach found in 2007 that the higher output from immigration also lowers prices by 0.5% on average. MIT’s Patricia Cortes in 2006 found that immigrants lowered prices in immigrant-dominated industries by 1.3%. In 2007, economists Robert E. Lipsey and Birgitta Swedenborg showed that countries that keep labor scarce consume much fewer labor-intensive goods. For example, there are far fewer restaurants in Nordic countries due to the inability to find labor. In New York City in 2012, the Fiscal Policy Institute found lower education immigrants own 70 to 90 percent of all laundry, taxi and limousine, grocery, beauty salon, and day care small businesses.¶ 6) More high-skilled immigration increases jobs and innovation. Immigrants have twice as many patents and Nobel Prize recipients per capita than natives. In 2006, immigrant founded companies produced $52 billion in sales and employed 450,000 workers. Immigrants served either as founder, CEO, or VP of engineering in more than three quarters of top 50 venture-backed companies. Even 100 new temporary high-skilled immigrants create 183 new jobs for U.S. workers, according to economist Madeline Zavodny.¶ Alarmist claims about immigration–produced by the havens of protectionist garbage, Center for Immigration Studies and Federation for American Immigration Reform–should be interpreted in context of the overwhelming evidence partially presented above that legal immigration has a profoundly positive effect on the economy. Legalization (of some kind) and more legal immigration will benefit America’s economy, not because of some intrinsic element of immigrants, but because, as late economist Julian Simon said, people are the ultimate resource—not some nasty drag on the world.
|
Bier 2/12/2013, David, policy analyst specializing in immigration and environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, “Immigration Reform’s Economic Benefits,” Open Market, http://www.openmarket.org/2013/02/12/immigration-reforms-economic-benefits/
|
Comprehensive immigration reform is coming what will the economic impact be Fewer deportations mean less wasteful federal spending if we could find all 11 million deportable immigrants, the cost of mass deportation at $285 billion over 5 years it costs 12,500 to deport a single person Fewer deportations raise GDP the number would likely be $2.6 trillion in lost GDP over ten years, not including the actual fiscal cost of deportation It found that it would reduce U.S. wages Legalization would increase GDP just wage increases due to legalization would raise GDP to $36 billion it would add $21 to $45 billion in GDP over ten years GDP would get an annual $35.52 billion bump More immigration would increase U.S. wages Immigrants complement the skills over U.S. workers, creating better job opportunities and higher wages annual wage gains from immigration are between $30 and $80 billion wages for workers with at least a high school degree grew by 2 percent due to immigration immigration in 2010 increased the wages of all Americans by 0.6% with a positive effect on low-skilled Americans the higher output from immigration also lowers prices More high-skilled immigration increases jobs and innovation Immigrants have twice as many patents and Nobel Prize recipients per capita than natives 100 new temporary high-skilled immigrants create 183 new jobs for U.S. workers Alarmist claims about immigration produced by the havens of protectionist garbage should be interpreted in context of the overwhelming evidence that legal immigration has a profoundly positive effect on the economy Legalization (of some kind) and more legal immigration will benefit America’s economy
|
Immigration reform overwhelmingly key to the economy – all the best studies conclude gains in basically every important internal link
| 5,115 | 133 | 1,676 | 795 | 20 | 265 | 0.025157 | 0.333333 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,830 |
Washington tends to have a narrow view of what counts as “economic policy.” Anything we do to the tax code is in. So is any stimulus we pass, or any deficit reduction we try. But most of this mistakes the federal budget for the economy. The truth is, the most important piece of economic policy we pass — or don’t pass — in 2013 may be something we don’t think of as economic policy at all: immigration reform. Congress certainly doesn’t consider it economic policy, at least not officially. Immigration laws go through the House and Senate judiciary committees. But consider a few facts about immigrants in the American economy: About a 10th of the U.S. population is foreign-born. More than a quarter of U.S. technology and engineering businesses started from 1995 to 2005 had a foreign-born owner. In Silicon Valley, half of all tech startups had a foreign-born founder. One-quarter of all U.S.-based Nobel laureates of the past 50 years were foreign born. Right now, about half of the PhDs working in science and technology are foreign born. Immigrants begin businesses and file patents at a much higher rate than their native-born counterparts, and while there are disputes about the effect immigrants have on the wages of low-income Americans, there’s little dispute about their effect on wages overall: They lift them. The economic case for immigration is best made by way of analogy. Everyone agrees that aging economies with low birth rates are in trouble; this, for example, is a thoroughly conventional view of Japan. It’s even conventional wisdom about the U.S. The retirement of the baby boomers is correctly understood as an economic challenge. The ratio of working Americans to retirees will fall from 5 to 1 today to 3 to 1 in 2050. Fewer workers and more retirees is tough on any economy. There’s nothing controversial about that analysis. But if that’s not controversial, then immigration shouldn’t be, either. Immigration is essentially the importation of new workers. It’s akin to raising the birth rate, only easier, because most of the newcomers are old enough to work. And because living in the U.S. is considered such a blessing that even very skilled, very industrious workers are willing to leave their home countries and come to ours, the U.S. has an unusual amount to gain from immigration. When it comes to the global draft for talent, we almost always get the first-round picks — at least, if we want them, and if we make it relatively easy for them to come here. From the vantage of naked self-interest, the wonder isn’t that we might fix our broken immigration system in 2013. It’s that we might not. Few economic problems wouldn’t be improved by more immigration. If you’re worried about deficits, more young, healthy workers paying into Social Security and Medicare are an obvious boon. If you’re concerned about the slowdown in new company formation and its attendant effects on economic growth, more immigrant entrepreneurs should cheer you. If you’re worried about the dearth of science and engineering majors in our universities, an influx of foreign-born students is the most obvious solution you’ll find. Politicians of both parties recognize this. “Our goal is to advance policies that make a difference in peoples’ lives, and that means we want to advance pro-growth reforms that are good for the economy,” Republican Rep. Paul Ryan said at a recent Wall Street Journal breakfast. The first pro-growth reform he named? Immigration. Many immigration opponents lodge a moral objection to “amnesty” — allowing people who broke the law to reap the benefits of legal status. That’s beyond the scope of this particular column. The main economic concern about allowing more immigration or legalizing the status of those who are already here is that immigrants will undermine the wages of the least-skilled Americans. In reality, it’s not clear that will happen. In addition to growing the size of the national pie, unskilled immigrants tend to have what economists call complementary skills to U.S. workers. If one worker speaks English and another doesn’t, for example, they generally don’t pursue the same job. In that way, it’s useful again to compare immigration with native birth rates. Increasing the number of native-born workers leads to more direct competition, because two native-born workers are probably more similar than an immigrant and a native worker. Yet most everyone cheers if they hear that the U.S. birth rate has ticked up. Some workers are hurt by immigration, but they are typically already struggling. The best way to help them is with more training, better health care, a more generous earned income tax credit and so on. Those benefits are easier to provide in a growing economy with more young workers than in a sluggish one with chronic budget deficits. Immigration isn’t what really ails them, and it isn’t what stands in the way of aiding them. Will immigrants use those same social services, as some immigration opponents contend, adding to the cost of the nation’s welfare state? Yes, but not as often as they’ll pay into it. In 2007, the Congressional Budget Office analyzed the issue while assessing President George W. Bush’s proposed immigration reforms. It found that legalizing undocumented immigrants would increase federal revenue by $48 billion while costing only $23 billion in increased public services — and that’s before accounting for the broader economic benefits of immigration. There are few free lunches in public policy. But taking advantage of our unique position as a country where the world’s best, brightest and hardest-working desperately want to live is surely one. In the end, economies aren’t mainly about budgets and tax codes, though Congress occasionally pretends otherwise. They’re about workers and business owners. Immigration reform is a way to get more of both.
|
Ezra Klein 1/31/13 Worried about the economy? Then pass immigration reform http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/31/worried-about-the-economy-then-pass-immigration-reform/
|
the most important piece of economic policy we pass — or don’t pass — in 2013 may be immigration reform. the U.S. has an unusual amount to gain from immigration From the vantage of naked self-interest, the wonder isn’t that we might fix our broken immigration system in 2013. It’s that we might not. Few economic problems wouldn’t be improved by more immigration. If you’re worried about deficits, more young, workers paying into Social Security and Medicare are an obvious boon. If you’re concerned about the slowdown in new company formation more immigrant entrepreneurs should cheer you. If you’re worried about the dearth of science an influx of foreign-born students is the most obvious solution you’ll find. economies aren’t mainly about budgets and tax codes, though Congress occasionally pretends otherwise. They’re about workers and business owners. Immigration reform is a way to get more of both.
|
Immigration reform is necessary to revive the economy.
| 5,864 | 55 | 907 | 961 | 8 | 146 | 0.008325 | 0.151925 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,831 |
The historical experience of legalization under the 1986¶ Immigration Reform and Control Act indicates that comprehensive¶ immigration reform would raise wages, increase consumption, create¶ jobs, and generate additional tax revenue. Even though IRCA was¶ implemented during a period that included a recession and high¶ unemployment (1990–91), it still helped raise wages and spurred¶ increases in educational, home, and small business investments by¶ newly legalized immigrants. Taking the experience of IRCA as a¶ starting point, we estimate that comprehensive immigration reform¶ would yield at least $1.5 trillion in addedU.S. gross domestic product¶ (GDP) over 10 years.1 This is a compelling economic reason to¶ move away from the current “vicious cycle” where enforcement-only¶policies perpetuate unauthorized migration and exert downward¶ pressure on already low wages, and toward a “virtuous cycle” of¶ worker empowerment in which legal status and labor rights exert¶ upward pressure on wages.
|
Hinojosa-Ojeda 2012(Raúl, Founding Director of the North American Integration¶ and Development Center at the University of California, Los Angeles, The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2012/1/cj32n1-12.pdf)
|
comprehensive¶ immigration reform would raise wages, increase consumption, create¶ jobs, and generate additional tax revenue. IRCA helped raise wages and spurred¶ increases in educational, home, and small business investments by¶ newly legalized immigrants comprehensive immigration reform¶ would yield at least $1.5 trillion in added GDP over 10 years This is a compelling economic reason to¶ move away from the current “vicious cycle” where enforcement-only policies perpetuate unauthorized migration and exert downward¶ pressure on already low wages and toward a “virtuous cycle” of¶ worker empowerment in which legal status and labor rights exert¶ upward pressure on wages.
|
CIR key to the economy- recession inevitable without it
| 1,002 | 55 | 677 | 142 | 9 | 96 | 0.06338 | 0.676056 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,832 |
After months of acrimony, it now appears that immigration reform, and a comprehensive one at that, is within reach. While most of the debates have been about the immediate consequences of any change in policy, the goal should be to promote economic growth over the next 40 years.¶ Immigration is a powerful engine for bringing skills, workers and ideas into the United States. Yet if history is any guide, this country gets a chance at substantial immigration reform only every four to five decades. Thus the economic gains from "getting the immigration system right" will be large and long-lasting.
|
Peri 2/12/2013, Giovanni, professor of economics at the University of California, Davis, co-author of ‘Overhauling the Temporary Work Visa System,’ “The Economic Windfall of Immigration Reform,” Wall Street Journal online, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324196204578297850464590498.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
|
it now appears that immigration reform is within reach Immigration is a powerful engine for bringing skills, workers and ideas into the United States this country gets a chance at substantial immigration reform only every four to five decades the economic gains from "getting the immigration system right" will be large and long-lasting.
|
Immigration reform key to the economy—window of opportunity now:
| 599 | 64 | 337 | 99 | 9 | 53 | 0.090909 | 0.535354 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,833 |
As America continues to look for more jobs Washington can't seem to come up with an answer. We've heard solutions from policy wonks, politicians, and academics, but rarely from people who have first-hand experience actually creating jobs. The voice of the small business owner is faintly being heard, but I'm not so sure our friends on Capitol Hill are listening. There is continual talk about destructive regulations and burdensome red tape, but very little discussion over specific policies and regulations that are so burdensome and in need of reform. Well, here's one from a job creator: immigration.¶ Immigration reform is key to spurring innovation and getting the economy back on track. I'm a small business owner who realizes the role legal immigrants play in creating new jobs. As founder and CEO of a boutique merchant bank, I've started or acquired nearly 30 small and midsize companies, creating hundreds of jobs for Americans across the country. I am also an immigrant and an example of how highly-skilled immigrants educated in the United States can drive job creation right here at home. ¶ Employment-based immigration provides ways for highly skilled immigrants to come to the United States on either a permanent or temporary visa and contribute to our economy. I came to the United States at the age of six because my parents wanted me to have the opportunity to live the American Dream. While at that time, immigration law was by no means lax, the window of legal immigration opportunity has been closing more and more as the process gets bogged down in the bureaucratic morass. The sad truth is, America's dysfunctional immigration law doesn't hurt the would-be immigrants as much as it cripples our nation's competitiveness and prospect for future prosperity and job growth.¶ Ironically, there is no cap placed on the number of temporary workers, as they are not eligible for citizenship. According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services there are over 20 classifications in which a temporary nonimmigrant worker may enter the United States. These highly-skilled workers are usually sponsored by an employer for a specific job or have been accepted to an American university, with the expectation that they will only be in the United States on a temporary basis. After we train and educate these foreigners, we send them back to their home countries.¶ Meanwhile, the United States only accepts 140,000 permanent immigrants a year based on Citizenship and Immigration Services' employment-based standards. A recent report by The Partnership for a New American Economy found that immigrants or their children founded more than 40 percent of the 2010 Fortune 500 companies. Further, these U.S. companies employ more than 10 million people worldwide and have combined revenues of $4.2 trillion. And these are the very people we are turning our backs to.¶ In good economic times or bad, keeping entrepreneurs and productive workers beyond our shores and outside our borders is nonsensical. We shouldn't be denying our nation's economic engine the fuel of innovative talent it so desperately needs. We shouldn't be wasting our resources by perpetuating a broken immigration system where these highly skilled workers are trained and educated in America but sent back into their home countries.¶ We need immigration reform that reinforces the American Dream by encouraging and enabling the best and the brightest, regardless of their nation of origin, to launch businesses right here in the United States. That's the kind of progrowth policy that would ignite a more robust economic recovery, create jobs, and chart a course to a more prosperous future.
|
Park 12 (David, “Immigration Reform Is Key to Job Creation”, March 23, http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/03/23/immigration-reform-is-key-to-job-creation, CMR)
|
As America continues to look for more jobs one job creator: immigration Immigration reform is key to spurring innovation and getting the economy back on track America's dysfunctional immigration law cripples our nation's competitiveness and prospect for future prosperity and job growth.¶ keeping entrepreneurs and productive workers beyond our shores and outside our borders is nonsensical We shouldn't be denying our nation's economic engine the fuel of innovative talent it so desperately needs We need immigration reform That's the kind of progrowth policy that would ignite a robust economic recovery, create jobs, and chart a course to a more prosperous future.
|
Key to economic recovery – spurs job growth and innovation
| 3,672 | 58 | 668 | 590 | 10 | 101 | 0.016949 | 0.171186 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,834 |
In many of these sectors, there are worker shortages that cannot be filled by available American workers. The reason for this is a mismatch in worker supply and demand across industry sectors and geographic areas. Between retirements, demographic gaps, geographic differentials, and the failure of educational institutions to deliver employees in key sectors, the United States has worker shortages at a time of high national unemployment.¶ There are two potential ways to fill these gaps: The first is to retrain American workers to ensure that their skill sets match the needed requirements. The second is to take advantage of foreign workers with the skill set and mobility to fill the existing gaps, which I lay out extensively in my immigration policy book Brain Gain. Both steps are needed to address our current situation.¶ In the coming debate over immigration reform, we need to keep in mind the economic rationale for changing our system. At both the high and low skills end of the marketplace, we need immigrants who will fill jobs, launch businesses, and contribute to long-term economic prosperity. With half of Silicon Valley companies having an immigration founder or co-founder, the economic argument is very clear. Providing a pathway to citizenship for those who already are here and adopting measures that help highly educated immigrants in science, technology, engineering, and math stay here are vital for American prosperity. Congress should seize the moment and take action in this crucial area.
|
West 1/28 – VP and Director of Governance Studies @ Brookings (Darrell, “Time to Address Immigration Reform”, http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2013/01/28-immigration-reform-west, CMR)
|
In many sectors, there are worker shortages that cannot be filled by available American workers. this is a mismatch in worker supply and demand across industry sectors and geographic areas. the U S has worker shortages we need immigrants who will fill jobs, launch businesses, and contribute to long-term economic prosperity With half of Silicon Valley companies having an immigration founder or co-founder, the economic argument is very clear. Providing a pathway to citizenship and adopting measures that help highly educated immigrants stay here are vital for American prosperity.
|
Reform key to growth – skilled labor shortages
| 1,518 | 47 | 583 | 241 | 8 | 89 | 0.033195 | 0.369295 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,835 |
Long-term demographic and educational trends are changing the native-born workforce. U.S. families are having fewer children. Baby boomers are retiring. Perhaps most significant, Americans are increasingly educated. In 1960, half of the native-born men in the U.S. workforce had dropped out of high school and were doing unskilled work; today, the figure is less than 10 percent. Yet if anything, our need for unskilled labor is growing. New technologies and foreign competitors have forced many industries to restructure in ways that increase their dependence on less skilled workers--meatpacking is the classic example. And Americans across the socioeconomic spectrum rely on a growing service sector: everything from fast-food restaurants to healthcare for the elderly. Even in the downturn, this gap between supply and demand is filled by immigrants. Immigration reform would boost U.S. economic performance by providing legal low-skilled workers to fuel the future growth of these sectors--workers we will need more and more as the economy recovers.
|
Tamar Jacoby, 3/14/2011 (President, ImmigrationWorks USA, “Immigration Reform and U.S. Economic Performance,” http://www.cfr.org/immigration /immigration-reform-us-economic-performance/p24358, Accessed 1/23/2013, rwg)
|
if anything, our need for unskilled labor is growing. Immigration reform would boost U.S. economic performance by providing legal low-skilled workers to fuel the future growth of these sectors--workers we will need more and more as the economy recovers.
|
Immigration reform boosts US economy:
| 1,054 | 37 | 253 | 157 | 5 | 39 | 0.031847 | 0.248408 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,836 |
Thirdly, there's less money going into the stock markets and bank loans are harder to get, which means that many small firms and startups working on the breakthrough green technologies of tomorrow can have trouble getting funds or can even go bankrupt, especially if their clients or backers decide to make cuts.¶ Fourthly, during economic crises, voters want the government to appear to be doing something about the economy (even if it's government that screwed things up in the first place). They'll accept all kinds of measures and laws, including those that aren't good for the environment. Massive corn subsidies anyone? Don't even think about progress on global warming...
|
Michael Graham Richard, 2/6/2008 (“Counter-Point: 4 Reasons Why Recession is BAD for the Environment,” http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/02/4_reasons_recession _bad_environment.php, Accessed 11/7/2012, rwg)
|
there's less money going into the stock markets and bank loans are harder to get, which means that many small firms and startups working on the breakthrough green technologies of tomorrow can have trouble getting funds or can even go bankrupt Fourthly, during economic crises, voters want the government to appear to be doing something about the economy They'll accept all kinds of measures and laws, including those that aren't good for the environment Don't even think about progress on global warming
|
Economic crisis blocks solutions to global warming:
| 678 | 51 | 503 | 109 | 7 | 82 | 0.06422 | 0.752294 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,837 |
These breaches show that no one is immune: the current cybersecurity infrastructure, based on voluntary security measures and marginal incentives, is woefully inadequate. The sum of exploitable vulnerabilities in U.S. critical infrastructure, financial, and defense contracting companies undermines U.S. national economic competitiveness. This is not a hypothetical or apoplectic assertion - weak cybersecurity has enabled U.S. adversaries to pilfer sensitive military technology and obtain information in advance of global summits, eroding America’s economic, political, and military strength.
|
Katrina Timlin, (Research Assistant for the Technology and Public Policy Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies), “Partisanship jeopardizes U.S. cyber defense,” Feb. 24, 2012. Retrieved May 11, 2012 at http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/24/partisanship-jeopardizes-u-s-cyber-defense/)
|
the current cybersecurity infrastructure, based on voluntary security measures and marginal incentives, is woefully inadequate. The sum of exploitable vulnerabilities in U.S. critical infrastructure, financial, and defense contracting companies undermines U.S. national economic competitiveness. This is not a hypothetical or apoplectic assertion - weak cybersecurity has enabled U.S. adversaries to pilfer sensitive military technology and obtain information in advance of global summits, eroding America’s economic, political, and military strength
|
Inadequate cyber-security threatens US leadership:
| 594 | 50 | 550 | 77 | 5 | 69 | 0.064935 | 0.896104 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,838 |
This is a good first step. If we are going to defend ourselves from 21st century threats, we need to change the way we look at cyber warfare. We must educate Americans about the real dangers that cyber-attacks pose and encourage our students to study computer science to create a new generation of professionals who know how to safeguard our nation against cyber terrorism. In addition, we must not be afraid to use our intelligence and technology to our advantage. If America wants to remain a super power and maintain a strong geopolitical standing, we must use every weapon at our disposal to protect ourselves.
|
Stephanie Dreyer, (staff writer) (“Cyber Warfare: The War America is Losing,” Jan. 2012 http://www.policymic.com/articles/3645/cyber-warfare-the-war-america-is-losing
|
This is a good first step. If we are going to defend ourselves from 21st century threats, we need to change the way we look at cyber warfare. We must educate Americans about the real dangers that cyber-attacks pose and encourage our students to study computer science to create a new generation of professionals who know how to safeguard our nation against cyber terrorism If America wants to remain a super power and maintain a strong geopolitical standing, we must use every weapon at our disposal to protect ourselves.
|
Cyber-warfare capabilities key to hegemony:
| 614 | 43 | 521 | 105 | 5 | 89 | 0.047619 | 0.847619 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,839 |
There is no viable alternative grand strategy for the United States than primacy. Primacy is the best and most effective means to maintain the security and safety of the United States for the reasons I argued in chapter 1. However, it is also the best because every other grand strategic “alternative” is a chimera and can only weaken the United States, threaten the security and safety of the American people, and introduce great peril for the United States and for other countries. A large part of what makes primacy such a success is that other countries know where the United States stands, what it will defend, and that it will be involved in disputes, both great and small. Accordingly, other countries have to respect the interests of the United States or face the consequences. Offshore balancing incurs the risks of primacy without its benefits. It pledges that the United States will defend its interests with air power and sea power, but not land power. hat is curious because we could defend our interests with land power but choose not to, suggesting our threat to defend is not serious, which weakens our credibility and invites challenges to the interests of the United States Offshore balancing increases the probability of conflict for the United States. It raises the danger that the interests of the United States will be challenged not only from foes like China and Iran, but, perversely, also from countries now allied with the United States like Japan and Turkey.
|
Thayer 07 (Bradley A.; Associate Professor in the Dept. of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State University; American Empire: A Debate – Reply to Christopher Lane: The Strength of American Empire; pg 103)
|
There is no viable alternative grand strategy for the United States than primacy. A large part of what makes primacy such a success is that other countries know where the United States stands, what it will defend, and that it will be involved in disputes, both great and small. Accordingly, other countries have to respect the interests of the United States or face the consequences. Offshore balancing incurs the risks of primacy without its benefits. It pledges that the United States will defend its interests with air power and sea power, but not land power. hat is curious because we could defend our interests with land power but choose not to, suggesting our threat to defend is not serious, which weakens our credibility and invites challenges to the interests of the United States . It raises the danger that the interests of the United States will be challenged not only from foes like China and Iran, but, perversely, also from countries now allied with the United States
|
Collapse guarantees multiple conflicts globally
| 1,487 | 48 | 984 | 250 | 5 | 167 | 0.02 | 0.668 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,840 |
A world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and receptive to American values--democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, renegade states, and low level conflicts. Finally, US leadership would help preclude the rise of another global rival, enabling the US and the world to avoid another cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange.
|
Zalmay Khalilzad (Dep. Secretary of Defense) Spring 1995 The Washington Quarterly
|
A world in which the United States exercises leadership would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, renegade states, and low level conflicts. Finally, US leadership would help preclude the rise of another global rival, enabling the US and the world to avoid another cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange.
|
U.S. hegemony solves nuclear war
| 605 | 33 | 421 | 95 | 5 | 67 | 0.052632 | 0.705263 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,841 |
Few political acts would have a greater effect on U.S.-Latin American relations than the naturalization of millions of Hispanics over the next decade. President Obama announced that immigration reform would be a legislative priority in his second term during the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena.¶ It is not only a domestic but a foreign policy promise. The countries that have the largest number of undocumented immigrants in the United States are the same ones that have free-trade agreements: Mexico, Central America, and Colombia. These are also the countries with the greatest need for a coordinated effort against organized crime and drug and arms trafficking.¶ Establishing a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants would make border control more manageable, and it would also lead to greater demand for the legal immigration of families and circular movement between the United States and immigrants’ countries of origin. Comprehensive U.S. immigration reform would have a very significant positive impact on tourism, remittances, investment, and the voting preferences of expatriates from those countries.
|
Arturo Lopez-Levy, 11/24/2012 (doctoral candidate at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies of the University of Denver, “The Latin American Gorilla,” http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/opinion/the-latin-american-gorilla-318169.html, Accessed 1/23/2013, rwg)
|
Few political acts would have a greater effect on U.S.-Latin American relations than the naturalization of millions of Hispanics over the next decade Obama announced that immigration reform would be a legislative priority in his second term during the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena.¶ It is not only a domestic but a foreign policy promise. Comprehensive U.S. immigration reform would have a very significant positive impact on tourism, remittances, investment
|
Immigration reform key to US-Latin American relations:
| 1,137 | 54 | 465 | 171 | 7 | 71 | 0.040936 | 0.415205 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,842 |
Extreme weather conditions may cause population shifts and decreased agricultural output. Humanity might face the ultimate test of survival. Climate modelers have been cautiously predicting that the earth will gradually warm in the years ahead, producing similarly gradual changes in climatic patterns. For instance, the middle of North America will slowly grow arid.
|
Milbrath, 1994 climatologist, ’94 (The Futurist, May 1994; Lexis)
|
Extreme weather conditions may cause population shifts and decreased agricultural output. Humanity might face the ultimate test of survival. Climate modelers have been cautiously predicting that the earth will gradually warm in the years ahead
|
(--) Extend our Shifter evidence—strong US Latin American relations are key to solving warming, proliferation, and the spread of democracy—not only does it outweigh their AFF, it prevents AFF solvency on any of these questions…
| 367 | 227 | 243 | 53 | 35 | 35 | 0.660377 | 0.660377 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,843 |
This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness.
|
Diamond, 1995 senior research fellow at Hoover Institution, 95 (Larry, Promoting Democracy in the 1990s: Actors and Instruments, Issues and Imperatives, A Report to the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict, December 1995, p. 6)
|
In the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness.
|
(--) And…Democracy promotion key to preventing inevitable extinction
| 811 | 68 | 477 | 116 | 8 | 68 | 0.068966 | 0.586207 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,844 |
There are many other reasons why Latin America is important to U.S. interests.¶ It is a market for more than 20% of U.S. exports. With the notable exception of Cuba, it is nearly entirely governed by democratically elected governments — a point that gets repeated ad nauseum at every possible regional meeting. The Western Hemisphere is a major source of energy that has the highest potential to seriously reduce dependence on Middle East supply. And through immigration, Latin America has close personal and cultural ties to the United States. These have been boilerplate talking points since the early 1990s.
|
Christopher Sabatini, 6/13/2012 (staff writer, “Why the U.S. can't afford to ignore Latin America,”http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/13/why-the-u-s-cant-afford-to-ignore-latin-america/, Accessed 1/24/2013, rwg)
|
There are many other reasons why Latin America is important to U.S. interests The Western Hemisphere is a major source of energy that has the highest potential to seriously reduce dependence on Middle East supply
|
Latin American relations decrease oil dependence on the Middle East:
| 610 | 68 | 212 | 99 | 10 | 35 | 0.10101 | 0.353535 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,845 |
As long as the US chooses the Grab the Oil alternative, the implications for national policy are inescapable. The combination of all these facts—fixed supply, rapid depletion, lack of alternatives, severity of consequences, and hostility of current stockholding countries—drive the US to HAVE to adopt an aggressive (pre-emptive) military posture and to carry out a nakedly colonial expropriation of resources from weaker countries around the world. This is why the US operates some 700 military bases around the world and spends over half a trillion dollars per year on military affairs, more than all the rest of the world—its “allies” included—combined. This is why the Defense Department’s latest Quadrennial Review stated, “The US must retain the capability to send well-armed and logistically supported forces to critical points around the globe, even in the face of enemy opposition.” This is why Pentagon brass say internally that current force levels are inadequate to the strategic challenges they face and that they will have to re-instate the draft after the 2004 elections. But the provocation occasioned by grabbing the oil, especially from nations ideologically hostile to the US, means that military attacks on the US and the recourse to military responses will only intensify until the US is embroiled in unending global conflict.
|
Robert Freeman, 2004 writer on economics and education, March 1, 2004, http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0301-12.htm
|
fixed supply, rapid depletion, lack of alternatives, severity of consequences, and hostility of current stockholding countries—drive the US to HAVE to adopt an aggressive (pre-emptive) military posture and to carry out a nakedly colonial expropriation of resources from weaker countries around the world. This is why the US operates some 700 military bases around the world and spends over half a trillion dollars per year on military affairs the provocation occasioned by grabbing the oil, especially from nations ideologically hostile to the US, means that military attacks on the US and the recourse to military responses will only intensify until the US is embroiled in unending global conflict.
|
Oil dependency ensures perpetual intervention and global wars
| 1,347 | 61 | 699 | 210 | 8 | 108 | 0.038095 | 0.514286 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,846 |
Even a cursory examination of the numbers points to how much the United States depends on the region for oil and minerals. Latin America accounts for a third of US oil imports. Mexico is the second-biggest supplier after Canada. Venezuela, Brazil, and Colombia sit among the top dozen, and
|
Shifter 12 (Michael is the President of Inter-American Dialogue. “Remaking the Relationship: The United States and Latin America,” April, IAD Policy Report, http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012Policy ReportFINAL.pdf, Accessed 1/23/2013, rwg)
|
Even a cursory examination of the numbers points to how much the United States depends on the region for oil Latin America accounts for a third of US oil imports.
|
Latin American relations solve oil dependence:
| 289 | 46 | 162 | 49 | 6 | 30 | 0.122449 | 0.612245 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,847 |
But the need to shore up our allies and recognize legitimate threats south of the Rio Grande goes to the heart of the U.S.’ changing role in the world and its strategic interests within it.¶ Here are three reasons why the U.S. must include Latin America in its strategic calculations:¶ 1. Today, pursuing a global foreign policy requires regional allies.¶ Recently, countries with emerging economies have appeared to be taking positions diametrically opposed to the U.S. when it comes to matters of global governance and human rights. Take, for example, Russia and China’s stance on Syria, rejecting calls for intervention.¶ Another one of the BRICS, Brazil, tried to stave off the tightening of U.N. sanctions on Iran two years ago. And last year, Brazil also voiced its official opposition to intervention in Libya, leading political scientist Randall Schweller to refer to Brazil as “a rising spoiler.”¶ At a time of (perceived) declining U.S. influence, it’s important that America deepens its ties with regional allies that might have been once taken for granted. As emerging nations such as Brazil clamor for permanent seats on the U.N. Security Council and more representatives in the higher reaches of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the U.S. will need to integrate them into global decision-making rather than isolate them.¶ If not, they could be a thorn in the side of the U.S. as it tries to implement its foreign policy agenda. Worse, they could threaten to undermine efforts to defend international norms and human rights.
|
Christopher Sabatini, 6/13/2012 (staff writer, “Why the U.S. can't afford to ignore Latin America,”http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/13/why-the-u-s-cant-afford-to-ignore-latin-america/, Accessed 1/24/2013, rwg)
|
the need to shore up our allies and recognize legitimate threats south of the Rio Grande goes to the heart of the U.S.’ changing role in the world and its strategic interests pursuing a global foreign policy requires regional allies. Recently, countries with emerging economies have appeared to be taking positions diametrically opposed to the U.S. when it comes to matters of global governance Brazil, tried to stave off the tightening of U.N. sanctions on Iran two years ago. And last year, Brazil also voiced its official opposition to intervention in Libya At a time of (perceived) declining U.S. influence, it’s important that America deepens its ties with regional allies that might have been once taken for granted the U.S. will need to integrate them into global decision-making rather than isolate them.¶ If not, they could be a thorn in the side of the U.S. as it tries to implement its foreign policy agenda.
|
Latin American relations key to US soft power:
| 1,555 | 46 | 919 | 253 | 8 | 154 | 0.031621 | 0.608696 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,848 |
It’s also clear that countries such as Brazil and Venezuela present their own challenges to U.S. influence in the region and even on the world forum.¶ The U.S. must embed its Latin America relations in the conceptual framework and strategy that it has for the rest of the world, rather than just focus on human rights and development as it often does toward southern neighbors such as Cuba.
|
Christopher Sabatini, 6/13/2012 (staff writer, “Why the U.S. can't afford to ignore Latin America,”http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/13/why-the-u-s-cant-afford-to-ignore-latin-america/, Accessed 1/24/2013, rwg)
|
It’s also clear that countries such as Brazil and Venezuela present their own challenges to U.S. influence in the region and even on the world forum The U.S. must embed its Latin America relations in the conceptual framework and strategy that it has for the rest of the world
|
Brazil & Venezuela can threaten US soft power:
| 390 | 46 | 275 | 68 | 8 | 49 | 0.117647 | 0.720588 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,849 |
But over in the House is a different picture. There are some emerging signs of trouble on the other side of the Capitol for comprehensive reform advocates. Here are the three biggest ones:¶ 1. An unruly GOP Conference: The House’s failure to pass a farm bill Thursday was a stark reminder that the lower chamber’s Republican Conference just can’t be led right now. Most Democrats voted against the bill, but they were joined by enough conservatives who opposed it from the right to sink the measure. From the “Plan B” debacle in last year’s debate over tax rates to a recent effort to ban abortions after 20 weeks, the conservative wing of the House has made its voice heard on multiple occasions. So if the Senate passes an immigration bill by a wide margin, it remains to be seen whether that impresses anyone on the conservative side of the GOP Conference enough to shift their views. Given the track record of House Republicans, it could be a hard sell even if the Senate bill gets 70+ votes.¶ 2. Bohener’s Hastert Rule remark: House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) vowed this week not to bring an immigration bill to the floor that did not have the support of a majority of House Republicans. Setting such a condition in advance only narrows the path to passage. Boehner didn’t rule out relying on Democrats to pass a final version of immigration legislation that could be negotiated between the House and the Senate. But the last thing he needs right now for his own political future is to stoke more anger within his conference. Boehner will face pressure from Senate Republicans, donors, and other GOP players to get immigration reform done. But he’s making clear early that despite all that, he’s not going to walk away from his conference to get a deal done. And that hard line will make it more difficult for reform to happen, given the opposition on the right to pillars of the Senate bill.¶ 3. The GOP primary threat: This isn’t new this week but it bears repeating, because, as the gun debate showed, it doesn’t matter what public opinion says or what other external factors exist, members of Congress will ultimately prioritize the outlook of their constituents over whichever way the national conversation is leaning. If they don’t, they up the chances of losing their jobs. Redistricting has contributed to a situation in which many House Republicans represent safe GOP districts in which the threat of a primary is worth more worry than being defeated in the general election. A vote for immigration reform could become an easy way for potential challengers to get to the right of incumbents in some Republican districts. And rest assured, GOP members will not lose sight of that.
|
Sean Sullivan, 6/21/2013 (staff writer, “Three signs of trouble for immigration reform in the House,” Retrieved 6/22/2013 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/06/21/three-signs-of-trouble-for-immigration-reform-in-the-house/)
|
There are some emerging signs of trouble on the other side of the Capitol for comprehensive reform advocates. Here are the three biggest ones An unruly GOP Conference: The House’s failure to pass a farm bill Thursday was a stark reminder that the lower chamber’s Republican Conference just can’t be led right now . Bohener’s Hastert Rule remark: House Speaker John Boehner vowed this week not to bring an immigration bill to the floor that did not have the support of a majority of House Republicans. Setting such a condition in advance only narrows the path to passage The GOP primary threat: This isn’t new this week but it bears repeating, because, as the gun debate showed, it doesn’t matter what public opinion says or what other external factors exist, members of Congress will ultimately prioritize the outlook of their constituents over whichever way the national conversation is leaning A vote for immigration reform could become an easy way for potential challengers to get to the right of incumbents in some Republican districts. And rest assured, GOP members will not lose sight of that.
|
1) Counter-interpretation: Judge should act as an independent agent assessing whether or not the plan should be done. Judge shouldn’t operate as an individual member of Congress—if the plan would drain away from Obama’s ability to pass other legislation, it is a bad idea.
| 2,696 | 272 | 1,099 | 465 | 44 | 184 | 0.094624 | 0.395699 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,850 |
But there’s something else involved as well. Under Obama, the presidency has been in decline. His use of the budget as a ploy against Republicans is an example of this. The biggest domestic issue is the looming fiscal crisis, but Obama has addressed it only rhetorically. Instead he’s used the budget largely as a political tool that cheapened the presidency.¶ Other presidents have done this, but far less crassly or brazenly. At least they presented their budgets on time, as required by law. Obama was two months late. He erased one of Washington’s oldest adages: The president proposes, Congress disposes. By last week, both the Senate and House had already passed budget resolutions. ¶ Obama’s tardiness touches on another aspect of presidential decline: the loss of influence. By long tradition, any release of the budget produced by the White House was a major event. True, the impact of the president’s budget has waned in recent years. Obama has made it an afterthought.¶ On Capitol Hill today, Obama has scarcely any clout at all. One reason: He acts as if spending time with members of Congress, even Democrats, is an unpleasant chore. Another reason: Having deferred to Democrats in his first term, he finds it difficult to pull rank on them in his second. And having ignored or alienated Republicans, he isn’t likely to achieve much by courting them over dinner in recent weeks.¶ Immigration and gun control are the dominant issues in Congress at the moment, and Obama is a major player on neither of them. The “gang of eight”—four Democrats, four Republicans—is the driving force on immigration in the Senate. Obama is no force at all.
|
Fred Barnes, 4/22/2013 (staff writer, “The Decline of Obama,” http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/decline-obama_716280.html?page=1, Accessed 4/25/2013, rwg)
|
Under Obama, the presidency has been in decline On Capitol Hill today, Obama has scarcely any clout at all. Immigration and gun control are the dominant issues in Congress at the moment, and Obama is a major player on neither of them. The “gang of eight”— is the driving force on immigration in the Senate. Obama is no force at all.
|
(--) Obama has no capital for immigration reform:
| 1,649 | 49 | 332 | 277 | 8 | 61 | 0.028881 | 0.220217 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,851 |
The second-term honeymoon for President Obama is beginning to look like it is over.¶ Obama, who was riding high after his reelection win in November, has seen his poll numbers take a precipitous fall in recent weeks. ¶ A CNN poll released Tuesday showed Obama’s favorability rating underwater, with 47 percent approving and 50 percent disapproving of Obama’s handling of his job. ¶ Much of the president’s agenda is stuck, with climate change regulations delayed, immigration reform mired in committee negotiations and prospects for a grand bargain budget deal in limbo at best. ¶ On Tuesday, in a decision that underscored Obama’s depleting political capital, the White House watched as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced only a watered-down version of Obama’s gun control proposals would be considered on the Senate floor. ¶ Republicans, sensing the sea change, are licking their chops. They point to the lack of movement on Obama’s signature issues, noting the contrast to the ambitious plans outlined in the early weeks of his second term.¶ “The president set very high goals for himself during his State of the Union, but the reality is very little of his agenda is actually moving,” Republican strategist Ron Bonjean said. “He allowed himself to get caught up in the legislative quicksand, [and] the cement is beginning to harden. “¶ History isn’t on Obama’s side. ¶ The last four presidents who won a second term all saw their poll numbers slide by mid-March with the exception of Bill Clinton, whose numbers improved in the four months following his reelection.¶ Clinton may have only been delaying the inevitable. His numbers dropped 5 points in April 1994. Even Ronald Reagan, buoyed by a dominant performance over Walter Mondale in the 1984 election, saw a double-digit erosion by this point in his second term.¶ Obama has yet to complete the first 100 days of his second term. But without a signature achievement since his reelection, he faces a crossroads that could define the remainder of his presidency. ¶ White House aides maintain that the 24-hour news cycle makes comparisons to previous presidents difficult.¶ “I think the nature of our politics now is different than Ronald Reagan’s honeymoon,” one senior administration official said. “The ebb and flow of politics doesn’t follow that model anymore.”¶ But observers say a drop in popularity is typical for second-termers.¶ “There may be some typical second-term honeymoon fade happening,” said Martin Sweet, an assistant visiting professor of political science at Northwestern University. “Honeymoon periods for incumbents are a bit more ephemeral.”¶ But like most other presidents, Sweet added, “Obama’s fate is tied to the economy.”¶ “Continuing economic progress would ultimately strengthen the president but if we are hit with a double-dip recession, then Obama’s numbers will crater,” he said.¶ The White House disputes any notion that Obama has lost any political capital in recent weeks.¶ “The president set out an ambitious agenda and he’s doing big things that are not easy, from immigration to gun control,” the senior administration official said. “Those are policies you can’t rack up easily, and no one here is naive about that.”¶ The White House is aware that the clock is ticking to push its hefty agenda, but the official added, “The clock is not ticking because of president’s political capital. The clock is ticking because there’s a timetable in achieving all of this. [Lawmakers] are not going to sign on because the president’s popular.” ¶ And administration officials believe they still have the leverage.¶ “There’s a decent amount of momentum behind all of this,” the official said. “It looks like immigration is closer [to passage] than ever before.”¶ Republican strategist Ken Lundberg argued that current budget fights “have cut short the president’s second-term honeymoon.” ¶ He said this could also hurt the president’s party, warning “the lower the president’s approval rating, the bigger the consequence for vulnerable Democrats.”¶ “Voters want solutions, and if they see the president headed down the wrong path, lockstep lawmakers will be punished in 2014,” he said.¶ Democratic strategist Chris Kofinis maintained that as long as he’s president, Obama still has the leverage.¶ “Immigration reform doesn’t get impacted by whether Obama’s poll numbers are 55 or 45,” Kofinis said. “Does it make certain things a little more difficult? Possibly. But while his numbers may have fallen, he’s still more likeable than the Republicans are on their best day.”¶ Kofinis said the real question for Obama is what kind of emphasis he’s going to place on his second term because the public will have less patience than they did during his first.¶ “The challenge in a second term is the American people look at certain things and have a higher tolerance in a second term,” he said. “When they know you’re not running for reelection again, they hold you to a higher standard.” ¶ Bonjean and other Republicans are aware that Obama could potentially bounce back from his latest slip in the polls and regain his footing.¶ “He has the opportunity to take minor legislative victories and blow them up into major accomplishments – meaning if he got something on gun control, he can tout that that was part of his agenda and the work isn’t over. If he were able to strike a grand bargain with Republicans, that’d be a legacy issue.”
|
Amie Parnes, 3/20/2013 (staff writer, “Obama honeymoon may be over,” http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/289179-obama-honeymoon-may-be-over, Accessed 4/24/2013, rwg)
|
The second-term honeymoon for Obama is over.¶ Obama, has seen his poll numbers take a precipitous fall Much of the president’s agenda is stuck in a decision that underscored Obama’s depleting political capital, the White House watched as Reid announced only a watered-down version of Obama’s gun control proposals without a signature achievement since his reelection, he faces a crossroads that could define the remainder of his presidency Republicans are aware that Obama could potentially bounce back He has the opportunity to take minor legislative victories and blow them up into major accomplishments – meaning he can tout that that was part of his agenda and the work isn’t over.
|
(--) Obama has no PC now and winners win:
| 5,433 | 41 | 685 | 883 | 9 | 110 | 0.010193 | 0.124575 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,852 |
Senator Rand Paul joined Laura Ingraham on her radio show today to tell the group of senators working on immigration reform to make sure it appeals to House Republicans, particularly in regards to a pathway to citizenship.¶ “This isn’t passing unless it gets through a conservative House. Unless they ram it through with all Democrats in the House and a few Republicans, it’s not going to pass,” Paul said. “I think that’s an important part of this that the Gang of Eight is going to have to figure out.”¶ “I’ve told them this repeatedly in private and in public, ‘If you have a new pathway, you’re making it hard for any conservatives to get on board with this,’” he added.
|
Andrew Johnson, 4/23/2013 (staff writer, “Paul to Ingraham: Immigration Reform Must Pass GOP-Controlled House Too,” http://www.nationalreview.com/346451/paul-ingraham-immigration-reform-must-pass-gop-controlled-house, Accessed 4/24/2013, rwg)
|
the group of senators working on immigration reform to make sure it appeals to House Republicans, particularly in regards to a pathway to citizenship This isn’t passing unless it gets through a conservative House. Unless they ram it through with all Democrats in the House and a few Republicans, it’s not going to pass I’ve told them this repeatedly in private and in public, ‘If you have a new pathway, you’re making it hard for any conservatives to get on board with this,
|
House will block immigration reform:
| 674 | 36 | 474 | 120 | 5 | 83 | 0.041667 | 0.691667 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,853 |
This brings me back to immigration. The Tsarnaevs may not have derailed things, but other cracks are starting to show. Last Thursday—before we knew who the Boston bombers were—Rush Limbaugh speculated that immigration reform would constitute Republican “suicide.” A Politico article yesterday made the same point—an analysis showed that if 11 million “undocumented residents” had been able to vote in 2012, Obama might have won Arizona and would even have made a race of it in Texas. This did not go unremarked in right-wing circles yesterday. The Big Bloviator himself weighed in: “Senator Schumer can taste this. He’s so excited. All the Democrats. Why would we agree to something that they are so eager to have?”¶ Immigration is the one area today on which a small number of Republicans are actually trying. Limbaugh’s position last week is a change from a couple of months ago, when Marco Rubio had him admitting that maybe the GOP needed to embrace reform. It’s not hard to imagine him and Laura Ingraham and others turning surlier as the hour of truth on the bill approaches.¶ I will be impressed and more than a little surprised if the day comes and a majority of Republicans back an immigration bill. Passing such a bill is undoubtedly in their self-interest, as everyone has observed. What fewer have observed is that doing so is just not in their DNA. And life teaches us that genes usually get the better of reason.
|
Michael Tomasky, 4/24/2013 (staff writer, “Republicans: An Immovable Wall of Nays,” http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/24/republicans-an-immovable-wall-of-nays.html, Accessed 4/25/2013, rwg)
|
This brings me back to immigration. The Tsarnaevs may not have derailed things, but other cracks are starting to show. A Politico article yesterday made the same point—an analysis showed that if 11 million “undocumented residents” had been able to vote in 2012, Obama might have won Arizona and would even have made a race of it in Texas. This did not go unremarked in right-wing circles I will be impressed and more than a little surprised if the day comes and a majority of Republicans back an immigration bill. Passing such a bill is undoubtedly in their self-interest, as everyone has observed. What fewer have observed is that doing so is just not in their DNA. And life teaches us that genes usually get the better of reason.
|
(--) Extend our Sullivan evidence it says the GOP in the House won’t come around to voting for immigration reform—prefer our evidence it is predictive and not just a snapshot.
| 1,426 | 175 | 731 | 243 | 30 | 129 | 0.123457 | 0.530864 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,854 |
From the outside, this spring has shaped up to be a season of bipartisanship on Capitol Hill. “Gangs” of senators have hashed out agreements on guns and immigration. President Barack Obama has had two dinners with Senate Republicans and traveled to the Hill to meet with lawmakers from both chambers. But the good feelings have really been only in the Senate, and only among a minority of Republicans to boot. Toxic relationships between party leaders and partisan realities remain as strong as ever. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), for instance, still hasn’t gotten over feeling burned by December’s traumatic fiscal cliff showdown. He has signaled privately that he has no interest in even sitting in the same room as Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to discuss a possible “grand bargain” on budget and tax issues, Senate insiders tell POLITICO. McConnell is fine with talking to Obama — just talking at this point — but he doesn’t want Reid there when it happens. And while the leaders don’t get along, relationships among the other 98 senators will be tested when voting begins on the controversial gun and immigration measures — starting with this week’s expected vote on expanding background checks for firearms purchases. McConnell plans to pull out all the stops to block the bill, and GOP senators are blasting any immigration plan that they say smells of “amnesty.” That’s just the Senate. House Republicans, their own seats made even safer by redistricting, are in no hurry bring up immigration, gun control or revenue issues or cave into the Obama administration or Democrats. In May, House Republicans will hold what they are dubbing a “special conference” to plan for the summer’s policy fights with Democrats, similar to their January meeting in Williamsburg, Va., where they successfully recalibrated early year budget fights, according to GOP leadership aides. “I don’t see this as a wave and there’s something in the water that has us changed,” said Rep. James Lankford of Oklahoma, chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee. Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland seemed to agree. “On the House side, unfortunately you got a very knee-jerk ideologically rigid caucus for the most part,” said Van Hollen, the top Democrat on the Budget Committee. 9
|
JOHN BRESNAHAN and JAKE SHERMAN, 4/14/13 (staff writers, “Mitch McConnell in no mood for bipartisanship,” http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/bipartisanship-tempered-by-toxic-relationships-90043.html?hp=t1, Accessed 4/24/2013, rwg)
|
Toxic relationships between party leaders and partisan realities remain as strong as ever while the leaders don’t get along, relationships among the other 98 senators will be tested when voting begins on the controversial gun and immigration measures GOP senators are blasting any immigration plan that they say smells of “amnesty.” That’s just the Senate. House Republicans are in no hurry bring up immigration or cave into the Obama administration or Democrats “On the House side, unfortunately you got a very knee-jerk ideologically rigid caucus for the most part,
|
(--) Won’t get a vote in the House
| 2,299 | 34 | 567 | 374 | 8 | 89 | 0.02139 | 0.237968 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,855 |
Senate resistance¶ The Gang of Eight may be ideologically diverse, but that doesn’t mean there won’t be significant resistance to the plan once it’s released — especially among wary conservatives. GOP base voters remain vehemently opposed to any plan which could be construed as amnesty for those who entered the country illegally.¶ Liberal Democrats, meanwhile, remain concerned that conservatives will never agree the country’s southern border is secure, and will try to use that issue to continually deny citizenship to undocumented residents.¶ In the Senate, Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions and others have repeatedly expressed the fear that Democratic leaders will try to ram the Gang of Eight’s plan through before other members have a chance to properly consider the bill.
|
Katie DeLong, 4/7/2013 (staff writer, “Senate to debate bi-partisan immigration reform proposal Wednesday,” http://fox6now.com/2013/04/07/congress-returns-from-break-monday-immigration-reform-tops-agenda/, Accessed 4/24/2013, rwg)
|
The Gang of Eight may be ideologically diverse, but that doesn’t mean there won’t be significant resistance to the plan once it’s released — especially among wary conservatives Liberal Democrats, meanwhile, remain concerned that conservatives will never agree the country’s southern border is secure, and will try to use that issue to continually deny citizenship to undocumented residents
|
(--) Won’t pass: opposition from both Democrats and Republicans:
| 780 | 64 | 389 | 120 | 9 | 58 | 0.075 | 0.483333 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,856 |
--A bipartisan Senate group agreed, despite outcry from some conservative Republicans, on an immigration proposal to allow those who arrived in the U.S. illegally before 2012 to apply for legal status and ultimately citizenship, provided they meet other criteria.¶ --A separate group of Senate Republicans and Democrats voted to allow debate on a measure that would subject more gun buyers to background checks, beating back an effort by conservative Republicans and the National Rifle Association to thwart the legislation.¶ --Obama released a budget proposal that includes provisions to slow the growth of spending for Social Security and Medicare, cuts Republicans have long advocated, in return for raising taxes on upper incomes, extending an olive branch of sorts to the GOP.¶ All that had some GOP activists at the gathering fretting that such deal-making is exacerbating a credibility problem within the party's rank and file. These Republicans worry that the party already has ceded too much to Obama. They cited Republicans voting in Obama's first term to authorize increasing the nation's debt ceiling, and the "fiscal cliff" debate in which a minority of House Republicans agreed to Obama's demand for income tax hikes on the wealthiest Americans.¶ "People saw us as the compromise party that kept on buckling," Iowa Republican Party Chairman A.J. Spiker said. "It sends the message that people cannot trust us on our principles."¶ The RNC chairman is among those showing little willingness to budge.¶ "When it comes to compromise, I think our party has done its fair share, and it doesn't seem like we get a whole lot in return," Priebus told The Associated Press this week. "The president has proven to be a person that generally does things for political purposes and gain ... in order to make the greater point that somehow the Republicans aren't coming on board."
|
Associated Press, 4/14/2013 (“RNC splits on deals as Congress weighs compromises,” www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/14/rnc-splits-on-deals-as-congress-weighs-compromises/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+(Internal+-+Politics+-+Text, Accessed 4/24/2013, rwg)
|
A bipartisan Senate group agreed, despite outcry from some conservative Republicans, on an immigration proposal All that had some GOP activists at the gathering fretting that such deal-making is exacerbating a credibility problem These Republicans worry that the party already has ceded too much to Obama. The RNC chairman is among those showing little willingness to budge. When it comes to compromise, I think our party has done its fair share, and it doesn't seem like we get a whole lot in return
|
(--) Non-Unique: conservatives won’t compromise on immigration reform:
| 1,880 | 70 | 500 | 303 | 8 | 83 | 0.026403 | 0.273927 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,857 |
Such is life in Congress, where hope of bipartisanship is giving way to the same old toxic relations.¶ From the outside, the Senate appeared to have the bipartisan thing down this spring: so called “gangs” of senators have hashed out agreements on guns and immigration. President Barack Obama has had two dinners with Senate Republicans and traveled up to the Hill to meet with lawmakers from both chambers.¶ But the good feelings have really been only in the Senate, and only among a minority of Republicans to boot. Bad blood remains between party leaders and the national partisan realities haven’t changed.
|
JOHN BRESNAHAN and JAKE SHERMAN, 4/14/13 (staff writers, “Mitch McConnell in no mood for bipartisanship,” http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/bipartisanship-tempered-by-toxic-relationships-90043.html?hp=t1, Accessed 4/24/2013, rwg)
|
hope of bipartisanship is giving way to the same old toxic relations the good feelings have really been only in the Senate, and only among a minority of Republicans to boot. Bad blood remains between party leaders and the national partisan realities haven’t changed.
|
(--) Partisanship is high now:
| 610 | 30 | 266 | 101 | 5 | 44 | 0.049505 | 0.435644 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,858 |
On the immigration front, while the bipartisan Gang of Eight that includes Durbin and Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), have the outline of a deal that could reach the Senate floor this summer, the knives are already out from the right as “amnesty for illegal immigrants.”¶ Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) blasted the proposal on “Fox News Sunday,” and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, a GOP rising star, has also criticized the plan.
|
JOHN BRESNAHAN and JAKE SHERMAN, 4/14/13 (staff writers, “Mitch McConnell in no mood for bipartisanship,” http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/bipartisanship-tempered-by-toxic-relationships-90043.html?hp=t1, Accessed 4/24/2013, rwg)
|
the knives are already out from the right as “amnesty for illegal immigrants.”¶ Sessions blasted the proposal on “Fox News Sunday,” and Cruz a GOP rising star, has also criticized the plan.
|
(--) Conservatives bashing immigration reform now:
| 442 | 50 | 189 | 75 | 6 | 32 | 0.08 | 0.426667 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,859 |
President Obama has a big second-term agenda, but he faces a make-or-break stretch during the next couple of months on two big issues.¶ He has made gun control and immigration reform top priorities, but neither is close to getting to his desk.
|
The Hill, 3/9/2013 (“Crucial stretch for Obama,” http://thehill.com/opinion/editorials/289159-crucial-stretch-for-obama, Accessed 4/24/2013, rwg)
|
Obama has a big second-term agenda, but he faces a make-or-break stretch during the next couple of months on two big issues.¶ He has made gun control and immigration reform top priorities, but neither is close to getting to his desk
|
(--) Immigration reform won’t make it to Obama’s desk:
| 243 | 54 | 232 | 42 | 9 | 41 | 0.214286 | 0.97619 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,860 |
The immigration Gang of Eight this week vowed to release bill language next month. By all accounts, those promises are expected to be kept. But there has been friction on the issue between important stakeholders, the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. If those differences are not resolved, the bill will teeter.
|
The Hill, 3/9/2013 (“Crucial stretch for Obama,” http://thehill.com/opinion/editorials/289159-crucial-stretch-for-obama, Accessed 4/24/2013, rwg)
|
The immigration Gang of Eight this week vowed to release bill language next month But there has been friction on the issue between important stakeholders, the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. If those differences are not resolved, the bill will teeter.
|
(--) Won’t pass: friction between unions and the Chamber of Commerce:
| 319 | 69 | 261 | 53 | 11 | 43 | 0.207547 | 0.811321 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,861 |
The next few months offer the best chance in a generation for the two parties to solve a problem that has bedeviled Congress like few others. Both sides agree the U.S. immigration system is broken. Both would seem to gain from a deal that clears a pathway out of legal oblivion for the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants. Support is building for a landmark pact. But while negotiations are progressing in both the House and Senate, an agreement is a long way off. As the talks grow more detailed, obstacles to a deal may begin to emerge:¶ Problem #1: The Gang of Eight¶ The first snag lurks in the Senate, where the so-called Gang of Eight has huddled privately since the election in hopes of hammering out a bill. Members have crafted a set of measures that would create a pathway to citizenship for the nation’s estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants within about 13 years while requiring them to register with federal authorities, pay back taxes and fines, learn English and undergo background checks. The deal, both sides agree, would also beef up border security and determine how the future flow of immigrants will be regulated to match the needs of the economy.¶ (MORE: Rand Paul Embraces Immigration Reform)¶ The Gang’s closed conclaves have been marked by Vatican-style secrecy, often a sign of progress in a town where silence is rare. The Gang’s members – Republicans Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Jeff Flake, and Democrats Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Bob Menendez and Michael Bennet – have, by all accounts, developed a rapport. “You can tell by the tone of their voices,” says an elected Democrat briefed on the progress of the private talks.¶ But the broad themes are the easy part. The full bill will stretch to hundreds of pages, each peppered with detailed provisions that could spike it. Members bring clashing political imperatives and ideologies to the talks. Rubio, for example, is trying to repair the GOP’s tattered image with Hispanic voters without sparking a backlash among the movement conservatives he’d need in a presidential bid. Graham, who faces a probable primary challenge in 2014, has a habit of basking in the bipartisan spotlight before bolting when negotiations intensify. The measure of the Gang of Eight’s success isn’t whether they are aligned at the start of their talks. It’s whether they are all aligned at the end.¶ Problem #2: The Lobbyists¶ A few years ago, an impasse between the leaders of the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO helped scupper an immigration-reform bill backed by President George W. Bush. At that time, business and labor could not agree on how many visas to grant low skilled workers who make the construction, agriculture and hotel and restaurant industries hum. The Chamber wanted cheap labor, but didn’t want workers to stay; unions were concerned about protecting citizens’ jobs. Soon after, reform collapsed.¶ This time the two groups have nurtured an unlikely alliance. “There has been a sea change,” says a labor source close to the discussions. Nudged by Graham and Schumer, the two lobbies released a set of shared principles, including one stating that Americans should get “first crack” at available jobs and that businesses should have the flexibility to hire to meet the demands of the market. But history could repeat itself again. The two sides call for a new federal agency charged with setting visa levels, but they have yet to agree on who’s eligible or how the new bureau will work. The issue of future flow has been a stubborn sticking point before. And it is as easy to imagine conservatives balking at efforts to create a new government agency as it is to foresee unions drawing a line at a small number of foreign workers.¶ (MORE: Committee to Save the GOP Says Pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Become Inclusive to Gays or Keep Losing)¶ Problem #3: House Republicans¶ Even if Senate negotiators can come up with a package to get 60 votes in the upper chamber, “the question continues to be, how does it get through the House?” says Frank Sharry, an expert on immigration reform. As in the Senate, a bipartisan cluster of eight representatives from across the ideological spectrum have been secretly meeting for months. Congressman Luis Gutierrez, an Illinois Democrat who has long been a leader on immigration reform, is full of praise for the new tack taken by his Republican counterparts. But, he acknowledges, “You still have to put those votes on the board, and that’s going to be a real, real test in the House of Representatives.”¶ For their part, Republicans say the party’s old dogma, which held that illegal immigrants should self-deport and then go to the back of the line, is not viable policy. Even many immigration hard-liners say they want to help shape comprehensive reform. “It’s time for us to belly up to the bar,” says Ted Poe, the Texas Republican who chairs the House immigration reform caucus. But for conservatives, amnesty remains a dirty word. “A bill that’s basically amnesty, that says you’re here and you’re going to be a citizen — those two things are not going to come out of this conservative House,” says Poe. Even citizenship is charged enough that Republican Senator Rand Paul, who gave a speech March 19 backing a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants, avoided using the term. Many House Republicans, including several in the Judiciary Committee through which a bill must pass, have a long history of antipathy to amnesty, and only a grassroots rebellion to fear as next year’s primaries approach.¶ Then there is the reality that even if Republicans were to be widely supportive of amnesty, very few of those new citizens are likely to abandon the Democratic Party anytime soon. “Republicans face a choice: do they ditch their principles and go all out in a failing attempt to outpander Democrats?” asks Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations at NumbersUSA, which advocates for lower immigration levels. “It’s becoming very clear to Republicans in Congress that this is not going to get them the Hispanic vote.”¶ (MORE: The Plight of the “Illegal” Nanny)¶ Problem #4: The Democrats¶ Little discussed but also looming is the possibility that Democrats drag their feet on reform. Liberals will balk if the path to citizenship is too long or too onerous, or if enforcement provisions are too rigid. Many conservatives also suspect that Democratic power brokers, despite their daily hammering of Republicans to get moving on immigration reform, would privately prefer to keep the issue as a cudgel than actually pass a law. Barack Obama “wants to make a bill come out of the Senate that is so far out there that it would never pass, so that he can blame us for not being compassionate and use the issue to take back the House in 2014,” says a House Republican. Even some liberals see this as a plausible scenario. “There’s always a lingering doubt in my mind,” admits one House Democrat. Obama knows that putting his fingerprints on the deal is an easy way to kill it; when a draft of his proposal leaked in the press, he called Republican negotiators individually to apologize. But if negotiations in Congress bog down, he may not be so hands off.
|
Alex Altman, 3/20/2013 (staff writer, “Four Hurdles That Could Block Immigration Reform,” http://swampland.time.com/2013/03/20/four-hurdles-that-could-block-immigration-reform/, Accessed 4/24/2013, rwg)
|
Both sides agree the U.S. immigration system is broken while negotiations are progressing in both the House and Senate, an agreement is a long way off. As the talks grow more detailed, obstacles to a deal may begin to emerge:¶ Problem #1: The Gang of Eight¶ The full bill will stretch to hundreds of pages, each peppered with detailed provisions that could spike it. Members bring clashing political imperatives and ideologies to the talks Problem #2: The Lobbyists¶ A few years ago, an impasse between the leaders of the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO helped scupper an immigration-reform bill backed by Bush. reform collapsed. Problem #3: House Republicans¶ Even if Senate negotiators can come up with a package to get 60 votes in the upper chamber, “the question continues to be, how does it get through the House?” You still have to put those votes on the board, and that’s going to be a real, real test in the House Problem #4: The Democrats¶ Little discussed but also looming is the possibility that Democrats drag their feet on reform. Liberals will balk if the path to citizenship is too long or too onerous Democratic power brokers would privately prefer to keep the issue as a cudgel than actually pass a law.
|
(--) Won’t pass: 4 reasons--
| 7,223 | 28 | 1,224 | 1,216 | 5 | 212 | 0.004112 | 0.174342 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,862 |
The bully pulpit has served Obama poorly, as it has every president since Reagan. Obama, however, was expected to be more eloquent than his predecessors, thus able to generate enthusiasm for his initiatives. If anything, he’s generating indifference. His speeches on health care failed to stop Obamacare from losing popularity. His speeches on gun control failed similarly.
|
Fred Barnes, 4/22/2013 (staff writer, “The Decline of Obama,” http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/decline-obama_716280.html?page=1, Accessed 4/25/2013, rwg)
|
The bully pulpit has served Obama poorly, as it has every president since Reagan. Obama, however, was expected to be more eloquent His speeches on health care failed to stop Obamacare from losing popularity. His speeches on gun control failed similarly.
|
(--) Extend our Barnes evidence—Obama is out of political capital—Obama isn’t a major player on either guns or immigration—this also takes out their internal link as Obama isn’t pushing immigration.
| 373 | 198 | 253 | 57 | 30 | 41 | 0.526316 | 0.719298 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,863 |
The challenge for President Obama’s speech is the challenge of his second term: how to be great when the environment stinks. Enhancing the president’s legacy requires something more than simply the clever application of predictable stratagems. Washington’s partisan rancor, the size of the problems facing government, and the limited amount of time before Obama is a lame duck all point to a single conclusion: The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP. If he wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat.¶ President Obama could, of course, resign himself to tending to the achievements of his first term. He'd make sure health care reform is implemented, nurse the economy back to health, and put the military on a new footing after two wars. But he's more ambitious than that. He ran for president as a one-term senator with no executive experience. In his first term, he pushed for the biggest overhaul of health care possible because, as he told his aides, he wanted to make history. He may already have made it. There's no question that he is already a president of consequence. But there's no sign he's content to ride out the second half of the game in the Barcalounger. He is approaching gun control, climate change, and immigration with wide and excited eyes. He's not going for caretaker.¶ How should the president proceed then, if he wants to be bold? The Barack Obama of the first administration might have approached the task by finding some Republicans to deal with and then start agreeing to some of their demands in hope that he would win some of their votes. It's the traditional approach. Perhaps he could add a good deal more schmoozing with lawmakers, too. ¶ That's the old way. He has abandoned that. He doesn't think it will work and he doesn't have the time. As Obama explained in his last press conference, he thinks the Republicans are dead set on opposing him. They cannot be unchained by schmoozing. Even if Obama were wrong about Republican intransigence, other constraints will limit the chance for cooperation. Republican lawmakers worried about primary challenges in 2014 are not going to be willing partners. He probably has at most 18 months before people start dropping the lame-duck label in close proximity to his name. ¶ Obama’s only remaining option is to pulverize. Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to delegitimize his opponents. Through a series of clarifying fights over controversial issues, he can force Republicans to either side with their coalition's most extreme elements or cause a rift in the party that will leave it, at least temporarily, in disarray. ¶ This theory of political transformation rests on the weaponization (and slight bastardization) of the work by Yale political scientist Stephen Skowronek. Skowronek has written extensively about what distinguishes transformational presidents from caretaker presidents. In order for a president to be transformational, the old order has to fall as the orthodoxies that kept it in power exhaust themselves. Obama's gambit in 2009 was to build a new post-partisan consensus. That didn't work, but by exploiting the weaknesses of today’s Republican Party, Obama has an opportunity to hasten the demise of the old order by increasing the political cost of having the GOP coalition defined by Second Amendment absolutists, climate science deniers, supporters of “self-deportation” and the pure no-tax wing.
|
John Dickerson, 1/18/2013 (staff writer, “Go for the Throat!” http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/01/barack_obama_s_second_inaugural_address_the_president_should_declare_war.single.html, Accessed 4/24/2013, rwg)
|
The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP How should the president proceed then Obama’s only remaining option is to pulverize his goal should be to delegitimize his opponents. Through a series of clarifying fights over controversial issues, he can force Republicans to either side with their coalition's most extreme elements or cause a rift in the party that will leave it in disarray. by exploiting the weaknesses of today’s Republican Party, Obama has an opportunity to hasten the demise of the old order by increasing the political cost
|
(--) Extend our Parmes evidence—Obama has no political capital now and needs to exploit small wins in order to bounce back—prefer our evidence it’s specific to Obama and his need to get back in the game now.
| 3,585 | 207 | 644 | 585 | 37 | 105 | 0.063248 | 0.179487 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,864 |
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R) on Wednesday charged that President Obama was seeking to “scuttle” efforts at immigration reform by pushing for a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the country.¶ “I’m not optimistic about common sense immigration reform passing this Congress,” said Cruz in a speech in Dallas, first reported by the Dallas Morning News. “I don’t believe President Obama wants an immigration bill to pass, instead I think he wants a political issue. His objective is to push so much on the table that he forces Republicans walk away from the table because then he wants to use that issue in 2014 and 2016 as a divisive wedge issue.”
|
Meghashyam Mali, 2/21/2013 (staff writer, “Sen. Cruz: Obama trying to ‘scuttle’ immigration reform,” http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/284143-sen-cruz-obama-trying-to-scuttle-immigration-reform, Accessed 2/21/2013, rwg)
|
Obama was seeking to “scuttle” efforts at immigration reform by pushing for a pathway to citizenship I’m not optimistic about common sense immigration reform passing this Congress I don’t believe Obama wants an immigration bill to pass, instead I think he wants a political issue. His objective is to push so much on the table that he forces Republicans walk away from the table because then he wants to use that issue in 2014 and 2016 as a divisive wedge issue.”
|
(--) Immigration reform won’t pass—Obama wants it as a political issue:
| 661 | 71 | 463 | 113 | 11 | 81 | 0.097345 | 0.716814 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,865 |
Immigration is caught up in congressional gridlock—but it's a gridlock of a unique kind. Unlike so many important issues, the real fight on immigration is not between Republicans and Democrats—it's within each political party. Only when we understand this conflict can we identify a solution.¶ Within the Republican Party, the Tea Party base of mostly working class and middle class whites opposes immigration out of fear of competition for jobs driving down wages. And—let's be honest—in some cases racism plays a role. But other parts of the Republican Party strongly support a relaxed immigration policy: employers in agriculture and other industries that depend on cheap immigrant labor; and Republican political strategists who rightly fear the rapid growth in Latino voters, who tend to vote for Democrats. The Republican Party is a house divided.¶ The Democratic Party is also divided. Many (but not all) Latino groups favor looser immigration laws. But labor unions, an essential source of money and organizing capacity vital to Democrats, have long opposed a guest worker program. The guest worker program is a central part—perhaps an inescapable part—of comprehensive immigration reform proposals.¶ Given the conflicts within the parties, it's not surprising that little progress has been made to date. Both parties have a vested interest in appearing to support comprehensive reform without ever reaching agreement.
|
David Brodwin, 2/21/2013 (cofounder and board member of American Sustainable Business Council, “The Split Politics of Immigration Reform—And What To Do About It,” http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/02/21/the-split-politics-of-immigration-reform-and-what-to-do-about-it, Accessed 2/21/2013, rwg)
|
Immigration is caught up in congressional gridlock—but it's a gridlock of a unique kind. Unlike so many important issues, the real fight on immigration it's within each political party. Only when we understand this conflict can we identify a solution.¶ Within the Republican Party, the Tea Party base opposes immigration out of fear of competition for jobs The Democratic Party is also divided labor unions, an essential source of money and organizing capacity vital to Democrats, have long opposed a guest worker program Given the conflicts within the parties, it's not surprising that little progress has been made to date. Both parties have a vested interest in appearing to support comprehensive reform without ever reaching agreement.
|
(--) Won’t pass—intra-party disputes:
| 1,426 | 38 | 739 | 218 | 4 | 116 | 0.018349 | 0.53211 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,866 |
Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., called the leaked proposal "counterproductive" on ABC's "This Week" and questioned the president's motives, accusing him of seeking a partisan advantage instead of finding a solution. "Leaking this out does set things in the wrong direction," he said. "By putting these details out without a guest worker program, without addressing future flow, by giving advantage to those who cut in front of the line...that tells us he's looking for a partisan advantage and not a bipartisan solution."¶ "There are groups in the House and Senate working together to get this done," he said, "and when he does things like this, it makes it much more difficult to do that. And that's why I think this particular move - very counterproductive."
|
Jake Miller, 2/17/2013 (staff writer, “GOP: Leaked WH immigration plan "counterproductive",” http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57569812/gop-leaked-wh-immigration-plan-counterproductive/, Accessed 2/21/2013, rwg)
|
Ryan, called the leaked proposal "counterproductive" on ABC's "This Week" and questioned the president's motives, accusing him of seeking a partisan advantage instead of finding a solution. "Leaking this out does set things in the wrong direction," There are groups in the House and Senate working together to get this done and when he does things like this, it makes it much more difficult to do that. And that's why I think this particular move - very counterproductive."
|
(--) Leak of the White House immigration plan undermines hopes for immigration reform:
| 753 | 86 | 473 | 124 | 13 | 78 | 0.104839 | 0.629032 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,867 |
President Obama can – and will – take steps on immigration reform in the event Congress doesn't reach a comprehensive deal this year, according to several House Democratic leaders.¶ While the Democrats are hoping Congress will preclude any executive action by enacting reforms legislatively, they say the administration has the tools to move unilaterally if the bipartisan talks on Capitol Hill break down. Furthermore, they say, Obama stands poised to use them.¶ "I don't think the president will be hands off on immigration for any moment in time," Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), the head of the House Democratic Caucus, told reporters this week. "He's ready to move forward if we're not."
|
Mike Lillis, 2/16/2013 (staff writer, “Dems: Obama can act unilaterally on immigration reform,” http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/administration/283583-dems-recognize-that-obama-can-act-unilaterally-on-immigration-reform, Accessed 2/21/2013, rwg)
|
Obama can – and will – take steps on immigration reform in the event Congress doesn't reach a comprehensive deal this year the administration has the tools to move unilaterally if the bipartisan talks on Capitol Hill break down. Furthermore, they say, Obama stands poised to use them.¶ "I don't think the president will be hands off on immigration for any moment in time," He's ready to move forward if we're not."
|
Obama will pass immigration reform by executive order if Congress doesn’t act:
| 692 | 78 | 414 | 111 | 12 | 72 | 0.108108 | 0.648649 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,868 |
WASHINGTON (AP) — Just as President Barack Obama is pushing new initiatives on gun control and immigration, the gloomy old problem of a sluggish economy is elbowing its way back into prominence. Consumer confidence is falling, the economy is contracting and large automatic spending cuts are threatening to hit the Pentagon and other programs, with uncertain consequences.¶ These troubles arise as Obama's public approval is improving and as he begins to use his sway to promote the key features of his second-term agenda. The White House, the Federal Reserve and independent economists attributed the shrinkage in gross domestic product and the drop in consumer confidence to one-time events and said underlying economic factors were still showing encouraging signs.¶ But in politics, power resides in the moment. Any immediate economic setback — or the perception of one — could weaken Obama's clout or at least distract him as he carefully tries to put his imprint on initiatives dealing with immigration and gun violence.¶ At the White House, there was no evidence of a course alteration. And White House officials expressed confidence in consumption and investment trends that showed evidence of strength.¶ But the Commerce Department announcement Wednesday that the economy shrank at an annual rate of 0.1 percent came a day after the Conference Board reported a sharp decline in consumer confidence in January. That drop, together with one in December, erased consumer confidence that had built up in 2012.¶ What's more, the new data comes just two days before the government releases the January unemployment report, which economists believe will stay at the still-high rate of 7.8 percent, where it has held for two months.¶ "What's most critical to consumer confidence is employment," said Lynn Franco, director of economic indicators at the Conference Board. "We've had spurts where we've had strong job growth and we've seen a rebound in confidence, and then suddenly you have a pullback in employment and you get a pullback in confidence. So we need a convincing story, and that's going to take several months of jobs growth."¶ Analysts said the economy is still on track to grow steadily if modestly at a roughly 2 percent pace, as long as the housing and auto industries continue to recover.¶ The Commerce Department attributed the economic contraction mainly to companies restocking at a slower rate and to reductions in government spending on defense. While companies will ultimately have to rebuild their inventories, the cuts in defense spending could offer a hint of things to come.¶ The administration argued that the 22 percent reduction in defense spending was partly in anticipation of automatic spending cuts that were going to take effect at the beginning of the year. Obama and congressional Republicans averted that so-called fiscal cliff by extending Bush-era tax rates to all but the wealthiest Americans.¶ But the deal simply delayed the automatic cuts until March 1. At that point, the Pentagon faces across-the-board cuts of 7 percent, while domestic programs will have to shrink by 5 percent. Some analysts believe that if those cuts are allowed to occur, as some Republicans are now suggesting, the economy could lose a half a percentage point of growth.¶ "If the economy would continue to slow down, the interesting question is how does that affect negotiations in and around sequester, government spending, tax reform, the debt ceiling," said John Sides, a political scientist at George Washington University who studies the impact of economic data on politics. "To me it's not so much that an economic slowdown is going to hurt the president's ability to get things done, it's how it's going to affect the negotiations that we already know are going to happen."¶ Some in the business community hope the experience in the last quarter will alert lawmakers to the potential economic damage the automatic cuts could create.¶ "I don't think any time you see a reduction in economic growth that it's good news," White House press secretary Jay Carney conceded Wednesday.¶ But he cautioned, "We need to make sure that in Washington we are not taking actions that undercut that progress that we have been making and can continue to make and will continue to make."¶ Carney said letting the automatic cuts take effect is a "sort of political brinksmanship of the kind that results in one primary victim, and that's American taxpayers, the American middle class."¶ Still, the White House insists the only alternative to those cuts is a mix of savings and new tax revenue. Republicans say the $600 billion in revenue they already gave Obama as part of the New Year's fiscal cliff deal is enough. They insist that if he wants different spending cuts than those due to start on March 1, he should submit a new plan.¶ But the White House has been eager to move away from fiscal and budget fights, ready to use the president's re-election and the uptick in his popularity to push his noneconomic agenda.¶ On Tuesday, he traveled to Las Vegas to push for an overhaul in immigration. On Monday, he is traveling to Minneapolis to promote his proposals to reduce gun violence.¶ The issues are not simple ones for Obama. The economy and the nation's debt still rank higher than immigration and guns as issues in the mind of the public. Moreover, Obama has to navigate gingerly with Congress on immigration, where a fragile coalition of Democrats and Republicans is assembling legislation that, among other things, could provide a path to citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.¶ Obama has vowed to use his bully pulpit to build public support for his new agenda. Defending his economic stewardship was not supposed to be part of the playbook.
|
AP 1/31/2013 (JIM KUHNHENN, “Economic jitters compete with Obama agenda”, http://news.yahoo.com/economic-jitters-compete-obama-agenda-081854479--finance.html, CMR)
|
Just as Obama is pushing gun control and immigration, the gloomy old problem of a sluggish economy is elbowing its way back into prominence These troubles arise as Obama' begins to use his sway to promote the key features of his second-term agenda. Any immediate economic setback — or the perception of one — could weaken Obama's clout or at least distract him as he tries to put his imprint on initiatives dealing with immigration and gun violence.¶ it's not so much that an economic slowdown is going to hurt the president's ability to get things done, it's how it's going to affect the negotiations that we already know are going to happen The issues are not simple Defending his economic stewardship was not supposed to be part of the playbook.
|
(--) Economy thumps the link:
| 5,779 | 29 | 748 | 950 | 5 | 131 | 0.005263 | 0.137895 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,869 |
(Reuters) - The first major immigration reform effort since 1986 came under attack on Tuesday from congressional Republicans who cast doubt on a proposal backed by President Barack Obama to give 11 million illegal immigrants a chance to become citizens.¶ An immigration overhaul suddenly looked possible last week when a group of senators from both parties launched a reform campaign. But it has not taken long for partisan rancor to emerge.¶ Republicans in the House of Representatives are questioning a core element of the immigration plan: a path to citizenship for undocumented residents, most of them Hispanic, who are already in the United States.¶ Bob Goodlatte, Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, raised the possibility of a "middle ground" between the current U.S. policy of deporting illegals and of placing them on a path to citizenship, as Obama demands.¶ "Are there options to consider between the extremes of mass deportation and pathway to citizenship?" the Virginia lawmaker asked during a session on immigration reform.¶ Any challenge to the Democrats' goal of providing a route to citizenship might derail reform at a time when other divisive issues like gun control and deficit reduction share the legislative agenda.
|
Reuters 2/5 (“House Republicans try to chip away at immigration reform”, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/06/us-usa-immigration-idUSBRE9130V620130206, CMR)
|
immigration came under attack from congressional Republicans overhaul looked possible last week But it has not taken long for partisan rancor to emerge Republicans are questioning a path to citizenship challenge to citizenship might derail reform at a time when other divisive issues like gun control and deficit reduction share the legislative agenda
|
(--) Won’t pass – GOP opposition and gun control and budget fights thump
| 1,249 | 72 | 351 | 196 | 13 | 53 | 0.066327 | 0.270408 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,870 |
Lack of focus: In order to really drive the direction of a major reform effort, a president must prioritize and avoid cluttering the playing field with numerous other initiatives at the same time. In his first inaugural address President Obama laid out a broad agenda but failed to achieve results until he narrowed his focus to health-care reform. Clearly energy, immigration and tax reform legislation are all desperately needed, but all cannot be done at once. Adding gun reform to the mix, regardless of its merits, will decrease the likelihood of action on other priorities and will elevate the level of partisan rancor.
|
Mark R. Kennedy, 1/15/2013 (Professor of political management @ George Washington University, “My Immigration Reform Prediction: Late and Light,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-r-kennedy/immigration-reform_b_2426718.html, Accessed 1/23/2013, rwg)
|
In order to really drive the direction of a major reform effort, a president must prioritize and avoid cluttering the playing field with numerous other initiatives at the same time Clearly energy, immigration and tax reform legislation are all desperately needed, but all cannot be done at once. Adding gun reform to the mix, regardless of its merits, will decrease the likelihood of action on other priorities and will elevate the level of partisan rancor.
|
(--) FIAT solves the link: Congress won’t backlash against itself.
| 625 | 67 | 457 | 103 | 10 | 75 | 0.097087 | 0.728155 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,871 |
But gridlock has a way of grinding down even the most idealistic soul. During Obama's first term, Republicans rebuffed the president time and again. Eventually, the president's aides concluded that more could be done working around or against Congress, rather than with it.¶ The seeds of that approach -- which involve barnstorming outside the Beltway, urging voters to pressure elected officials, and taking harder lines for negotiations -- were planted during the payroll tax cut fight in early 2012 and bloomed during the fiscal cliff standoff at year's end. With high-stakes budget fights over the debt ceiling, government funding, and sequestration coming in the first few months of 2013, the more combative Obama will be front and center once more.¶ "The president took the case directly to the American people and involved them more fully in the discussion," Axelrod said of the payroll tax cut and fiscal cliff fights. "I do think that was a significant change and one that is still very much available to the president. Not just available to him. I think he is convinced that is essential going forward."
|
Sam Stein, 1/21/2013 (staff writer, “Obama's Post-Partisan Promise Mellows Amid First Term Gridlock,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/21/obama-post-partisan-promise_n_2490700.html?utm_hp_ref=the-road-forward, Accessed 1/23/2013, rwg)
|
During Obama's first term, Republicans rebuffed the president time and again. Eventually, the president's aides concluded that more could be done working around or against Congress, rather than with it The seeds of that approach -- which involve barnstorming outside the Beltway, bloomed during the fiscal cliff standoff at year's end. With high-stakes budget fights over the debt ceiling, government funding, and sequestration coming in the first few months of 2013, the more combative Obama will be front and center once more The president took the case directly to the American people and involved them more fully in the discussion
|
(--) Obama isn’t using political capital anymore—he’s going around Republicans:
| 1,113 | 79 | 634 | 183 | 10 | 100 | 0.054645 | 0.546448 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,872 |
On Monday, President Obama will preside over the grand reopening of his administration. It would be altogether fitting if he stepped to the microphone, looked down the mall, and let out a sigh: so many people expecting so much from a government that appears capable of so little. A second inaugural suggests new beginnings, but this one is being bookended by dead-end debates. Gridlock over the fiscal cliff preceded it and gridlock over the debt limit, sequester, and budget will follow. After the election, the same people are in power in all the branches of government and they don't get along. There's no indication that the president's clashes with House Republicans will end soon. Inaugural speeches are supposed to be huge and stirring. Presidents haul our heroes onstage, from George Washington to Martin Luther King Jr. George W. Bush brought the Liberty Bell. They use history to make greatness and achievements seem like something you can just take down from the shelf. Americans are not stuck in the rut of the day. But this might be too much for Obama’s second inaugural address: After the last four years, how do you call the nation and its elected representatives to common action while standing on the steps of a building where collective action goes to die? That bipartisan bag of tricks has been tried and it didn’t work. People don’t believe it. Congress' approval rating is 14 percent, the lowest in history. In a December Gallup poll, 77 percent of those asked said the way Washington works is doing “serious harm” to the country. The challenge for President Obama’s speech is the challenge of his second term: how to be great when the environment stinks. Enhancing the president’s legacy requires something more than simply the clever application of predictable stratagems. Washington’s partisan rancor, the size of the problems facing government, and the limited amount of time before Obama is a lame duck all point to a single conclusion: The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP. If he wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat. President Obama could, of course, resign himself to tending to the achievements of his first term. He'd make sure health care reform is implemented, nurse the economy back to health, and put the military on a new footing after two wars. But he's more ambitious than that. He ran for president as a one-term senator with no executive experience. In his first term, he pushed for the biggest overhaul of health care possible because, as he told his aides, he wanted to make history. He may already have made it. There's no question that he is already a president of consequence. But there's no sign he's content to ride out the second half of the game in the Barcalounger. He is approaching gun control, climate change, and immigration with wide and excited eyes. He's not going for caretaker. How should the president proceed then, if he wants to be bold? The Barack Obama of the first administration might have approached the task by finding some Republicans to deal with and then start agreeing to some of their demands in hope that he would win some of their votes. It's the traditional approach. Perhaps he could add a good deal more schmoozing with lawmakers, too. That's the old way. He has abandoned that. He doesn't think it will work and he doesn't have the time. As Obama explained in his last press conference, he thinks the Republicans are dead set on opposing him. They cannot be unchained by schmoozing. Even if Obama were wrong about Republican intransigence, other constraints will limit the chance for cooperation. Republican lawmakers worried about primary challenges in 2014 are not going to be willing partners. He probably has at most 18 months before people start dropping the lame-duck label in close proximity to his name. Obama’s only remaining option is to pulverize. Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to delegitimize his opponents. Through a series of clarifying fights over controversial issues, he can force Republicans to either side with their coalition's most extreme elements or cause a rift in the party that will leave it, at least temporarily, in disarray.
|
John Dickerson, Slate, 1/18/13, Go for the Throat!, www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/01/barack_obama_s_second_inaugural_address_the_president_should_declare_war.single.html, CMR
|
Gridlock preceded gridlock the same people are in power in all the branches of government and they don't get along. There's no indication that clashes with will end soon The challenge for Obama’s second term: how to be great when the environment stinks. Enhancing the president’s legacy requires more than predictable stratagems partisan rancor and the limited amount of time before Obama is a lame duck all point to a single conclusion: The president can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP he must go for the throat Obama might have approached the task by finding Republicans to deal with and win some of their votes That's the old way. He has abandoned that. He doesn't think it will work he doesn't have the time. Republicans are dead set on opposing him They cannot be unchained by schmoozing Even if Obama were wrong about Republican intransigence, other constraints will limit the chance for cooperation Republican lawmakers worried about primary challenges are not going to be willing partners. Obama’s only remaining option is to pulverize Through a series of clarifying fights over controversial issues, he can force Republicans to cause a rift in the party that will leave it in disarray
|
(--) Past failures to pass immigration reform deny the impact.
| 4,329 | 62 | 1,208 | 727 | 10 | 202 | 0.013755 | 0.277854 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,873 |
Continuing fiscal cliff battles: One consequence of not reaching a grand bargain on the fiscal cliff is that it ensures that further contests over how to resolve the nation's ongoing deficits will suck much of the oxygen out of the most opportune time slot for legislative action: the period immediately following the president's inaugural address and the State of the Union address.
|
Mark R. Kennedy, 1/15/2013 (Professor of political management @ George Washington University, “My Immigration Reform Prediction: Late and Light,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-r-kennedy/immigration-reform_b_2426718.html, Accessed 1/23/2013, rwg)
|
Continuing fiscal cliff battles: One consequence of not reaching a grand bargain on the fiscal cliff is that it ensures that further contests over how to resolve the nation's ongoing deficits will suck much of the oxygen out of the most opportune time slot for legislative action: the period immediately following the president's inaugural address
|
(--) Uniqueness is empirically denied, all the previous efforts by Bush and Obama to pass immigration reform prove it won’t happen this time.
| 383 | 142 | 347 | 62 | 23 | 55 | 0.370968 | 0.887097 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,874 |
But while signs indicate that Obama will ask Congress to pass a UAFA-inclusive immigration reform bill, questions linger over whether the Senate will come to an agreement to pass an immigration package that would protect LGBT families.¶ Concurrent with the plan the White House is developing, a bipartisan group of senators has engaged in talks to craft a comprehensive bill that, according to the Times, could be introduced as early as March with the plan to hold a floor vote before August. Legislation is expected to start in the Democratic-controlled Senate before moving over the Republican-controlled House for final passage.
|
Chris Johnson, 1/23/2013 (staff writer, “Will Obama include gay couples in immigration reform?” http://www.washingtonblade.com/2013/01/23/will-obama-include-gay-couples-in-immigration-reform/, Accessed 1/23/2013, rwg)
|
Concurrent with the plan the White House is developing, a bipartisan group of senators has engaged in talks to craft a comprehensive bill that could be introduced as early as March with the plan to hold a floor vote before August. Legislation is expected to start in the Democratic-controlled Senate before moving over the Republican-controlled House for final passage.
|
(--) Immigration reform won’t come till a vote till August:
| 631 | 59 | 369 | 100 | 10 | 59 | 0.1 | 0.59 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,875 |
Although the president threatened to introduce his own bill if negotiations in Congress stall during his speech in Las Vegas, Nevada, on Tuesday, he said he is content to let lawmakers hash out the details among themselves for the time being.¶ "If they are on a path as they have already said, where they want to get a bill done by March, then I think that's a reasonable timeline and I think we can get that done. I'm not going to lay down a particular date because I want to give them a little room to debate," he said. "If it slips a week, that's one thing. If it starts slipping three months, that's a problem."
|
JORDAN FABIAN, 1/30/2013 (staff writer, “Obama Confident Immigration Reform Passes This Year,” http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/president-obama-confident-immigration-reform-passes-year/story?id=18358660, Accessed 1/30/2013, rwg)
|
Although the president threatened to introduce his own bill if negotiations in Congress stall he said he is content to let lawmakers hash out the details among themselves for the time being . I'm not going to lay down a particular date because I want to give them a little room to debate
|
Obama not pushing—he’s allowing Congress to work it out on their own:
| 615 | 69 | 287 | 116 | 12 | 53 | 0.103448 | 0.456897 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,876 |
Centrality to Republican brand boosting: The need to address immigration reform for its own sake and to rebuild the Republican brand is well understood. As such, Republicans should be (and likely are) more motivated to actually pass, not just debate, an immigration bill than President Obama and congressional Democrats. There is little doubt that Democrats are willing to go further with immigration reform than Republicans are and may be content to force the point to preserve a political point. Astute Republicans would be wise to take great care to ensure that they tee up the legislative debate and the resulting legislation in a manner that Republicans can support, if not lead on. Given President Obama's demonstrated preference (from the stimulus bill on) for giving significant rein to Congress on major legislation and the pending necessity to do so as lame duck status approaches, one should expect any immigration bill that is enacted to be a congressionally crafted compromise bill.
|
Mark R. Kennedy, 1/15/2013 (Professor of political management @ George Washington University, “My Immigration Reform Prediction: Late and Light,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-r-kennedy/immigration-reform_b_2426718.html, Accessed 1/23/2013, rwg)
|
The need to address immigration reform and to rebuild the Republican brand is well understood. As such, Republicans should be (and likely are) more motivated to actually pass an immigration bill Astute Republicans would be wise to take great care to ensure that they tee up the legislative debate in a manner that Republicans can support, if not lead on. Given Obama's demonstrated preference for giving significant rein to Congress on major legislation one should expect any immigration bill that is enacted to be a congressionally crafted compromise bill.
|
(--) Obama won’t push immigration reform, he’ll delegate it to Congress:
| 995 | 72 | 557 | 159 | 11 | 89 | 0.069182 | 0.559748 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,877 |
The Dec. 14 shooting in a Connecticut grade school thrust gun control to the top of Obama’s second-term agenda. This past week, he unveiled the most ambitious gun-control proposals in decades, announcing a $500 million package of legislation and executive actions aimed at curbing firearms violence.
|
Cheyenne Hopkins, 1/20/2013 (staff writer, “Plouffe Predicts Passage of Gun Control, Immigration Measures,” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-20/plouffe-predicts-passage-of-gun-control-immigration-measures.html, Accessed 1/20/2013, rwg)
|
The shooting in a grade school thrust gun control to the top of Obama’s second-term agenda. This past week, he unveiled the most ambitious gun-control proposals in decades, announcing a $500 million package of legislation and executive actions aimed at curbing firearms violence.
|
(--) Gun control is top of the agenda:
| 299 | 38 | 279 | 46 | 8 | 43 | 0.173913 | 0.934783 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,878 |
WASHINGTON -- As President Barack Obama enters his second term, his aides have concluded he likely will fall short on one of his signature promises.¶ Barring some collectively cathartic Beltway experience, the Obama administration will not usher in an era of post-partisanship. The forces of gridlock continue to have the upper hand, and they will have a tangible impact on the president's tactics and ambitions.
|
Sam Stein, 1/21/2013 (staff writer, “Obama's Post-Partisan Promise Mellows Amid First Term Gridlock,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/21/obama-post-partisan-promise_n_2490700.html?utm_hp_ref=the-road-forward, Accessed 1/23/2013, rwg)
|
As Obama enters his second term, his aides have concluded he likely will fall short on one of his signature promises.¶ Barring some collectively cathartic Beltway experience, the Obama administration will not usher in an era of post-partisanship. The forces of gridlock continue to have the upper hand,
|
(--) Gridlock will prevail in second term:
| 412 | 42 | 302 | 65 | 7 | 48 | 0.107692 | 0.738462 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,879 |
Obama's goal is to get through that trifecta and still have the political capital left for the things he'd rather focus on: Reducing gun violence, overhauling immigration policy, revamping tax laws, addressing climate change and more.¶ With Republicans in Congress approaching the new year with very different goals, "it's a formula for deadlock and difficulty for the president," says James Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University. "I don't think this president has even a month of political capital."
|
Nancy Benac, 1/24/2013 (staff writer, “Obama's uphill agenda,” http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130124/OPINION01/301240324/1008/opinion01/Obama-s-uphill-agenda, Accessed 1/24/2013, rwg)
|
Obama's goal is to get through that trifecta and still have the political capital left for the things he'd rather focus on: it's a formula for deadlock and difficulty for the president I don't think this president has even a month of political capital."
|
(--) Obama has about a month of political capital—formula is for gridlock:
| 560 | 74 | 253 | 85 | 12 | 44 | 0.141176 | 0.517647 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,880 |
But there is also the danger that the nation’s fiscal issues will not be resolved in any meaningful way. If that occurs, a procession of congressional crises and unsatisfying stopgap measures might be the result.¶ “It makes him spend a lot of his political energy and a lot of his political capital — and that’s why it has been the strategy of the Republicans,” Princeton history and public affairs Professor Julian Zelizer said.
|
Niall Stanage & Amie Parnes 1/18/13 (staff writer, “At halftime of his presidency, Obama looks to lessons of first four years,” http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/277921-at-halftime-obama-looks-to-lessons-of-first-term, Accessed 1/24/2013, rwg)
|
there is also the danger that the nation’s fiscal issues will not be resolved in any meaningful way a procession of congressional crises and unsatisfying stopgap measures might be the result It makes him spend a lot of his political energy and a lot of his political capital — and that’s why it has been the strategy of the Republicans
|
(--) Fiscal issues will drain Obama’s political capital:
| 429 | 56 | 335 | 73 | 8 | 60 | 0.109589 | 0.821918 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,881 |
After making it past one “fiscal cliff” with more to come, it’s an odd time for President Obama to be picking a fight with Congress over his choice to run the Pentagon.¶ In many ways, Mr. Obama’s choice, former Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Republican from Nebraska and a Vietnam veteran with two Purple Hearts, is a man without a party who has plenty of detractors on both sides of the aisle.¶ Even before it became official Monday, Mr. Hagel’s nomination had kicked up a cloud of consternation from those on the right who questioned his commitment to Israel and his willingness to get tough with sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program.¶ Those on the left aren’t overjoyed, either. They would rather have worked with one of their own at the Pentagon, and have questions about criticism in 1998 of a Clinton administration nominee for an ambassadorship for being “openly, aggressively gay.” Mr. Hagel has since apologized, and Democrats appear to be giving him a pass — at least for now.¶ But Mr. Obama chose his former Senate colleague anyway, putting the full weight of the presidency behind his selection and risking the political capital it takes to win confirmation battles in the world’s most exclusive club.
|
Susan Crabtree, 1/8/2013 (staff writer, “Little enthusiasm on Capitol Hill for Hagel nomination,” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/8/little-enthusiasm-on-capitol-hill-for-hagel-nomina/#ixzz2HUcSjUfS, Accessed 1/23/2013, rwg)
|
it’s an odd time for President Obama to be picking a fight with Congress over his choice to run the Pentagon Even before it became official Hagel’s nomination had kicked up a cloud of consternation from those on the right who questioned his commitment to Israel Obama chose his former Senate colleague anyway, putting the full weight of the presidency behind his selection and risking the political capital it takes to win confirmation battles
|
(--) Hagel nomination draining capital now:
| 1,208 | 43 | 443 | 207 | 6 | 74 | 0.028986 | 0.357488 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,882 |
Another chronic irritant is US drug policy, which most Latin Americans now¶ believe makes their drug and crime problems worse. Secretary of State Hillary¶ Clinton, while visiting Mexico, acknowledged that US anti-drug programs¶ have not worked. Yet, despite growing calls and pressure from the region, the¶ United States has shown little interest in exploring alternative approaches.¶ Similarly, Washington’s more than half-century embargo on Cuba, as well¶ as other elements of United States’ Cuba policy, is strongly opposed by all¶ other countries in the hemisphere. Indeed, the US position on these troublesome¶ issues—immigration, drug policy, and Cuba—has set Washington¶ against the consensus view of the hemisphere’s other 34 governments.
|
Shifter 12 (Michael is the President of Inter-American Dialogue. “Remaking the Relationship: The United States and Latin America,” April, IAD Policy Report, http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf, Accessed 1/23/2013, rwg)
|
Another chronic irritant is US drug policy, which most Latin Americans now¶ believe makes their drug and crime problems worse Similarly, Washington’s more than half-century embargo on Cuba is strongly opposed by all¶ other countries in the hemisphere. Indeed, the US position on these troublesome¶ issues—immigration, drug policy, and Cuba—has set Washington¶ against the consensus view of the hemisphere’s other 34 governments
|
(--) Drug policy and Cuba policy prevent effective US-Latin American relations:
| 746 | 79 | 427 | 108 | 11 | 62 | 0.101852 | 0.574074 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,883 |
Simply addressing an unfinished agenda is not enough. Both the United¶ States and Latin America need to do more to exploit the enormous untapped¶ opportunities of their relationship in economics, trade, and energy. They¶ need to work together to deal with global and regional problems. And they¶ need to project common values, including peace, democracy, human rights,¶ expansion of equal opportunity, and social mobility. They need to breathe¶ new life and vigor into hemispheric relations.
|
Shifter 12 (Michael is the President of Inter-American Dialogue. “Remaking the Relationship: The United States and Latin America,” April, IAD Policy Report, http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf, Accessed 1/23/2013, rwg)
|
Simply addressing an unfinished agenda is not enough. Both the United¶ States and Latin America need to do more to exploit the enormous untapped¶ opportunities of their relationship in economics, trade, and energy. They¶ need to work together to deal with global and regional problems They need to breathe¶ new life and vigor into hemispheric relations.
|
(--) Fixing US domestic policies inadequate to create cooperation with Latin America:
| 491 | 85 | 353 | 75 | 12 | 56 | 0.16 | 0.746667 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,884 |
Policy towards Cuba has long divided the United States from the rest of¶ the hemisphere. There is a consensus among the other nations of the hemisphere¶ that Washington’s 50-year-old embargo has not worked and, in fact,¶ may have been counterproductive, prolonging Cuba’s repressive rule rather¶ than ending it. Greater engagement with Cuba and more openness to easing¶ US restrictions on the island are essential. At the same time, as outlined¶ below, Cuba’s failure to pursue political reform and adopt more democratic¶ measures also needs to be addressed.
|
Shifter 12 (Michael is the President of Inter-American Dialogue. “Remaking the Relationship: The United States and Latin America,” April, IAD Policy Report, http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf, Accessed 1/23/2013, rwg)
|
Policy towards Cuba has long divided the United States from the rest of¶ the hemisphere. There is a consensus among the other nations of the hemisphere¶ that Washington’s 50-year-old embargo has not worked and, in fact,¶ may have been counterproductive,
|
(--) Cuba policy prevents effective US-Latin American relations:
| 558 | 64 | 253 | 87 | 8 | 40 | 0.091954 | 0.45977 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,885 |
Although unlikely to be accomplished in the near future, the long-term goal¶ of the United States and other hemispheric governments should be agreement¶ on collective actions to hold nations to the standards of the charter. The¶ United States and Canada cannot be effective if they are the only voices calling¶ for action to defend democracy and enforce the charter. The United States¶ should pursue a longer-term strategy of consulting and finding common¶ ground with Latin American and Caribbean governments on the appropriate¶ use of the charter, which should play an important role in hemispheric affairs.¶ Cuba, too, poses a significant challenge for relations between the United¶ States and Latin America. The 50-year-old US embargo against Cuba is¶ rightly criticized throughout the hemisphere as a failed and punitive instrument.¶ It has long been a strain on US-Latin American relations. Although¶ the United States has recently moved in the right direction and taken steps¶ to relax restrictions on travel to Cuba, Washington needs to do far more¶ to dismantle its severe, outdated constraints on normalized relations with¶ Cuba. Cuba is one of the residual issues that most obstructs more effective¶ US-Latin American engagement.
|
Shifter 12 (Michael is the President of Inter-American Dialogue. “Remaking the Relationship: The United States and Latin America,” April, IAD Policy Report, http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf, Accessed 1/23/2013, rwg)
|
Cuba, poses a significant challenge for relations between the United¶ States and Latin America Washington needs to do far more¶ to dismantle its severe, outdated constraints on normalized relations with¶ Cuba. Cuba is one of the residual issues that most obstructs more effective¶ US-Latin American engagement.
|
(--) Cuba obstructs effective US-Latin American engagement:
| 1,240 | 59 | 310 | 191 | 7 | 46 | 0.036649 | 0.240838 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,886 |
Budget battles are going to happen no matter what else does -- that's another safe bet. What is more interesting, though, is handicapping which of Obama's agenda items will actually see some action. There are three major initiatives that Obama is currently pushing: action on global warming, comprehensive immigration reform, and gun control. Obama did mention other issues in his speech, but these are the big three for now. Gay marriage, for instance, is in the hands of the Supreme Court right now, and no matter how they rule it's hard to see any legislative action (good or bad) happening on it immediately afterwards.
|
Chris Weigant, 1/23/2013 (staff writer, “Handicapping Obama's Second Term Agenda,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/obama-second-term_b_2537802.html, Accessed 1/23/2013, rwg)
|
There are three major initiatives that Obama is currently pushing: action on global warming, comprehensive immigration reform, and gun control.
|
(--) Obama pushing three major issues now—they can’t win a focus link:
| 623 | 70 | 143 | 104 | 12 | 20 | 0.115385 | 0.192308 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,887 |
White House spokesman Jay Carney called climate change “an important issue” and a priority for the president. “But it is not a singular priority. It is one of a host of priorities he believes we can act on,” Carney said.
|
J. Scott Applewhite, 1/22/2013 (staff writer, “Dems, environmentalists hail Obama’s focus on climate, but warn about Keystone XL pipeline,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dems-environmentalists-hail-obama-focus-on-climate-but-warn-about-keystone-xl-pipeline/2013/01/22/fe212fda-646a-11e2-889b-f23c246aa446_story.html, Accessed 1/24/2013, rwg)
|
Carney called climate change “an important issue” and a priority for the president. “But it is not a singular priority. It is one of a host of priorities he believes we can act on,” Carney said.
|
(--) White House focused on multiple priorities:
| 220 | 48 | 194 | 40 | 7 | 36 | 0.175 | 0.9 |
Politics Disadvantage - Samford 2013.html5
|
Samford
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,888 |
Pact for Mexico¶ Pemex bondholders are losing confidence in his ability to achieve the needed changes after signs of fraying in the Pact for Mexico alliance that Pena Nieto engineered between his own PRI, the National Action Party, or PAN, of predecessor Felipe Calderon and the Democratic Revolution Party, or PRD.¶ “The PRD cannot sign on for an ambitious energy reform, and they’ve been quite explicit about that,” Duncan Wood, director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, said in an interview. “It’s going to be very difficult for the elite of the PRD to continue working with the government if the government and the PAN push through an energy reform that they’re opposed to.”¶ Yields on $2 billion Pemex bonds due in 2022 jumped 72 basis points in the past month through last week to 3.97 percent. Yields on Brazilian oil producer Petroleo Brasileiro SA’s 2021 notes rose 63 basis points over the same period.¶ Changing Reputations¶ Pena Nieto has been working to overturn the country’s reputation for violence, while strengthening the economy. His administration passed a balanced budget and an education overhaul that created an independent institute to evaluate schools and foster competition for teaching jobs and promotions based on performance, a move that sparked violent protests. The government also arrested the powerful head of the teachers’ union, Elba Esther Gordillo, on corruption charges, taking on a leader long considered to be untouchable.¶ Some of his other goals, such as progress in the war against organized crime, have proved more elusive. While the Milenio newspaper reported a 2.5 percent drop in drug violence in the first four months of the administration, communities in southern Mexico have armed themselves and kidnapped law-enforcement officials, saying police can’t protect them from cartels.¶ ‘Excellent Job’¶ Pena Nieto’s energy and tax pledges, and his early legislative success, helped attract overseas asset managers including Pacific Investment Management Co., the world’s biggest bond fund, and lift foreign holdings of peso bonds to record levels. Yields on government peso debt due in 2024 dropped to a record low and the currency climbed to the strongest level in almost two years against the dollar last month. Yields have since climbed and the currency weakened on the prospect that the Federal Reserve will scale back its stimulus program.¶ Pena Nieto’s energy initiative may be the industry’s biggest overhaul since then-President Lazaro Cardenas seized oil fields from British and U.S. companies in 1938, said James R. Jones, the U.S. ambassador to Mexico when the North American Free Trade Agreement, negotiated under U.S. President George H. W. Bush and Mexico’s Carlos Salinas de Gortari, took effect in 1994. The expropriation is celebrated March 18.¶ Pena Nieto has “done an excellent job in his first six months in office,” Jones said in a telephone interview from Washington on June 14. “He has the best political sensitivity and touch I’ve seen since President Salinas was able to marshal various factions of Mexico to pass Nafta.”
|
Martin et al ’13 (Eric Martin, Reporter Bloomberg News; Carlos Manuel Rodriguez, Mexico Bureau Chief Bloomberg News; & Helder Marinho Team Leader, Latin America Speed Desk - Jun 18, 2013 12:00 AM CT http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-18/pena-nieto-confident-75-year-pemex-oil-monopoly-to-end-this-year.html) GH
|
bondholders are losing confidence in his ability to achieve the needed changes after signs of fraying in the Pact for Mexico alliance The PRD cannot sign on for an ambitious energy reform, and they’ve been quite explicit about that It’s going to be very difficult for the elite of the PRD to continue working with the government if the government and the PAN push through an energy reform that they’re opposed to Nieto has been working to overturn the country’s reputation for violence, while strengthening the economy. His administration passed a balanced budget and an education overhaul that created an independent institute to evaluate schools and foster competition for teaching jobs and promotions based on performance
|
PRD doesn’t have confidence in Nieto’s reforms
| 3,152 | 46 | 724 | 500 | 7 | 116 | 0.014 | 0.232 |
Mexico Politics Disadvantage - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,889 |
MEXICO CITY — Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto on Tuesday faced the most serious political crisis of his young government, an explosive dispute with rival parties over electoral dirty tricks that could imperil his ambitious reform plans.¶ Peña Nieto's highly touted Pact for Mexico, a kind of blueprint for his administration's agenda that had seemed to have won consensus from most major political groups, was on the verge of collapse after fresh reports of vote-buying by the president's Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI
|
Wilkinson ’13 (Tracy Wilkinson, LA Times writer, on April 23, 2013. Found at http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/23/world/la-fg-mexico-politics-20130424) GH
|
Mexican President Peña Nieto faced the most serious political crisis of his government, a dispute with rival parties over electoral tricks that could imperil his reform plans Nieto's Pact for Mexico, a blueprint for his administration's agenda that had won consensus from most major political groups, was on the verge of collapse after reports of vote-buying by the president's Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI
|
Won’t pass – vote buying scandal lost Nieto support
| 535 | 51 | 419 | 83 | 9 | 64 | 0.108434 | 0.771084 |
Mexico Politics Disadvantage - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,890 |
The PRI leader, Enrique Peña Nieto, assumes the Mexican presidency on Dec. 1. Manufacturing output is up, official unemployment is low and drug related homicides are down. This is an auspicious time to inherit the presidency. What are the principal challenges facing a historic party in a modern era?¶ Corruption is endemic with the Mexican federal government lacking the tools with which to hold the state governments accountable for significant federal transfers. Under a national reform reached in 1998, federal funds are dispersed to the 31 states and Mexico City in proportion to their population, local revenue and poverty rate. Federal transfers replaced local tax revenues. However, use of the federal funds was supervised by state legislatures, not federal legislatures. This has resulted in inflated state budgets to justify continued federal transfers. Ample opportunity for corruption by state and municipal officials exists. The incoming president will seek to devise and implement a new form of federalism which establishes reporting requirements and accountability for use of federal funds. A president from the PRI should have an easier task introducing this reform because 21 governors from the 31 states and Mexico City are members of the PRI. With less need to use federal transfers, for local political purposes, they are more likely to accept presidential instruction and conform to party discipline.¶
|
Negroponte ’12 (Diana Villiers Negroponte, American trade lawyer and adjunct professor of law at Fordham University, on November 30, 2012. Found at http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2012/11/30-mexico-pena-nieto-negroponte) GH
|
The PRI leader Nieto, assumes the Mexican presidency on Dec. 1 A president from the PRI should have an easier task introducing this reform because 21 governors from the 31 states and Mexico City are members of the PRI
|
Will Pass: Nieto has the support of the PRI
| 1,422 | 43 | 217 | 219 | 9 | 39 | 0.041096 | 0.178082 |
Mexico Politics Disadvantage - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,891 |
Julio Castellanos, a former senior education ministry official and a strong critic of Peña Nieto’s ruling party, is among many opposition members who applaud the education reforms. “Giving constitutional status to these agreements turns them into something that everybody has to comply with,” he said.¶ Asked about Gordillo’s arrest, David Calderón, head of the nonpartisan Mexicanos Primero, an advocacy group that fights for quality education, said it would help speed up the reforms. Gordillo’s arrest and the public uproar over her shopping sprees will make it difficult for legislators to side with the teachers’ union in the upcoming congressional debate, he said.¶ My opinion: While Gordillo’s arrest made the biggest headlines by far, the most important test for Mexico’s future will be whether Congress passes a strong implementing law to enforce the new constitutional amendment’s reforms. That would be critical to help reduce poverty, by giving Mexico’s poor a better education that would allow them to get better jobs, making Mexico more competitive and more prosperous.¶ It won’t be a matter of firing hundreds of thousands of teachers who get bad evaluations. The teachers’ union rightly states that bad teachers deserve to be trained, and that they deserve a second — and perhaps third — chance to get tested. But if this process is allowed to stretch over 10 years, or be open-ended, as the teachers’ union wants, Mexico’s constitutional education reform will end up being just an inspirational document.¶ The real battle for Mexico’s education reform starts now. If the implementing bill reflects the letter and spirit of the new constitutional amendment, as now seems likely, it will indeed be a historic week for Mexico.
|
Oppenheimer ’13 (Andres Oppenheimer is a Miami Herald syndicated columnist and a member of The Miami Herald team that won the 1987 Pulitzer Prize. Found at http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/27/3257950/mexicos-education-reform-may-prove.html) GH
|
Julio Castellanos, a former senior education ministry official and a strong critic of Peña Nieto’s ruling party, is among many opposition members who applaud the education reforms. The real battle for Mexico’s education reform starts now.
|
Even those opposed to Nieto’s presidency support reforms
| 1,740 | 56 | 238 | 276 | 8 | 36 | 0.028986 | 0.130435 |
Mexico Politics Disadvantage - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,892 |
Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto said he’s confident Congress will end the state oil monopoly this year, opening the way for companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSA) to tap the nation’s reserves.¶ In the model envisioned by Pena Nieto, state-owned Petroleos Mexicanos would develop some fields, while others are tapped by foreign and private companies. He declined to discuss more details of the proposal, or whether it would require a change in the constitution.¶ Enlarge image ¶ Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto said, “It’s obvious that Pemex doesn’t have the financial capacity to be in every single front of energy generation.” Photographer: Jason Alden/Bloomberg¶ 3:05¶ June 17 (Bloomberg) -- Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto, talks about his proposal to break the state monopoly over oil and gas exploration and production this year to accelerate economic growth. In the model envisioned by Pena Nieto, state-owned Petroleos Mexicanos would develop certain fields, with others being tapped by foreign and private companies. Pena Nieto, speaking with Bloomberg Businessweek in London today, declined to discuss details of the proposal, or whether it would require a change in the constitution. (This report is in Spanish. Source: Bloomberg)¶ Seven decades after his party seized fields from the predecessors to Exxon and Shell, Pena Nieto is preparing for the return of international oil companies to arrest eight years of decline in crude output. An opening would probably be broad, from offshore drilling to shale fields similar to those that have revived the U.S. petroleum industry, Pena Nieto said.¶ “It’s obvious that Pemex doesn’t have the financial capacity to be in every single front of energy generation,” the 46-year-old president said in an interview in London yesterday, before traveling to Northern Ireland for meetings with Group of Eight leaders. “Shale is one of the areas where there’s room for private companies, but not the only one.”¶ Pena Nieto said his administration will send the energy bill to congress by September, when regular sessions resume, along with a tax proposal. The support of the top three political parties in the Pact for Mexico should ensure the bill is approved by Congress before year end, he said.¶ Skeptical Investors¶ Mexico is seeking to attract capital for deep-water and shale deposits found in the past decade as reserves dwindle in Cantarell, the 1976 oil discovery that ranked among the world’s largest.¶ Investors became more skeptical about the depth of the energy reform after it wasn’t included in the schedule for special congressional sessions in July and August, leaving it for the final four months of the year along with a crowded agenda that includes the tax overhaul and next year’s budget.¶ Mexico’s peso pared its drop yesterday after Pena Nieto’s comments, falling 1 percent to 12.8361 per U.S. dollar after losing as much as 1.3 percent. Yields on peso-denominated fixed-rate government bonds due in 2024 increased 11 basis points, or 0.11 percentage point, to 5.31 percent. Yields on $2 billion Pemex bonds due in 2022 added one basis point to 3.98 percent.¶ Pena Nieto’s comments boosted confidence he’ll make good on his pledge to open the state-controlled energy industry, said Ramon Cordova, a currency trader at Banco Base SA.¶ ‘Good Path’¶ “What the market wants is the reforms to pass,” Cordova said by phone from San Pedro Garza Garcia, Mexico. The comments indicate “the energy reform is on a good path and it gives some more information, because up until now it’s been very opaque.”¶ Opening oil and gas exploration for private investment would help Mexico revive oil production that is heading for its ninth year of decline. Crude output averaged 2.52 million barrels a day this month through June 9, compared with 3.38 million barrels a day in 2004.¶ When Pena Nieto took office in December, he inherited an economy that had started to grow faster than Brazil in the final two years of predecessor Felipe Calderon’s administration amid record Mexican auto exports and waning Chinese demand for Brazilian commodities. Mexico’s gross domestic product will expand 3.2 percent this year, faster than 3 percent for Brazil, according to the median estimate of analysts surveyed by Bloomberg.¶ Government Spending¶ While Mexican growth eased to 0.8 percent in the first quarter, the least since the 2009 recession, Finance Minister Luis Videgaray said in an interview yesterday that the expansion will quicken as the government increases spending in the second half of the year.¶ “We expect much more accelerated spending in the second semester,” Videgaray said. “The budget is there and the revenue is there.”¶ Pena Nieto said there’s political momentum to pass more reforms after the approval of sweeping education and telecommunications laws and the creation of the Pact for Mexico. His Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, dropped its opposition to an oil-law overhaul in March.¶ “We’re approaching key deadlines,” Pena Nieto said. “I’m optimistic that this political climate of understanding and agreement will be maintained.”¶ The start of July will mark one year since Pena Nieto’s election returned the PRI to power after a 12-years hiatus. Opening the energy industry to more private investment would be the “signature issue” for judging his presidency, Pena Nieto said during the campaign.¶
|
Martin et al ’13 (Eric Martin, Reporter Bloomberg News; Carlos Manuel Rodriguez, Mexico Bureau Chief Bloomberg News; & Helder Marinho Team Leader, Latin America Speed Desk - Jun 18, 2013 12:00 AM CT http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-18/pena-nieto-confident-75-year-pemex-oil-monopoly-to-end-this-year.html) GH
|
Nieto said he’s confident Congress will end the state oil monopoly this year Nieto, talks about his proposal to break the state monopoly over oil and gas exploration and production this year to accelerate economic growth. Nieto is preparing for the return of international oil companies to arrest eight years of decline in crude output. Nieto will send the energy bill to congress by September The support of the top three political parties in the Pact for Mexico should ensure the bill is approved Nieto’s comments boosted confidence he’ll make good on his pledge to open the state-controlled energy industry Opening oil and gas exploration for private investment would help Mexico revive oil production that is heading for its ninth year of decline We’re approaching key deadlines Nieto said
|
Nieto plans on splitting the PEMEX monopoly this fall - will pass
| 5,426 | 68 | 793 | 864 | 12 | 129 | 0.013889 | 0.149306 |
Mexico Politics Disadvantage - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,893 |
The success of the reform, whose implementation will be overseen by Congress during a six-month period after Nieto signs it into law, also gives Nieto momentum as he prepares for more ambitious economic reforms. This fall, he will push Congress to approve his tax and energy reforms. If successful, the measures will further improve the country’s already-healthy business environment and further propel economic growth.¶ Nieto’s proposed energy reforms, which will require a constitutional amendment, would open Mexico’s energy sector to American companies with greater technical competence than the Mexican state firm. Among other consequences, they could lower the cost of manufacturing in the country by opening up abundant new domestic sources of natural gas.¶ Don’t let your concern for Slim spoil your enjoyment of the good news. With a fortune that continues to hover around an estimated $70 billion, the second richest man in the world isn’t headed for the poor house anytime soon.¶ And there may be a silver lining for the tycoon. Nieto’s reform also opens up Mexico’s broadcast television market, where other monopolists had effectively blocked competition, offering Slim a golden opportunity. Bill Gates, watch your back.
|
Rosa ’13 (Rich de la Rosa, Director, Advisory Services, Americas on July 3, 2013. Found at http://www.hsp.com/blog/2013/7/why-mexico-s-new-president-bad-carlos-slim-good-your-business) GH
|
The success of the reform, whose implementation will be overseen by Congress during a six-month period after Nieto signs it into law, also gives Nieto momentum as he prepares for more ambitious economic reforms. This fall, he will push Congress to approve his tax and energy reforms. the measures will further improve the country’s already-healthy business environment and further propel economic growth
|
Successful reforms give Nieto more policap
| 1,232 | 42 | 403 | 190 | 6 | 62 | 0.031579 | 0.326316 |
Mexico Politics Disadvantage - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,894 |
MEXICO CITY -- This may be a historic week for Mexico. After decades of unsuccessful efforts to modernize its public education system, President Enrique Peña Nieto’s government arrested almighty teachers’ union leader Elba Esther Gordillo and — perhaps more importantly — signed a constitutional amendment that will allow key education reforms.¶ The amendment was signed Monday after being approved by Mexico’s three largest political parties and despite strong opposition from Gordillo’s National Education Workers Union. But an implementing bill, which is expected to be passed within the next six months, is still required.¶ But judging from what I saw during a visit to Mexico City this week, while there is a risk that Congress could pass a watered-down implementing bill, Gordillo’s surprise arrest may change things. The fact that she was arrested on tax evasion and corruption charges and the ensuing public uproar over alleged evidence that she spent about $3 million shopping in Neiman Marcus stores over the past three years may put pressure on legislators to end the teachers’ union’s historic control of the country’s education policies.¶ Among other things, the amendment establishes mandatory teacher evaluations and requires that hiring and the promotion and merit pay of teachers be subject to evaluation scores. It also allows schools to fire under-performing teachers, something that has been strongly resisted by the union.¶ Until now, Gordillo’s 1.7 million-member union has pretty much decided who gets hired as a teacher, and who gets promoted. Thanks to the union’s political power — it even has a political party with senators and congressmen — teachers in Mexico enjoy lifelong jobs, regardless of their skills.¶ This had led to declining education standards and corruption. In voluntary evaluation tests performed in recent years, more than half of Mexico’s teachers could not solve basic math and science problems. And teaching jobs were often bought by unskilled applicants, who paid as much as $10,000 for a lifelong teaching position, as Gordillo herself conceded to me in a 2010 interview.¶ As a result of this perverse education system, Mexico has long ranked at the lower end of the worldwide standardized PISA test of 15-year-olds. In the last PISA test held in 2009, Mexico ranked 51st among the 65 countries that participated in the test.¶ When I asked the president’s chief of staff, Aurelio Nuño, just hours before Gordillo’s arrest, whether there isn’t a risk that the new education reforms will be watered down by Congress, he shook his head, indicating “no way.”¶ Nuño said that it’s in the government’s interest that the education reform be fully enforced, because that will allow Peña Nieto to embark on his planned telecommunications, energy and fiscal reforms with greater political capital.¶ “If you pass an effective reform, you are politically stronger to pass the next reform,” Nuño said.
|
Oppenheimer ’13 (Andres Oppenheimer is a Miami Herald syndicated columnist and a member of The Miami Herald team that won the 1987 Pulitzer Prize. Found at http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/27/3257950/mexicos-education-reform-may-prove.html) GH
|
Nieto’s government signed a constitutional amendment that will allow key education reforms. The amendment was signed Monday after being approved by Mexico’s three largest political parties an implementing bill, which is expected to be passed within the next six months, is still required. When I asked the president’s chief of staff whether there isn’t a risk that the new education reforms will be watered down by Congress, he shook his head, indicating “no way.” Nuño said that it’s in the government’s interest that the education reform be fully enforced, because that will allow Peña Nieto to embark on his planned telecommunications, energy and fiscal reforms with greater political capital. “If you pass an effective reform, you are politically stronger to pass the next reform,” Nuño said.
|
Education reforms passed – give Nieto more policap
| 2,938 | 51 | 796 | 465 | 8 | 126 | 0.017204 | 0.270968 |
Mexico Politics Disadvantage - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,895 |
Since assuming office in December, Mexico’s new president, Enrique Peña Nieto, has wasted little time getting down to business — literally. One of Nieto’s first major reforms takes on the telecommunications business, and it’s well on its way to becoming law. The reform, which empowers a new regulator to target telecommunications firms with monopoly power, has already had one major effect: Around the time Mexico’s state legislatures were ratifying the reform package in Mid-May, Carlos Slim ceded the distinction of world’s richest man to Bill Gates, according to Forbes. Slim’s fall was due in part to the declining value of Slim’s America Movil, which controls 70 percent of Mexico’s mobile phone market and 80 percent of its landlines.¶ But what’s bad news for Slim will be good news for businesses that operate in Mexico. Like all antitrust reforms, Nieto’s is designed to increase competition in the markets for telecommunications, which represent a crucial part of any country’s business infrastructure. Expect the reforms to lead to some combination of superior products and lower prices, which will make doing business in Mexico both cheaper and more efficient. American telecommunications firms should be doubly excited, as Nieto’s pursuing the reforms to attract foreign telecom investment.¶
|
Rosa ’13 (Rich de la Rosa, Director, Advisory Services, Americas on July 3, 2013. Found at http://www.hsp.com/blog/2013/7/why-mexico-s-new-president-bad-carlos-slim-good-your-business) GH
|
Mexico’s new president, Enrique Peña Nieto, has wasted little time getting down to business One of Nieto’s first major reforms takes on the telecommunications business, and it’s well on its way to becoming law.
|
Nieto’s business reform successful
| 1,304 | 34 | 210 | 202 | 4 | 34 | 0.019802 | 0.168317 |
Mexico Politics Disadvantage - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
2,896 |
Of course, we all know the story behind the Cantarell field's downfall. Once production started to decline, Pemex began injecting nitrogen to boost output. But this strategy was short-lived, and production at the field has been dropping sharply since — roughly 14% each year for the last six years. Cantarell's decline marked the beginning of the end for Mexican oil production. The country's new finds have also proven underwhelming. The recent discovery by Pemex in Southern Mexico is a perfect example. According to Pemex, the new field holds up to 500 million barrels of crude oil, a trifle compared to the billions of barrels Cantarell once held. But these days, Mexico will take whatever it can get... and pray it can hold off the decline. Crisis of Consumption Mexico's declining oil production means there's less oil available for export. Those 2.5 million barrels flowing from Pemex's wells daily are crucial to the country's stability. When almost 40% of your government budget is paid from oil revenue, exporting less oil is not an option — but that's exactly what's happening (click charts to enlarge): During the first eight months of 2012, Mexican oil exports to the United States were slightly above one million barrels per day. Last May oil exports fell below one million barrels per day for the first time in 27 years. Barring some miracle taking place in Mexico's oil industry, I believe the country will be a net oil importer within ten years.
|
Kohl 11-27-12 (Keith, “Crisis of Consumption,” http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/mexican-oil-crisis/2833) JH
|
the Cantarell field's production has been dropping sharply since — roughly 14% each year for the last six years. Cantarell's decline marked the beginning of the end for Mexican oil production. The country's new finds have also proven underwhelming. these days, Mexico will take whatever it can get... and pray it can hold off the decline. Mexico's declining oil production means there's less oil available for export. Those 2.5 million barrels flowing from Pemex's wells daily are crucial to the country's stability. When almost 40% of your government budget is paid from oil revenue, exporting less oil is not an option Barring some miracle taking place in Mexico's oil industry, I believe the country will be a net oil importer within ten years.
|
PEMEX decline will trigger instability throughout Mexico – timeframe is 10 years
| 1,462 | 80 | 747 | 245 | 12 | 123 | 0.04898 | 0.502041 |
Mexico THA Affirmative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,897 |
A core premise of deep engagement is that it prevents the emergence of a far more dangerous global security environment. For one thing, as noted above, the United States’ overseas presence gives it the leverage to restrain partners from taking provocative action. Perhaps more important, its core alliance commitments also deter states with aspirations to regional hegemony from contemplating expansion and make its partners more secure, reducing their incentive to adopt solutions to their security problems that threaten others and thus stoke security dilemmas. The contention that engaged U.S. power dampens the baleful effects of anarchy is consistent with influential variants of realist theory. Indeed, arguably the scariest portrayal of the war-prone world that would emerge absent the “American Pacifier” is provided in the works of John Mearsheimer, who forecasts dangerous multipolar regions replete with security competition, arms races, nuclear proliferation and associated preventive war temptations, regional rivalries, and even runs at regional hegemony and full-scale great power war. 72 How do retrenchment advocates, the bulk of whom are realists, discount this benefit? Their arguments are complicated, but two capture most of the variation: (1) U.S. security guarantees are not necessary to prevent dangerous rivalries and conflict in Eurasia; or (2) prevention of rivalry and conflict in Eurasia is not a U.S. interest. Each response is connected to a different theory or set of theories, which makes sense given that the whole debate hinges on a complex future counterfactual (what would happen to Eurasia’s security setting if the United States truly disengaged?). Although a certain answer is impossible, each of these responses is nonetheless a weaker argument for retrenchment than advocates acknowledge. The first response flows from defensive realism as well as other international relations theories that discount the conflict-generating potential of anarchy under contemporary conditions. 73 Defensive realists maintain that the high expected costs of territorial conquest, defense dominance, and an array of policies and practices that can be used credibly to signal benign intent, mean that Eurasia’s major states could manage regional multipolarity peacefully without the American pacifier. Retrenchment would be a bet on this scholarship, particularly in regions where the kinds of stabilizers that nonrealist theories point to—such as democratic governance or dense institutional linkages—are either absent or weakly present. There are three other major bodies of scholarship, however, that might give decisionmakers pause before making this bet. First is regional expertise. Needless to say, there is no consensus on the net security effects of U.S. withdrawal. Regarding each region, there are optimists and pessimists. Few experts expect a return of intense great power competition in a post-American Europe, but many doubt European governments will pay the political costs of increased EU defense cooperation and the budgetary costs of increasing military outlays. 74 The result might be a Europe that is incapable of securing itself from various threats that could be destabilizing within the region and beyond (e.g., a regional conflict akin to the 1990s Balkan wars), lacks capacity for global security missions in which U.S. leaders might want European participation, and is vulnerable to the influence of outside rising powers. What about the other parts of Eurasia where the United States has a substantial military presence? Regarding the Middle East, the balance begins to swing toward pessimists concerned that states currently backed by Washington— notably Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia—might take actions upon U.S. retrenchment that would intensify security dilemmas. And concerning East Asia, pessimism regarding the region’s prospects without the American pacifier is pronounced. Arguably the principal concern expressed by area experts is that Japan and South Korea are likely to obtain a nuclear capacity and increase their military commitments, which could stoke a destabilizing reaction from China. It is notable that during the Cold War, both South Korea and Taiwan moved to obtain a nuclear weapons capacity and were only constrained from doing so by a still-engaged United States. 75 The second body of scholarship casting doubt on the bet on defensive realism’s sanguine portrayal is all of the research that undermines its conception of state preferences. Defensive realism’s optimism about what would happen if the United States retrenched is very much dependent on its particular—and highly restrictive—assumption about state preferences; once we relax this assumption, then much of its basis for optimism vanishes. Specifically, the prediction of post-American tranquility throughout Eurasia rests on the assumption that security is the only relevant state preference, with security defined narrowly in terms of protection from violent external attacks on the homeland. Under that assumption, the security problem is largely solved as soon as offense and defense are clearly distinguishable, and offense is extremely expensive relative to defense. Burgeoning research across the social and other sciences, however, undermines that core assumption: states have preferences not only for security but also for prestige, status, and other aims, and they engage in trade-offs among the various objectives. 76 In addition, they define security not just in terms of territorial protection but in view of many and varied milieu goals. It follows that even states that are relatively secure may nevertheless engage in highly competitive behavior. Empirical studies show that this is indeed sometimes the case. 77 In sum, a bet on a benign postretrenchment Eurasia is a bet that leaders of major countries will never allow these nonsecurity preferences to influence their strategic choices. To the degree that these bodies of scholarly knowledge have predictive leverage, U.S. retrenchment would result in a significant deterioration in the security environment in at least some of the world’s key regions. We have already mentioned the third, even more alarming body of scholarship. Offensive realism predicts that the withdrawal of the American pacifier will yield either a competitive regional multipolarity complete with associated insecurity, arms racing, crisis instability, nuclear proliferation, and the like, or bids for regional hegemony, which may be beyond the capacity of local great powers to contain (and which in any case would generate intensely competitive behavior, possibly including regional great power war). Hence it is unsurprising that retrenchment advocates are prone to focus on the second argument noted above: that avoiding wars and security dilemmas in the world’s core regions is not a U.S. national interest. Few doubt that the United States could survive the return of insecurity and conflict among Eurasian powers, but at what cost? Much of the work in this area has focused on the economic externalities of a renewed threat of insecurity and war, which we discuss below. Focusing on the pure security ramifications, there are two main reasons why decisionmakers may be rationally reluctant to run the retrenchment experiment. First, overall higher levels of conflict make the world a more dangerous place. Were Eurasia to return to higher levels of interstate military competition, one would see overall higher levels of military spending and innovation and a higher likelihood of competitive regional proxy wars and arming of client states—all of which would be concerning, in part because it would promote a faster diffusion of military power away from the United States. Greater regional insecurity could well feed proliferation cascades, as states such as Egypt, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Saudi Arabia all might choose to create nuclear forces. 78 It is unlikely that proliferation decisions by any of these actors would be the end of the game: they would likely generate pressure locally for more proliferation. Following Kenneth Waltz, many retrenchment advocates are proliferation optimists, assuming that nuclear deterrence solves the security problem. 79 Usually carried out in dyadic terms, the debate over the stability of proliferation changes as the numbers go up. Proliferation optimism rests on assumptions of rationality and narrow security preferences. In social science, however, such assumptions are inevitably probabilistic. Optimists assume that most states are led by rational leaders, most will overcome organizational problems and resist the temptation to preempt before feared neighbors nuclearize, and most pursue only security and are risk averse. Confidence in such probabilistic assumptions declines if the world were to move from nine to twenty, thirty, or forty nuclear states. In addition, many of the other dangers noted by analysts who are concerned about the destabilizing effects of nuclear proliferation—including the risk of accidents and the prospects that some new nuclear powers will not have truly survivable forces—seem prone to go up as the number of nuclear powers grows. 80 Moreover, the risk of “unforeseen crisis dynamics” that could spin out of control is also higher as the number of nuclear powers increases. Finally, add to these concerns the enhanced danger of nuclear leakage, and a world with overall higher levels of security competition becomes yet more worrisome. The argument that maintaining Eurasian peace is not a U.S. interest faces a second problem. On widely accepted realist assumptions, acknowledging that U.S. engagement preserves peace dramatically narrows the difference between retrenchment and deep engagement. For many supporters of retrenchment, the optimal strategy for a power such as the United States, which has attained regional hegemony and is separated from other great powers by oceans, is offshore balancing: stay over the horizon and “pass the buck” to local powers to do the dangerous work of counterbalancing any local rising power. The United States should commit to onshore balancing only when local balancing is likely to fail and a great power appears to be a credible contender for regional hegemony, as in the cases of Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union in the midtwentieth century. The problem is that China’s rise puts the possibility of its attaining regional hegemony on the table, at least in the medium to long term. As Mearsheimer notes, “The United States will have to play a key role in countering China, because its Asian neighbors are not strong enough to do it by themselves.” 81 Therefore, unless China’s rise stalls, “the United States is likely to act toward China similar to the way it behaved toward the Soviet Union during the Cold War.” 82 It follows that the United States should take no action that would compromise its capacity to move to onshore balancing in the future. It will need to maintain key alliance relationships in Asia as well as the formidably expensive military capacity to intervene there. The implication is to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, reduce the presence in Europe, and pivot to Asia— just what the United States is doing. 83 In sum, the argument that U.S. security commitments are unnecessary for peace is countered by a lot of scholarship, including highly influential realist scholarship. In addition, the argument that Eurasian peace is unnecessary for U.S. security is weakened by the potential for a large number of nasty security consequences as well as the need to retain a latent onshore balancing capacity that dramatically reduces the savings retrenchment might bring. Moreover, switching between offshore and onshore balancing could well be difªcult. Bringing together the thrust of many of the arguments discussed so far underlines the degree to which the case for retrenchment misses the underlying logic of the deep engagement strategy. By supplying reassurance, deterrence, and active management, the United States lowers security competition in the world’s key regions, thereby preventing the emergence of a hothouse atmosphere for growing new military capabilities. Alliance ties dissuade partners from ramping up and also provide leverage to prevent military transfers to potential rivals. On top of all this, the United States’ formidable military machine may deter entry by potential rivals. Current great power military expenditures as a percentage of GDP are at historical lows, and thus far other major powers have shied away from seeking to match top-end U.S. military capabilities. In addition, they have so far been careful to avoid attracting the “focused enmity” of the United States. 84 All of the world’s most modern militaries are U.S. allies (America’s alliance system of more than sixty countries now accounts for some 80 percent of global military spending), and the gap between the U.S. military capability and that of potential rivals is by many measures growing rather than shrinking. 85
|
Brooks, Ikenberry, and Wohlforth ’13 (Stephen, Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth College, John Ikenberry is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University in the Department of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, William C. Wohlforth is the Daniel Webster Professor in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College “Don’t Come Home America: The Case Against Retrenchment,” International Security, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Winter 2012/13), pp. 7–51)
|
deep engagement prevents emergence dangerous environment U S presence gives it leverage to restrain partners from provocative action alliance commitments deter states from contemplating expansion U.S. power dampens the effects of anarchy Mearsheimer forecasts dangerous multipolar regions replete with security competition, arms races, and full-scale great power war. Europe is incapable of securing itself from threats that could be destabilizing Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia might take actions that would intensify security dilemmas Japan and South Korea obtain a nuclear capacity which could stoke a destabilizing reaction from China Burgeoning research across the sciences undermines that core assumption states have preferences for prestige, status, and other aims the withdrawal of America will yield multipolarity complete with crisis instability, nuclear proliferation, and great power war one would see proxy wars and arming of client states Egypt, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Saudi Arabia might create nuclear forces the debate over the stability of prolif changes as the numbers go up optimism rests on assumptions of rationality such assumptions are inevitably probabilistic Confidence declines if the world were to move from nine to forty nuclear states the risk of accidents and the prospects that powers will not have survivable forces go up crisis dynamics could spin out of control The U S will play a key role in countering China the argument that U.S. commitments are unnecessary is countered by a lot of scholarship the case for retrenchment misses the logic of deep engagement the U S lowers security competition preventing a hothouse atmosphere for new military capabilities
|
Solves global nuclear war
| 13,084 | 25 | 1,729 | 1,996 | 4 | 256 | 0.002004 | 0.128257 |
Mexico THA Affirmative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,898 |
FBI Director Robert Mueller warned Congress on Wednesday of ongoing al-Qaida efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction to attack the United States. “Al-Qaida remains committed to its goal of conducting attacks inside the United States,” Mueller told a House appropriations subcommittee. “Further, al-Qaida’s continued efforts to access chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear material pose a serious threat to the United States.” To accomplish its goals of new attacks on the American homeland, al-Qaida “seeks to infiltrate overseas operatives who have no known nexus to terrorism into the United States using both legal and illegal methods of entry,” Mueller said. In February, Sheikh Abdullah al-Nasifi, a known al-Qaida recruiter in Kuwait, boasted on al Jazeera television that Mexico’s border with the United States was the ideal infiltration point for terrorists seeking to attack America. “Four pounds of anthrax – in a suitcase this big – carried by a fighter through tunnels from Mexico into the U.S., are guaranteed to kill 330,000 Americans within a single hour if it is properly spread in population centers there,” al-Nasifi said.
|
Ken Timmerman, Newsmax correspondent, “FBI Director Mueller: Al-Qaida Still Wants Nuclear Bomb,” 3/18/2010, http://newsmax.com/Newsfront/mueller-fbi-alqaida-nuclear/2010/03/18/id/353169
|
FBI Director Robert Mueller warned Congress on Wednesday of ongoing al-Qaida efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction to attack the United States Al-Qaida remains committed to its goal of conducting attacks inside the United States al-Qaida’s continued efforts to access chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear material pose a serious threat to the United States al-Qaida “seeks to infiltrate overseas operatives who have no known nexus to terrorism into the United States using both legal and illegal methods of entry, a known al-Qaida recruiter in Kuwait, boasted on al Jazeera television that Mexico’s border with the United States was the ideal infiltration point for terrorists seeking to attack America Four pounds of anthrax carried by a fighter through tunnels from Mexico into the U.S., are guaranteed to kill 330,000 Americans within a single hour if it is properly spread in population centers there
|
US-Mexican border terrorism results in bioterror attacks.
| 1,156 | 57 | 923 | 177 | 7 | 143 | 0.039548 | 0.80791 |
Mexico THA Affirmative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
2,899 |
The destruction of forests and the proliferation of human activity will remove more than 20 percent of all terrestrial plant species over the next fifty years. Because plants form the foundation for entire biotic communities, their demise will carry with it the extinction of an exponentially greater number of animal species -- perhaps ten times as many faunal species for each type of plant eliminated. Sixty-five million years ago, a natural cataclysmic event resulted in extinction of the dinosaurs. Even with a plant foundation intact, it took more than 100,000 years for faunal biological diversity to re-establish itself. More importantly, the resurrection of biological diversity assumes an intact zone of tropical forests to provide for new speciation after extinction. Today, the tropical rain forests are disappearing more rapidly than any other bio-region, ensuring that after the age of humans, the Earth will remain a biological, if not a literal desert for eons to come. The present course of civilization points to ecocide -- the death of nature. Like a run-a-way train, civilization is speeding along tracks of our own manufacture towards the stone wall of extinction. The human passengers sitting comfortably in their seats, laughing, partying, and choosing to not look out the window. Environmentalists are those perceptive few who have their faces pressed against the glass, watching the hurling bodies of plants and animals go screaming by. Environmental activists are those even fewer people who are trying desperately to break into the fortified engine of greed that propels this destructive specicidal juggernaut. Others are desperately throwing out anchors in an attempt to slow the monster down while all the while, the authorities, blind to their own impending destruction, are clubbing, shooting and jailing those who would save us all. SHORT MEMORIES Civilized humans have for ten thousand years been marching across the face of the Earth leaving deserts in their footprints. Because we have such short memories, we forgot the wonder and splendor of a virgin nature. We revise history and make it fit into our present perceptions. For instance, are you aware that only two thousand years ago, the coast of North Africa was a mighty forest? The Phoenicians and the Carthaginians built powerful ships from the strong timbers of the region. Rome was a major exporter of timber to Europe. The temple of Jerusalem was built with titanic cedar logs, one image of which adorns the flag of Lebanon today. Jesus Christ did not live in a desert, he was a man of the forest. The Sumerians were renowned for clearing the forests of Mesopotamia for agriculture. But the destruction of the coastal swath of the North African forest stopped the rain from advancing into the interior. Without the rain, the trees died and thus was born the mighty Sahara, sired by man and continued to grow southward at a rate of ten miles per year, advancing down the length of the continent of Africa. And so will go Brazil. The precipitation off the Atlantic strikes the coastal rain forest and is absorbed and sent skyward again by the trees, falling further into the interior. Twelve times the moisture falls and twelve times it is returned to the sky -- all the way to the Andes mountains. Destroy the coastal swath and desertify Amazonia -- it is as simple as that. Create a swath anywhere between the coast and the mountains and the rains will be stopped. We did it before while relatively primitive. We learned nothing. We forgot. So too, have we forgotten that walrus once mated and bred along the coast of Nova Scotia, that sixty million bison once roamed the North American plains. One hundred years ago, the white bear once roamed the forests of New England and the Canadian Maritime provinces. Now it is called the polar bear because that is where it now makes its last stand. EXTINCTION IS DIFFICULT TO APPRECIATE Gone forever are the European elephant, lion and tiger. The Labrador duck, giant auk, Carolina parakeet will never again grace this planet of ours. Lost for all time are the Atlantic grey whales, the Biscayan right whales and the Stellar sea cow. Our children will never look upon the California condor in the wild or watch the Palos Verde blue butterfly dart from flower to flower. Extinction is a difficult concept to fully appreciate. What has been is no more and never shall be again. It would take another creation and billions of years to recreate the passenger pigeon. It is the loss of billions of years of evolutionary programming. It is the destruction of beauty, the obliteration of truth, the removal of uniqueness, the scarring of the sacred web of life To be responsible for an extinction is to commit blasphemy against the divine. It is the greatest of all possible crimes, more evil than murder, more appalling than genocide, more monstrous than even the apparent unlimited perversities of the human mind. To be responsible for the complete and utter destruction of a unique and sacred life form is arrogance that seethes with evil, for the very opposite of evil is live. It is no accident that these two words spell out each other in reverse. And yet, a reporter in California recently told me that "all the redwoods in California are not worth the life on one human being." What incredible arrogance. The rights a species, any species, must take precedence over the life of an individual or another species. This is a basic ecological law. It is not to be tampered with by primates who have molded themselves into divine legends in their own mind. For each and every one of the thirty million plus species that grace this beautiful planet are essential for the continued well-being of which we are all a part, the planet Earth -- the divine entity which brought us forth from the fertility of her sacred womb. As a sea-captain I like to compare the structural integrity of the biosphere to that of a ship's hull. Each species is a rivet that keeps the hull intact. If I were to go into my engine room and find my engineers busily popping rivets from the hull, I would be upset and naturally I would ask them what they were doing. If they told me that they discovered that they could make a dollar each from the rivets, I could do one of three things. I could ignore them. I could ask them to cut me in for a share of the profits, or I could kick their asses out of the engine room and off my ship. If I was a responsible captain, I would do the latter. If I did not, I would soon find the ocean pouring through the holes left by the stolen rivets and very shortly after, my ship, my crew and myself would disappear beneath the waves. And that is the state of the world today. The political leaders, i.e., the captains at the helms of their nation states, are ignoring the rivet poppers or they are cutting themselves in for the profits. There are very few asses being kicked out of the engine room of spaceship Earth. With the rivet poppers in command, it will not be long until the biospheric integrity of the Earth collapses under the weight of ecological strain and tides of death come pouring in. And that will be the price of progress -- ecological collapse, the death of nature, and with it the horrendous and mind numbing specter of massive human destruction.
|
Watson 6 Captain Paul Watson, Founder and President of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. 9/17/06, ìThe Politics of Extinction.î http://www.eco-action.org/dt/beerswil.html
|
The destruction of forests and the proliferation of human activity will remove more than 20 percent of all terrestrial plant species over the next fifty years. Because plants form the foundation for entire biotic communities, their demise will carry with it the extinction of an exponentially greater number of animal species -- perhaps ten times as many faunal species for each type of plant eliminated More importantly, the resurrection of biological diversity assumes an intact zone of tropical forests to provide for new speciation after extinction. Today, the tropical rain forests are disappearing more rapidly than any other bio-region, ensuring that after the age of humans Like a run-a-way train, civilization is speeding along tracks of our own manufacture towards the stone wall of extinction. Extinction is a difficult concept to fully appreciate. What has been is no more and never shall be again. It would take another creation and billions of years to recreate the passenger pigeon it will not be long until the biospheric integrity of the Earth collapses under the weight of ecological strain and tides of death come pouring in. And that will be the price of progress -- ecological collapse, the death of nature, and with it the horrendous and mind numbing specter of massive human destruction.
|
Deforestation leads to extinction
| 7,309 | 34 | 1,310 | 1,260 | 4 | 212 | 0.003175 | 0.168254 |
Mexico THA Affirmative - JDI 2013.html5
|
Kansas (JDI)
|
Affirmatives
|
2013
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.