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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5,100 |
The world is in crisis. A financial crash and a deepening recession are afflicting rich and poor countries alike. The threat of weapons of mass destruction looms ever larger. A bipartisan congressional panel announced last month that the odds of a nuclear or biological terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the year 2014 are better than 50-50. It looks as though we'll be grappling with these economic and geopolitical challenges well into the 2010s.¶ But if you think that things couldn't get any worse, wait till the 2020s. The economic and geopolitical climate could become even more threatening by then -- and this time the reason will be demographics.¶ Yes, demographics, that relentless maker and breaker of civilizations. From the fall of the Roman and the Mayan empires to the Black Death to the colonization of the New World and the youth-driven revolutions of the 20th century, demographic trends have played a decisive role in precipitating many of the great invasions, political upheavals, migrations and environmental catastrophes of history. By the 2020s, an ominous new conjuncture of these trends will once again threaten massive disruption. We're talking about global aging, which is likely to have a profound effect on economic growth, living standards and the shape of the world order.¶ For the world's wealthy nations, the 2020s are set to be a decade of hyperaging and population decline. Many countries will experience fiscal crisis, economic stagnation and ugly political battles over entitlements and immigration. Meanwhile, poor countries will be buffeted by their own demographic storms. Some will be overwhelmed by massive age waves that they can't afford, while others will be whipsawed by new explosions of youth whose aspirations they cannot satisfy. The risk of social and political upheaval and military aggression will grow throughout the developing world -- even as the developed world's capacity to deal with these threats weakens.¶ The rich countries have been aging for decades, due to falling birthrates and rising life spans. But in the 2020s, this aging will get an extra kick as large postwar baby boom generations move into retirement. According to the United Nations Population Division (whose projections are cited throughout this article), the median ages of Western Europe and Japan, which were 34 and 33 respectively as recently as 1980, will soar to 47 and 52, assuming no miraculous change in fertility. In Italy, Spain and Japan, more than half of all adults will be older than the official retirement age -- and there will be more people in their 70s than in their 20s.¶ Graying means paying -- more for pensions, more for health care, more for nursing homes for the frail elderly. Yet the old-age benefit systems of most developed countries are already pushing the limits of fiscal and economic affordability. By the 2020s, political warfare over brutal benefit cuts seems unavoidable. On one side will be young adults who face declining after-tax earnings, including many who often have no choice but to live with their parents (and are known, pejoratively, as twixters in the United States, kippers in Britain, mammoni in Italy, nesthocker in Germany and freeters in Japan). On the other side will be retirees, who are often wholly dependent on pay-as-you-go public plans. In 2030, young people will have the future on their side. Elders will have the votes on theirs. Bold new investments in education, the environment or foreign assistance will be highly unlikely.¶ Aging is, well, old. But depopulation -- the delayed result of falling birthrates -- is new. The working-age population has already begun to decline in several large developed countries, including Germany and Japan. By 2030, it will be declining in nearly all of them, and in a growing number, total population will be in steep decline as well. The arithmetic is simple: When the average couple has only 1.3 children (in Spain) or 1.7 children (in Britain), depopulation is inevitable, unless there's massive immigration.¶ The economics of depopulation are grim. Even at full employment, real gross domestic product may decline, because the number of workers will be falling faster than productivity is rising. With the size of markets fixed or shrinking, businesses and governments may try to lock in their positions through cartels and protectionist policies, ushering in a zero-growth psychology not seen since the 1930s. With each new birth cohort smaller than the last, the typical workplace will be top-heavy with graybeards. Looking for a flexible, creative, entrepreneurial labor force? You'll have come to the wrong address. Meanwhile, with the demand for low-wage labor rising, immigration (assuming no rise over today's rate) will double the percentage of Muslims in France and triple it in Germany. By 2030, Amsterdam, Marseille, Birmingham and Cologne are likely to be majority Muslim.¶ In Europe, the demographic ebb tide will deepen the crisis of confidence reflected in such best-selling books as "France is Falling," by Nicolas Baverez; "Can Germany Be Saved?" by Hans-Werner Sinn; or "The Last Days of Europe," by Walter Laqueur. The media in Europe are already rife with dolorous stories about the closing of schools and maternity wards, the abandonment of rural towns and the lawlessness of immigrant youths in large cities. A recent cover of Der Spiegel shows a baby hoisting 16 old Germans on a barbell with the caption: "The Last German -- On the Way to an Old People's Republic." In Japan, the government half-seriously projects the date at which there will be only one Japanese citizen left alive.¶ An important but limited exception to hyperaging is the United States. Yes, America is also graying, but to a lesser extent. We are the only developed nation with replacement-rate fertility (2.1 children per couple). By 2030, our median age, now 36, will rise to only 39. Our working-age population, according to both U.N. and census projections, will continue to grow throughout the 21st century because of our higher fertility rate and substantial immigration -- which we assimilate better than most other developed countries. By 2015, for the first time ever, the majority of developed-world citizens will live in English-speaking countries.¶ America certainly faces some serious structural challenges, including an engorged health-care sector and a chronically low savings rate that may become handicaps as we age. But unlike Europe and Japan, we will still have the youth and fiscal resources to afford a major geopolitical role. The declinists have it wrong. The challenge facing America by the 2020s is not the inability of a weakening United States to lead the developed world. It is the inability of the other developed nations to be of much assistance -- or indeed, the likelihood that many will be in dire need of assistance themselves.¶ A major reason the wealthy countries will need strong leadership are the demographic storms about to hit the developing world.¶ Consider China, which may be the first country to grow old before it grows rich. For the past quarter-century, China has been "peacefully rising," thanks in part to a one-child policy that has allowed both parents to work and contribute to China's boom. But by the 2020s, as the huge Red Guard generation born before the country's fertility decline moves into retirement, they will tax the resources of their children and the state. China's coming age wave -- by 2030 it will be an older country than the United States -- may weaken the two pillars of the current regime's legitimacy: rapidly rising GDP and social stability. Imagine workforce growth slowing to zero while tens of millions of elders sink into indigence without pensions, without health care and without children to support them. China could careen toward social collapse -- or, in reaction, toward an authoritarian clampdown.¶ Russia, along with the rest of Eastern Europe, is likely to experience the fastest extended population decline since the plague-ridden Middle Ages. Amid a widening health crisis, the Russian fertility rate has plunged and life expectancy has collapsed. Russian men today can expect to live to 59, 16 years less than American men and marginally less than their Red Army grandfathers at the end of World War II. By 2050, Russia is due to fall to 20th place in world population rankings, down from fourth place in 1950. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin flatly calls Russia's demographic implosion "the most acute problem facing our country today." If the problem isn't solved, Russia will weaken progressively -- raising the nightmarish specter of a failed state with nukes. Or this cornered bear may lash out in revanchist fury rather than meekly accept its demographic fate.¶ Of course, some developing regions will remain extremely young in the 2020s. Sub-Saharan Africa -- which is afflicted with the world's highest fertility rates and ravaged by AIDS -- will still be racked by large youth bulges. So will several Muslim-majority countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, the Palestinian territories, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. In recent years, most of these countries have demonstrated the correlation between extreme youth and violence. If that correlation endures, chronic unrest and state failure could persist through the 2020s -- or even longer if fertility fails to drop.¶ Many fast-modernizing countries where fertility has fallen very recently and very steeply will experience an ominous resurgence of youth in the 2020s. It's a law of demography that when a population boom is followed by a bust, it causes a ripple effect, with a gradually fading cycle of echo booms and busts. In the 2010s, a bust generation will be coming of age in much of Latin America, South Asia and the Muslim world. But by the 2020s, an echo boom will follow -- dashing economic expectations, swelling the ranks of the unemployed and perhaps fueling political violence, ethnic strife and religious extremism.¶ These echo booms will be especially large in Pakistan and Iran. In Pakistan, the number of young people in the volatile 15- to 24-year-old age bracket will contract by 3 percent in the 2010s, then leap upward by 20 percent in the 2020s. In Iran, the youth boomerang will be even larger: minus 31 percent in the 2010s and plus 30 percent in the 2020s. These echo booms will be occurring in countries whose social fabric is already strained by rapid development. One teeters on the brink of chaos, while the other aspires to regional hegemony. One already has nuclear weapons, and the other seems likely to obtain them.¶ All told, population trends point inexorably toward a more dominant U.S. role in a world that will need us more, not less. For the past several years, the U.N. has published a table ranking the world's 12 most populous countries over time. In 1950, six of the top 12 were developed countries. In 2000, only three were. By 2050, only one developed country will remain -- the United States, still in third place. By then, it will be the only country among the top 12 with a historical commitment to democracy, free markets and civil liberties.¶ Abraham Lincoln once called this country "the world's last best hope." Demography suggests that this will remain true for some time to come.
|
Howe and Jackson 9 [Neil and Richard, researchers at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and co-authors of "The Graying of the Great Powers: Demography and Geopolitics in the 21st Century," “ The World Won't Be Aging Gracefully. Just the Opposite.” Washington Post -- January 4 -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/02/AR2009010202231.html]
|
The world is in crisis. A financial crash and a deepening recession are afflicting rich and poor countries alike. The threat of weapons of mass destruction looms ever larger A bipartisan congressional panel announced last month that the odds of a nuclear or biological terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the year 2014 are better than 50-50 But if you think that things couldn't get any worse, wait till the 2020s. The economic and geopolitical climate could become even more threatening by then From the fall of the Roman and the Mayan empires to the Black Death to the colonization of the New World demographic trends have played a decisive role in precipitating many of the great invasions, political upheavals, migrations and environmental catastrophes of history the 2020s are set to be a decade of hyperaging and population decline. countries will experience fiscal crisis, economic stagnation and ugly political battles over entitlements and immigration poor countries will be buffeted by their own demographic storms The risk of social and political upheaval and military aggression will grow throughout the developing world -- even as the developed world's capacity to deal with these threats weakens.¶ aging will get an extra kick as large postwar baby boom generations move into retirement. the median ages of Western Europe and Japan, which were 34 and 33 respectively as recently as 1980, will soar to 47 and 52 Graying means paying -- more for pensions, more for health care, more for nursing homes for the frail elderly. Yet the old-age benefit systems of most developed countries are already pushing the limits of fiscal and economic affordability Bold new investments in education, the environment or foreign assistance will be highly unlikely.¶ Aging is, well, old. But depopulation -- the delayed result of falling birthrates -- is new The economics of depopulation are grim. Even at full employment, real gross domestic product may decline, because the number of workers will be falling faster than productivity is rising. businesses and governments may try to lock in their positions through cartels and protectionist policies, ushering in a zero-growth psychology not seen since the 1930s the typical workplace will be top-heavy with graybeards. Looking for a flexible, creative, entrepreneurial labor force? You'll have come to the wrong address In Europe, the demographic ebb tide will deepen the crisis of confidence An important but limited exception to hyperaging is the United States. Yes, America is also graying, but to a lesser extent We are the only developed nation with replacement-rate fertility Our working-age population, according to both U.N. and census projections, will continue to grow throughout the 21st century because of our higher fertility rate and substantial immigration unlike Europe and Japan, we will still have the youth and fiscal resources to afford a major geopolitical role The declinists have it wrong. The challenge facing America by the 2020s is not the inability of a weakening United States to lead the developed world. It is the inability of the other developed nations to be of much assistance A major reason the wealthy countries will need strong leadership are the demographic storms about to hit the developing world.¶ For the past quarter-century, China has been "peacefully rising," thanks in part to a one-child policy that has allowed both parents to work and contribute to China's boom. But by the 2020s as the huge Red Guard generation born before the country's fertility decline moves into retirement, they will tax the resources of their children and the state China's coming age wave may weaken the two pillars of the current regime's legitimacy: rapidly rising GDP and social stability. Imagine workforce growth slowing to zero while tens of millions of elders sink into indigence China could careen toward social collapse -- or, in reaction, toward an authoritarian clampdown.¶ Russia, along with the rest of Eastern Europe, is likely to experience the fastest extended population decline since the plague-ridden Middle Ages , the Russian fertility rate has plunged and life expectancy has collapsed By 2050, Russia is due to fall to 20th place in world population rankings, down from fourth place in 1950 ." If the problem isn't solved, Russia will weaken progressively -- raising the nightmarish specter of a failed state with nukes. Or this cornered bear may lash out in revanchist fury rather than meekly accept its demographic fate Sub-Saharan Africa -- which is afflicted with the world's highest fertility rates and ravaged by AIDS -- will still be racked by large youth bulges. So will several Muslim-majority countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, the Palestinian territories, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen most of these countries have demonstrated the correlation between extreme youth and violence. If that correlation endures, chronic unrest and state failure could persist through the 2020s -- or even longer fast-modernizing countries where fertility has fallen very recently and very steeply will experience an ominous resurgence of youth in the 2020s In the 2010s, a bust generation will be coming of age in much of Latin America, South Asia and the Muslim world. But by the 2020s, an echo boom will follow -- dashing economic expectations, swelling the ranks of the unemployed and perhaps fueling political violence, ethnic strife and religious extremism These echo booms will be especially large in Pakistan and Iran. In Pakistan, the number of young people in the volatile 15- to 24-year-old age bracket will contract by 3 percent in the 2010s, then leap upward by 20 percent in the 2020s. These echo booms will be occurring in countries whose social fabric is already strained by rapid development. One teeters on the brink of chaos, while the other aspires to regional hegemony. One already has nuclear weapons, and the other seems likely to obtain them.¶ All told, population trends point inexorably toward a more dominant U.S. role in a world that will need us more, not less. For the past several years, the U.N. has published a table ranking the world's 12 most populous countries over time By 2050, only one developed country will remain -- the United States, still in third place. By then, it will be the only country among the top 12 with a historical commitment to democracy, free markets and civil liberties.¶ Abraham Lincoln once called this country "the world's last best hope." Demography suggests that this will remain true for some time to come.
|
Uncontrolled aging crisis causes nuclear war
| 11,318 | 44 | 6,562 | 1,842 | 6 | 1,059 | 0.003257 | 0.574919 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,101 |
The Ulyanovsk initiative is just a part of Russia’s efforts to fight a looming demographic crisis that hovers over much of the world. Simply put, the world’s great powers are growing old. Steep declines in birthrates over the last century and major increases in life expectancies have caused the populations of Britain, China, France, Germany, Japan, Russia and the United States to age at a substantial rate. In Russia, declining birthrates and other factors are not just aging the society but actually shrinking the country’s population.¶ This phenomenon will have critical effects on America’s international-security interests in coming decades. Most important, global aging will be a potent force for the continuation of American military and economic dominance. Aging populations are likely to result in the slowdown of states’ economic growth at the same time that governments face pressure to pay for massive new expenditures for elderly care. This double economic dilemma will create such an austere fiscal environment that the other great powers will lack the resources necessary to overtake the United States’ huge power lead. This analysis applies even to China, which most analysts point to as America’s most likely future rival. China’s aging problem will be particularly dramatic over the next 40 years, which will make it difficult for it to challenge American international supremacy.¶ Meanwhile, America also seems likely to face fewer threats from terrorism based in Islamic countries. If current demographic trends continue, many Islamic states — now in the throes of “youth bulges” — will be aging as societies in coming decades. As active and disaffected young people have aged in other parts of the world, they have become a source of political stability and economic development. There is reason to believe this pattern will hold in Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other Muslim states as their youth slip into middle age.¶ Although the United States is also growing older, it is doing so to a lesser extent and less quickly than the other great powers. Consequently, the costs created by aging will be significantly lower for the U.S. than for potential competitors. Global aging is therefore likely not only to extend U.S. dominance (because the other major powers will lack the resources necessary to overtake the United States’ economic and military power lead) but also to deepen it as these other states are likely to fall even farther behind the United States. By inhibiting the other powers from challenging American primacy, global aging increases the odds in favor of continued peaceful relations among these states. Pax Americana is therefore likely to extend well into the 21st century.¶ Although the United States is in better demographic shape than the other great powers, it, too, will confront massive new costs created by an aging population. The U.S. will be more secure from great-power rivalry than it is today, but it (and its allies) will be less able to realize other key international objectives, including preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, funding nation building and engaging in humanitarian interventions, among the many costly conflict-resolution and prevention efforts it now undertakes. To protect America’s future international interests, it is vital that the country’s current leaders adopt policies designed to strengthen its demographic advantages. In the future, America’s ability to pay to care for its elderly citizens will become a matter not just of compassion but of national security.¶ Something New Under the Sun¶ The scope of the aging process in the great powers — a result of historically low fertility rates and expanding life expectancies —is unprecedented. By 2050, at least 20 percent of the citizens in Britain, China, France, Germany, Japan, Russia and the U.S. will be over 65, according to United Nations projections. In Japan, more than one of every three people will be over this age. In 2050, China will have more than 329 million people over 65, a total approximately equal to the entire current populations of France, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom combined. As aging progresses over the next half-century, the populations in Germany, Japan and Russia are expected to shrink significantly. Russia’s population is already decreasing by nearly 700,000 people per year, and Japan, too, is experiencing population decline. Russia’s aging problem is so severe that, in 2006, The New York Times quoted President Vladimir Putin calling demography “Russia’s most acute problem today.”¶ The aging of the world’s great powers is also happening quickly. It took France 115 years for the size of its 65-and-over age group to double from 7 to 14 percent of its population. The U.S. took 69 years to do so. China will experience this transformation in 27 years, or roughly one generation. China, in fact, will age at a pace and extent scarcely before witnessed in human history.¶ It is worth stressing that the predictions for global aging are very unlikely to be wrong. The reason for this certainty is simple: The elderly of the future are already born. Consequently, absent some global natural disaster, disease pandemic or other worldwide calamity (all extremely rare historically), the number of people in the world who are over 65 will increase dramatically in coming decades. Only major increases in immigration rates or fertility levels will prevent this inevitable rise in the number of elderly from resulting in significant increases in median ages in these states.¶ Such outcomes are unlikely. Over the next 50 years, immigration rates in the great powers would have to be orders of magnitude higher than historical levels to prevent population aging. Not only do the sheer numbers work against such an outcome, but some countries are becoming more hostile to immigration, despite its benefits for social aging. Both Japan and Russia passed laws in 2006 that will restrict immigration to these states, and right-wing parties have been on the rise across Europe since the 1990s, spurred largely by hostility toward immigrants.¶ Significant increases in fertility are also unlikely. Such an outcome would require a reversal of a centuries-long trend in the industrialized world, and one that has existed in many states despite the existence of pro-fertility governmental policies (perhaps the most direct of these being Russia’s “sex days”).¶ Aging in the most powerful actors in the international system is, in short, a virtual inevitability.¶ The Costs of Growing Old¶ In its most basic formulation, a state’s gross domestic product is a product of the number of workers and overall productivity. When a country’s work force shrinks as more people enter retirement than enter the labor market, so, too, will its GDP, unless productivity levels rise sufficiently to compensate for the loss. Japan’s and Russia’s working-age populations (ages 15 to 64) are expected to shrink by 34 percent by 2050, Germany’s by 20 percent, France’s by 6 percent and China’s by 3 percent. To prevent these work force reductions from translating into overall GDP decline, states’ productivity must increase proportionally. Although productivity will likely increase in most industrialized countries, work force contraction will still act as a substantial brake on economic growth in coming decades.¶ We are already witnessing this dynamic. Even though China is the youngest of the great powers, it is experiencing labor shortages that are threatening economic growth. These shortages are due in large part to the aging of China and reductions in the number of 15- to 35-year-olds there. Experts predict that shrinkage in China’s working-age population will result in a loss of 1 percent per year from this state’s GDP growth by the 2020s. The economic forecasts are even more dire for France, Germany and Japan, where massively contracting labor forces could result in overall annual GDP growth of roughly 1 percent in coming decades.¶ Significant societal aging may also limit productivity growth. The elderly are likely to be more conservative with their investments than younger people. The more risk averse a society’s investment portfolio is, the less entrepreneurship will be funded and, thus, the lower the gains in productivity. National savings rates may also shrink in aging states as seniors spend down their savings. The Japanese government has already reported that national savings rates are down substantially due to social aging. Reduced savings may lead to rising interest rates and ultimately to reduced rates of productivity increases.¶ An even more important economic effect of societal aging is the strain that it places on governmental resources. All governments in the industrialized world have made commitments to pay for substantial portions of the retirement and health care costs of their elderly citizens. Social aging increases these obligations in two principal respects. First, the older a society is, the greater the number of retirees and senior citizens for which a particular government is responsible. Second, the elderly, on average, require significantly more resources than working-age adults. Studies have shown that seniors use three to five times more medical care than younger people, for example.¶ The pension systems across the industrialized world will be particularly taxing on governments’ fiscal policies. The public pensions in all of the great powers are “pay as you go,” meaning that current workers are taxed to support current retirees. This type of system does not place a significant strain on a state’s economy as long as relatively high numbers of workers contribute to the system in relation to retirees. This will not be the case for much longer across the industrial world, and, in some cases, it is not true even today. France, Germany, Japan and Britain have roughly only four working-age adults per senior citizen. By 2050, only America among the great powers will have more than three working-age adults per elderly person.¶ The projected increases in governmental spending for the elderly in coming decades are sobering. Annual public pension and health care benefits to the elderly as a percentage of GDP are predicted to rise in 2040 by 15 percent in Japan (to an overall percentage of 27); by 13 percent in France (to an overall percentage of 29); by 11 percent in the United States (to an overall percentage of 20); by 10 percent in Germany (to an overall percentage of 26); and by 6 percent in Britain (to an overall percentage of 18).¶ These costs will be an increase of hundreds of billions of dollars to governments’ annual expenditures for many decades. To give some perspective on their magnitude, consider the following: Roughly 35 years from now, the annual amount of money that the great powers will have to spend on elderly care is going to increase by many times what these states currently spend on their militaries, even after adjusting for inflation. By 2040, Germany will have to increase its annual spending on elderly care by more than seven times what it currently spends on defense. France will have to spend more than five times as much and Japan more than 15 times as much.¶ Pax Americana Geriatrica¶ Population aging in the great powers will help prolong U.S. power dominance in the 21st century for three primary reasons. First, the massive costs created by aging populations, especially in combination with probable slowdowns in economic growth, will inhibit other major powers from significantly increasing military expenditures; these factors are even likely to push many of these states to reduce military spending from current levels. Second, with aging populations and shrinking work forces, other great powers will be forced to decide whether to spend increasing percentages of their defense budgets on personnel costs and military pensions, at the expense of the most technologically sophisticated weaponry. The third factor reinforces both of the previous points: Although the U.S. population is aging, it is doing so to a lesser extent and less quickly than those of the other great powers. The pressures pushing for the crowding out of military spending in favor of elderly care and the increasing substitution of labor for capital within defense budgets will be considerably smaller for the U.S. than for potential great-power competitors. By inhibiting the other powers from challenging America’s huge power lead, global aging will increase the likelihood of continued peaceful relations among these states.¶ We are, in fact, already witnessing in some states the crowding out of military spending for elderly care. Japan reduced military spending in the 2005 and 2006 budgets explicitly to pay for costs created by its rapidly aging population. The Japanese government has stated that over the next decade, general expenditures will have to be cut by 25 to 30 percent to address this problem. Similar pressure for cuts in defense spending to finance elderly-care costs is building in France and Germany.¶ The decision to cut military spending to pay elderly-care costs is likely to repeat itself in the state that is aging faster than any of the great powers: China. Rising longevity in China and the “one-child policy,” which has helped lower dramatically China’s fertility levels, have made China a rapidly aging society. By 2050, according to the U.N., China’s median age is predicted to be nearly 45, one of the oldest in the world. (The oldest country in the world today, Japan, has a median age of just under 43). The ratio of working-age adults to elderly will shrink from just under 10 in 2000 to 2.5 by 2050. China today has roughly 100 million citizens over the age of 65. This number will double in 20 years. Roughly 30 years from now, it is expected to triple.¶ Despite the effects of the one-child policy on China’s median age, China’s leaders are unlikely to repeal it in the near future. The New York Times reports that the Chinese government significantly increased the fines this year for wealthy couples who violate the law and have more than one child. Although some Chinese officials talk about reconsidering this law, any changes that do occur will most likely be incremental. The longer the one-child policy stays in effect, the more quickly China will age.¶ China is particularly unprepared to pay for the costs of its rapidly aging population. China’s elderly have very little savings. Nearly 80 percent of Chinese urban households with individuals aged 55 and over today have less than one year of income saved, and only 5 percent have more than two years of income in savings, according to Center for Strategic and International Studies and Asian Development Bank research. The Chinese government has also failed to set aside over the decades sufficient money to pay for elderly-care costs. Three-quarters of all Chinese workers are without any pension coverage, yet independent estimates have found a potential shortfall between China’s governmental obligations to the elderly and saved assets to be as much as 150 percent of its GDP.¶ China will not be able to “grow” its way out of this dilemma. Despite China’s very high levels of economic growth since the 1990s, it will become the first country to grow old before becoming an advanced industrial state. Even if China’s economy continues to grow in coming decades at rates similar to those it has experienced in recent years, by 2035, its median age will reach the levels of France, Germany and Japan today but at GDP-per-capita levels significantly lower than these states currently possess.¶ China has traditionally relied on the family unit to provide for elderly care in lieu of adequate public and private resources. But as The New York Times has noted, increasing rates of divorce, urbanization (and related migration) and female work force participation will place significant strain on this tradition. Decreasing family size will prove especially problematic for preserving elderly welfare within the context of the family. Demographers refer to a rapidly growing “4-2-1″ phenomenon in China, in which one child is responsible for caring for two parents and four grandparents.¶ Within 15 years, China’s leaders will be faced with a difficult choice: Allow growing levels of poverty within an exploding elderly population, or provide the resources necessary to avoid this situation. The Chinese government’s assumption since 2000 of unfunded pension liabilities of state-owned enterprises reveals the political and moral pressure working for the latter outcome. This pressure to significantly expand and deepen China’s welfare system will only grow as its aging crisis becomes increasingly acute in the decades to come. In this context, the crowding out of military and other discretionary expenditures will be likely, to the great benefit of America’s relative power position.¶ Aging is also likely to push militaries to spend more on personnel and less on other areas, including weapons development and procurement. This is important because no nation will be able to challenge U.S. military dominance without the ability to wage highly technologically sophisticated warfare. When states are forced to spend more of their military budgets on personnel than research, development and weapons procurement, the odds of continued U.S. military primacy increase substantially.¶ The oldest of the great powers are already devoting significantly more resources to military personnel than weapons purchases and research. Over the last 10 years, both France and Germany have dedicated nearly 60 percent of their military budgets to personnel. Germany spends nearly four times as much on personnel as weapons procurement; France, Japan and Russia roughly 2.5 times more. The U.S., in contrast, dedicates only 1.15 times more money to personnel than weapons purchases.¶ Population aging is a key cause of increasing military personnel costs for two main reasons. First, as societies age, more people exit the work force than enter it. Increasing numbers of retirees in relation to new workers are likely to create labor shortages relative to previous levels of employment. The result will be increased competition among businesses and organizations —including the military — to hire workers. Consequently, if states’ militaries want to be able to attract and keep the best employees in vital areas of operation — especially those in high-tech fields who usually have the most employment options and can command high salaries in the private sector — they are going to have to pay more to do so. If militaries do not increase their outlays for personnel, their effectiveness will diminish. A 2006 report endorsed by EU defense ministers made precisely these points, stating that the aging of Europe’s people will “inevitably” lead to rising military personnel per capita costs if European forces are to remain effective.¶ Similarly, to keep military salaries on par with wages in its expanding economy, China — even though its armed forces are conscripted — has had to raise military wages sharply in recent years. According to the Chinese government, growing personnel expenses are the most important factor behind the growth of China’s defense budget in the last decade.¶ The great powers’ pension obligations to retired military personnel are also considerable. Russia spends significantly more on military retirees than on either weapons procurement or military research and development, according to its 2006 defense budget.¶ Pensions for military retirees are not one-time costs but go on for decades, doing nothing to increase states’ power-projection capabilities. Every dollar spent on retirees is one less dollar that can be spent on weapons, research or active personnel. Consequently, every dollar spent in this area by the other great powers increases the likelihood of continued U.S. primacy.¶ U.S. Aging: Bad, But Better Than the Rest¶ At a gala event held at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 15, 2007, Kathleen Casey-Kirschling, who was born one second after midnight on Jan. 1, 1946, became the first baby boomer to file for Social Security. Over the next 20 years, 76 million Americans from the age cohort born between 1946 and 1964 will join her.¶ The costs created by America’s aging population are staggering. The Congressional Budget Office projects that by 2015, spending on the elderly will total almost $1.8 trillion, nearly half of the anticipated federal budget. Health care costs, in particular, are the United States’ biggest problem regarding societal aging. The United States spends more than twice as much per capita in this area than any other industrial great power (though it ranks 48th in the world in life expectancy). According to conservative estimates – absent reforms – the costs of Medicare alone will be at least $2.6 trillion in 2050, after adjusting for inflation, which is roughly the size of the current U.S. federal budget.¶ Despite these expected cost increases, the United States is in significantly better shape to address the challenges created by its aging population than the other powers. The U.S. is the youngest of all the G-8 nations. Because it has the highest fertility and immigration rates of these countries, it will maintain, even strengthen, this position in coming decades. In 2050, the United States’ median age will be the lowest of any of the great powers, in most cases by a substantial extent. (China’s median age will surpass the United States’ by 2020.) Perhaps most important, while the working-age populations in all the other great powers are predicted by 2050 to either decline (China, France, Germany, Japan and Russia) or increase modestly (Britain), this demographic group is expected to increase by 31 percent in the U.S.¶ The United States’ relatively youthful demographics will help greatly with the fiscal challenges created by aging. The growing U.S. labor force over the next 50 years will contribute to an expanding economy, thereby providing the government with additional revenue without it having to increase taxes, borrow more money or cut other spending. In addition, the United States has a relatively well-funded pension system (especially in relation to China, France, Germany and Russia); its public welfare commitments to the elderly are relatively modest compared with those of other industrialized powers; its citizens work many more hours per year and significantly later in life than the average individual in the other powers; and its tax burden is low compared with those of other powers.¶ American expectations are also comparatively favorable. In a 2008 Harris Interactive poll of citizens in the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain, Americans had the highest predictions of when they would retire (67.2 years old) and the lowest expectations — by far — regarding governmental support of their retirement. (Only 27 percent of Americans believed that the national government should bear most of their retirement costs; this percentage ranged from 45 to 72 in European countries.) These expectations reveal that U.S. citizens are much more amenable to entitlement reforms and benefit cuts than are most Europeans.¶ Again, the preceding facts do not mean that the U.S. will escape the fiscal burdens created by aging or that this phenomenon will not create negative ramifications for U.S. security. Rather, as burdensome as the public costs of aging will be for the United States, the public benefits owed to U.S. seniors as a percentage of GDP will likely remain substantially lower than in most of the other great powers. Moreover, the U.S. will be better positioned to pay for these costs than the other major actors. Global aging will therefore be a powerful force for the continuation of the relative power dominance of the United States.¶ Population Aging and the ”War on Terrorism”¶ Numerous studies have shown that there is a strong, positive relationship between so-called youth bulges — a disproportionately high number of young people in a society — and political violence, including civil conflict and terrorism. Developing states’ economies frequently have difficulty creating enough jobs to accommodate the exploding work forces in very young societies. Not surprisingly, the region that has the most youth bulges in the world — the Middle East and North Africa —also has, by far, the highest unemployment rates among young adults: 26 percent in 2006.¶ High levels of unemployment inevitably create strong grievances against existing political and economic policies, and, thus, a large pool of potential recruits for violent political change. The young tend to be particularly idealistic, which inclines members of this demographic group to believe that major political and social change can and should be made, even if this objective requires the use of force. The young are less likely to be married, have established careers or possess prominent positions in the community. As a result, young people, especially in the context of economic deprivation and political oppression, frequently feel that they have little to lose by engaging in violent acts designed to change the status quo.¶ Given the relationship between youth bulges and political violence and radicalism, it is no surprise that Islamic states in general — and Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Palestine (aka the occupied territories), Afghanistan and Pakistan in particular — have been hotbeds for domestic violence and international terrorism in recent years. In 2000, at least 45 percent of all adults in these countries were in the 15-to-29 age range.¶ The potential good news for the U.S. is that population aging may help alleviate, albeit slowly, the deleterious effects of youth bulges in many Islamic states. If current trends in fertility rates continue, by 2030, the youth bulges in Iraq, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia will all have receded. Population aging and the diminishment of youth bulges have been a source of political stability and economic development in many other countries over the last half-century, including in East Asia and Europe. There is little reason to believe that this pattern will not hold true in Islamic states, even though the transformation will require several generations.¶ Demography may ultimately hold the key for winning the “war on terrorism.”¶ The Bad News¶ Although global population aging is likely to create substantial security benefits for the U.S. in coming decades, the same phenomenon is also likely to threaten U.S. international interests in important ways.¶ First, the negative impact on the other great powers’ economic growth and military spending is, in some respects, a double-edged sword. On the one hand, these outcomes will mean that no state will be able to overtake the United States’ position of economic and military dominance. The same factor, though, will also reduce the amount of economic or military aid that other states will be able to contribute toward the realization of common international interests. Instead of increasing “burden sharing” with key allies, the United States will have to pay even more of the costs of its international goals than it does today.¶ Second, while the U.S. should expect less international aid from its allies, it, too, is likely to experience the slowing of economic growth and the crowding out of military expenditures for elderly care. America will in all likelihood have to scale back the scope of its international policies. The United States’ current position of unprecedented power allows its leaders to pursue highly extensive global commitments. The U.S. has military personnel in more than 140 countries in the world, and over the last 15 years, the U.S. has engaged in nearly 50 military interventions, more than any other state, by far, in the system. The primary motivation in at least four of these operations — Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo — was humanitarian.¶ In the aftermath of many of these interventions, the U.S. devoted considerable resources to help create stable political and civil institutions (so-called nation building). America also plays the dominant role in facilitating international trade and has borne the primary costs in trying to prevent “rogue” states — including Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Libya — from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. The economic effects of an aging population will deny the U.S. the fiscal room necessary to maintain the extent of its current global position, let alone adopt major new international initiatives. In the face of the exploding costs for elderly care and retirement, the crowding out of other spending will occur even for the richest country in the history of the world, to the likely detriment of American security.¶ America’s Golden Years?¶ The policy choices that flow from this article’s analysis are clear. Internationally, America’s long-term objective should be to help reduce fertility rates in developing countries. This outcome will likely reduce the problems created by youth bulges, including international terrorism. Policies that increase women’s rights and educational and employment opportunities, as well as those that provide better access to birth control, are key means to this end. International development aid designed to increase states’ GDP-per-capita levels should also be high among America’s foreign-policy priorities. The U.S., though, dedicates relatively few resources toward these goals. A December 2005 report issued by the Council on Foreign Relations with bipartisan leadership notes that demographics continued to be a neglected area of U.S. foreign policies. This important oversight needs to be corrected, and quickly.¶ In terms of domestic policies, U.S. leaders need to be proactive in maintaining America’s enviable demographic position. Specifically, America should reduce Social Security and Medicare payments to wealthier citizens, maintain largely open immigration policies that help keep its median age relatively low and restrain the rising costs of its health care system.
|
Hass 8 assistant professor in the department of political science and the Graduate Center for Social and Public Policy at Duquesne University. He formerly was a National Security fellow at the Olin Institute for Strategic Studies and an International Security fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, both at Harvard University, (Mark, “Pax Americana Geriatrica,” July 14, http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture-society/pax-americana-geriatrica-4416/)
|
Steep declines in birthrates over the last century and major increases in life expectancies have caused the populations of Britain, China, France, Germany, Japan, Russia and the United States to age at a substantial rate This phenomenon will have critical effects on America’s international-security interests global aging will be a potent force for the continuation of American military and economic dominance Aging populations are likely to result in the slowdown of states’ economic growth at the same time that governments face pressure to pay for massive new expenditures for elderly care other great powers will lack the resources necessary to overtake the United States’ huge power lead. This analysis applies even to China China’s aging problem will be particularly dramatic over the next 40 years which will make it difficult for it to challenge American international supremacy. Although the United States is also growing older, it is doing so to a lesser extent and less quickly than the other great powers the costs created by aging will be significantly lower for the U.S. than for potential competitors Global aging is therefore likely not only to extend U.S. dominance but also to deepen it as these other states are likely to fall even farther behind the United States , global aging increases the odds in favor of continued peaceful relations among these states Pax Americana is therefore likely to extend well into the 21st century.¶ Although the United States is in better demographic shape than the other great powers, it, too, will confront massive new costs created by an aging population. The U.S. will be more secure from great-power rivalry than it is today, but it (and its allies) will be less able to realize other key international objectives, including preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, funding nation building and engaging in humanitarian interventions To protect America’s future international interests, it is vital that the country’s current leaders adopt policies designed to strengthen its demographic advantages America’s ability to pay to care for its elderly citizens will become a matter not just of compassion but of national security.¶ The scope of the aging process in the great powers — a result of historically low fertility rates and expanding life expectancies —is unprecedented populations in Germany, Japan and Russia are expected to shrink significantly It is worth stressing that the predictions for global aging are very unlikely to be wrong. The reason for this certainty is simple: The elderly of the future are already born absent some global natural disaster, disease pandemic or other worldwide calamity the number of people in the world who are over 65 will increase dramatically in coming decades Over the next 50 years, immigration rates in the great powers would have to be orders of magnitude higher than historical levels to prevent population aging Not only do the sheer numbers work against such an outcome, but some countries are becoming more hostile to immigration, despite its benefits for social aging Significant increases in fertility are also unlikely. Such an outcome would require a reversal of a centuries-long trend in the industrialized world, and one that has existed in many states despite the existence of pro-fertility governmental policies Aging in the most powerful actors in the international system is, in short, a virtual inevitability.¶ Although productivity will likely increase in most industrialized countries, work force contraction will still act as a substantial brake on economic growth in coming decades Even though China is the youngest of the great powers, it is experiencing labor shortages that are threatening economic growth Significant societal aging may also limit productivity growth. The elderly are likely to be more conservative with their investments The more risk averse a society’s investment portfolio is, the less entrepreneurship will be funded National savings rates may also shrink in aging states as seniors spend down their savings. Reduced savings may lead to rising interest rates and ultimately to reduced rates of productivity increases. All governments in the industrialized world have made commitments to pay for substantial portions of the retirement and health care costs of their elderly citizens the older a society is the greater the number of retirees and senior citizens for which a particular government is responsible the elderly, on average, require significantly more resources than working-age adults pension systems across the industrialized world will be particularly taxing on governments’ fiscal policies. costs will be an increase of hundreds of billions of dollars to governments’ annual expenditures for many decades the annual amount of money that the great powers will have to spend on elderly care is going to increase by many times what these states currently spend on their militaries . By 2040, Germany will have to increase its annual spending on elderly care by more than seven times what it currently spends on defense. Population aging will help prolong U.S. power dominance in the 21st century for three primary reasons the massive costs created by aging populations, will inhibit other major powers from significantly increasing military expenditures with aging populations and shrinking work forces, other great powers will be forced to decide whether to spend increasing percentages of their defense budgets on personnel costs and military pensions at the expense of the most technologically sophisticated weaponry Although the U.S. population is aging, it is doing so to a lesser extent and less quickly than those of the other great powers. The pressures pushing for the crowding out of military spending in favor of elderly care and the increasing substitution of labor for capital within defense budgets will be considerably smaller for the U.S. than for potential great-power competitors The decision to cut military spending to pay elderly-care costs is likely to repeat itself in China. Rising longevity in China and the “one-child policy,” which has helped lower dramatically China’s fertility levels, have made China a rapidly aging society Despite the effects of the one-child policy on China’s median age, China’s leaders are unlikely to repeal it in the near future the Chinese government significantly increased the fines this year for wealthy couples who violate the law and have more than one child China is particularly unprepared to pay for the costs of its rapidly aging population. China’s elderly have very little savings The Chinese government has also failed to set aside over the decades sufficient money to pay for elderly-care costs. Three-quarters of all Chinese workers are without any pension coverage, yet independent estimates have found a potential shortfall between China’s governmental obligations to the elderly and saved assets to be as much as 150 percent of its GDP. China will not be able to “grow” its way out of this dilemma. Despite China’s very high levels of economic growth it will become the first country to grow old before becoming an advanced industrial state. Even if China’s economy continues to grow in coming decades at rates similar to those it has experienced in recent years, by 2035, its median age will reach the levels of France, Germany and Japan today but at GDP-per-capita levels significantly lower This pressure to significantly expand and deepen China’s welfare system will only grow as its aging crisis becomes increasingly acute in the decades to come. In this context, the crowding out of military and other discretionary expenditures will be likely, to the great benefit of America’s relative power position Aging is also likely to push militaries to spend more on personnel and less on weapons development no nation will be able to challenge U.S. military dominance without the ability to wage highly technologically sophisticated warfare When states are forced to spend more of their military budgets on personnel than research, development and weapons procurement, the odds of continued U.S. military primacy increase substantially Population aging is a key cause of increasing military personnel costs Increasing numbers of retirees in relation to new workers are likely to create labor shortages if states’ militaries want to be able to attract and keep the best employees in vital areas of operation — especially those in high-tech fields who usually have the most employment options and can command high salaries in the private sector — they are going to have to pay more to keep military salaries on par with wages in its expanding economy, China has had to raise military wages sharply in recent years. According to the Chinese government growing personnel expenses are the most important factor behind the growth of China’s defense budget in the last decade. pension obligations to retired military personnel are also considerable The costs created by America’s aging population are staggering Health care costs, in particular, are the United States’ biggest problem regarding societal aging. The Despite these expected cost increases, the United States is in significantly better shape to address the challenges created by its aging population than the other powers In 2050, the United States’ median age will be the lowest of any of the great powers, in most cases by a substantial extent The United States’ relatively youthful demographics will help greatly with the fiscal challenges created by aging. U.S. citizens are much more amenable to entitlement reforms and benefit cuts than are most Europeans.¶ the preceding facts do not mean that the U.S. will escape the fiscal burdens created by aging or that this phenomenon will not create negative ramifications for U.S. security Rather the public benefits owed to U.S. seniors as a percentage of GDP will likely remain substantially lower than in most of the other great powers Global aging will therefore be a powerful force for the continuation of the relative power dominance of the United States Although global population aging is likely to create substantial security benefits for the U.S. in coming decades, the same phenomenon is also likely to threaten U.S. international interests the negative impact on the other great powers’ economic growth and military spending is, in some respects, a double-edged sword will also reduce the amount of economic or military aid that other states will be able to contribute toward the realization of common international interests the United States will have to pay even more of the costs of its international goals than it does today.¶ while the U.S. should expect less international aid from its allies, it, too, is likely to experience the slowing of economic growth and the crowding out of military expenditures for elderly America will in all likelihood have to scale back the scope of its international policies In terms of domestic policies, U.S. leaders need to be proactive in maintaining America’s enviable demographic position America should maintain largely open immigration policies that help keep its median age relatively low and restrain the rising costs of its health care system.
|
Aging crisis guarantees great power war – hurts U.S. standing internationally
| 30,199 | 77 | 11,260 | 4,789 | 11 | 1,783 | 0.002297 | 0.372312 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,102 |
Stories like his are not unique. They’re also troubling for the U.S. economy, advocates say. For the first time, the number of immigrant-founded startups is in decline, as foreign-born entrepreneurs struggle to obtain a limited number of visas and green cards and decide to launch companies in other countries that offer perks to start businesses there. Losing founders like Darash, who launch startups that create jobs, means that America risks losing a source of employment and a competitive edge in the global economy as the country claws its way out of a recession, they say.¶ For years, immigrant entrepreneurs have propelled the growth of Silicon Valley, building some of the most successful tech companies in the world: Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, was born in Russia; Elon Musk, co-founder of PayPal and Tesla, was born in South Africa; Vinod Khosla, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, was born in India. When they immigrated, it was likely easier for them because there was not a backlog that there is today, according to Vivek Wadhwa, a professor at the Pratt School of Engineering at Duke University who researches high-tech immigration. Immigrants are more than twice as likely to start a business as native-born Americans, according to a report earlier this year by the Partnership for a New American Economy. And their companies have produced sizable economic benefits. This year, engineering and technology companies founded in the United States employed about 560,000 workers and generated $63 billion in sales, according to Wadhwa. About a quarter of those companies had at least one foreign-born founder.¶ An estimated three out of every four startups fail, if not more. But by the conventional wisdom of Silicon Valley, Darash’s chances were even slimmer. For one, he does not have a co-founder. He insists he doesn’t need one. (Paul Graham, creator of the startup incubator Y Combinator, has said having a co-founder is critical because “a startup is too much for one person to bear.”) Darash also never worked for a major tech company before, so he did not have the network of contacts that help other entrepreneurs find engineers and meet investors.¶ But what he has lacked in support and connections he has made up for through a work ethic that borders on obsession.¶ “Asaf is a stubborn guy,” said Adam Gries, a childhood friend and founder of Smart Bites, a smartphone app that teaches people English. “He gets into his head that something is going to happen and he’s tenacious.”¶ Darash awakes every morning at 4:30 a.m., takes the BART train from his home in Berkeley to San Francisco, and arrives at the office by 6 a.m. He works for an hour, then walks across the street to the gym to swim and lift weights (A back injury he suffered while serving in the Israeli army requires him to stay physically strong). He typically does not go home until 9 p.m., after his children have gone to bed. Employees say he is a “total workaholic” who sends emails past midnight and sleeps just a few hours a night.¶ “I have a one-and-a-half year old who sees his Daddy maybe three hours a week,” Darash said. “It’s hard to explain how much sacrifice you make to bring a company from an idea to something real, especially if it’s a company with high-level technology.”¶ He is hands-on about all aspects of the company, from courting new clients to writing code. But lately, Darash has been distracted, spending valuable hours gathering documents and talking to lawyers, instead of running his company. His wife recently flew back to Israel to find housing and a school for their kids in case they have to leave the United States. He describes feeling a range of emotions: anger, fear, frustration. Mostly, though, he is confused. In his homeland of Israel, politicians fight over who can attract more foreign entrepreneurs. The United States, he says, should be rolling out the welcome mat for him, not ushering him out the door.¶ “I could not even comprehend this would become a problem,” he said. “I’m creating a company. I’m creating jobs. There’s nothing bad in what I’m doing and there’s nothing I’m taking away from someone else. The only thing I’m doing is creating more!”¶ “SERIOUS ALARM”¶ Since 2005, the number of immigrant-founded startups in Silicon Valley has declined from 52 percent to 44 percent, according to Wadhwa, who argues this drop is cause for “serious alarm” because America needs to attract immigrant entrepreneurs for its economy to recover.¶ “The United States risks losing a key growth engine right at the moment when it’s economy is stuck in a deep ditch, growing slowly and struggling to create jobs,” Wadhwa wrote in his new book, The Immigrant Exodus.¶ Their recent decline could be linked to entrepreneurs finding better business prospects abroad, especially in countries with growing economies like India and China. But advocates say a major reason why immigrants are launching fewer startups in the United States is because they are struggling to secure visas to remain in the country.
|
Smith 12 [Gerry, technology reporter, "Brain Drain: Why We're Driving Immigration Talent Overseas" Huffington Post -- November 5 -- www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/immigrant-entrepreneur_n_2077183.html]
|
They’re troubling for the U.S. economy the number of immigrant-founded startups is in decline as foreign-born entrepreneurs struggle to obtain visas and green cards and decide to launch companies in other countries America risks losing a source of employment and a competitive edge in the global economy as the country claws its way out of a recession immigrant entrepreneurs have propelled the growth of Silicon Valley Immigrants are more than twice as likely to start a business as native-born Americans their companies have produced sizable economic benefits engineering and technology companies employed about 560,000 workers and generated $63 billion in sales a quarter of those companies had at least one foreign-born founder Since 2005, the number of immigrant-founded startups in Silicon Valley has declined from 52 percent to 44 percent this drop is cause for “serious alarm because America needs to attract immigrant entrepreneurs for its economy to recover The United States risks losing a key growth engine right at the moment when it’s economy is stuck in a deep ditch, growing slowly and struggling to create jobs Their decline could be linked to entrepreneurs finding better business prospects abroad, a major reason why immigrants are launching fewer startups in the U S is because they are struggling to secure visas to remain in the country.
|
Reform key to the economy – decline in immigration spurs new recession
| 5,036 | 70 | 1,359 | 841 | 12 | 216 | 0.014269 | 0.256837 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,103 |
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 13 [Edward, correspondent, "Analysis: Immigration reform could boost U.S. economic growth" Reuters -- January 29 -- www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/29/us-usa-economyimmigration-idUSBRE90S06R20130129]
|
The sluggish U.S. economy could get a lift Relaxed immigration rules could encourage entrepreneurship increase demand for housing raise tax revenues and help reduce the budget deficit 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 industries in the United States can't find the workers they need to fill their orders and expand their production as the market demands immigration increases demand and productivity helps drive innovation and lowers prices proposals would include means to keep and attract workers with backgrounds in science, technology, engineering and mathematics An estimated 40 percent of scientists in the United States are immigrants and studies show 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 That's an annual increase of 0.8 percentage points to the economic growth rate, currently stuck at about 2 percent
|
Reform controls the internal link to the economy – jobs, innovation, and market demand
| 2,374 | 86 | 1,099 | 367 | 14 | 168 | 0.038147 | 0.457766 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,104 |
Out of countless conversations with business leaders in virtually every sector and every state, a consensus has emerged: our broken and outdated immigration system hinders our economy’s growth and puts America’s global leadership in jeopardy.¶ Innovation drives the American economy, and without good ideas and skilled workers, our country won’t be able to transform industries or to lead world markets as effectively as it has done for decades.¶ Consider some figures: Immigrant-owned firms generate an estimated $775 billion in annual revenue, $125 billion in payroll and about $100 billion in income. A study conducted by the New American Economy found that over 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were started by immigrants or children of immigrants.¶ Leading brands, like Google, Kohls, eBay, Pfizer, and AT&T, were founded by immigrants. Researchers at the Kauffman Foundation released a study late last year showing that from 2006 to 2012, one in four engineering and technology companies started in the U.S. had at least one foreign-born founder — in Silicon Valley it was almost half of new companies.¶ There are an estimated 11 million undocumented workers currently in the U.S. Imagine what small business growth in the U.S. would look like if they were provided legal status, if they had an opportunity for citizenship. Without fear of deportation or prosecution, imagine the pent up entrepreneurship that could be unleashed. After all, these are people who are clearly entrepreneurial in spirit to have come here and risk all in the first place.¶ Immigrants are twice as likely to start businesses as native-born Americans, and statistics show that most job growth comes from small businesses.¶ While immigrants are both critically-important consumers and producers, they boost the economic well-being of native-born Americans as well.¶ Scholars at the Brookings Institution recently described the relationship of these two groups of workers as complementary. This is because lower-skilled immigrants largely take farming and other manual, low-paid jobs that native-born workers don’t usually want.¶ For example, when Alabama passed HB 56, an immigration law in 2012 aimed at forcing self-deportation, the state lost roughly $11 billion in economic productivity as crops were left to wither and jobs were lost.¶ Immigration reform would also address another important angle in the debate – the need to entice high-skilled immigrants. Higher-skilled immigrants provide talent that high-tech companies often cannot locate domestically. High-tech leaders recently organized a nationwide “virtual march for immigration reform” to pressure policymakers to remove barriers that prevent them from recruiting the workers they need.¶ Finally, and perhaps most importantly, fixing immigration makes sound fiscal sense. Economist Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda calculated in 2010 that comprehensive immigration reform would add $1.5 trillion to the country’s GDP over 10 years and add $66 billion in tax revenue – enough to fully fund the Small Business Administration and the Departments of the Treasury and Commerce for over two years.¶ As Congress continues to wring its hands and debate the issue, lawmakers must understand what both businesses and workers already know: The American economy needs comprehensive immigration reform.
|
Palomarez 3-6-13 [Javier, President & CEO of the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce., "The pent up entreprenuership that immigration reform woudl unleash" Forbes -- www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/03/06/the-pent-up-entrepreneurship-that-immigration-reform-would-unleash/]
|
, a consensus has emerged: our broken and outdated immigration system hinders our economy’s growth and puts America’s global leadership in jeopardy Innovation drives the American economy, and without good ideas and skilled workers, our country won’t be able to transform industries or to lead world markets effectively Immigrant-owned firms generate an estimated $775 billion in annual revenue, $125 billion in payroll and about $100 billion in income over 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were started by immigrants or children of immigrants.¶ one in four engineering and technology companies started in the U.S. had at least one foreign-born founder Immigrants are twice as likely to start businesses While immigrants are both critically-important consumers and producers, they boost the economic well-being of native-born Americans as well.¶ Scholars at the Brookings Institution recently described the relationship of these two groups of workers as complementary Immigration reform would also address another important angle in the debate – the need to entice high-skilled immigrants Higher-skilled immigrants provide talent that high-tech companies often cannot locate domestically fixing immigration makes sound fiscal sense comprehensive immigration reform would add $1.5 trillion to the country’s GDP over 10 years and add $66 billion in tax revenue The American economy needs comprehensive immigration reform.
|
Immigration key to the economy – competitiveness, growth, jobs, innovation
| 3,327 | 74 | 1,421 | 501 | 10 | 206 | 0.01996 | 0.411178 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,105 |
As the U.S. economy continues to improve, there will be a greater need for labor and the deport-all approach to illegal immigration will start to subside. Our country should not have millions living in the shadows. It is a matter of national security, but also of economic opportunity.¶ In 2010, the Center for American Progress concluded that immigration reform would lead to a $1.5 trillion growth in gross domestic product over the next ten years. Legalized immigrants would buy homes and cars generating new revenues for the private sector and more taxes for governments.¶ Comprehensive immigration reform makes sense. Obama should work with Congress to approve a path to legalize those undocumented immigrants who work hard and have not committed serious crimes.
|
Escalona 13 [Alejandro, writer and editor, 01/24, "Time Is Ripe for Immigration Reform" Huffington Post -- www.huffingtonpost.com/alejandro-escalona/time-for-immigration-reform_b_2533806.html]
|
As the U.S. economy continues to improve, there will be a greater need for labor It is a matter of economic opportunity. immigration reform would lead to a $1.5 trillion growth in gross domestic product Legalized immigrants would buy homes and cars generating new revenues for the private sector and more taxes for governments.¶ Comprehensive immigration reform makes sense. Obama should work with Congress to approve a path to legalize undocumented immigrants
|
Immigration reform spurs 1.5 trillion growth in GDP
| 767 | 51 | 460 | 122 | 8 | 72 | 0.065574 | 0.590164 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,106 |
The results of our modeling suggest that comprehensive immigration reform would increase U.S. GDP by at least 0.84 percent per year. Using 10-year GDP projections prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, this translates into a steadily increasing amount of added annual GDP over the coming decade. The 10-year total is at least $1.5 trillion in added GDP, which includes roughly $1.2 trillion in additional consumption and $256 billion in additional investment. Comprehensive immigration reform brings substantial economic gains even in the short run—during the first three years following legalization. The real wages of newly legalized workers increase by roughly $4,400 per year among those in less-skilled jobs during the first three years of implementation, and $6,185 per year for those in higher-skilled jobs. The higher earning power of newly legalized workers translates into an increase in net personal income of $30 billion to $36 billion, which would generate $4.5 to $5.4 billion in additional net tax revenue nationally, enough to support 750,000 to 900,000 new jobs.
|
Ojeda 12 (Raul Hinojosa, “The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform”) http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2012/1/cj32n1-12.pdf
|
The results of our modeling suggest that comprehensive immigration reform would increase U.S. GDP by at least 0.84 percent per year The 10-year total is at least $1.5 trillion in added GDP Comprehensive immigration reform brings substantial economic gains even in the short run he real wages of newly legalized workers increase by roughly $4,400 per year
|
CIR is key to the economy – capital injection, work force, tax base
| 1,085 | 67 | 354 | 166 | 13 | 57 | 0.078313 | 0.343373 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,107 |
The benefits of additional U.S. GDP growth under the comprehensive immigration reform scenario are spread very broadly throughout the U.S. economy, with virtually every sector expanding. Particularly large increases occur in immigrant-heavy industries such as textiles, ferrous metals, transportation equipment, electronic equipment, motor vehicles and parts, nonelectric machinery and equipment, capital goods, mineral products, and construction. In comparison, every sector experiences significantly smaller gains 32739_Ch12_Hinojosa_19016_Cato 12/29/11 2:13 PM Page 190191 Comprehensive Immigration Reform under the temporary worker scenario, while every sector contracts under the mass deportation scenario.
|
Ojeda 12 (Raul Hinojosa, “The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform”) http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2012/1/cj32n1-12.pdf
|
The benefits of additional U.S. GDP growth under the comprehensive immigration reform scenario are spread very broadly Particularly large increases occur in immigrant-heavy industries such as textiles ferrous metals, transportation equipment, electronic equipment, motor vehicles and parts, nonelectric machinery and equipment, capital goods, mineral products, and construction
|
It accesses every sector
| 711 | 24 | 377 | 87 | 4 | 47 | 0.045977 | 0.54023 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,108 |
Immigration, immigration, immigration: it seems that reform has become the hot topic of the day now that the debt ceiling debate is temporarily over. PolicyMic has published at least 16 articles over the last week that dealt with the topic. We have had a bipartisan panel and President Obama release ideas for immigration reform, and you can expect it to play a significant role in his upcoming State of the Union address. With the economy still the biggest driver of dissatisfaction in this country, how will passing immigration reform impact the economic recovery? Passing a comprehensive package will positively impact the economy in three key areas: consumption, tax revenue and job creation.¶ 1. Consumption:¶ Consumption is driven by wages, and so to understand how consumption will improve, we have to look at wage increases. Immigration reform does not just impact the immigrant community, but U.S.-born workers as well. Our first glimpses are the effects of President Reagan's Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. While immigrants still made less than their U.S. born-comrades, they still saw their incomes increase by 15% years following their legalization. While anti-immigration reform groups will dispute the effectiveness of the reforms of 1986, they can’t refute the increase in wages.¶ These wage increases also extended to U.S.-born workers. The Economic Policy Institute looked at the impact immigration had on wages of the non-immigrant community. What they found was that between 1994 and 2007, wages increased by 0.4% over foreign-born workers. This also extended to those with less than a high school education, who still saw a 0.3% increase during that same time as a result of immigration. These aren't huge gains, but the size of the gains wasn't as important as what they indicated: more workers mean a bigger economy. The influx of immigrant workers meant more people were earning wages, and therefore spending more and growing the economy, which in turn meant higher wages and more opportunities for everyone.¶ 2. Tax Revenue:¶ The increase in wage earners, wages, and spending leads to higher tax revenues. A 2010 study by the University of Southern California estimated that undocumented Latino workers missed out on $2.2 billion in income. As a result, the state of California missed out on $310 million in income taxes. They also determined that the federal government lost out on $1.4 billion in taxes.¶ Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 would have generated $66 billion in new revenue between 2007 and 2016. This increase in revenue would have more than offset the estimated increase in entitlement spending of $54 billion.¶ 3. Job Creation:¶ The final area for consideration is job creation. Ezra Klein of The Washington Post examined this in a recent post. Small businesses are drivers of the economy, and as Klein points out, immigrants start business and file patents at a much higher rate than the non-immigrant community.¶ Our economy is struggling to create jobs and encourage consumer spending, and all levels of government are struggling to generate the necessary revenues and right spending cuts to tackle growing debt.¶ These factors make immigration reform a nobrainer. A comprehensive immigration plan addresses all three of these key areas to fixing our economy. In fact, immigration reform should be looked at as more than just immigration policy – it's economic policy. The economy and our country will be better because of it.
|
De Los Santos 13 [Michael, political writer, contributor @ Policy Mic, 02/09, "3 Ways Immigration Reform Will Lead to a Stronger American Economy" Policy Mic -- www.policymic.com/articles/25301/3-ways-immigration-reform-will-lead-to-a-stronger-american-economy]
|
how will passing immigration reform impact the economic recovery Passing a comprehensive package will positively impact the economy in three key areas: consumption, tax revenue and job creation.¶ Consumption is driven by wages Immigration reform does not just impact the immigrant community, but U.S.-born workers Immigration Reform and Control Act saw incomes increase by 15% following legalization These wage increases extended to U.S.-born workers more workers mean a bigger economy The influx of immigrant workers meant more people were earning wages, and therefore spending more and growing the economy, which in turn meant higher wages and more opportunities for everyone The increase in wage earners, wages, and spending leads to higher tax revenues the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 would have generated $66 billion in new revenue between 2007 and 2016 Small businesses are drivers of the economy immigrants start business and file patents at a much higher rate than the non-immigrant community Our economy is struggling to create jobs and encourage consumer spending, and all levels of government are struggling to generate the necessary revenues These factors make immigration reform a nobrainer A comprehensive immigration plan addresses all three of these key areas to fixing our economy The economy and our country will be better because of it.
|
Comprehensive reform solves the economy – wages, revenue, jobs
| 3,595 | 62 | 1,372 | 573 | 9 | 210 | 0.015707 | 0.366492 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,109 |
Despite the millions of people who have lost jobs during the past year, there are signs that personal income is increasing. Even a small gain in income is significant. If consumers have more money in their pocket, that can help to boost consumer spending and create the demand that will prompt a resumption of hiring. "At the end of the day, we need income so people can spend money," said Sung Won Sohn, economics professor at Cal State University Channel Islands. "It is a sign that things are beginning to improve." According to the government's monthly job report for February, average hourly earnings have risen by 1.9 percent over the past 12 months.
|
Isidore 10 [Chris, senior writer, "Good job news: Wages are rising. Really" CNN Money -- March 5 -- money.cnn.com/2010/03/04/news/economy/better_paychecks/index.htm]
|
there are signs that income is increasing Even a small gain in income is significant If consumers have more money in their pocket, that can help to boost consumer spending and create the demand that will prompt a resumption of hiring we need income so people can spend money," said Sohn, economics professor
|
Wages are key to the economy
| 656 | 28 | 307 | 113 | 6 | 53 | 0.053097 | 0.469027 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,110 |
One of the most notable empirical regularities in political economy is the relationship between income per capita and democracy. Today, all OECD countries are democratic, while many of the nondemocracies are in the poor parts of the world, for example sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. The positive cross-country relationship between income and democracy in the 1990s is depicted in Figure 1, which shows the association between the Freedom House measure of democracy and log income per capita in the 1990s.1 This relationship is not confined solely to a cross-country comparison. Most countries were nondemocratic before the modern growth process took off at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Democratization came together with growth. Robert J. Barro (1999, 160), for example, summarizes this as follows: "Increases in various measures of the standard of living forecast a gradual rise in democracy. In contrast, democracies that arise without prior economic development... tend not to last."2 This statistical association between income and democracy is the cornerstone of the influ ential modernization theory. Lipset (1959) suggested that democracy was both created and consolidated by a broad process of "modernization" which involved changes in "the factors of industrialization, urbanization, wealth, and education [which] are so closely interrelated as to form one common factor. And the factors subsumed under economic development carry with it the political correlate of democracy" (80). The central tenet of the modernization theory, that higher income per capita causes a country to be democratic, is also reproduced in most major works on democracy (e.g., Robert A. Dahl 1971; Samuel P. Huntington 1991; Dietrich Rusechemeyer, John D. Stephens, and Evelyn H. Stephens 1992).
|
Acemoglu 8 – Elizabeth and James Killian Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Daron, with Simon Johnson, James A. Robinson, and Pierre Yared. “Income and Democracy.” The American Economic Review, Vol. 98, No. 3, pp. 808-842. JSTOR.)
|
One of the most notable empirical regularities in political economy is the relationship between income per capita and democracy all OECD countries are democratic, while many of the nondemocracies are in the poor parts of the world, for example sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. The positive cross-country relationship between income and democracy is not confined solely to a cross-country comparison. Most countries were nondemocratic before the modern growth process took off at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Democratization came together with growth. "Increases in various measures of the standard of living forecast a gradual rise in democracy. In contrast, democracies that arise without prior economic development... tend not to last democracy was both created and consolidated by a broad process of "modernization" which involved changes in "the factors of industrialization, urbanization, wealth, and education economic development carry with it the political correlate of democracy that higher income per capita causes a country to be democratic, is also reproduced in most major works on democracy
|
Growth is a pre-condition for democracy – empirically demonstrated across regions
| 1,848 | 81 | 1,170 | 269 | 11 | 165 | 0.040892 | 0.613383 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,111 |
However we can learn from past hegemonic states, all of which, withered away with time just as the American one is currently in the process of doing. Great Britain was perhaps the last true hegemon before that of the United States. Back in 1890 the collapse of their empire had just began. David A. Lake's research on the issue is work that should be greatly analyzed due to the illustrious similarities between the British recession in to retirement and the United States' as well. For much of the 19th century Great Britain was dominating in the same fields as the U.S. did so in the 1950's through the late 1970's. Soon in the later 1800's The United States and Germany moved to a protectionist system to plant their economic seeds and soon after were surpassing British industries and abilities. The industrial base of Great Britain crumbled and forced them to invest heavily in the service, shipping and insurance sectors of the economy just to break-even when concerning their balance of payment statistics. For the time being the British were able to carry on with the pound as the dominant world currency. The frail system was already on the thinnest of ice, when WWI confounded the weak British economy (Lake 122). At the time of Great Britain's reign of power they also pursued operations to completely open up and liberalize the world economy. This did lead to substantial brief economic abundance but eventually the struggles of remaining a strong enough power to be considered an absolute hegemon wore off. Hegemonic powers are only sustainable during periods of constant economic growth. When growth is no longer the complete and utter status of the hegemony's economic functionality the power ceases to be consistent. We see this to be the case with Great Britain, as other world powers emerged and caught up in terms of economic status and influence, British power that was exerted was much more explicit and coercive, just like it was during the American hegemonic era under President Nixon (Lake 121). It is safe to say that the U.S. is headed down the same path that will eventually end up being the ultimate de-throning of the American empire and it's hegemonic capabilities. If you think back to all the complications that the United States is experiencing in this very moment concerning obvious financial difficulties and others in the areas of education, technological innovation and healthcare respectively. Other nations have clearly started their own catch up phase and are impeding on American power as we speak. The irony between the situations leading up to the collapse of the British hegemonic state and the current burdens that are being placed upon a contemptuous American hegemon are too similar for coincidence. It took the disaster of WWI to finally destabilize the British hegemon and the United States is one major crisis away from experiencing the same fate (Bartilow Lecture).
|
Pietroburgo 9 (Anthony, Political Scientist, “The End of American Hegemony,” April 10http://ezinearticles.com/?The-End-of-American-Hegemony&id=2207395: Ad 7-6-9)
|
However we can learn from past hegemonic states, all of which, withered away with time The industrial base of Great Britain crumbled and forced them to invest heavily in the service, shipping and insurance sectors of the economy just to break-even when concerning their balance of payment statistics The frail system was already on the thinnest of ice, when WWI confounded the weak British economy At the time of Great Britain's reign of power they also pursued operations to completely open up and liberalize the world economy. This did lead to substantial brief economic abundance but eventually the struggles of remaining a strong enough power to be considered an absolute hegemon wore off. Hegemonic powers are only sustainable during periods of constant economic growth. When growth is no longer the complete and utter status of the hegemony's economic functionality the power ceases to be consistent. We see this to be the case with Great Britain, as other world powers emerged and caught up in terms of economic status and influence It is safe to say that the U.S. is headed down the same path that will eventually end up being the ultimate de-throning of the American empire and it's hegemonic capabilities It took the disaster of WWI to finally destabilize the British hegemon and the United States is one major crisis away from experiencing the same fate
|
Economic collapse kills heg
| 2,916 | 27 | 1,364 | 485 | 4 | 227 | 0.008247 | 0.468041 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,112 |
The negative economic news has not yet had much impact on the thinking of military analysts. They are accustomed to thinking of defense as one of the few sectors in the national economy driven by noneconomic forces, namely threats and politics. But if the country’s economy continues to weaken, it is inevitable that the resulting scarcity of funds will force reductions in military outlays. Furthermore, the decline of specific industrial sectors such as steelmaking, electronics, chemicals and pharmaceuticals will limit the options military planners have for sustaining the most demanding military campaigns. So policymakers need to take a hard look at what current economic trends mean for the nation’s future military preparedness.
|
Thompson 9 (Loren, chief executive officer of Lexington, “America’s economic decline, Armed Forces Journal, March 9, http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2009/03/3922551)
|
But if the country’s economy continues to weaken, it is inevitable that the resulting scarcity of funds will force reductions in military outlays. the decline of specific industrial sectors such as steelmaking, electronics, chemicals and pharmaceuticals will limit the options military planners have for sustaining the most demanding military campaigns
|
Economic collapse destroys military strength
| 736 | 44 | 352 | 112 | 5 | 50 | 0.044643 | 0.446429 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,113 |
From Rome to the United States today, the rise and fall of great nations have been driven primarily by economic strength. At any given moment, a state's power depends on the size and quality of its military forces and other power assets. Over time, however, power is a result of economic strength—the prerequisite for building and modernizing military forces. And so the size of the economy relative to potential rivals ultimately determines the limits of power in international politics.
|
Pape 9 (Robert, Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago “Realities and Obama's diplomacy,” Chicago Tribune, March 8, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-perspec0308diplomacymar08,0,4785661.story)
|
the rise and fall of great nations have been driven primarily by economic strength. a state's power depends on the size and quality of its military forces and other power assets. , power is a result of economic strength—the prerequisite for building and modernizing military forces. And so the size of the economy relative to potential rivals ultimately determines the limits of power in international politics
|
Growth is key to great power status
| 488 | 35 | 410 | 79 | 7 | 66 | 0.088608 | 0.835443 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,114 |
The security deterioration of the past year in Pakistan and Afghanistan reflects exactly the opposite phenomenon. In the region along both sides of their shared border, local tribal leaders have yet to express much interest in helping Pakistani and NATO soldiers target local or foreign militants. For those with the power to either protect or betray the senior al-Qaeda leaders believed to be hiding in the region, NATO and Pakistani authorities have yet to find either sweet enough carrots or sharp enough sticks to shift allegiances. The slowdown threatens to slow the progress of a number of developing countries. Most states don't provide ground as fertile for militancy as places like Afghanistan, Somalia, and Yemen. But as more people lose their jobs, their homes, and opportunities for prosperity -- in emerging market countries or even within minority communities inside developed states -- it becomes easier for localmilitants to find volunteers. This is why the growing risk of attack from suicide bombers and well-trained gunmen in Pakistan creates risks that extend beyond South Asia. This is a country that is home to lawless regions where local and international militants thrive, nuclear weapons and material, a history of nuclear smuggling, a cash-starved government, and a deteriorating economy. Pakistan is far from the only country in which terrorism threatens to spill across borders. But there's a reason why the security threats flowing back and forth across the Afghan-Pakistani border rank so highly on Eurasia Group's list of top political risks for 2009 -- and why they remain near the top of the Obama administration's security agenda.
|
Bremmer 9 (Ian, President of the Eurasia Group, sr. fellow @ World Policy Institute, “Call: Global Recession = More Terrorism,” Foreign Policy, March 4, http://eurasia.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/04/the_global_recession_heightens_terrorist_risks)
|
The security deterioration of the past year in Pakistan and Afghanistan reflects exactly the opposite phenomenon NATO and Pakistani authorities have yet to find either sweet enough carrots or sharp enough sticks to shift allegiances. The slowdown threatens to slow the progress of a number of developing countries as more people lose their jobs, their homes, and opportunities for prosperity it becomes easier for localmilitants to find volunteers. This is why the growing risk of attack from suicide bombers and well-trained gunmen in Pakistan creates risks that extend beyond South Asia. This is a country that is home to lawless regions where local and international militants thrive, nuclear weapons and material, a history of nuclear smuggling, a cash-starved government, and a deteriorating economy. Pakistan is far from the only country in which terrorism threatens to spill across borders
|
Economic decline causes nuclear terrorism
| 1,667 | 41 | 899 | 263 | 5 | 138 | 0.019011 | 0.524715 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,115 |
The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling. Plummeting crop yields would cause some powerful countries to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands -- if only because their armies, unpaid and lacking food, would go marauding, both at home and across the borders. The better-organized countries would attempt to use their armies, before they fell apart entirely, to take over countries with significant remaining resources, driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to accomplish the same end: eliminating competitors for the remaining food. This would be a worldwide problem -- and could lead to a Third World War -- but Europe's vulnerability is particularly easy to analyze. The last abrupt cooling, the Younger Dryas, drastically altered Europe's climate as far east as Ukraine. Present-day Europe has more than 650 million people. It has excellent soils, and largely grows its own food. It could no longer do so if it lost the extra warming from the North Atlantic.
|
Calvin 98 (William, Theoretical Neurophysiologist – U Washington, Atlantic Monthly, January, Vol 281, No. 1, p. 47-64)
|
. Plummeting crop yields would cause some powerful countries to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands -- if only because their armies, unpaid and lacking food, would go marauding, both at home and across the borders. The better-organized countries would attempt to use their armies, before they fell apart entirely, to take over countries with significant remaining resources, This would be a worldwide problem -- and could lead to a Third World War --
|
Food insecurity sparks World War 3
| 1,022 | 34 | 465 | 164 | 6 | 77 | 0.036585 | 0.469512 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,116 |
As any shopper knows, food prices this past year have been rising faster than the overall rate of inflation. “Fears of a global food crisis swept the world’s commodity markets as prices for staples such as corn, rice and wheat spiraled after the U.S. government warned of ‘dramatically’ lower supplies,” the Financial Times reported in early October. “There is growing concern among countries about continuing volatility and uncertainty in food markets,” said World Bank president Robert Zoellick later that month. “These concerns have been compounded by recent increases in grain prices.” Confronting this looming food-supply crisis is the American farmer. His productivity is such that the United States is the world’s largest agricultural exporter, with $108.7 billion in farm products shipped abroad in 2010. Helping him increase the supply of agricultural products is the key to addressing both rising food prices and global shortages. His productivity is also critical to our country’s broader economic recovery.
|
Bidinotto 10 (How to Cultivate a Food Crisis December/29/10 How to Cultivate a Food Crisis by Robert James Bidinotto
|
food prices this past year have been rising faster than the overall rate of inflation There is growing concern among countries about continuing volatility and uncertainty in food markets Confronting this looming food-supply crisis is the American farmer. His productivity is such that the United States is the world’s largest agricultural exporter Helping him increase the supply of agricultural products is the key to addressing both rising food prices and global shortages
|
US agriculture can prevent global food shortages
| 1,018 | 48 | 474 | 155 | 7 | 72 | 0.045161 | 0.464516 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,117 |
Most Americans give little thought to agriculture policy or food production, except perhaps when deciding what to eat for dinner. We are spoiled. America's capacity to produce food is so advanced that we can purchase virtually any food we want, anywhere, at any time. Such productivity is unprecedented. Even with the recent spike in food costs, Americans spend only 10% of disposable income on food. It is the productivity of our farmers that allows us the disposable income to purchase those BlackBerries and flat screens that have become a necessity. In recent days, however, this food production system has come under attack. Both Time magazine and Michael Pollan, writing in The New York Times, have raised the question of whether low food prices are responsible for obesity and whether we should address it by reducing production to increase the cost of food. This question deserves an answer. The world's population is over 6 billion people, soon to be 7 billion or 8 billion. Norman Borlaug, who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his contribution to agriculture, passed away recently at the age of 95. Last year, Borlaug wrote to then-Sen. Barack Obama, noting, "Over the next 50 years, the world's farmers and ranchers will be called upon to produce more food than has been produced in the past 10,000 years combined, and to do so in environmentally sustainable ways." We can meet this challenge, but only if we use all the tools at our disposal. The "Green Revolution" and the use of biotechnology, which earned Borlaug the Nobel Peace Prize, must be transported to Africa and all countries with the land and climate necessary to grow food. Biotechnology will help us reduce the use of fertilizers, protect the environment and use less water. The demands on our agriculture sector also will increase with the need to become energy independent. We can, literally, grow energy. Cellulosic fuels can be produced from trees, grass and a host of renewable crops. Obesity is the nation's No. 1 public health problem. It cannot and should not be minimized. Former Sens. George McGovern of South Dakota and Bob Dole of Kansas, who have led the country on nutrition policy for the past 30 years, have urged President Obama to convene a White House Conference on Obesity. But reducing agricultural production as a strategy to fight obesity ignores the needs of the poor both here and abroad. According to the United Nations, 1 billion of the world's 6 billion people do not have enough to eat. As is usually the case, children are the most vulnerable. In developing countries, many millions of children go to school hungry. Every day, 18,000 children die due to hunger - more people than live in many Wisconsin towns. That is why, according to the World Food Program, "In the poorest countries, school feeding programs are emerging as a common social safety net." Food is the critical tool for improving education, reducing the birth rate and helping in the fight against AIDS. We must consider agriculture policy from this vantage point. Our natural resources are, indeed, being depleted every day. Many experts expect that by 2100 water will be more precious than oil. Our soil, water and energy supply must be conserved. Last year, in the 2008 Farm Bill, Congress created a new National Institute of Food and Agriculture specifically to focus on nutrition, food safety, renewable energy, natural resources and how these impact agriculture. The bottom line is this: Farmers and ranchers feed the world, and they need to do more, not less. Agriculture policy in the United States must protect the environment and be based on science, but its primary goal is to feed the planet. The new secondary goal is to assist in energy independence. Let's keep our eye on the ball.
|
Matz 9 (U.S. farmers feed the planet Marshall Matz Sept. 26, 2009 Marshall Matz, former counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, is the founding chairman of Friends of the World Food Program. He practices law in Washington, D.C.
|
America's capacity to produce food is so advanced that we can purchase virtually any food we want Such productivity is unprecedented The world's population is over 6 billion people, soon to be 7 billion or 8 billion Over the next 50 years, the world's farmers and ranchers will be called upon to produce more food than has been produced in the past 10,000 years combined, and to do so in environmentally sustainable ways." We can meet this challenge, but only if we use all the tools at our disposal Biotechnology will help us reduce the use of fertilizers, protect the environment and use less water Food is the critical tool for improving education, reducing the birth rate and helping in the fight against AIDS. We must consider agriculture policy from this vantage point Farmers and ranchers feed the world
|
US agriculture can prevent food shortages
| 3,766 | 41 | 810 | 634 | 6 | 139 | 0.009464 | 0.219243 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,118 |
Many Americans see terrorism as the principal threat to security, but for much of humanity, the effect of water shortages and rising temperatures on food security are far more important issues. For the 3 billion people who live on 2 dollars a day or less and who spend up to 70 per cent of their income on food, even a modest rise in food prices can quickly become life-threatening. For them, it is the next meal that is the overriding concern."
|
Brown 5 (Lester Brown, President of the Earth Policy Institute, February 7, 2005, People and the Planet, “Falling water tables 'could hit food supply',” http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2424
|
For the 3 billion people who live on 2 dollars a day even a modest rise in food prices can quickly become life-threatening
|
Food insecurity kill billions through starvation
| 445 | 48 | 122 | 81 | 6 | 23 | 0.074074 | 0.283951 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,119 |
What distinguishes "World on the Edge" from his dozens of other books is "the sense of urgency," Brown told AFP. "Things could start unraveling at any time now and it's likely to start on the food front. "We've got to get our act together quickly. We don't have generations or even decades -- we're one poor harvest away from chaos," he said. "We have been talking for decades about saving the planet, but the question now is, can we save civilization?" In "World on the Edge", Brown points to warning signs and lays out arguments for why he believes the cause of the chaos will be the unsustainable way that mankind is going about producing more and more food. Resources are already beginning to be depleted, and that could cause a global "food bubble" created by overusing land and water to meet the exponential growth in demand for food -- grain, in particular -- to burst. Two huge dustbowls have formed in the world, one in Africa and the other in China and Mongolia, because of soil erosion caused by overplowing. In Lesotho, the grain harvest has dropped by more than half over the last decade or two because of soil erosion, Brown said. In Saudi Arabia, grain supplies are shrinking as a fossil aquifer drilled in in the 1970s to sustain domestic grain production is running dry after years of "overpumping" to meet the needs of a population that wants to consume more meat and poultry. Global warming is also impacting the global supply of grain, which Brown calls the foundation of the world food economy. Every one-degree-Celsius rise above the normal temperature results in a 10 percent fall in grain yields, something that was painfully visible in Russia last year, where a seven-week heatwave killed tens of thousands and caused the grain harvest to shrink by 40 percent. Food prices soared in Russia as a result of the poor harvest, and Russia -- which is one of the top wheat exporters in the world -- cut off grain exports. Different grains are staple foods in most of the world, and foods like meat and dairy products are "grain-intensive." It takes seven pounds (3.2 kilograms) of grain fed to a cow to produce a pound of beef, and around four pounds (1.8 kilograms) of grain to produce a pound of cheese, Brown told AFP. In "World on the Edge", Brown paints a grim picture of how a failed harvest could spark a grain shortage that would send food prices sky-rocketing, cause hunger to spread, governments to collapse and states to fail. Food riots would erupt in low-income countries and "with confidence in the world grain market shattered, the global economy could start to unravel," Brown warned.
|
Zeitvogel 11 (World is 'one poor harvest' from chaos, new book warns By Karin Zeitvogel (AFP) – Jan 16, 2011
|
Things could start unraveling at any time now and it's likely to start on the food front "We've got to get our act together quickly. We don't have generations or even decades -- we're one poor harvest away from chaos," We have been talking for decades about saving the planet the question now is, can we save civilization?" a failed harvest could spark a grain shortage that would send food prices sky-rocketing, cause hunger to spread, governments to collapse and states to fail. Food riots would erupt in low-income countries and "with confidence in the world grain market shattered, the global economy could start to unravel,
|
Food insecurity causes government collapse –extinction
| 2,619 | 54 | 628 | 457 | 6 | 106 | 0.013129 | 0.231947 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,120 |
In fact, both the May-July 1999 military engagement between India and Pakistan over Kashmir and the crisis of December 2001-June 2002 after the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament mirrored the conflict escalation pattern for nuclear-armed states. Each side initiated troop mobilization and general military alerts, coupled with the evacuation of civilians from border-area villages. However, the outcome of the future confrontations for India and Pakistan may not adhere to the pattern established by other nuclear dyads. Elements are present in this dyad that were largely absent between other nuclear-armed antagonists and that make the escalation of war more probable. Among those factors are the presence of a contiguous border between India and Pakistan, a history of multiple wars, and an ongoing territorial dispute. These factors, among others,79 increase the likelihood that an Indo-Pakistani dispute will turn violent and that the violence will escalate to war irrespective of the presence of nuclear weapons.
|
Geller 5 (Daniel S. – Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at Wayne State University, The India-Pakistan Conflict: An Enduring Rivalry, Ed. T. V. Paul, p. 99)
|
both the May-July 1999 military engagement and the crisis of December 2001-June 2002 mirrored the conflict escalation pattern for nuclear-armed states However, the outcome of the future confrontations for India and Pakistan may not adhere to the pattern established by other nuclear dyads. Elements are present in this dyad that were largely absent between other nuclear-armed antagonists and that make the escalation of war more probable. Among those factors are the presence of a contiguous border between India and Pakistan, a history of multiple wars, and an ongoing territorial dispute. These factors increase the likelihood that an Indo-Pakistani dispute will turn violent and that the violence will escalate irrespective of the presence of nuclear weapons
|
Escalation is highly probable
| 1,025 | 29 | 762 | 153 | 4 | 115 | 0.026144 | 0.751634 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,121 |
The status of India and Pakistan as declared nuclear powers with growing nuclear arsenals has raised the risks of a nuclear exchange between them, if the two countries engage in a large military conflict. The political leadership in both countries does not seem to have fully grasped the implications of nuclear weapons in relation to the ongoing conflict in Jammu and Kashmir. This conflict could lead to a limited war, as it has triggered three wars in the past. The risks involved in fighting a limited war over the Kashmir issue and the potential for such a war to escalate into a nuclear exchange are at best inadequately understood, and at worst brushed aside as an unlikely possibility. Despite this official stance, however, a close examination of Indian and Pakistani military and nuclear doctrine reveals elements that could contribute to the rapid escalation of a limited war to include nuclear weapons. Strikingly, India and Pakistan have not revealed warfighting doctrines for the post-1998 condition of nuclear weapons readiness. It is not clear, for example, what threats to its security would compel India to declare a state of war with Pakistan. There is also no indication of the circumstances that would induce Pakistan to seek a larger war with India. The political objectives that a limited war might seek to achieve have also not been articulated in official and public discourse in the two countries. This article examines the possibility of limited war between India and Pakistan, and the potential of such a conflict triggering a nuclear war. It examines the considerations that could push each of the two countries to fight a limited war. It discusses how such a war might be waged and the circumstances that would likely precipitate an escalation to a nuclear exchange. The doctrinal beliefs and decisionmaking processes of the two countries are examined to trace the likely escalatory spiral towards a nuclear war. The article concludes that the probability of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan is high in the event the two countries engage in a direct military conflict.
|
Raghavan, Fall-Winter 2001 (Lieutenant General V. R. – former Director General of Military Operations for India, Limited War and Nuclear Escalation in South Asia, The Nonproliferation Review, p. 1)
|
The status of India and Pakistan as declared nuclear powers with growing nuclear arsenals has raised the risks of a nuclear exchange between them The political leadership in both countries does not seem to have fully grasped the implications of nuclear weapons This conflict could lead to a limited war a close examination of Indian and Pakistani military and nuclear doctrine reveals elements that could contribute to the rapid escalation of a limited war to include nuclear weapons the probability of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan is high
|
That escalation has a high probability of being nuclear
| 2,106 | 55 | 551 | 346 | 9 | 90 | 0.026012 | 0.260116 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,122 |
Building on this evolution in American policy toward India since Bill Clinton, President Barack Obama has already underscored India’s strategic and economic significance for the United States. Future policies should build on Obama’s vision but even more importantly translate it into an “all of government” effort that deepens the partnership on multiple dimensions. This goal, however, could prove challenging and will require strong resolve. The second Obama term will likely confront a series of potentially serious dangers relating to Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, and possibly China—in addition to all the domestic challenges of accelerating a slow economic recovery. Given these realities, it is possible that the task of exploiting breakthroughs will be shortchanged amid the struggle to overcome calamities. In Washington, as in many other capitals, addressing the urgent invariably dominates engaging the important. Strong U.S.-India relations will continue to be important for American interests in the years ahead. But continuing the renovation of U.S.-India ties represents an opportunity to be realized rather than a crisis to be overcome. The difference between a distracted and a concerted effort to sustain a favorable Asian geopolitical equilibrium could set the course for the relationship. The evolving U.S.-India strategic partnership could simply languish as yet another historical curiosity embodying some vague potential or it could actually advance important common interests.
|
Tellis 12 – Senior Associate, South Asia Program (Ashley J., 11/29, “A New Friendship: U.S.-India Relations,” http://carnegieendowment.org/globalten/?fa=50147)
|
Obama has underscored India’s significance for the U S Future policies should build on Obama’s vision This goal will require strong resolve. continuing the renovation of U.S.-India ties represents an opportunity to be realized rather than a crisis to be overcome. The difference between a distracted and a concerted effort could set the course for the relationship. The evolving U.S.-India partnership could languish or it could actually advance important common interests.
|
U.S.-India relations are not resilient
| 1,506 | 38 | 473 | 217 | 5 | 71 | 0.023041 | 0.327189 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,123 |
In addition to resolving the above threats, the U.S. has an unprecedented opportunity to improve U.S. security and economic prosperity through improved relations with India and Pakistan. In security, a stable and friendly Pakistan and India will provide a counterbalance to the regional powers of China, Russia and Iran.
|
Glardon 5 (Thomas L., Lt. Colonel for USAF, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/ksil12.pdf) GAT
|
the U.S. has an unprecedented opportunity to improve U.S. security and economic prosperity through improved relations with India and Pakistan. a stable and friendly Pakistan and India will provide a counterbalance to the regional powers of China, Russia and Iran.
|
Stable India and Pakistan key to check rising challengers
| 320 | 57 | 263 | 49 | 9 | 40 | 0.183673 | 0.816327 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,124 |
THE war on terror has refashioned conflict situations in the region. Two of the most prominent conflict situations may be examined: Kashmir and Sri Lanka. M.K. Narayanan, currently the National Security Adviser, in an article written less than a month after the terror attacks in the USA (in Asian Age online) argued that there was “a connection between the September 11 attacks in the US” and “the ongoing conflict in Jammu and Kashmir”. He concluded that a war against terrorism must address the violence in Kashmir well as in Afghanistan. “Something drastic needs to be done to curb Islamist outfits currently engaged in cascading violence in J&K. ..The Alliance for the Battle Against Terrorism must gear itself to deal with a situation which is fraught with dangerous possibilities.” The dynamics of the Kashmir conflict underwent a drastic change since 9/11 due to dramatic changes wrought by the US war on terror in the region. Three competing perspectives emanated from Islamabad, New Delhi and Washington. Pakistan continued to describe the happenings in Kashmir as ‘liberation struggle’ and insisted Washington should solve the Kashmir problem so that Pakistan can fully participate in the war on terror. India’s support to the war on terror proceeded on the assumption that the US would have to accept that the happenings in Kashmir are due to ‘cross-border terrorism’. India thus tried to combine the issues of war on terror and Kashmir so as to draw the maximum benefit from the changed international opinion in favour of fighting terrorism lock, stock and barrel. India strongly challenged Pakistan’s credentials to be partner of the US in the war on terror and repeatedly urged on the US to include Kashmir in its war on terror. The US, which needed both Pakistan and India in the war on terror, did not do so. A recent statement by David Miliband, the British Foreign Secretary, gave rise to high level of moral indignation in New Delhi. He said in an article in The Guardian: “Although I understand the current difficulties, resolution of the dispute over Kashmir would help deny extremists in the region one of their main calls to arms.”. Actually this statement did not warrant the kind of reaction that came from New Delhi. It only reinforced the impression that when it comes to Kashmir, our rulers adopt a denial mode—that there is no dispute and that if at all there is any problem we know how to deal with it. Indian sensitivities on the Kashmir issue are understandable. India can legitimately take credit for the apparently new political climate in J&K. But to treat the Kashmir problem as solely or primarily due to “international terrorism” is to invite the kind of international intervention which India says it does not want. In spite of the present rupture in relationship between India and Pakistan, diplomacy and peace are the only options.
|
Koshy 9 (Nina, former Director of International Affairs, Mainstream Weekly, Vol 42, No 11, http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article1199.html) GAT
|
THE war on terror has refashioned conflict situations in the region. a war against terrorism must address the violence in Kashmir The dynamics of the Kashmir conflict underwent a drastic change since 9/11 due to dramatic changes wrought by the US war on terror India strongly challenged Pakistan’s credentials to be partner of the US in the war on terror and repeatedly urged the US to include Kashmir in its war on terror. The US, which needed both Pakistan and India in the war on terror, did not do so. resolution of the dispute over Kashmir would help deny extremists in the region one of their main calls to arms. In spite of the present rupture in relationship between India and Pakistan, diplomacy and peace are the only options.
|
Indo-Pak war turns terrorism – ruins any chance at winning the War on Terror
| 2,873 | 76 | 736 | 479 | 14 | 129 | 0.029228 | 0.269311 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,125 |
Despite the basic intransigence of US policy towards Cuba, in recent years, important changes have been introduced by Havana: state control over the economy has been diminished; most travel restrictions affecting both Americans and Cubans on the island have been lifted; and the “group of 75” Cuban dissidents detained in 2003 have been freed. Washington has all but ignored these positive changes by Havana, but when it comes to interacting with old foes such as those of Myanmar, North Korea, and Somalia, somehow constructive dialogue is the order of the day. One reason for this inconsistency is the continued opposition by the anti-Castro lobby to a change of course by Washington. The anti-Castro lobby and their allies in the US Congress argue that the reforms coming out of Havana are too little too late and that political repression continues unabated. They continue to see the embargo as a tool for coercing either more dramatic reforms or regime change. It is true that the reformist tendency in Cuba does not include a qualitative move from a one party system to political pluralism. Lamentably, Cuba reportedly continues to use temporary detentions and the occasional jailing of non-violent dissidents to limit the parameters of political debate and total freedom of association. The authors agree that no non-violent Cuban dissident should be intimidated, detained or jailed. But continuing to maliciously turn the screws on Havana has never provided an incentive for more democracy in any sense of the word nor has it created a political opening into which Cuba, with confidence, could enter. The easing of tensions between Washington and Havana is more likely to contribute to the evolution of a more democratic form of socialism on the island, the early stages of which we may presently be witnessing. In any case the precise form of such change inevitably should and will be decided in Cuba, not in Washington or Miami. To further moves towards rapprochement with Cuba, the U.S. State Department should remove the country from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. It is an invention to depict Havana as a state sponsor of terrorism, a charge only levied by the State Department under pressure from Hill hardliners. As researcher Kevin Edmunds, quite properly points out: “This position is highly problematic, as the United States has actively engaged in over 50 years of economic and covert destabilization in Cuba, going so far as blindly protecting wanted terrorists such as Luis Posada Carilles and Orlando Bosch, both former CIA agents accused of dozens of terrorist attacks in Cuba and the United States ” (Nov. 15, 2012, Kevin Edmonds blog). It was precisely the propensity of some anti-Castro extremists to plan terrorist attacks against Cuba that urgently motivated the infiltration of such groups by the Cuban five as well as the close monitoring of these organizations by the FBI. Another gesture of good will would be for the White House to grant clemency to the Cuban five: Gerardo Hernandez, Ramón Labañino, Fernando Gonzalez, Antonio Guerrero and René Gonzalez. They are Cuban nationals who were convicted in a Miami court in 2001 and subsequently sentenced to terms ranging from 15 years to double life, mostly on charges of conspiracy to commit espionage. Despite requests for a change of venue out of Miami, which at first was granted and later denied, the trial took place in a politically charged Miami atmosphere that arguably tainted the proceedings and compromised justice. Supporters maintain that the Cuban five had infiltrated extremist anti-Castro organizations in order to prevent terrorist attacks against Cuba and did not pose any security threat to the United States. It would be an important humanitarian gesture to let them go home. Perhaps such a gesture might facilitate reciprocity on the part of Cuban authorities when it comes to American engineer Alan Gross who is presently being detained in a Cuban jail. There would probably be a political price to pay by the Obama administration for taking steps towards reconciliation with Havana, but if Obama’s election to a second term means that there is to be a progressive dividend, surely such a dividend ought to include a change in US policy towards the island. Mirabile dictu, the Administration can build on the small steps it has already taken. Since 2009, Washington has lifted some of the restrictions on travel between the US and Cuba and now allows Cuban Americans to send remittances to relatives on the island. The Cuba Reconciliation Act (HR 214) introduced by Representative Jose Serrano (D-NY) on January 4, 2013, and sitting in a number of congressional committees, would repeal the harsh terms of the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 and the Helms-Burton Act of 1996, both of which toughened the embargo during the special period in Cuba. The Cuba Reconciliation Act, however, is unlikely to get much traction, especially with ultra-hardliner Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), chairing the House Foreign Relations Committee, and her counterpart, Robert Menendez (D-NJ), who is about to lead the Senate Foreign Relations Body. Some of the anti-Castro Cuban American community would likely view any of the three measures advocated here as a capitulation to the Castro brothers. But as we have argued, a pro-democracy and humanist position is not in any way undermined, but might in fact be advanced by détente. An end to the embargo has been long overdue, and the judgment of history may very well be that it ought never to have been started.
|
Birns and Mills 13 (Larry, Director of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, Frederick B., COHA Senior Research Fellow, 01/30, “Best Time for U.S.– Cuba Rapprochement Is Now,” http://www.coha.org/best-time-for-u-s-cuba-rapprochement-is-now/)
|
One reason for this inconsistency is the continued opposition by the anti-Castro lobby to a change of course by Washington. The anti-Castro lobby and their allies in the US Congress argue that the reforms coming out of Havana are too little too late and that political repression continues unabated. They continue to see the embargo as a tool for coercing either more dramatic reforms or regime change. There would probably be a political price to pay by the Obama administration for taking steps towards reconciliation with Havana
|
Plan saps Obama’s capital
| 5,567 | 25 | 531 | 908 | 4 | 87 | 0.004405 | 0.095815 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,126 |
For all those reasons, pressure has been building in Congress for a new policy toward Cuba. In the past five years, the House and occasionally the Senate have voted to lift the travel ban to Cuba, and also to lift the cap on remittances and even to lift the embargo altogether. Yet each time efforts in Congress to ease the embargo have been thwarted by the administration and the Republican leadership. Support for the embargo certainly does not come from the general American public, but from a group of Cuban-American activists concentrated in southern Florida. By a fluke of the electoral college, Republican presidents feel obligated to please this small special interest at the expense of our broader national interest.
|
Griswold 5 – director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute (Daniel, 10/12, “Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba,” http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/four-decades-failure-us-embargo-against-cuba)
|
In the past five years, the House and occasionally the Senate have voted to lift the travel ban to Cuba, and also to lift the cap on remittances and even to lift the embargo altogether. Yet each time efforts in Congress to ease the embargo have been thwarted by the administration and the Republican leadership. Support for the embargo certainly does not come from the general American public, but from a group of Cuban-American activists concentrated in southern Florida.
|
Empirics prove stiff GOP opposition to the plan
| 725 | 47 | 472 | 120 | 8 | 79 | 0.066667 | 0.658333 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,127 |
Throughout his career, the autocratic Mr. Chávez used our embargo as a wedge with which to antagonize the United States and alienate its supporters. His fuel helped prop up the rule of Mr. Castro and his brother Raúl, Cuba’s current president. The embargo no longer serves any useful purpose (if it ever did at all); President Obama should end it, though it would mean overcoming powerful opposition from Cuban-American lawmakers in Congress.
|
White 13 – senior fellow at the Center for International Policy (Robert E., 03/07, “After Chávez, a Chance to Rethink Relations With Cuba,” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/opinion/after-chavez-hope-for-good-neighbors-in-latin-america.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)
|
The embargo no longer serves any useful purpose (if it ever did at all); President Obama should end it, though it would mean overcoming powerful opposition from Cuban-American lawmakers in Congress.
|
Powerful opposition to the plan from Cuban-American lawmakers
| 442 | 61 | 198 | 72 | 8 | 31 | 0.111111 | 0.430556 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,128 |
And that has prompted a growing movement in the corridors of power to reconsider the policy. Once the preserve of dedicated liberals and lefties, opposition to the U.S. embargo on Cuba these days is an ever-expanding tent. The recent congressional effort to relax aspects of the embargo was led by farm-state Republicans and echoed a growing consensus even inside the GOP. The National Bipartisan Commission on Cuba, whose calls for a comprehensive review of U.S. policy have thus far been rebuffed by President Clinton, includes not only 16 GOP Senators (and eight Democrats), but also some of the GOP foreign policy heavyweights lined up by the Bush campaign, including former Secretaries of State Kissinger, Schultz and Eagleburger. And that's hardly surprising, since ending the embargo has long been advocated by groupings as diverse as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Vatican and, reportedly, the bulk of democracy activists still living in Cuba. While previous embargoes of countries such as Iran and Iraq have had the support of most of the industrialized world, the only country consistently backing Washington's Cuba policy is Israel. Yet, despite the burgeoning opposition, advocates of the embargo continue to hold sway with the leadership of both parties on Capitol Hill, and with both presidential candidates. Elian's enduiring legacy, however, may be that he reopened a national debate in the U.S. on the future of Cuba policy.
|
Karon 10 – senior editor at TIME (Tony, 04/21, “Do We Really Need an Embargo Against Cuba?” http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,48773,00.html)
|
opposition to the U.S. embargo on Cuba these days is an ever-expanding tent. The recent congressional effort to relax aspects of the embargo was led by farm-state Republicans and echoed a growing consensus even inside the GOP. Yet, despite the burgeoning opposition, advocates of the embargo continue to hold sway with the leadership of both parties on Capitol Hill, and with both presidential candidates.
|
Link outweighs – embargo advocates have more influence than the plan’s supporters
| 1,444 | 81 | 405 | 230 | 12 | 64 | 0.052174 | 0.278261 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,129 |
The TBA further contains requirements of data sharing and notification of likely reserves between the United States and Mexico, opening the opportunity for increased government-to- government collaboration on strategic energy policy choices. Mexico and the United States are relatively less advanced in effective communication and linkages of our energy systems than we are in less politically-controversial economic areas. Improved ties can improve understanding and galvanize cooperation in often unexpected ways. In the immediate term, closer oil sector communication will be beneficial in case of accidents in the Gulf of Mexico or in case of significant disruptions to global oil supplies.
|
Committee on Foreign Relations 12 – standing committee of the United States Senate (12/21, “OIL, MEXICO, AND THE TRANSBOUNDARY AGREEMENT,” http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-112SPRT77567/html/CPRT-112SPRT77567.htm)
|
The TBA further contains requirements of data sharing and notification of likely reserves between the United States and Mexico, opening the opportunity for increased government-to- government collaboration on strategic energy policy choices. Mexico and the United States are relatively less advanced in effective communication and linkages of our energy systems than we are in less politically-controversial economic areas.
|
Technical cooperation in Mexico’s energy infrastructure is politically controversial
| 694 | 84 | 423 | 100 | 9 | 58 | 0.09 | 0.58 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,130 |
U.S. Policy The United States traditionally has had close relations with Venezuela, a major supplier of foreign oil to the United States, but there has been significant friction with the Chávez government. For several years, U.S. officials have expressed concerns about human rights, Venezuela’s military arms purchases (largely from Russia), its relations with Cuba and Iran, its efforts to export its brand of populism to other Latin American countries, and the use of Venezuelan territory by Colombian guerrilla and paramilitary forces. Declining Venezuelan cooperation on antidrug and antiterrorism efforts also has been a U.S. concern. Since 2005, Venezuela has been designated annually (by President Bush and President Obama) as a country that has failed to adhere to its international anti-drug obligations. Since 2006, the De partment of State has prohibited the sale of defense articles and services to Venezuela because of lack of cooperation on antiterrorism efforts.
|
Sullivan 13 – Specialist in Latin American Affairs (Mark P., 01/10, “Venezuela: Issues for Congress,” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40938.pdf)
|
The United States traditionally has had close relations with Venezuela, a major supplier of foreign oil to the United States, but there has been significant friction For several years, U.S. officials have expressed concerns about human rights, Venezuela’s military arms purchases (largely from Russia), its relations with Cuba and Iran, its efforts to export its brand of populism to other Latin American countries, and the use of Venezuelan territory by Colombian guerrilla and paramilitary forces. Declining Venezuelan cooperation on antidrug and antiterrorism efforts also has been a U.S. concern. Since 2005, Venezuela has been designated annually (by President Bush and President Obama) as a country that has failed to adhere to its international anti-drug obligations. Since 2006, the De partment of State has prohibited the sale of defense articles and services to Venezuela because of lack of cooperation on antiterrorism efforts.
|
Plan’s unpopular for a laundry list of reasons, and it’s a flip flop for Obama
| 978 | 78 | 938 | 147 | 15 | 141 | 0.102041 | 0.959184 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,131 |
Legislative Initiatives As in past years, there were concerns in the 112 th Congress regarding the state of Venezuela’s democracy and human rights situation and its deepening relations with Iran, and these concerns will likely continue in the 113 th Congress. The 112 th Congress approved H.R. 3783 (P.L. 112- 220), which requires the Administration to conduct an assessment and present “a strategy to address Iran’s growing hostile presence and activity in the Western Hemisphere.” Other initiatives that were not approved include: H.R. 2542, which would have withheld some assistance to the Organization of American States unless that b ody took action to invoke the Inter-American Democratic Charter regarding the status of democracy in Venezuela; H.R. 2583, which included a provision prohibiting aid to the government of Venezuela; and H.Res. 247, which would have called on the Secretary of State to designate Venezuela as a state sponsor of terrorism.
|
Sullivan 13 – Specialist in Latin American Affairs (Mark P., 01/10, “Venezuela: Issues for Congress,” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40938.pdf)
|
As in past years, there were concerns in the 112 th Congress regarding the state of Venezuela’s democracy and human rights situation and its deepening relations with Iran, and these concerns will likely continue in the 113 th Congress. The 112 th Congress approved H.R. 3783 (P.L. 112- 220), which requires the Administration to conduct an assessment and present “a strategy to address Iran’s growing hostile presence and activity in the Western Hemisphere.”
|
Venezuelan engagement is stigmatized in Congress – multiple issues are prerequisites
| 958 | 84 | 458 | 149 | 11 | 73 | 0.073826 | 0.489933 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,132 |
We can generalize these findings to the case where the president needs to target more than one vote, as would be the case in this example if a super-majority was required. If the president needs n votes to pass measure o1 and C(o, si Þ is linear, then he will need to pay 2n times the cost of a median senator. In this case it is not clear that it is cheaper for the president to get his measure passed in the polarized case; it depends on the number of votes he has to buy. In the polarized case each vote is relatively expensive, so if the president has to buy many votes, it may be more expensive than in a more homogenous case. Polarization’s advantage to the president, after all, was that it allowed him to concentrate his resources on the few senators who will have a very significant effect. Therefore, polarization generally works to the president’s advantage pro- vided the president is in a situation where winning over a few voters can signifi- cantly change the outcome (i.e. the polarization is distributed around the pivotal voter). If many members are clustered at the pivot point, any additional polariza- tion will limit presidential influence, produce policy stalemate, and reinforce legislative gridlock. Discussion By all indications, the partisan and ideological polarization that has come to characterize officials in Washington shows no signs of abating. If anything, it appears that the schism between liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, will only continue to grow. The simple but important question that many have asked is, so what? How does polarization affect the policymaking process and the outcomes that result? While Mayhew’s initial study proved important laws continue to prevail even in the face of divided government and polarization, subsequent research has indicated that partisan and ideological polarization does encourage legislative gridlock, which, in turn, privileges the status quo. This happens partly by germinating partisanship and posturing over negotiation and compromise, and partly by leaving ideologically distant pivotal voters unable to find an alternative they prefer even when they seek compromise and negotiate sincerely. By contrast, we theorize that polarization’s impact on US lawmaking is conditional. Instead of hypothesizing gridlock monotonically increases with polari- zation, our model predicts polarization’s policymaking impact depends on three elements: the default preference of the pivotal voter, the extent of polarization around the pivotal voter, and the president’s willingness (and ability) to spend his capital to win. Depending on the particular constellation of these factors, predictions range from the familiar one of gridlock on through to a president who not only avoids stalemate, but actually signs into law bills that are closer to his preference than we would otherwise expect. Drawing from this model, then, a more nuanced view of presidential influ- ence emerges. Assuming today’s White House officials are eager to promote the president’s legislative agenda, we can now see when those efforts are likely to pay off – namely, when the president enjoys ample political capital and confronts a polarized legislature (i.e. one where there are few legislators sitting between the pivotal voter and some point much closer to the president). Con- versely, when the president does not get involved or lacks political capital when he does, all the conventional wisdom about pivotal voters and gridlock holds. Also, any president promoting his agenda before a homogenous Senate (say, one characterized by a normal distribution of preferences) is highly constrained by its predispositions. Therefore, as future researchers revisit presidents’ potential influence in Congress, accounting for its conditional nature should provide more discriminating results and permit more judicious inferences.
|
Beckmann and McGann 8 (http://jtp.sagepub.com Journal of Theoretical Politics DOI: 10.1177/0951629807085818 2008; 20; 201 Journal of Theoretical Politics Matthew N. Beckmann and Anthony J. McGann Navigating the Legislative Divide: Polarization, Presidents, and Policymaking in the United States, MATTHEW N. BECKMANN is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Irvine. He is currently working on a book-length project that explains and tests a new theory of presidents’ influence on Capitol Hill, 1953–2004. ANTHONY J. MCGANN is Associate Professor of Political Science at theUni- versity of California, Irvine and Reader in Government at the University of Essex.)
|
Polarization’s advantage to the president, after all, was that it allowed him to concentrate his resources on the few senators who will have a very significant effect. Therefore, polarization generally works to the president’s advantage pro- vided the president is in a situation where winning over a few voters can signifi- cantly change the outcome (i.e. the polarization is distributed around the pivotal voter). If many members are clustered at the pivot point, any additional polariza- tion will limit presidential influence, produce policy stalemate, and reinforce legislative gridlock. Discussion By all indications, the partisan and ideological polarization that has come to characterize officials in Washington shows no signs of abating. polarization’s impact on US lawmaking is conditional. Instead of hypothesizing gridlock monotonically increases with polari- zation, our model predicts polarization’s policymaking impact depends on three elements: the default preference of the pivotal voter, the extent of polarization around the pivotal voter, and the president’s willingness (and ability) to spend his capital to win. Depending on the particular constellation of these factors, predictions range from the familiar one of gridlock on through to a president who not only avoids stalemate, but actually signs into law bills that are closer to his preference than we would otherwise expect. Drawing from this model, then, a more nuanced view of presidential influ- ence emerges. Assuming today’s White House officials are eager to promote the president’s legislative agenda, we can now see when those efforts are likely to pay off – namely, when the president enjoys ample political capital and confronts a polarized legislature (i.e. one where there are few legislators sitting between the pivotal voter and some point much closer to the president). Con- versely, when the president does not get involved or lacks political capital when he does, all the conventional wisdom about pivotal voters and gridlock holds. Also, any president promoting his agenda before a homogenous Senate (say, one characterized by a normal distribution of preferences) is highly constrained by its predispositions
|
Polarization makes political capital more effective – allows Obama to concentrate his resources
| 3,884 | 95 | 2,199 | 601 | 13 | 330 | 0.021631 | 0.549085 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,133 |
Here we propose a theory that casts some early rays of light onto the policy consequences of polarization in Congress. Building from a simple theoretical model in which the president seeks to promote his preferred policies in the Senate (see Snyder, 1991; Groseclose, 1996), we assess differences in the chamber’s preference distribution – from normal to unanimous to bimodal – as well as the ‘political capital’ at the president’s disposal.2 Results show that absent the president, ideological polarization makes amassing the votes needed to beat the status quo difficult, so gridlock frequently prevails. The same is true when the president lacks political capital to spend. However, when endowed with abundant capital, facing a polarized legislature enables presidents to pass policies closer to their ideal than would have been possible in an assembly characterized by greater ideological homogeneity. Hence the familiar prediction of blanket ‘gridlock’ is overblown. Instead, comparative statics show that the consequences of ideological polarization in Congress are conditional: they depend on the nature of the preference distribution, the involvement of the president, and the political capi- tal at his disposal.
|
Beckmann and McGann 8 [Matthew, Associate Professor of Political Science at UC Irvine, Anthony, “Navigating the Legislative Divide: Polarization, Presidents, and Policymaking in the United States” Journal of Theoretical Politics Vol 20]
|
Building from a simple theoretical model in which the president seeks to promote his preferred policies we assess differences in the chamber’s preference distribution as well as the ‘political capital’ at the president’s disposal Results show that absent the president, ideological polarization makes amassing the votes needed to beat the status quo difficult However, when endowed with abundant capital facing a polarized legislature enables presidents to pass policies closer to their ideal than would have been possible in an assembly characterized by greater ideological homogeneity the familiar prediction of blanket ‘gridlock’ is overblown comparative statics show that the consequences of ideological polarization in Congress are conditional: they depend on the nature of the preference distribution, the involvement of the president, and the political capi- tal at his disposal.
|
Best studies go neg – capital is key
| 1,221 | 37 | 886 | 182 | 8 | 128 | 0.043956 | 0.703297 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,134 |
But it is possible to win the inside game and lose the outside game. In their darkest moments, White House aides wonder aloud whether it is even possible for a modern president to succeed, no matter how many bills he signs. Everything seems to conspire against the idea: an implacable opposition with little if any real interest in collaboration, a news media saturated with triviality and conflict, a culture that demands solutions yesterday, a societal cynicism that holds leadership in low regard. Some White House aides who were ready to carve a new spot on Mount Rushmore for their boss two years ago privately concede now that he cannot be another Abraham Lincoln after all. In this environment, they have increasingly concluded, it may be that every modern president is going to be, at best, average. “We’re all a lot more cynical now,” one aide told me. The easy answer is to blame the Republicans, and White House aides do that with exuberance. But they are also looking at their own misjudgments, the hubris that led them to think they really could defy the laws of politics. “It’s not that we believed our own press or press releases, but there was definitely a sense at the beginning that we could really change Washington,” another White House official told me. “ ‘Arrogance’ isn’t the right word, but we were overconfident.” The biggest miscalculation in the minds of most Obama advisers was the assumption that he could bridge a polarized capital and forge genuinely bipartisan coalitions. While Republican leaders resolved to stand against Obama, his early efforts to woo the opposition also struck many as halfhearted. “If anybody thought the Republicans were just going to roll over, we were just terribly mistaken,” former Senator Tom Daschle, a mentor and an outside adviser to Obama, told me. “I’m not sure anybody really thought that, but I think we kind of hoped the Republicans would go away. And obviously they didn’t do that.” Senator Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the upper chamber and Obama’s ally from Illinois, said the Republicans were to blame for the absence of bipartisanship. “I think his fate was sealed,” Durbin said. “Once the Republicans decided they would close ranks to defeat him, that just made it extremely difficult and dragged it out for a longer period of time. The American people have a limited attention span. Once you convince them there’s a problem, they want a solution.” Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, though, is among the Democrats who grade Obama harshly for not being more nimble in the face of opposition. “B-plus, A-minus on substantive accomplishments,” he told me, “and a D-plus or C-minus on communication.” The health care legislation is “an incredible achievement” and the stimulus program was “absolutely, unqualifiedly, enormously successful,” in Rendell’s judgment, yet Obama allowed them to be tarnished by critics. “They lost the communications battle on both major initiatives, and they lost it early,” said Rendell, an ardent Hillary Clinton backer who later became an Obama supporter. “We didn’t use the president in either stimulus or health care until we had lost the spin battle.”
|
Baker 10 [Peter, foreign policy reporter, author of Kremlin Rising: Vladimir Putin and Russian Counter-Revolution, “Education of a President” New York Times]
|
But it is possible to win the inside game and lose the outside game aides wonder whether it is even possible for a modern president to succeed, no matter how many bills he signs an implacable opposition with little if any real interest in collaboration, a news media saturated with triviality and conflict a societal cynicism that holds leadership in low regard Democrats grade Obama harshly for not being more nimble in the face of opposition A-minus on substantive accomplishments D-plus on communication The health care legislation is “an incredible achievement” and the stimulus was successful yet Obama allowed them to be tarnished by critics. “They lost the communications battle on both major initiatives, and they lost it early We didn’t use the president in either stimulus or health care until we had lost the spin battle.”
|
Spin game means winners lose for Obama
| 3,162 | 38 | 833 | 523 | 7 | 137 | 0.013384 | 0.26195 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,135 |
Like many, I expect much from Obama, who for the time being, is my political beast of burden with whom every other politician in the world is unfavourably compared. As a political scientist, I however know that given the structure of American and world politics, it would be difficult for him to deliver half of what he has promised, let alone all of it. Reality will force him to make many "u" turns and detours which may well land him in quick sand. Obama will, however, begin his stint with a vast accumulation of political capital, perhaps more than that held by any other modern leader. Seventy-eight per cent of Americans polled believe that his inauguration is one of the most historic the country will witness. Political capital is, however, a lumpy and fast diminishing asset in today's world of instant communication, which once misspent, is rarely ever renewable. The world is full of political leaders like George Bush and Tony Blair who had visions, promised a lot, and probably meant well, but who did not know how to husband the political capital with which they were provided as they assumed office. They squandered it as quickly as they emptied the contents of the public vaults. Many will be watching to see how Obama manages his assets and liabilities register. Watching with hope would be the white young lady who waved a placard in Obama's face inscribed with the plaintive words, "I Trust You." Despite the general optimism about Obama's ability to deliver, many groups have already begun to complain about being betrayed. Gays, union leaders, and women have been loud in their complaints about being by-passed or overlooked. Some radical blacks have also complained about being disrespected. Where and when is Joshua going to lead them to the promised land, they ask? When is he going to pull the troops out of Iraq? Civil rights groups also expect Obama to dis-establish Guantanamo as soon as he takes office to signal the formal break with Dick Cheney and Bush. They also want him to discontinue the policy which allows intelligence analysts to spy on American citizens without official authorisation. In fact, Obama startled supporters when he signalled that he might do an about-turn and continue this particular policy. We note that Bush is signalling Obama that keeping America safe from terrorists should be his top priority item and that he, Bush, had no regrets about violating the constitutional rights of Americans if he had to do so to keep them safe. Cheney has also said that he would do it again if he had to. The safety of the republic is after all the highest law. Other groups-sub-prime home owners, workers in the automobile sector, and the poor and unemployed generally all expect Obama to work miracles on their behalf, which of course he cannot do. Given the problems of the economy which has not yet bottomed out, some promises have to be deferred beyond the first term. Groups, however, expect that the promise made to them during the campaign must be kept. Part of the problem is that almost every significant social or ethnic group believes that it was instrumental in Obama's victory. White women felt that they took Obama over the line, as did blacks generally, Jews, Hispanics, Asians, rich white men, gays, and young college kids, to mention a few of those whose inputs were readily recognisable. Obama also has a vast constituency in almost every country in the world, all of whom expect him to save the globe and the planet. Clearly, he is the proverbial "Black Knight on a White Horse." One of the "realities" that Obama has to face is that American politics is not a winner-take-all system. It is pluralistic vertically and horizontally, and getting anything done politically, even when the President and the Congress are controlled by the same party, requires groups to negotiate, bargain and engage in serious horse trading. No one takes orders from the President who can only use moral or political suasion and promises of future support for policies or projects. The system was in fact deliberately engineered to prevent overbearing majorities from conspiring to tyrannise minorities. The system is not only institutionally diverse and plural, but socially and geographically so. As James Madison put it in Federalist No 10, one of the foundation documents of republicanism in America, basic institutions check other basic institutions, classes and interests check other classes and interests, and regions do the same. All are grounded in their own power bases which they use to fend off challengers. The coalitions change from issue to issue, and there is no such thing as party discipline which translated, means you do what I the leader say you do. Although Obama is fully aware of the political limitations of the office which he holds, he is fully aware of the vast stock of political capital which he currently has in the bank and he evidently plans to enlarge it by drawing from the stock held by other groups, dead and alive. He is clearly drawing heavily from the caparisoned cloaks of Lincoln and Roosevelt. Obama seems to believe that by playing the all-inclusive, multipartisan, non-ideological card, he can get most of his programmes through the Congress without having to spend capital by using vetoes, threats of veto, or appeals to his 15 million strong constituency in cyberspace (the latent "Obama Party").
|
Ryan 9 Professor of Social Science at the Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies, University of West Indies. Ph.D. in Political Science from Cornell [Selwyn, 1/18. http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_opinion?id=161426968]
|
given the structure of American and world politics, it would be difficult for him to deliver half of what he has promised Obama begin his stint with a vast accumulation of political capital Political capital is, however, a lumpy and fast diminishing asset in today's world of instant communication, which once misspent, is rarely ever renewable The world is full of political leaders like George Bush and Tony Blair who had visions, promised a lot but who did not know how to husband the political capital They squandered it as quickly One of the "realities" that Obama has to face is that American politics is not a winner-take-all system. It is pluralistic vertically and horizontally, and getting anything done politically requires groups to negotiate, bargain and engage in serious horse trading. No one takes orders from the President who can only use moral or political suasion basic institutions check other basic institutions, classes and interests check other classes and interests, and regions do the same. All are grounded in their own power bases which they use to fend off challengers. The coalitions change from issue to issue, and there is no such thing as party discipline
|
Empirics disprove winners win
| 5,385 | 29 | 1,188 | 905 | 4 | 196 | 0.00442 | 0.216575 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,136 |
The legislative process that produced the health care bill was especially damaging. It lasted much too long and featured side-deals with interest groups and individual senators, made in full public view. Much of the public was dismayed by what it saw. Worse, the seemingly endless health care debate strengthened the view that the president’s agenda was poorly aligned with the economic concerns of the American people. Because the administration never persuaded the public that health reform was vital to our economic future, the entire effort came to be seen as diversionary, even anti-democratic. The health reform bill was surely a moral success; it may turn out to be a policy success; but it is hard to avoid the conclusion that it was—and remains—a political liability. Indeed, most of the Obama agenda turned out to be very unpopular. Of five major policy initiatives undertaken during the first two years, only one—financial regulatory reform—enjoyed majority support. In a September 2010 Gallup survey, 52 percent of the people disapproved of the economic stimulus, 56 percent disapproved of both the auto rescue and the health care bill, and an even larger majority—61 percent—rejected the bailout of financial institutions.[v] Democrats’ hopes that the people would change their minds about the party’s signature issue—universal health insurance—after the bill passed were not fulfilled. (It remains to be seen whether sentiment will change in coming years as provisions of the bill are phased in—that is, if they survive what will no doubt be stiff challenges in both Congress and the states.)
|
Galston 10 [William, Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, Brookings, “President Barack Obama’s First Two Years: Policy Accomplishments, Political Difficulties” Brookings Institute -- Nov 4]
|
The legislative process that produced the health care bill was especially damaging the health care debate strengthened the view that the president’s agenda was poorly aligned with the economic concerns of the American people the administration never persuaded the public that health reform was vital to our economic future, the entire effort came to be seen as diversionary it is hard to avoid the conclusion that it was—and remains—a political liability. most of the Obama agenda turned out to be very unpopular. Of five major policy initiatives only one—financial regulatory reform—enjoyed majority support
|
Health care disproves winners win
| 1,606 | 33 | 608 | 253 | 5 | 93 | 0.019763 | 0.367589 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,137 |
SALT LAKE CITY — Lawmakers waded through 300 amendments to the proposed immigration reform bill on Thursday, and it looks like it's going to take a long time before anything is settled. Utah's senators are right in the middle of this as well, since they've introduced a few amendments of their own. Thursday was the deadline for filing amendments and in the hearing room today, some senators accused their colleagues of trying to derail the whole reform bill. The room was packed with plenty of disagreements from the start. "There's some simple math here," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., to Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. "You're adding 11 million. They're already here." "Well, they're going to be given full legal status," Sessions said to Schumer. The immigration reform bill is already 844 pages long and now there are several hundred amendments that have to be considered, one by one. Some lawmakers claim many of the amendments are aimed at killing the legislation all together. "There are some here who've already decided they're going to vote against this measure no matter what it says," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. "That is their right." Schumer agreed with Durbin that the amendments will slow or stop the process.
|
McCord 5/9 – Anchor/Reporter KSL 5 News Weekends (Keith, “Lawmakers halt immigration reform bill with 300 proposed amendments,” http://www.ksl.com/?sid=25118812&nid=148&title=lawmakers-halt-immigration-reform-bill-with-300-proposed-amendments&fm=home_page&s_cid=queue-1)
|
Lawmakers waded through 300 amendments to the proposed immigration reform bill on Thursday, and it looks like it's going to take a long time before anything is settled. The room was packed with plenty of disagreements from the start. The immigration reform bill is already 844 pages long and now there are several hundred amendments that have to be considered, one by one. Some lawmakers claim many of the amendments are aimed at killing the legislation all together. Schumer agreed with Durbin that the amendments will slow or stop the process.
|
Amendment debates prevent CIR passage
| 1,228 | 37 | 545 | 204 | 5 | 91 | 0.02451 | 0.446078 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,138 |
Unlike in his first administration, the president seems to be on board and ready for rolling up his sleeves and getting into immigration reform, but that won’t cut it. The problem for immigration reform in 2013 is rooted in Capital Hill. The president’s support is a necessary condition for any major policy overhaul, but it is not a sufficient condition. Let’s just assume the president can arm-wrestle the Senate Democrats and a few Senate Republicans into supporting his immigration reform. Two out of three won’t cut it. The Republican-controlled House is what stands in the way of immigration reform. More specifically, the GOP’s split mindset regarding Latinos and immigration is what will likely prevent the president from crossing off immigration reform from his 2013 to-do list.
|
Soto 13, Dr. Victoria M. DeFrancesco Soto, NBC Latino and MSNBC contributor, Senior Analyst for Latino Decisions and Fellow at the Center for Politics and Governance at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, at Austin, “Opinion: Immigration reform will not be easy, but it’s not impossible,” January 4th, http://nbclatino.com/2013/01/04/opinion-immigration-reform-will-not-be-easy-but-its-not-impossible/
|
the president seems to be getting into immigration reform but that won’t cut it The president’s support is necessary but not sufficient assume the president can arm-wrestle the Senate Democrats and a few Senate Republicans Two out of three won’t cut it. The Republican House stands in the way the GOP’s split mindset regarding immigration will prevent the president from crossing off immigration reform from his 2013 to-do list
|
Capital’s not key to immigration reform
| 787 | 39 | 427 | 126 | 6 | 69 | 0.047619 | 0.547619 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,139 |
‘A gray dawn fast approaches. It is time to take an unflinching look at the shape of things to come’ (Peterson, 1999, p.43). The ‘gray dawn’ to which Peterson is referring to is the global problem of the ‘ageing crisis’. Rapid demographic transitions of rising life expectancyalongside declining fertility result in a dramatic increase in the proportion of the populationover sixty-five. This population ageing will reduce the working population as a percentage of the population as a whole which will in turn constrain economic growth, increase socialexpenditure and lead to intergenerational conflict. This is both an economic and a politicalproblem which even the wealthiest countries cannot afford, described as a ‘crisis scenario’where ‘an aging population overburdening the individual taxpayer, bankrupting the country and creating extreme social and political tensions leading to a ‘war’ between various agegroups’ (Northcott, 1994, p. 67-68). As alarming as this prospect sounds while it is logicaland may present problems this thesis appears to be somewhat exaggerated. There has been much research carried out in this area and a considerable body of literature available on this topic much of which finds fault with statistical data on which this argument is based and refutes the main problems which the ‘ageing crisis’ presents while evidence is put forward to show that we do not need to worry about an ageing crisis that we may in actual fact benefitfrom an ageing population.
|
Whiston 11 [Lucy, "The 'ageing crisis' thesis is exaggerated," www.scribd.com/doc/104290973/The-ageing-crisis-thesis-is-exaggerated-Critically-discuss, accessed 2-10-13, mss]
|
this thesis appears exaggerated There has been much research and considerable literature which finds fault with statistical data on which this argument is based and refutes the main problems which the ‘ageing crisis’ presents we do not need to worry about an ageing crisis
|
Best data disproves aging crisis
| 1,492 | 32 | 274 | 232 | 5 | 44 | 0.021552 | 0.189655 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,140 |
The first reason why the ‘ageing crisis’ theory is exaggerated is the shaky statistics from which this argument stems. The ageing crisis is based on transitions in demographic trends from high birth and death rates to low birth and death rates. This transition is as a result of decreasing mortality rates, lower fertility rates alongside increasing life expectancy whichtogether result in increasing dependency ratios. Based on these statistics the ageing crisis ispresented as inevitable. However, when you look at the statistics in detail they are based on anumber of unguaranteed assumptions about fertility, mortality and net migration levels whichare only assumptions not guarantees that have proven to be wrong in the past. New disease smay emerge or re-emerge influencing mortality rates. Fertility rates do not have a great record of accuracy and a small change in fertility rates can have a sizable impact on the paceof ageing. Fertility rates are viewed as especially hard to predict due to a complex interaction of a number of forces such as family-friendly policies, laws affecting abortion, contraceptionor increased nationalism, the affects of which were seen after 9/11 with increases in fertility(Gee, 2002, p. 751). The same can be said for dependency ratios which depicts the numericalrelationship between the number of people of working age and the number of people assumedto be economically dependent based on their age. This equation assumes that certain agegroups are either productive or dependent leaving out unemployment, illness or those inemployment after sixty-five (Timonen, 2008, p. 91). It is argued by some that this assumptioncreates a false relationship between those who are dependent and those who are not ignoringthe dichotomy of interdependence and reciprocity (Gee, 2002, p. 753). Demographic indicators also leave out some important elements. The dependency ratio doesn’t take into account the contributions of older people to society. Although a very smallminority, some people over sixty-five do remain in employment after they become eligiblefor retirement. The vast majority contribute in other ways through voluntary work, care work,grandparenthood, unpaid work or the redistribution of resources to younger family members(Timonen, 2008, p. 92). In addition, while there is too much emphasis on the old agedependency ratio, the total and youth dependency ratio also need to be taken into account, as the youth and old age dependency ratios have a counterbalancing effect on the totaldependency ratio. For example, in Canada in 1951 there was a total dependency ratio of 0.83.By 2041 the old age dependency ratio is expected to increase by .32 whilst the youthdependency ratio is estimated to drop by .33 resulting in an actual decrease in the totaldependency ratio (Gee, 2002, p. 752). In Germany this pattern is expected to lead to a reduction in social expenditure by 2040 as ‘the rise in the cost of programs for older people is at least partly and may be totally offset by declines in the cost of supporting fewer children’ (Mulllan, 2000, p. 120). Dependency ratios also fail to take into account growth in theeconomy which is linked with the final problem of the influence of non-demographic factors,which is addressed in the next section of this essay.
|
Whiston 11 [Lucy, "The 'ageing crisis' thesis is exaggerated," www.scribd.com/doc/104290973/The-ageing-crisis-thesis-is-exaggerated-Critically-discuss, accessed 2-10-13, mss]
|
The first reason why the ‘ageing crisis’ theory is exaggerated is the shaky statistics The ageing crisis is based on lower fertility rates when you look at the statistics in detail they are based on anumber of unguaranteed assumptions about fertility, mortality that have proven wrong in the past Fertility rates do not have a great record of accuracy Fertility rates are especially hard to predict The dependency ratio doesn’t take into account the contributions of older people to society. The vast majority contribute through voluntary work
|
Fertility rates mean no aging crisis
| 3,305 | 36 | 543 | 517 | 6 | 87 | 0.011605 | 0.168279 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,141 |
Second, the ‘ageing crisis’ thesis also seems to be exaggerated when you look at the majorproblems of this approaching time bomb in detail. The ‘ageing crisis’ proposes that due to changing demographics social expenditure will increase dramatically developing into an ‘unaffordable burden’ especially in the areas of pensions and he alth. However, when thisproposition is further analysed, this does not appear to be the case. To begin with, there is aweak, if any, correlation between population ageing and social expenditure with research by Castle concluding that there is ‘no apparen t association between changes in age structure and in total social security spending’ ( cited in Kinnear, 2001, p. 15). This can be clearly seen in the case of Japan. Although Japan is a prime example of a country with a high proportion of older people, its social expenditure as a proportion of GDP sits comfortably at only 14.4%. In contrast, in Denmark where population ageing is moderate it has social expenditure is as highas 30.5% of GDP (Kinnear, 2001, p. 15). Within the social security budget the proportion of spending on the pensions has not risen with the growth in the numbers of older people(Mullan, 2000, p. 146). Linked with this is the fact already highlighted above that non-demographic factors take precedence over demographic factors especially in the area of social expenditure. Whilst average pension spending in OECD countries doubled, only onequarter of this spending is attributed to demographic changes with the remainder beingassociated with increases in benefits and widening eligibility (Mullan, 2000, p. 153).
|
Whiston 11 [Lucy, "The 'ageing crisis' thesis is exaggerated," www.scribd.com/doc/104290973/The-ageing-crisis-thesis-is-exaggerated-Critically-discuss, accessed 2-10-13, mss]
|
the ‘ageing crisis’ thesis seems exaggerated This can be clearly seen in the case of Japan Although Japan is a prime example of a country with a high proportion of older people, its social expenditure sits comfortably In contrast, in Denmark where population ageing is moderate it has social expenditure is as highas 30. % of GDP
|
Empirics – Japan and Denmark prove
| 1,627 | 34 | 329 | 256 | 6 | 57 | 0.023438 | 0.222656 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,142 |
Legalization of the estimated 12 million unauthorized immigrants residing in the United States would lead to both economic benefits and costs for the nation. Some arguments for comprehensive immigration reform suggest that legalizing immigrants will help end the current recession. This seems unlikely. Our research suggests that earlier findings from the IRCA era may overstate anticipated earnings from a new reform, at least in the short run. ¶ We do expect occupational mobility to improve for formerly unauthorized immigrants with higher skill levels. When compared to the continuously legal, their occupational earnings growth was about 9 to 10 percent. These higher-skill unauthorized immigrants are more likely to be overstayers than crossers, but unauthorized immigrants with college degrees are found in both groups. Lower-skill unauthorized immigrants are not likely to experience strong occupational mobility as a result of a legalization program (although their occupational earnings grow over time in the United States). It will be important that any new legislation give legalized immigrants incentives to improve their skills, especially in English. ¶ The majority of studies investigating the effect of legalizing immigrants on natives’ earnings suggest that the effects are slightly negative for workers with low skill levels. Since we find no improvements in occupational mobility or wages for the lowest skill levels in the short run, we do not expect that legalizing immigrants would place any increased pressure on the wages of low-skill natives or low-skill legal immigrants. Tax revenues may increase, although many unauthorized immigrants already file federal and state tax returns and pay sales and payroll taxes. We found that about 90 percent of unauthorized immigrants filed federal tax returns in the year before gaining LPR status. We expect that increases in tax revenues resulting from increased earnings among the formerly unauthorized would be modest.
|
Hill et al 10 [Laura E., research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, a National Institute of Aging postdoctoral fellow, Magnus Lofstrom, a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, Joseph M. Hayes, a research associate at the Public Policy Institute of California, where he studies migration and population change throughout the state, “Immigrant Legalization Assessing the Labor Market Effects,” Public Policy Institute of California, www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_410LHR.pdf#ppic]
|
Legalization of the estimated 12 million unauthorized immigrants residing in the United States would lead to both economic benefits and costs for the nation. Some arguments for comprehensive immigration reform suggest that legalizing immigrants will help end the current recession. This seems unlikely. findings from the IRCA era may overstate anticipated earnings from a new reform Lower-skill unauthorized immigrants are not likely to experience strong occupational mobility as a result of a legalization program The majority of studies investigating the effect of legalizing immigrants on natives’ earnings suggest that the effects are slightly negative for workers with low skill levels. Since we find no improvements in occupational mobility or wages for the lowest skill levels in the short run, we do not expect that legalizing immigrants would place any increased pressure on the wages of low-skill natives or low-skill legal immigrants. Tax revenues may increase, although many unauthorized immigrants already file federal and state tax returns and pay sales and payroll taxes. 90 percent of unauthorized immigrants filed federal tax returns in the year before gaining LPR status. We expect that increases in tax revenues resulting from increased earnings among the formerly unauthorized would be modest.
|
No economic benefit to CIR
| 1,986 | 26 | 1,313 | 297 | 5 | 196 | 0.016835 | 0.659933 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,143 |
For years, one of the groups pushing hardest for immigration reform has been the U.S. food industry. Farmers have long grumbled about a shortage of labor, and they’ve asked for policies that make it easier to hire foreign workers from places like Mexico. But looser immigration laws may not be able to keep our food cheap forever. A recent study suggests that U.S. farms could well face a shortage of low-cost labor in the years ahead no matter what Congress does on immigration. That’s because Mexico is getting richer and can no longer supply as many rural farm workers to the United States. And it won’t be nearly as easy to import low-wage agricultural workers from elsewhere.¶ For decades, farms in the United States have relied heavily on low-wage foreign workers — mainly from Mexico — to work their fields. In 2006, 77 percent of all agricultural workers in the United States were foreign-born. (And half of those foreign workers were undocumented immigrants.) All that cheap labor has helped keep down U.S. food prices, particularly for labor-intensive fruits and vegetables.¶ But that labor pool is now drying up. In recent years, we’ve seen a spate of headlines like this from CNBC: “California Farm Labor Shortage ‘Worst It’s Been, Ever’.” Typically, these stories blame drug-related violence on the Mexican border or tougher border enforcement for the decline. Hence the call for new guest-worker programs.¶ But a new paper from U.C. Davis offers up a simpler explanation for the labor shortage. Mexico is getting richer. And, when a country gets richer, its pool of rural agricultural labor shrinks. Not only are Mexican workers shifting into other sectors like construction, but Mexico’s own farms are increasing wages. That means U.S. farms will have to pay higher and higher wages to attract a dwindling pool of available Mexican farm workers.¶ “It’s a simple story,” says Edward Taylor, an agricultural economist at U.C. Davis and one of the study’s authors. ”By the mid-twentieth century, Americans stopped doing farm work. And we were only able to avoid a farm-labor crisis by bringing in workers from a nearby country that was at an earlier stage of development. Now that era is coming to an end.”¶ Taylor and his co-authors argue that the United States could face a sharp adjustment period as a result. Americans appear unwilling to do the sort of low-wage farm work that we have long relied on immigrants to do. And, the paper notes, it may be difficult to find an abundance of cheap farm labor anywhere else — potential targets such as Guatemala and El Salvador are either too small or are urbanizing too rapidly.¶ So the labor shortages will keep getting worse. And that leaves several choices. American farmers could simply stop growing crops that need a lot of workers to harvest, such as fruits and vegetables. Given the demand for fresh produce, that seems unlikely.
|
Plumer 13 [Brad, energy and environment reporter, "We’re running out of farm workers. Immigration reform won’t help." Washington Post -- January 29 -- www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/29/the-u-s-is-running-out-of-farm-workers-immigration-reform-may-not-help/]
|
Farmers asked for policies that make it easier to hire foreign workers looser immigration laws may not be able to keep our food cheap A recent study suggests that U.S. farms could face a shortage of low-cost labor in the years ahead no matter what Congress does on immigration That’s because Mexico is getting richer and can no longer supply as many rural farm workers it won’t be easy to import low-wage agricultural workers from elsewhere.¶ For decades, farms in the U S have relied heavily on low-wage foreign workers from Mexico But that labor pool is now drying up U.C. Davis offers up a simpler explanation for the labor shortage. Mexico is getting richer when a country gets richer, its pool of rural agricultural labor shrinks , it may be difficult to find an abundance of cheap farm labor anywhere else — potential targets such as Guatemala and El Salvador are either too small or are urbanizing too rapidly. So the labor shortages will keep getting worse
|
Reform cant’ solve the ag industry – worker shortage inevitable
| 2,895 | 63 | 964 | 484 | 10 | 168 | 0.020661 | 0.347107 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,144 |
Noticed the price of sugar lately? Potatoes? Fresh fruit? A weak pound, US drought and one of the wettest years on record for Britain have all contributed to the cost of your shopping basket soaring. When sterling falls, your money buys fewer of the commodities that need to be imported. In fact, the recent sharp falls probably haven't had their full impact in yet. But the story of rising food prices is about much more than currency swings. And it provides tempting possibilities for investors. Extreme weather in 2012 led to sharp price rises in the likes of corn, wheat and soya beans, and these prices look likely to remain elevated for the next six months, according to Baring Asset Management. There is also a long-term crunch between supply and demand. In fact, food production must increase by at least 70pc by 2050 to meet global demand. According to the United Nations, the world's population is forecast to increase from 7 billion to 9.3 billion over the next 40 years, and to meet this demand investment in food production is needed. The Ecclesiastical Investment Management Amity Insight report Hungry Planet warned that our current food supply is just not sustainable in the medium to long term, and can only be solved through extensive investment in global agriculture, which will help increase crop yields. Neville White, socially responsible investment analyst at Ecclesiastical, said: "Increased food production will have to be achieved with less land, water and people. Investing in companies with a focus on mechanisation, crop production and fertilisation that aim to increase food production can not only have a real impact on food but can also ensure that investors profit with principles." There are two ways to invest in food: you can buy commodities through trading on the future price of a grain or crop and/or buying an exchange-traded fund. Or you can buy shares in agriculture and food-production related companies. Sarasin AgriSar invests in the entire supply chain, from grain to supermarkets. This means that although you may miss out on large upsurges in the soft commodities market, growth should be smoother. Henry Boucher, manager of the AgriSar fund, said that holding food-related shares was a more ethical way of investing – handing your money to companies in the chain reduces their capital cost and helps them invest to improve food supply. "Some speculators invest in food itself, which takes supply out of the market [if they store it for later sale at higher prices]," said Mr Boucher. "Commodity traders invest directly in corn, pork bellies, wheat and sugar. We're more interested in finding companies that help improve global productivity." He cites investments like Japan's Kubota, which makes small rice transplanters, or Indian company Syngenta, whose fertiliser and seed pre-mix is designed to improve productivity by up to four times. "Both make products for the small farmer – they can be used on land as little as one acre," he said. "This is not about mass-farming but helping the small businesses left in the Asian countryside." Speculative "futures" investing in food markets can also be more volatile. Futures are short-term punts – one bad crop season, due to disease or extreme weather, may mean significant losses. Agriculture-related shares are held for longer and are less affected by natural disasters. Jonathan Blake, manager of the Baring Global Agriculture fund, said last year's weather had enhanced the investment appeal of those companies providing the likes of seeds, herbicides and fertilisers, which will enable farmers to maximise their crop output. "It will take time to address the shortfalls caused by the severe weather events of 2012, from droughts in America to washout conditions in the UK and Europe," said Mr Blake. "We do, however, expect crop prices to come down later in 2013, providing we have a year of 'normal' weather, as significantly improved output will allow inventory levels to begin to be rebuilt." The Baring fund has a sizeable proportion of listed fertiliser, herbicide and seed producers. "Crop production, through the continuous cycle of planting, growing and harvesting, robs the soil of nutrients," said Mr Blake. "As a result, these nutrients need replenishing through the application of fertilisers. Additionally, for many farmers these nutrients are highly affordable given the current high prices farmers are able to get for their crops." Schroders Climate Change manager Simon Webber also likes investing in companies that offer productivity solutions which will help bring down the price of food through use of their products to increase farming production. He also invests in Syngenta and US company Trimble Navigation, which provides solutions for levelling fields. It is not just population growth that provides investment opportunities in the food sector, but the change in global diets. As disposable incomes swell in emerging markets, diets tend to become more Westernised. The AgriSar fund invests in Asian supermarket chain Dairy Farm, whose revenues have risen as the expanding middle classes change their dietary and shopping habits. "Incomes in China are increasing at 10pc a year," said Mr Boucher. "People are no longer going to the market daily but visit a supermarket once a week, where they will be buying more meat, dairy products and imported vegetables." Mr Webber said that on top of the global demand for more agricultural produce are the effects on supply, where available productive land is in decline, yield growth is reducing and there is a growing competition from the biofuel industry for feedstock. "Climate change acts as a threat multiplier to the sector on top of the dual impacts of increased demand and decreased supply, presenting various investment opportunities. The sectors that will benefit from this are companies involved in agricultural production as well as food retailers, whose share price will increase as food prices inflate."
|
Wall 13 – personal finance reporter for the Daily and Sunday Telegraph and Telegraph.co.uk, citing Baring Asset Management (Emma, 03/02, “As the price of food rises, is there profit to be made?” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/9902374/As-the-price-of-food-rises-is-there-profit-to-be-made.html)
|
Extreme weather in 2012 led to sharp price rises and these prices look likely to remain elevated for the next six months There is also a long-term crunch between supply and demand. the world's population is forecast to increase to 9.3 billion over the next 40 years our current food supply is just not sustainable Speculative "futures" investing in food markets can also be volatile. one bad crop season, due to disease or weather, may mean significant losses. available land is in decline and there is a growing competition from the biofuel industry for feedstock. "Climate change acts as a threat multiplier to the sector on top of increased demand and decreased supply
|
Tons of alt causes to food prices – extreme weather, long-term supply/demand crunch, population growth, speculative “futures” investing, disease, less available land, feedstock competition from the biofuels industry, warming
| 5,984 | 224 | 671 | 961 | 29 | 113 | 0.030177 | 0.117586 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,145 |
The Global Food Market Just fifteen food crops make up 90 percent of the world's energy intake, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), with rice, maize (corn), and wheat comprising two-thirds of that number. The world grows more grains (PDF)--also known as cereals--than any other crop type. Much of the global increase in food prices stems from staple grains, which in some countries can represent more than half of calorie intake. According to the World Bank, due to an incredibly dry summer in the United States and Europe, global corn and soybean prices reached all-time highs in July 2012, while wheat soared to prices comparable to 2011 peaks. Because grains also represent a major food source for livestock, higher grain prices have contributed to higher dairy and meat prices. The USDA predicts that domestically, prices will continue to rise in 2013 at a rate of 3 to 4 percent. A June 2011 report to G20 agriculture ministers from ten major NGOs, including the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and the UN World Food Program, noted that by 2050, food demand (PDF) will have increased by between 70 percent and 100 percent to meet a projected population growth of at least 2.5 billion additional people. "This alone is sufficient to exert pressure on commodity prices," the report said. Growth in agriculture production is largely expected to come from increased crop yields and will primarily be located in developing countries, according to a 2009 UN report (PDF). Experts say there is plenty of opportunity to improve farming techniques in the developing world. Meeting projected demand will require increasing cereal production by an additional one billion tons, up from more than two billion tons currently, and more than doubling meat production from current levels. However, according to a 2011 report by the OECD, annual growth in agriculture production (PDF) in the next decade is forecast to be a third less than the annual growth in the previous decade. The report estimates that a 5 percent increase or decrease in harvest yield in major grains can lead to as much as a 25 percent difference in price. Food Price Volatility According to the FAO, price volatility has been extremely rare in agricultural markets, but the global food system is becoming increasingly vulnerable to it. The 2011 NGO report argued that "volatility becomes an issue for concern and for possible policy response when it induces risk-adverse behavior that leads to inefficient investment decisions and when it creates problems that are beyond the capacity of producers, consumers, or nations to cope."
|
Johnson 13 – writer for the Council on Foreign Relations (Toni, 01/16, “Food Price Volatility and Insecurity,” http://www.cfr.org/food-security/food-price-volatility-insecurity/p16662)
|
The USDA predicts prices will continue to rise in 2013 by 2050, food demand will have increased by between 70 and 100 percent to meet population growth This alone is sufficient to exert pressure on commodity prices growth in ag in the next decade is forecast to be a third less than in the previous decade. the global food system is becoming increasingly vulnerable
|
Population growth alone swamps the internal link – so does ag slowdown – USDA forecast, 70-100% increase in demand by 2050
| 2,627 | 122 | 365 | 429 | 21 | 64 | 0.048951 | 0.149184 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,146 |
Iran and Burma underscore the limits to the argument that India and the United States, as democracies, define their interests in similar ways.13 But they may be special caseslike U.S. alliances with non-democracies such as Saudi Arabia as well as Washington’s occasional support for military rule in Pakistanthat do not vitiate the possibilities for Indo—American values-based cooperation elsewhere. Indeed, India has defined its relations with the world’s leading democracies as more important than with non-democracies such as Iran, Burma, and China. A leaked Indian Ministry of External Affairs memo in 2006 identified relations with the United States, Britain, France, Germany, and Japan as being more strategically important to India’s future than ties to other states presumably not simply because of their power or wealth but because of a basic alignment of interests, reinforced by a set of common values, that India does not share with other countries.14
|
Daniel Twining and, Senior Fellow for Asia at the German Marshall Fund, Richard Fontaine 11, Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, “The Ties that Bind? U.S.—Indian Values-based Cooperation”, The Washington Quarterly 34:2 pp. 193-205 Spring 2011
|
special caseslike Saudi Arabia as well as Pakistan do not vitiate the possibilities for Indo—American values-based cooperation elsewhere India has defined its relations with the world’s leading democracies as more important than with non-democracies such as Iran, Burma, and China A leaked memo identified relations with the U S as more strategically important than ties to other states because of a basic alignment of interests, reinforced by a set of common values, that India does not share with other countries
|
Tit-for-tat disputes don’t spillover
| 963 | 36 | 514 | 147 | 4 | 80 | 0.027211 | 0.544218 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,147 |
2. Political support for the embargo is eroding. Another problem for embargo aficionados is that younger Cuban Americans in Florida, the all-important next generation of voters, just aren't as passionate about it as their parents and grandparents were. "When I lecture down there, they couldn't care less about Castro and the embargo," says Roett. A recent poll by Florida International University in Miami bears this out. It found that just 50% of Cuban-Americans still support the embargo, and 80% think it has failed. It's also worth noting that Obama got a lot more of the Cuban-American vote in Florida in the 2012 election, despite the awareness that he is more willing to lift the embargo, says Hidalgo. With their constituents defecting on the issue, congressional backers of the embargo may be losing ground. "The Cuban vote in Florida is changing, thus sticking with the embargo doesn't makes sense," believes Hidalgo.
|
Brush 13 – MSN Money (Michael, “Time to invest in Cuba?” http://money.msn.com/investing/time-to-invest-in-cuba)
|
Political support for the embargo is eroding. Another problem for embargo aficionados is that younger Cuban Americans in Florida, the all-important next generation of voters, just aren't as passionate about it as their parents and grandparents were. A recent poll by Florida International University in Miami bears this out. It found that just 50% of Cuban-Americans still support the embargo, and 80% think it has failed. With their constituents defecting on the issue, congressional backers of the embargo may be losing ground. "The Cuban vote in Florida is changing, thus sticking with the embargo doesn't makes sense," believes Hidalgo.
|
No political support for the embargo
| 928 | 36 | 640 | 150 | 6 | 99 | 0.04 | 0.66 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,148 |
The embargo survives largely because of Florida’s political importance. Every presidential candidate wants to win the Sunshine State’s electoral votes, and the Cuban American community is a significant voting bloc. But the political environment is changing. A younger, more liberal generation of Cuban Americans with no memory of life in Cuba is coming to the fore. Said Wayne Smith, a diplomat who served in Havana: “for the first time in years, maybe there is some chance for a change in policy.” And there are now many more new young Cuban Americans who support a more sensible approach to Cuba. Support for the Republican Party also is falling. According to some exit polls Barack Obama narrowly carried the Cuban American community in November, after receiving little more than a third of the vote four years ago. He received 60 percent of the votes of Cuban Americans born in the United States. Barack Obama increased his votes among Cuban Americans after liberalizing contacts with the island. He also would have won the presidency without Florida, demonstrating that the state may not be essential politically. Today even the GOP is no longer reliable. For instance, though Republican vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan has defended the embargo in recent years, that appears to reflect ambition rather than conviction. Over the years he voted at least three times to lift the embargo, explaining: “The embargo doesnt work. It is a failed policy. It was probably justified when the Soviet Union existed and posed a threat through Cuba. I think its become more of a crutch for Castro to use to repress his people. All the problems he has, he blames the American embargo.”
|
Bandow 12 – senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to former US president Ronald Reagan (Doug, 12/11, “Time to End the Cuba Embargo,” http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-end-cuba-embargo)
|
The embargo survives largely because of Florida’s political importance. Every presidential candidate wants to win the Sunshine State’s electoral votes, and the Cuban American community is a significant voting bloc. But the political environment is changing. A younger, more liberal generation of Cuban Americans with no memory of life in Cuba is coming to the fore. And there are now many more new young Cuban Americans who support a more sensible approach to Cuba. Support for the Republican Party also is falling. Barack Obama increased his votes among Cuban Americans after liberalizing contacts with the island. Today even the GOP is no longer reliable. For instance, though Republican vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan has defended the embargo in recent years, that appears to reflect ambition rather than conviction. Over the years he voted at least three times to lift the embargo
|
Opposition to the plan is diminishing
| 1,678 | 37 | 889 | 277 | 6 | 140 | 0.021661 | 0.505415 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,149 |
HOUSTON — Oil and gas companies have accelerated their spending on lobbying faster than any other industry, training their gusher of profits on Washington to fight new taxes on drilling and slow efforts to move the nation off fossil fuels. The industry spent $44.5 million lobbying Congress and federal agencies in the first three months of this year, on pace to shatter last year's record. Only the drug industry spent more. Last year's total of $129 million was up 73 percent from two years earlier. That's a faster clip than any other major industry, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. From the late 1990s through the first half of this decade, the oil industry spent roughly $50 million to $60 million a year on lobbying. It ramped up lobbying in 2006, when Democrats retook Congress, and further as President Barack Obama took office. “They're under attack, they're ramping up their operations and they've got money to spend,” said Tyson Slocum, who runs the energy program at watchdog group Public Citizen. “They're in a much better position than other industries to draw upon financial resources for their lobbying effort.” Billions of dollars in oil profits in recent years have made the industry a target for new and higher taxes on exploration and drilling. Oil companies and refiners are also trying to blunt the impact of costly climate change legislation pushed by Obama. While most oil and gas executives acknowledge the nation needs cleaner energy, they say lawmakers are misguided about how quickly it can happen. They warn that taxes and tighter rules on exploration could cripple the industry before new technology is developed. Complex issues like that “require additional communication and effort to ensure lawmakers understand our positions,” said Alan Jeffers, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest publicly traded oil company. Exxon Mobil was the biggest spender in the first quarter, pumping $9.3 million into Washington — three times what it spent a year ago, according to House disclosure reports. In its House filing, Exxon noted it lobbied on high-profile topics such as climate and tax legislation, as well as provisions regarding the chemical industry, education and health care. Combined, the three largest U.S. oil companies — Exxon, Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips — spent about $22 million on lobbying in the first quarter. Smaller, independent companies that produce the bulk of the nation's crude and natural gas are spending millions, too. They're spending more even as profits have subsided. The big three U.S. oil companies spent just $12.4 million on lobbying in the fourth quarter. First-quarter spending on lobbying by the oil industry trailed only drugmakers and health products companies, which spent $66.6 million. “I can tell you, I've had substantially more visits than usual,” said Rep. Gene Green, whose south Texas district is in the heart of oil country. Among his callers, he said, have been representatives of ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil to discuss climate-change legislation and other matters. To a degree, the investment appears to be paying off. On Wednesday, a Senate committee voted to lift a ban on drilling across a vast area in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. The provision, which the industry pushed for, is included in a bill that would expand the use of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. The bill now goes to the full Senate. Democrats from oil states have also managed to get rid of a provision in an anti-pollution bill to require refiners to meet a standard on low-carbon motor fuel. Refiners say the bill would still be devastating to business. Most major industries have increased what they spend on lobbying, but no one has done so at a faster clip over the past two years than oil and gas companies, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. The enormous amount of money funneled to Washington by energy companies comes after some members of Congress suggested slapping the big oil companies with a windfall profits tax last year, when Americans were seething over $4-a-gallon gas. Democrats — who also took the majority of state legislatures and governorships in 2006 — traditionally have not been as cozy with the oil sector as Republicans, and the energy lobby has spent the past few years trying to make inroads. “You'll often see a correlation between spending and an industry or company that's in the hot seat,” said Sheila Krumholz, the Center for Responsive Politics' executive director. “That will be enough to get them to hire additional guns and direct more money to lobbying.”
|
Porretto 9 – Associated Press (John, 06/19, “Oil lobby floods D.C.,” http://www.telegram.com/article/20090619/NEWS/906190443/1002)
|
Oil and gas companies have accelerated their spending on lobbying faster than any other industry The industry spent $44.5 million lobbying Congress and federal agencies in the first three months of this year, on pace to shatter last year's record. Last year's total of $129 million was up 73 percent from two years earlier. That's a faster clip than any other major industry, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. they're ramping up their operations and they've got money to spend,” said Tyson Slocum, who runs the energy program at watchdog group Public Citizen. “They're in a much better position than other industries to draw upon financial resources for their lobbying effort.” Exxon Mobil was the biggest spender in the first quarter, pumping $9.3 million into Washington — three times what it spent a year ago, according to House disclosure reports. Combined, the three largest U.S. oil companies — Exxon, Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips — spent about $22 million on lobbying in the first quarter. Smaller, independent companies that produce the bulk of the nation's crude and natural gas are spending millions, too. They're spending more even as profits have subsided. To a degree, the investment appears to be paying off. On Wednesday, a Senate committee voted to lift a ban on drilling across a vast area in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Most major industries have increased what they spend on lobbying, but no one has done so at a faster clip over the past two years than oil and gas companies, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. Democrats — who also took the majority of state legislatures and governorships in 2006 — traditionally have not been as cozy with the oil sector as Republicans, and the energy lobby has spent the past few years trying to make inroads. “You'll often see a correlation between spending and an industry or company that's in the hot seat,” said Sheila Krumholz, the Center for Responsive Politics' executive director. “That will be enough to get them to hire additional guns and direct more money to lobbying.”
|
Plan’s popular with oil and gas lobbies – outweighs the link
| 4,632 | 60 | 2,090 | 760 | 11 | 349 | 0.014474 | 0.459211 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,150 |
Father Carnes said Chávez’s passing offers an opportunity for the United States, politically and economically, to revive its relationship with Venezuela. Occasionally “capricious and doctrinaire,” Chávez was “someone the United States had a hard time negotiating with,” according to Father Carnes. Whether his designated political heir, Vice President Nicholas Maduro, or an opposition candidate, most likely Henrique Capriles Radonski, governor of the Venezuelan state of Miranda, is elected to replace Chávez, Father Carnes expects a more pragmatic and less confrontational leadership to emerge. That could mean improved ties not just with Venezuela but throughout the region, he said, and a possible opening for renewed U.S. investment and partnership with the Venezuelan state oil industry. Despite Chávez’s notorious distaste for U.S. political leaders, under his leadership Venezuela remained one of the largest suppliers of oil to the United States. This is likely to continue.
|
Clarke 13 – editor and contributor to Salt of the Earth magazine, MA in International Studies from DePaul University (Kevin, 03/25, “Chavez Death Brings New Chance For U.S.-Venezuela Engagement,” http://americamagazine.org/issue/chavez-death-brings-new-chance-us-venezuela-engagement)
|
Chávez’s passing offers an opportunity for the United States, politically and economically, to revive its relationship with Venezuela. Chávez was “someone the United States had a hard time negotiating with,” Carnes expects a more pragmatic and less confrontational leadership to emerge. That could mean improved ties not just with Venezuela but throughout the region, he said, and a possible opening for renewed U.S. investment and partnership with the Venezuelan state oil industry.
|
Chavez’s death kills political opposition to the plan
| 984 | 53 | 483 | 143 | 8 | 72 | 0.055944 | 0.503497 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,151 |
Obama’s critics contend that his prolonged fantasy of bipartisanship, his failure to lay the blame for the depressed economy squarely on the Republicans, and his reluctance to use his bully pulpit to tell a coherent story, particularly about jobs, needlessly weakened the Democrats and led to avoidable losses in the 2010 midterm. More fundamentally, under Obama government has lost credibility as a necessary force for economic recovery and fairness, undermining the Democrats’ core appeal to voters. At the very least, Obama failed to drive the agenda or exploit the full possibilities of presidential leadership in a crisis. In the formulation of the political historian James MacGregor Burns, Obama ran and inspired voters as a “transformational” figure but governed as a “transactional” one. Notwithstanding a vow to profoundly change Washington, Obama took the Washington power constellation as a given. Despite an economic emergency, he moved neither Congress nor public opinion very much and only seldom used his oratorical gifts. “He is so damned smart and confident that he thinks he just has to explain things to the American people once,” says former House Appropriations Chair David Obey. “He doesn’t appreciate that you have to reinforce a message 50 times.” Obama’s reticence, his reluctance to lay blame, make sharp partisan distinctions, or practice a politics of class, reflects the interplay of his personality and his tacit theory of power—one that emphasizes building bridges to opponents, defying ideological categories, shying away from the kind of mass mobilization that swept him into office, and practicing a kind of Zen detachment. At moments in American history, that conception of the presidency has suited the times. This doesn’t seem to be one of those moments. Yet in the third year of his presidency, there are signs of a learning curve. It may be that Obama is playing his own elegant brand of rope-a-dope, biding his time, letting the Republicans lead with their chins, waiting for just the right moment to dramatize their extremism and exploit their schisms—then demonstrating a toughness that has largely eluded him until now and reshaping the political center as a more progressive one. The hope of a new, more combative Obama was kindled by portions of his April 13 speech at George Washington University, which showed an Obama that we’ve seldom seen during his presidency. “The man America elected president has re-emerged,” exulted The New York Times’ lead editorial. Obama departed from his usual reluctance to be partisan, explicitly criticizing the self-annihilating Republican designs so usefully spelled out in Rep. Paul Ryan’s proposed 10-year budget. The president resorted to a formulation he seldom uses—the injustices of class: “The top 1 percent saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars each. That’s who needs to pay less taxes?” Obama said. “They want to give people like me a $200,000 tax cut that’s paid for by asking 33 seniors each to pay $6,000 more in health costs. That’s not right. And it’s not going to happen as long as I’m president.” At last, Obama shifted the mind-numbing debate from the scale of the budget and its deficits to its content and political meaning. He did what his progressive critics have long advocated, drawing a clear, bright, partisan line and pledging to defend Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. But the budgetary details of the speech showed an Obama who was still the transactional leader of the Burns paradigm. Obama devoted most of the speech to his own plans for cutting the deficit. Jobs and recovery were hardly mentioned. Most of the proposed deficit reductions came from cuts to programs rather than from tax increases. And Obama was far too generous with the word, we. As in: But after Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed. We increased spending dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription-drug program—but we didn’t pay for any of this new spending. Instead, we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts. [Emphasis added.] As Tonto said to the Lone Ranger, What do you mean, we? This fiscal deterioration, of course, was the Republicans’ handiwork. Why not point that out? Obama seemed to come to his partisanship reluctantly, almost apologetically. At one point in the speech, having just flayed the Republicans for their sheer extremism, he added, “I’m eager to hear other ideas from all ends of the political spectrum.” He further mixed his own message by declaring, “We will all need to make sacrifices.” Indeed, the main ideological themes of the speech had been undermined by Obama’s earlier compromises. The left pole that Obama defined in the budget debate had already been moved to the right by his yearlong emphasis on deficit reduction; his prior concessions in the December 2010 tax deal, which failed to restore higher tax rates on the rich; and the 2011 budget deal, which cut $38 billion in programs. If the bipartisan Gang of Six, spawn of Obama’s own Bowles-Simpson commission, does reach agreement, it will only add pressure to alter Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid for the worse—thus fatally blurring Obama’s bright line. Was Obama’s speech—the most resolutely political, partisan, progressive, and effective in recent memory—a turning point or a one-off? Is Obama now revising his theory and practice of presidential power? As the political scientist Richard Neustadt observed in his classic work, Presidential Power, a book that had great influence on President John F. Kennedy, the essence of a president’s power is “the power to persuade.” Because our divided constitutional system does not allow the president to lead by commanding, presidents amass power by making strategic choices about when to use the latent authority of the presidency to move public and elite opinion and then use that added prestige as clout to move Congress. In one of Neustadt’s classic case studies, Harry Truman, a president widely considered a lame duck, nonetheless persuaded the broad public and a Republican Congress in 1947-1948 that the Marshall Plan was a worthy idea. As Neustadt and Burns both observed, though an American chief executive is weak by constitutional design, a president possesses several points of leverage. He can play an effective outside game, motivating and shaping public sentiment, making clear the differences between his values and those of his opposition, and using popular support to box in his opponents and move them in his direction. He can complement the outside bully pulpit with a nimble inside game, uniting his legislative party, bestowing or withholding benefits on opposition legislators, forcing them to take awkward votes, and using the veto. He can also enlist the support of interest groups to pressure Congress, and use media to validate his framing of choices. Done well, all of this signals leadership that often moves the public agenda. The most effective presidents have worked all these levers. Think of Franklin Roosevelt, or Ronald Reagan, or Lyndon B. Johnson during the era of the War on Poverty and the civil-rights crusade. But except in the endgame of the battle for health care and his recent turnabout in defending Medicare, Obama has been relatively disengaged on all of these fronts. He left the details of his signature legislation and attendant bargaining to his staff. Says a senior Democrat who speaks frequently to Obama, “He is just not someone who enjoys what most of presidential politics entails.” Reviewing Obama’s relatively short career, a few core principles emerge in which he deeply believes. These have remained constants. Building Bridges. Obama, famously, is convinced both by his life journey and his prior experience in politics that he can persuade almost any adversary to find areas of common ground. “Much of Obama’s self-confidence,” wrote David Remnick in his biography of Obama, The Bridge, “resided in his belief that he could walk into a room, with any sort of people, and forge a relationship and even persuade those people of the rightness of his position.” From the Harvard Law Review, to the Illinois Senate, to the Iowa precinct caucuses, Obama’s political life before his presidency only strengthened that conviction. Obama has a deep certitude that the voters, especially political independents, are sick of partisan division and want a leader who will rise above it to solve practical problems. In service of that goal, he has bent over backward to praise his opposition rather than attack it, frequently offering concessions in advance. Mostly, he has pursued common ground by giving ground. The experience of his first two years, when Republicans wanted nothing so much as to destroy him, did not shake Obama from these strategic beliefs. “He doesn’t have a fighter’s instinct, but he is in the middle of a hugely consequential fight,” says a veteran Senate Democrat. “They will keep pushing him as long as he keeps backing up.” His drawing of bright lines in the April 13 speech was very much the exception. Defying Categories. This core political instinct interacts with, and is reinforced by, Obama’s personal reticence and determination not to be the angry black man. From his first entry into electoral politics, he defined himself as a different sort of African American and a different sort of liberal. Even though his voting record as a U.S. senator was one of the most progressive, as president he has almost gone out of his way to distance himself from the liberal base. In an interview with The New York Times’ Peter Baker on the eve of the 2010 elections, Obama expressed regrets for looking too much like “the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat.” Courting Elites, Wary of Mass Mobilization. Obama and his campaign staff brilliantly enlisted an army of volunteers who thought of themselves as a movement built on the values of sweeping change and the tactics of community organizing. Obama repeatedly vowed that he would use these engaged citizens to press Congress to enact health reform and other urgent priorities. But once elected, Obama’s political staff quickly downgraded Obama for America into Organizing for America, a denatured arm of the Democratic National Committee—out of concern that an independent movement might be more of a pressure group than an amen chorus. While he has maintained a close—and politically damaging—alliance with Wall Street (and lately, under Chief of Staff Bill Daley’s tutelage, has reached out to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce), Obama has been detached from the one recent popular rising that could help him win lost ground in the crucial states of the Midwest—the backlash against union busting and draconian budget cuts by Midwestern Republican governors and legislators. Though the line attributed to FDR speaking to supporters—“Now, make me do it”—is probably apocryphal, Roosevelt did make good use of popular groups to his left, as did Lyndon Johnson in his complex alliance with Martin Luther King. Obama and his political staff are distinctly uncomfortable with independent mobilizations making him do anything. At a time when progressive movements lack the energy of the 1930s or 1960s, the president has not chosen to help animate them. Zen Leadership. The adjectives widely used to describe Obama are words like diffident, detached, aloof, professorial. Obama practices restraint to a fault. As a policy expert and intellectual, he is hands-on when it comes to White House deliberation but mostly hands-off with Congress. As Burns demonstrated, power is enhanced in the course of its exercise. But Obama, despite his eloquence and capacity to motivate, seems to believe that power should be conserved and presidential leadership reserved for emergencies. He waited long and disabling months before becoming personally engaged in the health-reform battle. This left the details obscure, voters anxious, and Democrats at the August 2009 town meetings playing the role of pinata. By the time the bill finally passed, the victory was politically Pyrrhic. An exasperated David Obey told me, “Obama sat and let Jubilation T. Cornpone tie up Max Baucus for all those months. Hell, Chuck Grassley made it clear to me that he’d never vote for the thing.” Obama and his team never embraced such strategies as forcing Republicans (and conservative Democrats) to take awkward votes or using the veto to define clear and principled differences. David Axelrod told me that the White House considered it futile and self-defeating to bring up measures in the Senate that couldn’t win. This stance, the opposite of Harry Truman’s, has infuriated Obama’s allies in the House. During the last session, important progressive legislation on jobs and energy independence passed the House but was never even brought to a vote in the Senate. In one emblematic episode in December 2009, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pulled out all the stops to get the House to narrowly pass a $154 billion public-investment, jobs, and unemployment-extension bill. The White House, however, rebuffed Pelosi’s entreaties to urge Majority Leader Harry Reid to bring the measure to a vote in the Senate. At the time, Obama’s aides were convinced that job growth was around the corner, had already moved on to deficit reduction as the theme of the 2010 State of the Union address, and were laying plans for “Recovery Summer,” a conceit that entirely backfired. Except on such rare occasions at late stages of the health debate, it was not Obama’s style to call in wavering Democrats to give them an LBJ-style treatment—or to call them in at all, even to discuss major pending policy decisions. A number of senior Democrats were livid that they were kept in the dark about the April 13 budget speech, which had evidently been months in preparation. They first heard about it when David Plouffe, the White House political director, made the rounds of the Sunday talk shows, three days before the speech. “You’ve heard of the ‘great man’ theory,” says Robert Borosage, who co-directs the progressive Campaign for America’s Future. “They believe in the ‘great speech’ theory.” Obama’s stirring speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention established the novice as presidential timber. During the campaign, his superb address on race, a subject he dearly wanted to avoid, saved his candidacy from being destroyed by the controversy over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But as president, much of the time Obama has been AWOL rather than a defining presence driving the debate. His great speeches, like April’s budget address, often come late in the game, after concessions have been made and damage done. Obama seems to relish demonstrating that he can score the occasional touchdown run starting from his own end zone. But politics, like football, is a game of cumulative scoring. If you keep giving ground, the clock eventually runs out. Hands off, above the fray, turning the other cheek, representing decency and common purpose,conserving rather than wielding power, uncomfortable with popular movements he doesn’t control—by some alchemy, this style of leadership is expected to produce the voter approval that puts polite pressure on the other party to join the quest for consensus. Reciprocity and compromise then result in effective government and popular adulation. This has been Obama’s operating theory of power. For the most part, it hasn’t worked.
|
Kuttner 11 (Robert, Co-Founder and Co-Editor – American Prospect and Distinguished Senior Fellow – Demos (Think Tank), “Barack Obama’s Theory of Power”, The American Prospect, 5-16,http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=barack_obamas_theory_of_power)
|
Obama’s reluctance to use his bully pulpit weakened the Democrats Obama failed to drive the agenda or exploit presidential leadership Obama’s reticence to make sharp partisan distinctions reflects his tacit theory of power—one that emphasizes building bridges At moments that suited the times. This doesn’t seem to be one of those moments Obama is playing his own brand of rope-a-dope letting Republicans lead then demonstrating toughness and reshaping the political center the essence of a president’s power is “the power to persuade.” presidents amass power by making strategic choices about when to use latent authority to move elite opinion and then use that added prestige as clout to move Congress Truman widely considered a lame duck persuaded the public and a Republican Congress that the Marshall Plan was worthy an American chief executive can complement the bully pulpit with a nimble inside game, uniting his party forcing awkward votes all of this signals leadership that moves the agenda But except in health care Obama has been disengaged He left details and bargaining to his staff power is enhanced in the course of its exercise. But Obama seems to believe power should be conserved He waited before becoming engaged in the health-reform battle By the time the bill passed, the victory was politically Pyrrhic This stance infuriated Obama’s allies politics, like football, is a game of cumulative scoring. If you keep giving ground, the clock runs out conserving rather than wielding power this is expected to produce voter approval
|
Winners win – the bully pulpit outweighs
| 15,554 | 40 | 1,550 | 2,507 | 7 | 248 | 0.002792 | 0.098923 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,152 |
Moreover, there is a continuously evolving and reciprocal relationship between presidential boldness and achievement. In the same way that nothing breeds success like success, nothing sets the president up for achieving his or her next goal better than succeeding dramatically on the last go around. This is absolutely a matter of perception, and you can see it best in the way that Congress and especially the Washington press corps fawn over bold and intimidating presidents like Reagan and George W. Bush. The political teams surrounding these presidents understood the psychology of power all too well. They knew that by simultaneously creating a steamroller effect and feigning a clubby atmosphere for Congress and the press, they could leave such hapless hangers-on with only one remaining way to pretend to preserve their dignities. By jumping on board the freight train, they could be given the illusion of being next to power, of being part of the winning team. And so, with virtually the sole exception of the now retired Helen Thomas, this is precisely what they did.
|
Green 10 [David, professor of political science at Hofstra University, "The Do-Nothing 44th President", 6/11 -- http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Do-Nothing-44th-Presid-by-David-Michael-Gree-100611-648.html]
|
there is a continuously reciprocal relationship between presidential boldness and achievement. nothing breeds success like success, nothing sets the president up for achieving his next goal better than succeeding dramatically on the last This is absolutely a matter of perception by simultaneously creating a steamroller effect and feigning a clubby atmosphere for Congress they could leave hangers-on with only one way to pretend to preserve their dignities. By jumping on board the freight train, they could be given the illusion of being next to power, of being part of the winning team.
|
Empirics prove winners win
| 1,078 | 26 | 590 | 175 | 4 | 92 | 0.022857 | 0.525714 |
Politics Disadvantage - Wake 2013.html5
|
Wake Forest (RKS)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,153 |
Since it started offering limited access in 1996, In the Official Gazette, Will a handful of Internet cafes in each major city across the island of 11 million make much of a difference in a country where connecting to the Internet is notoriously slow and difficultEarlier this year, Separately, the communist country has tightly restricted access to everything but the bare Web essentials. Unless you were looking for government news or something directly related to your job, you were out of luck. But now news comes that the government is inching toward wider access.¶ the government said it would provide access to the Internet – including e-mail and international websites – at 118 providers across the Caribbean island starting today.¶ ? It won’t be cheap. Providers will ask users to fork over the equivalent of $4.50 per hour for access. While those prices might compete with the service offered at 30,000 feet by US airlines, for most Cubans the fees make logging on out of reach. Even if it’s slow and expensive, a connection to the Web seems to represent another step toward wider access. Cuba connected to Jamaica via a submarine cable on the ocean floor. That was expected to help bring Internet connections to more Cubans. Cuba and Venezuela have connected via a fiber optic cable. But, as one Cuban housewife told a radio station after the announcement, “something is better than nothing.”
|
Ezra Fieser 2013 (Correspondent,June 4, 2013, Internet access to expand in Cuba – at a price, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/Latin-America-Monitor/2013/0604/Internet-access-to-expand-in-Cuba-at-a-price, ak)
|
the communist country has tightly restricted access to everything but the bare Web essentials. Unless you were looking for government news or something directly related to your job, you were out of luck. But now news comes that the government is inching toward wider access. the government said it would provide access to the Internet – including e-mail and international websites – at 118 providers across the Caribbean island starting today. ? It won’t be cheap. Providers will ask users to fork over the equivalent of $4.50 per hour for access. While those prices might compete with the service offered at 30,000 feet by US airlines, for most Cubans the fees make logging on out of reach. Even if it’s slow and expensive, a connection to the Web seems to represent another step toward wider access. Cuba connected to Jamaica via a submarine cable on the ocean floor. That was expected to help bring Internet connections to more Cubans. Cuba and Venezuela have connected via a fiber optic cable But, as one Cuban housewife told a radio station after the announcement, “something is better than nothing.”
|
Cuba does not need funding for internet
| 1,403 | 39 | 1,105 | 235 | 7 | 186 | 0.029787 | 0.791489 |
Cuban ICT Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,154 |
China has played a major role in the financing and¶ installation of the ALBA-I cable. In spite of financial¶ tensions surrounding the restructuring of Cuba’s debt to China, new Chinese investments were announced recently. At one time, the U.S. dominated¶ the networking equipment market, but China is now¶ a leading manufacturer, and they are not bound by¶ the U.S. embargo. The Chinese also have extensive¶ experience installing networks in developing nations,¶ including their own.
|
Press 11 [Larry Press, “THE PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE OF THE INTERNET IN CUBA”, August 2011, http://www.ascecuba.org/publications/proceedings/volume21/pdfs/press.pdf] TH
|
China has played a major role in the financing and¶ installation of the ALBA-I cable new Chinese investments were announced recently but China is now¶ a leading manufacturer, and they are not bound by¶ the U.S. embargo The Chinese also have extensive¶ experience installing networks in developing nations,¶ including their own.
|
Status quo solves – China funds
| 483 | 31 | 327 | 74 | 6 | 51 | 0.081081 | 0.689189 |
Cuban ICT Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,155 |
Other international development actors also play a role in Cuban Internet policy, ¶ albeit one that is more harmonious with Cuban government regulations. The UN has a history of guiding Cuba’s Internet policy through programs with the United Nations Education, Science and Cultural Organization UNESCO and the United Nations Development Program UNDP . The UNDP helped Cuba with the start up costs for the first Internet networks and connections as well as the medical network InfoMed. Since 1997, UNESCO has provided funding to Cuba to help setup access and training of personnel to explore new economic markets in the information technologies world Venegas, 2003 . These efforts have always involved the government of Cuba and involved mutual consent and the UN has ¶ identified these programs as part of its development initiatives. It was through these agencies that Cuba was initially able to circumvent the United States embargo to setup a connection to the Internet. Cuba is also a member of the International ¶ Telecommunication Union (ITU) , which is a specialized UN agency that allocates global radio spectrum and satellite orbits, develops the technical standards that ¶ ensure networks and technologies seamlessly interconnect, and strives to improve access to ICTs to underserved communities worldwide. ITU is committed to connecting all the world's people and believes that everyone has a fundamental right to communicate. ITU maintains statistics of Cuba’s connectivity and is a forum of discussion about information technologies, but does not have any binding agreements with Cuba or function independently of the government on the Island.
|
Firchow 12 (Pamina Firchow, She has a Ph.D. in Development Studies, an MSc in Comparative Politics from the London School of Economics and an M.A. in International Relations and Peace and Conflict Resolution, her research focuses on issues of conflict and international development. In particular, her research focuses on the nexus between transitional justice and international development, as well as the role of revolutions, uprisings and social movements as agents of change in Latin America, "A Cuban Spring? The Use of the Internet as a Tool of Democracy Promotion by United States Agency for International Development in Cuba", May 22,2013, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02681102.2013.793119#.UexMwY3VCSp) AZ
|
Other international development actors also play a role in Cuban Internet policy The UN has a history of guiding Cuba’s Internet policy through programs with the United Nations Education, Science and Cultural Organization UNESCO and the United Nations Development Program The UNDP helped Cuba with the start up costs Since 1997, UNESCO has provided funding to Cuba to help setup access and training of personnel to explore new economic markets in the information technologies these programs as part of its development initiatives. It was through these agencies that Cuba was initially able to circumvent the United States embargo to setup a connection to the Internet. Cuba is also a member of (ITU) which allocates global radio spectrum and satellite orbits, ensure networks and technologie interconnect, and improve access to ICTs ITU is committed to connecting all the world's people and believes that everyone has a fundamental right to communicate. ITU maintains statistics of Cuba’s connectivity and is a forum of discussion about information technologies
|
Current programs suffice - ITU and the UN
| 1,655 | 41 | 1,061 | 257 | 8 | 164 | 0.031128 | 0.638132 |
Cuban ICT Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,156 |
What the wariness entails is an increased risk of backlash if the United States injects itself too forcefully. The United States faced a similar dilemma in the Arab Spring Middle Eastern transitions. Widespread perception that the United States is attempting to direct events fosters distrust and provides leverage to pro-regime forces or at the very least puts leaders on the defensive who might
|
Weeks and Fiorey 12 (Gregory Weeks is an associate professor of political science and director of Latin American Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Erin Fiorey is an M.A. candidate in Latin American Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. She holds a B.A. from Wake Forest University., "Policy Options for a Cuban Spring", May/June 2012, http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/MilitaryReview/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20120630_art014.pdf) AZ
|
What the wariness entails is an increased risk of backlash if the United States injects itself The United States faced a similar dilemma in the Arab Spring Middle Eastern transitions. Widespread perception that the United States is attempting to direct events fosters distrust and provides leverage to pro-regime forces at the very least puts leaders on the defensive who might
|
Backlash could occur if the U.S. tries to interact - killing US influence in UN
| 396 | 79 | 377 | 63 | 15 | 60 | 0.238095 | 0.952381 |
Cuban ICT Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,157 |
The 2010 National Security Strategy cited few specific examples why democratic development has succeeded or stalled and simply stated, “Even where some governments have adopted democratic practices, authoritarian rulers have undermined electoral processes and restricted the space for opposition and civil society.” It also dropped the imperative or “responsibility” of the United States “to oppose those who would endanger the survival or well-being of their peaceful neighbors,” used far less heated language, and made more references to international organizations for the resolution of conflicts involving the United States. These changes, only a few among many in the 2010 report, revealed a shift—albeit limited—in paradigms as well as acceptable strategies for national security. From this perspective, Cuba needed to change, but that change would not be forced.
|
Weeks and Fiorey 12 (Gregory Weeks is an associate professor of political science and director of Latin American Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Erin Fiorey is an M.A. candidate in Latin American Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. She holds a B.A. from Wake Forest University., "Policy Options for a Cuban Spring", May/June 2012, http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/MilitaryReview/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20120630_art014.pdf) AZ
|
The 2010 National Security Strategy cited few specific examples why democratic development has succeeded or stalled . It also dropped the imperative or “responsibility” of the United States “to oppose those who would endanger the survival or well-being of their peaceful neighbors,” and made more references to international organizations for the resolution of conflicts . These changes revealed a shift From this perspective, Cuba needed to change, but that change would not be forced
|
US doesn't want to get involved - looking to international organizations to solve
| 867 | 81 | 483 | 126 | 13 | 74 | 0.103175 | 0.587302 |
Cuban ICT Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,158 |
They are virtually nonexistent. There is a U.S. mission in Havana, Cuba's capital, but it has minimal communication with the Cuban government. Since 1961, the official U.S. policy toward Cuba has been two-pronged: economic embargo and diplomatic isolation. The George W. Bush administration strongly enforced the embargo and increased travel restrictions. Americans with immediate family in Cuba could visit once every three years for a maximum of two weeks, while family remittances to Cuba were reduced from $3,000 to just $300 in 2004. However, in April 2009, President Obama eased some of these policies. He went further in 2011 to undo many of the restrictions imposed by the Bush administration, thus allowing U.S. citizens to send remittances to non-family members in Cuba and to travel to Cuba for educational or religious purposes. Congress amended the trade embargo in 2000 to allow agricultural exports from the United States to Cuba. In 2008, U.S. companies exported roughly $710 million worth of food and agricultural products to the island nation, according to the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council. However, that number fell by about 50 percent in 2012. Total agricultural exports since 2001 reached $3.5 billion as of February 2012. Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas have all brokered agricultural deals with Cuba in recent years. Despite initial optimism over Obama's election, Cuban politicians and citizens are less hopeful of a positive relationship developing between the two countries. Tension between Cuba and the United States flared in December 2009 with Cuba's arrest of Alan Gross, a USAID subcontractor who traveled to the country to deliver communications equipment and arrange Internet access for its Jewish community. Cuban authorities alleged Gross was attempting to destabilize the Cuban regime through a USAID-sponsored "democracy promotion" program, and he was subsequently sentenced to fifteen years in prison. Despite initial optimism over Obama's election, Cuban politicians and citizens are less hopeful of a positive relationship developing between the two countries. Raúl and Fidel Castro have both criticized the Obama administration. In a 2009 speech, Raúl Castro accused the United States of "giving new breath to open and undercover subversion against Cuba."
|
Stephanie Hanson 2013 (Senior Production Editor, January 31, 2013, U.S.-Cuba Relations, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/us-cuba-relations/p11113, ak)
|
There is a U.S. mission in Havana, Cuba's capital, but it has minimal communication with the Cuban government. the official U.S. policy toward Cuba has been two-pronged: economic embargo and diplomatic isolation. Obama went further in 2011 to undo many of the restrictions imposed by the Bush administration, thus allowing U.S. citizens to send remittances to non-family members in Cuba and to travel to Cuba for educational or religious purposes. U.S. companies exported roughly $710 million worth of food and agricultural products to the island nation, according to the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council. Tension between Cuba and the United States flared in December 2009 with Cuba's arrest of Alan Gross, a USAID subcontractor who traveled to the country to deliver communications equipment and arrange Internet access for its Jewish community. Cuban authorities alleged Gross was attempting to destabilize the Cuban regime through a USAID-sponsored "democracy promotion" program, and he was subsequently sentenced to fifteen years in prison. Cuban politicians and citizens are less hopeful of a positive relationship developing between the two countries.
|
Tension between Cuba and the US is increasing now
| 2,302 | 49 | 1,161 | 350 | 9 | 174 | 0.025714 | 0.497143 |
Cuban ICT Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,159 |
The main purpose for the United Nations (U.N.) is to resolve issues between countries through diplomacy before countries resort to military force and before conflicts escalate. Unfortunately, the U.N. has consistently failed this goal and will continue being useless for these several reasons. ¶ First, the United Nations is primarily a forum for debate. As a result, the U.N. is an international organization where countries send representatives to argue for or against issues. These representatives are typically just spokesmen for their country's agendas and are relatively powerless in their own country. Furthermore, countries governed by non-peaceful dictators and regimes typically use these debates to delay and obfuscate issues in their favor. Over the fifty years that the United Nations has existed, these debates alone have not resolved a single issue. Direct military actions, back room negotiations, and threats, that were not sponsored by the United Nations, have had the only real positive affects for change. ¶ ¶ For instance, Iraq was under U.N. backed economic trade sanctions for over a decade. As a result, the Iraqi people suffered greatly while Saddam Hussein continued playing games with the United Nations by only periodically allowing inspections for weapons of mass destruction, inconsistent disarmament of known weapons, and illegally finding ways around the oil for food agreements that the U.N. imposed. As a result, economic sanctions were an abyssal failure. Only the United States of America had the courage of breaking this stalemate that had the Iraqi people caught in the middle. Yet again, the United Nations is considering this same “solution” that has never worked to be used against North Korea because of its nuclear weapons program and testing. And Iran is keeping a close eye on what the world does to North Korea, since Iran has similar nuclear ambitions for their non-peaceful agenda too. ¶ Second, the United Nations is unable to take direct and independent actions without support from its members. In other words, the U.N. is completely powerless and pacifistic. In a world filled with war-mongering dictators and suppressing regimes who know the U.N. lacks any real power, regimes are almost completely free to do whatever they want. For example, North Korea has tested nuclear weapons and threatens to do so again, with the United Nations only considering sanctions. ¶ The only solution that I can imagine is for each country that is a member of the United Nations to equally contribute a military force or equivalent money to the United Nations. And the United Nations could use these resources without approval from any individual country. As you can imagine, this is not likely going to ever happen. ¶ Third, the United Nations has five nations that can veto any resolution that the majority of the U.N. members agreed upon. The countries with this veto power are China, France, Russia (formerly the Soviet Union), the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. These countries have this power because they were the founding countries of the United Nations that wrote the rules for the U.N. after World War 2. Unfortunately, this non-democracy fails for several reasons. First, only a true democracy among nations is unbiased and fair. Thus, the complete structure of the U.N. needs a major overhaul. This too is not likely to happen, since the countries with vetoing power are unlikely to unanimously agree to give up this right for fairness sake. Additionally, since a lot of the countries in the United Nations are not for peace, these nations have very questionable voting practices. The only possible solution is to deny voting rights for non-peace loving nations. This includes any non-free and non-democratic country who would be biased towards dictators and regimes. I do not think that the U.N. is capable of only allowing free countries the right to vote. This is contradictory to the purpose of the United Nations, since nations would only debate in the forum of the United Nations if they can vote in the Security Council of the U.N. Similarly, the United Nations prides itself as an international humanitarian group, yet allows non-humanitarian members, such as China, to continue having voting rights on humanitarian issues, even though these countries greatly suppress and ignore the humanitarian rights of their own people too. This would further reduce the number of members capable of voting. Again, this is not likely to happen. ¶ The fourth and final reason why the United Nations is useless is terrorism. The U.N. does not formally recognize any country as a terrorist state. Furthermore, terrorists are not interested in the politics of debating in a public forum, such as the United Nations, to discuss and work out their issues. Therefore, the U.N. does not get involved in politics with terrorist groups. As a result, the United Nations is completely blind to terrorist groups, has no plans of address terrorism, and has no intentions of changing. The fact that the United Nations, as the largest international organization that promotes peace, is completely unable to address terrorism is further proof that the U.N. is ineffective. ¶ In conclusion, the United Nations has proven itself as a failure for its entire history and will continue being useless. Maybe if peaceful countries withdraw their membership and stop participating in the United Nations in protest, will force the United Nations to abandon its old methods of dealing with non-peaceful and non-humanitarian nations.
|
Phil 13, Author of the Phil for for humanity cite, Why The United Nations is a Useless Failure, http://www.philforhumanity.com/Why_the_United_Nations_is_a_Useless_Failure.html , PML
|
The main purpose for (U.N.) is to resolve issues between countries through diplomacy before countries resort to military force and before conflicts escalate. Unfortunately, the U.N. has consistently failed this goal and will continue being useless for these several reasons. First, the United Nations is primarily a forum for debate. As a result, the U.N. is an international organization where countries send representatives to argue for or against issues. These representatives are typically just spokesmen for their country's agendas and are relatively powerless in their own country Second, the United Nations is unable to take direct and independent actions without support from its members. In other words, the U.N. is completely powerless and pacifistic Third, the United Nations has five nations that can veto any resolution that the majority of the U.N. members agreed upon. The countries with this veto power are China, France, Russia (formerly the Soviet Union), the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. These countries have this power because they were the founding countries of the United Nations that wrote the rules for the U.N. after World War 2. Unfortunately, this non-democracy fails only a true democracy among nations is unbiased and fair the U.N. does not get involved in politics with terrorist groups , the United Nations has proven itself as a failure for its entire history and will continue being useless. Maybe if peaceful countries withdraw their membership and stop participating in the United Nations in protest, will force the United Nations to abandon its old methods of dealing with non-peaceful and non-humanitarian nations
|
The UN has failed at its own goals and will continue to do so
| 5,568 | 61 | 1,671 | 896 | 14 | 261 | 0.015625 | 0.291295 |
Cuban ICT Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,160 |
What explains this failure of multilateralism in a crucial area of global economic governance? One candidate is the broad failure within economics and the economic policy community to understand, or even to explore in much depth, the linkages between macroeconomic and financial sector imbalances (Buiter 2009; Rajan 2005b). With the benefit of hindsight, this weakness played an important part in the misdiagnosis of the global imbalances problem and its associated focus on the sustainability of net lending by surplus countries to the US. Had economists better understood the potential for global imbalances to increase financial instability in advanced countries, it is possible that policymakers might have taken more serious steps to reduce them. But this seems 4 unlikely, given that the ―hard landing‖ scenario in the conventional analysis was already fairly frightening: a collapse of the dollar, rising US interest rates, rising protectionism, and a deep global recession (Obstfeld and Rogoff 2004; Rajan 2005a). This possibility was sufficiently plausible to policymakers that the major countries conducted a series of bilateral and multilateral policy negotiations to reduce global imbalances after 2004. A second possible explanation for the failure of these initiatives to bear fruit is that the sources of global imbalances increasingly lay in policy choices made outside of the G-7 countries, undermining the ability of this key grouping to address the problem. This explanation is less easy to dismiss, in part because it points to an obvious truth (the shift in the balance of economic power away from the G-7) and because it links macroeconomic imbalances to financial instability. It is popular in American policymaking circles in particular and has its origins in Ben Bernanke’s ―global savings glut‖ analysis, whereby undervaluation of the Chinese renminbi (RMB) led to the accumulation of large foreign exchange reserves mainly in the form of US government debt, keeping long term interest rates excessively low (Bernanke 2005). 3 At the end of 2008, US Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson similarly argued that ―super-abundant savings from fast-growing emerging nations such as China and oil exporters… put downward pressure on yields and risk spreads everywhere. This…laid the seeds [sic] of a global credit bubble that extended far beyond the US sub-prime mortgage market and has now burst with devastating consequences worldwide.‖4 before the recent crisis began, Fred Bergsten outlined the broader implications of this analysis for multilateral economic governance: Inducing China to become a responsible pillar of the global economic system (as the [US and EU] are) will be one of the great challenges of coming decades -- particularly since at the moment China seems uninterested in playing such a role…In numerous areas, [China] is pursuing strategies that conflict with existing norms, rules, and institutional arrangements (Bergsten 2008, my emphasis). In short, Bergsten suggested, Chinese mercantilism has undermined a working multilateral system based upon a previously dominant G-7 club. A corollary of this argument is the common refrain that China and other important emerging countries must become ―responsible stakeholders‖ in the multilateral system in order for it to resume functioning effectively. http://personal.lse.ac.uk/wyattwal/images/Mismanagement.pdf Multilateralism failed to manage global imbalances, I suggest, for two different and deeply political reasons. First, the failure reflected a persistent unwillingness among all major countries, not just China, to accept the political costs of adjustment and a related shift to different models of economic growth. I argue below that China is indeed an outlier among the G-4 (consisting of the US, EU, Japan, and China), but only because it is relatively poor, unusually open, and has opted for exchange rate targeting rather than inflation targeting. It does resist external policy constraint, but in this regard it is little different to other major countries. Second, the failure reflected the complete inadequacy of the existing multilateral policy surveillance framework inherited from the era of G-7 dominance to facilitate the negotiation of the necessary domestic and international political bargains. In order for multilateralism to become more effective in the future, 6these flaws would need to be resolved, but it is difficult to see how major governments will accept the constraints on domestic policy choices that this would entail.
|
http://personal.lse.ac.uk/wyattwal/images/Mismanagement.pdf
|
What explains this failure of multilateralism in a crucial area of global economic governance? One candidate is the broad failure within economics and the economic policy community to understand, or even to explore in much depth, the linkages between macroeconomic and financial sector imbalances . Had economists better understood the potential for global imbalances to increase financial instability in advanced countries, it is possible that policymakers might have taken more serious steps to reduce them. But this seems unlikely, This possibility was sufficiently plausible to policymakers that the major countries conducted a series of bilateral and multilateral policy negotiations to reduce global imbalances after 2004. A second possible explanation for the failure of these initiatives to bear fruit is that the sources of global imbalances increasingly lay in policy choices made outside of the G-7 countries, undermining the ability of this key grouping to address the problem. undervaluation of the Chinese renminbi led to the accumulation of large foreign exchange reserves mainly in the form of US government debt, keeping long term interest rates excessively low In short, Bergsten suggested, Chinese mercantilism has undermined a working multilateral system based upon a previously dominant G-7 club. A corollary of this argument is the common refrain that China and other important emerging countries must become ―responsible stakeholders‖ in the multilateral system in order for it to resume functioning effectively. the failure reflected a persistent unwillingness among all major countries, not just China, to accept the political costs of adjustment and a related shift to different models of economic growth. it is relatively poor, unusually open, and has opted for exchange rate targeting rather than inflation targeting. the failure reflected the complete inadequacy of the existing multilateral policy surveillance framework inherited from the era of G-7 dominance to facilitate the negotiation of the necessary domestic and international political bargains. In order for multilateralism to become more effective in the future, 6these flaws would need to be resolved, but it is difficult to see how major governments will accept the constraints on domestic policy choices that this would entail.
|
Multilateralism can’t solve econ
| 4,544 | 32 | 2,321 | 680 | 4 | 345 | 0.005882 | 0.507353 |
Cuban ICT Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,161 |
U.S. State Department statistics show that historically, North America has had the lowest incidence of terrorism worldwide. The American public's shocked reaction to the catastrophic 9/11 attacks was due, in part, to the infrequency of past terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. After the unique events of 9/11, terrorism in North America has resumed its historical modest trajectory. North America has been a relative safe haven from terrorism for several reasons. The United States is far away from the world's centers of conflict. Although the United States is roundly hated in the world because of its unneeded meddling in faraway conflicts, most anti-U.S. terrorism is perpetrated on U.S. embassies and military facilities overseas – not on the American homeland. Terrorists, like conventional armies, have trouble operating in the United States because it is so far from their bases. In addition, the United States does not have many militant foreign populations that could provide sanctuary and support for imported terrorists of the same ilk. According to Ohio State political scientist John Mueller, the lifetime probability that international terrorists will kill any one American is a minuscule one in 80,000 – about the same as the same person being killed by a comet. Of course, the chances are even lower if you are an American living in America (instead of overseas) and not residing in New York, Washington, Chicago, or Los Angeles. But the average American, especially after the luck that the hijackers benefited from on 9/11, should not be blamed for overestimating the danger of terrorism. The U.S. security agencies, to get more funds and authority for their bureaucracies, have constantly used color-coded warnings and other techniques of fear mongering to keep the anxiety generated by 9/11 alive in the public consciousness. The U.S. media, getting high ratings from sensational reporting on terrorism, has been a willing accomplice to the administration effort.
|
Eland, ’07 (Ivan, American defense analyst and author, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace and Liberty at the Independent Institute; “The Terror Threat in Perspective”; March 21th; http://original.antiwar.com/eland/2007/03/20/the-terror-threat-in-perspective/)
|
historically, North America has had the lowest incidence of terrorism worldwide. American reaction to the catastrophic 9/11 attacks was due, in part, to the infrequency of past terrorist attacks on U.S. soil After 9/11, terrorism in North America has resumed its historical modest trajectory. North America has been a relative safe haven from terrorism for several reasons. The United States is far away from the world's centers of conflict. most anti-U.S. terrorism is perpetrated on U.S. embassies and military facilities overseas – not on the American homeland Terrorists, like conventional armies, have trouble operating in the United States because it is so far from their bases the lifetime probability that international terrorists will kill any one American is minuscule The U.S. security agencies, to get more funds and authority for their bureaucracies, have constantly used color-coded warnings and other techniques of fear mongering to keep the anxiety generated by 9/11 alive in the public consciousness. The U.S. media, getting high ratings from sensational reporting on terrorism, has been a willing accomplice to the administration effort.
|
Terror impacts are all hype
| 1,980 | 27 | 1,157 | 310 | 5 | 175 | 0.016129 | 0.564516 |
Cuban ICT Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,162 |
The most plausible route for terrorists, according to most experts, would be to manufacture an atomic device themselves from purloined fissile material (plutonium or, more likely, highly enriched uranium). This task, however, remains a daunting one, requiring that a considerable series of difficult hurdles be conquered and in sequence. Outright armed theft of fissile material is exceedingly unlikely not only because of the resistance of guards, but because chase would be immediate. A more promising approach would be to corrupt insiders to smuggle out the required substances. However, this requires the terrorists to pay off a host of greedy confederates, including brokers and money- transmitters, any one of whom could turn on them or, either out of guile or incompetence, furnish them with stuff that is useless. Insiders might also consider the possibility that once the heist was accomplished, the terrorists would, as analyst Brian Jenkins none too delicately puts it, "have every incentive to cover their trail, beginning with eliminating their confederates." If terrorists were somehow successful at obtaining a sufficient mass of relevant material, they would then probably have to transport it a long distance over unfamiliar terrain and probably while being pursued by security forces. Crossing international borders would be facilitated by following established smuggling routes, but these are not as chaotic as they appear and are often under the watch of suspicious and careful criminal regulators. If border personnel became suspicious of the commodity being smuggled, some of them might find it in their interest to disrupt passage, perhaps to collect the bounteous reward money that would probably be offered by alarmed governments once the uranium theft had been discovered. Once outside the country with their precious booty, terrorists would need to set up a large and well-equipped machine shop to manufacture a bomb and then to populate it with a very select team of highly skilled scientists, technicians, machinists, and administrators. The group would have to be assembled and retained for the monumental task while no consequential suspicions were generated among friends, family, and police about their curious and sudden absence from normal pursuits back home. Members of the bomb-building team would also have to be utterly devoted to the cause, of course, and they would have to be willing to put their lives and certainly their careers at high risk, because after their bomb was discovered or exploded they would probably become the targets of an intense worldwide dragnet operation. Some observers have insisted that it would be easy for terrorists to assemble a crude bomb if they could get enough fissile material. But Christoph Wirz and Emmanuel Egger, two senior physicists in charge of nuclear issues at Switzerland's Spiez Laboratory, bluntly conclude that the task "could hardly be accomplished by a subnational group." They point out that precise blueprints are required, not just sketches and general ideas, and that even with a good blueprint the terrorist group would most certainly be forced to redesign. They also stress that the work is difficult, dangerous, and extremely exacting, and that the technical requirements in several fields verge on the unfeasible. Stephen Younger, former director of nuclear weapons research at Los Alamos Laboratories, has made a similar argument, pointing out that uranium is "exceptionally difficult to machine" whereas "plutonium is one of the most complex metals ever discovered, a material whose basic properties are sensitive to exactly how it is processed." Stressing the "daunting problems associated with material purity, machining, and a host of other issues," Younger concludes, "to think that a terrorist group, working in isolation with an unreliable supply of electricity and little access to tools and supplies" could fabricate a bomb "is farfetched at best." Under the best circumstances, the process of making a bomb could take months or even a year or more, which would, of course, have to be carried out in utter secrecy. In addition, people in the area, including criminals, may observe with increasing curiosity and puzzlement the constant coming and going of technicians unlikely to be locals. If the effort to build a bomb was successful, the finished product, weighing a ton or more, would then have to be transported to and smuggled into the relevant target country where it would have to be received by collaborators who are at once totally dedicated and technically proficient at handling, maintaining, detonating, and perhaps assembling the weapon after it arrives. The financial costs of this extensive and extended operation could easily become monumental. There would be expensive equipment to buy, smuggle, and set up and people to pay or pay off. Some operatives might work for free out of utter dedication to the cause, but the vast conspiracy also requires the subversion of a considerable array of criminals and opportunists, each of whom has every incentive to push the price for cooperation as high as possible. Any criminals competent and capable enough to be effective allies are also likely to be both smart enough to see boundless opportunities for extortion and psychologically equipped by their profession to be willing to exploit them. Those who warn about the likelihood of a terrorist bomb contend that a terrorist group could, if with great difficulty, overcome each obstacle and that doing so in each case is "not impossible." But although it may not be impossible to surmount each individual step, the likelihood that a group could surmount a series of them quickly becomes vanishingly small. Table 1 attempts to catalogue the barriers that must be overcome under the scenario considered most likely to be successful. In contemplating the task before them, would-be atomic terrorists would effectively be required to go though an exercise that looks much like this. If and when they do, they will undoubtedly conclude that their prospects are daunting and accordingly uninspiring or even terminally dispiriting. It is possible to calculate the chances for success. Adopting probability estimates that purposely and heavily bias the case in the terrorists' favor- for example, assuming the terrorists have a 50% chance of overcoming each of the 20 obstacles- the chances that a concerted effort would be successful comes out to be less than one in a million. If one assumes, somewhat more realistically, that their chances at each barrier are one in three, the cumulative odds that they will be able to pull off the deed drop to one in well over three billion.
|
Mueller, 10 (Professor and Woody Hayes Chair of National Security Studies at the Mershon Center for International Security Studies and Department of Political Science at Ohio State University [John, “Calming Our Nuclear Jitters”, Issues in Science and Technology, Winter, Volume 26, Issue 2; pg. 58, proquest, AL)
|
The most plausible route for terrorists, according to most experts, would be to manufacture an atomic device themselves This task remains a daunting one, requiring that a considerable series of difficult hurdles be conquered and in sequence. Outright armed theft of fissile material is exceedingly unlikely chase would be immediate. A more promising approach would be to corrupt insiders this requires the terrorists to pay off a host of greedy confederates any one of whom could turn on them If terrorists were somehow successful at obtaining a sufficient mass of relevant material, they would then probably have to transport it a long distance over unfamiliar terrain If border personnel became suspicious of the commodity being smuggled, some of them might find it in their interest to disrupt passage to collect the bounteous reward money Once outside the country terrorists would need to set up a large and well-equipped machine shop to manufacture a bomb and then to populate it with a very select team of highly skilled scientists, technicians, machinists, and administrators. The group would have to be assembled and retained for the monumental task while no consequential suspicions were generated among friends, family, and police about their curious and sudden absence from normal pursuits back home. Members of the bomb-building team would also have to be utterly devoted to the cause the task "could hardly be accomplished by a subnational group." They point out that precise blueprints are required, not just sketches and general ideas, and that even with a good blueprint the terrorist group would most certainly be forced to redesign. the work is difficult, dangerous, and extremely exacting, and that the technical requirements in several fields verge on the unfeasible. "to think that a terrorist group, working in isolation with an unreliable supply of electricity and little access to tools and supplies" could fabricate a bomb "is farfetched at best." the process of making a bomb could take months or even a year or more, which would, of course, have to be carried out in utter secrecy. the finished product, weighing a ton or more, would then have to be transported to and smuggled into the relevant target country The financial costs of this extensive and extended operation could easily become monumental. the vast conspiracy also requires the subversion of a considerable array of criminals and opportunists a terrorist group could, if with great difficulty, overcome each obstacle and that doing so in each case is "not impossible." the likelihood that a group could surmount a series of them quickly becomes vanishingly small. It is possible to calculate the chances for success. Adopting probability estimates that purposely and heavily bias the case in the terrorists' favor the cumulative odds that they will be able to pull off the deed drop to one in well over three billion.
|
The chance of a successful terrorist attack are 1 in 3 billion – too many obstacles
| 6,693 | 83 | 2,908 | 1,061 | 16 | 470 | 0.01508 | 0.442978 |
Cuban ICT Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,163 |
As terrorist plots against the United States have piled up in recent months, politicians and the news media have sounded the alarm with a riveting message for Americans: Be afraid. Al Qaeda is on the march again, targeting the country from within and without, and your hapless government cannot protect you. But the politically charged clamor has lumped together disparate cases and obscured the fact that the jihadist enemies on American soil in 2009, rather than a single powerful and sophisticated juggernaut, were a scattered, uncoordinated group of amateurs who displayed more fervor than skill. Their weapons were old-fashioned guns and explosives - in several cases, duds supplied by FBI informants - with no trace of the biological or radiological poisons, let alone the nuclear bombs, that have long been the ultimate fear. And though 2009 brought more domestic plots, and more serious plots, than any recent year, their lethality was relatively modest. Exactly 14 of the about 14,000 murders in the United States last year resulted from allegedly jihadist attacks: 13 people shot at Fort Hood in Texas in November and one at a military recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas, in June. Such statistics would be no comfort, of course, if an attack with mass casualties were to succeed some day. Nor do they excuse the acknowledged missteps at the bulked-up American security agencies that permitted a Nigerian student to carry a makeshift bomb onto a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day - the attempted attack that set off the flood of news coverage. But even that near miss, said Mark M. Lowenthal, assistant director of the Central Intelligence Agency for analysis from 2002 to 2005, may offer indirect evidence of the enemy's diminished strength, compared with the coordinated attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "Sending one guy on one plane is a huge step down," Mr. Lowenthal said. "They're less capable, even if they're still lethal. They're not able to carry out the intense planning they once did."
|
International Herald Tribune, 10 – (respected newspaper; 1/14, Scott Shane, “U.S. clamor over Qaeda may overstate its capability; Exaggerated coverage aids jihadists by creating an atmosphere of fear”, Gale Infotrac, AL)
|
As terrorist plots against the United States have piled up in recent months, politicians and the news media have sounded the alarm with a riveting message for Americans: Be afraid. Al Qaeda is on the march again But the politically charged clamor has lumped together disparate cases and obscured the fact that the jihadist enemies on American soil in 2009, rather than a single powerful and sophisticated juggernaut, were a scattered, uncoordinated group of amateurs though 2009 brought more domestic plots, and more serious plots, than any recent year, their lethality was relatively modest. Nor do they excuse the acknowledged missteps at the bulked-up American security agencies that permitted a Nigerian student to carry a makeshift bomb onto a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day But even that near miss, said Mark M. Lowenthal, assistant director of the Central Intelligence Agency for analysis from 2002 to 2005, may offer indirect evidence of the enemy's diminished strength one guy on one plane is a huge step down," Mr. Lowenthal said. "They're less capable, even if they're still lethal. They're not able to carry out the intense planning they once did.
|
Don’t believe the hype – recent attacks prove that terrorist power is declining and the terrorist threat is fading
| 2,015 | 114 | 1,168 | 329 | 19 | 188 | 0.057751 | 0.571429 |
Cuban ICT Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,164 |
Let me start by highlighting a few of our top successes in the past year. Most importantly, there was no major attack against the United States or most of our European, Latin American, East Asia allies and partners. This was no accident. Last summer, for example, with our allies, we unraveled terrorist plots linked to al-Qa'ida and its associates in Denmark and Germany. We were successful because we were able to identify key plotters. We worked with our European partners to monitor the plotters and disrupt their activities. In addition, our partners throughout the Middle East and elsewhere continued to attack aggressively terrorist networks recruiting, training, and planning to strike American interests. The death last week of Abu Layth al-Libi, al-Qa'ida's charismatic senior military commander and a key link between al-Qa'ida and its affiliates in North Africa, is the most serious blow to the group's top leadership since the December 2005 death of then external operations chief Hamza Rabi'a. Al-Qa'ida in Iraq (AQI) suffered major setbacks last year, although it still is capable of mounting lethal attacks. Hundreds of AQI leadership, operational, media, financial, logistical, weapons, and foreign fighter facilitator cadre have been killed or captured. With much of the Sunni population turning against AQI, its maneuver room and ability to operate have been severely constrained. AQI's attack tempo, as measured by numbers of suicide attacks, had dropped by more than half by year's end after approaching all time highs in early 2007. We see indications that al-Qa'ida's global image is beginning to lose some of its luster; nonetheless, we still face multifaceted terrorist threats.
|
Fingar, ’08 (Thomas, Deupty Director, Officie of the Director of Ntl. Intelligence; “Capitol Hill Hearing Testimony”; 2/13)
|
in the past year there was no major attack against the U S or most of our allies with our allies, we unraveled terrorist plots linked to al-Qa'ida we were able to identify key plotters. We worked with our European partners to monitor the plotters and disrupt their activities our partners throughout the Middle East and elsewhere continued to attack aggressively terrorist networks recruiting, training, and planning to strike American interests Hundreds of AQI leadership, operational, media, financial, logistical, weapons, and foreign fighter facilitator cadre have been killed or captured AQI's attack tempo dropped by more than half by year's end after approaching all time highs in early 2007 al-Qa'ida's global image is beginning to lose some of its luster
|
Squo solves – We’re winning the war on terror now, and there are no attacks coming against the US
| 1,703 | 98 | 763 | 265 | 19 | 120 | 0.071698 | 0.45283 |
Cuban ICT Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,165 |
There appears to be an increasingly strong consensus among politicians, policy wonks and pundits in the United States that the Internet is an irresistible force for democracy that will undermine authoritarian regimes around the world. For example, on a number of occasions, both President Clinton and Vice President Gore have suggested that the spread of the Internet will lead to the decay of authoritarian regimes, most notably in China. Other administration officials have expressed the same view, as have Texas Governor George W. Bush and an array of business leaders and media observers. [1] Indeed, the belief that the Internet will spread democracy throughout the developing world is so firmly held in Washington, D.C. policy circles that it is becoming an article of faith, one which can be questioned only at the risk of being labeled a terminal naysayer or pre-cyberspace dinosaur who simply doesn't "get it."¶ But on what does this faith rest? Certainly not on experience: in none of the democratic transitions that have occurred around the world over the past two decades could one plausibly argue that the Internet played an important -- much less crucial -- causal role. Of course, proponents of the faith could object that this is an unfair standard by which to judge because Internet access generally ranged from very limited to non-existent when the countries involved underwent these transitions. That the Internet did not figure prominently in the democratic transitions of the past does not mean that it will not do so in the future, particularly if the international community makes significant progress in tackling the global digital divide. [2]¶ This is a fair point, but proponents have not provided any systematic arguments as to why the future might be different from the past. Instead, they tend to cite anecdotal evidence of people living under repressive regimes using the Internet to "get the word out" about events or to organize politically and then leap to the conclusion that the governments involved will somehow be forced to relent as a consequence of these actions. From a social science standpoint, this is a classic example of a black box explanation, in which a cause is said to produce an outcome through mechanisms that are entirely unclear. To put it another way, such arguments appear to be based upon an explanatory leap of faith. One suspects that they also reflect a group-think dynamic among people who want to believe that increased information flow and Western-style democracy must go hand in hand, and that foreign publics, once adequately informed, will aspire to be "more like us."¶ Perhaps it would be unrealistic to expect politicians and pundits to sort systematically through such issues before heralding an Internet-driven transition to world-wide democracy. But the research community has not provided firm grounds for the faith of these optimists either. Indeed, the question has received relatively scant attention among scholars: most of the literature on democratization in the developing world does not explore the potential role of the Internet, while the literature on the Internet and electoral politics focuses largely on the United States and other advanced industrial democracies.
|
Drake et al 00 (William J. Drake was a Senior Associate and the Director of the Project on the Information Revolution and World Politics at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Shanthi Kalathil specializes in the political impact of information and communication technology (ICT). Her research focuses on the impact of ICT in authoritarian regimes, the global digital divide, and security issues in the information age. Taylor Boas is a Project Associate with the Project on the Information Revolution and World Politics. “Dictatorships in the Digital Age: Some Considerations on the Internet in China and Cuba” <http://carnegieendowment.org/2000/10/23/dictatorships-in-digital-age-some-considerations-on-internet-in-china-and-cuba/4e9e>) NM
|
There appears to be an increasingly strong consensus among politicians, policy wonks and pundits in the United States that the Internet is an irresistible force for democracy that will undermine authoritarian regimes around the world Indeed, the belief that the Internet will spread democracy throughout the developing world is so firmly held in Washington, D.C. policy circles that it is becoming an article of faith, one which can be questioned only at the risk of being labeled a terminal naysayer or pre-cyberspace dinosaur who simply doesn't "get it Certainly not on experience: in none of the democratic transitions that have occurred around the world over the past two decades could one plausibly argue that the Internet played an important -- much less crucial -- causal role ]¶ This is a fair point, but proponents have not provided any systematic arguments as to why the future might be different from the past. they tend to cite anecdotal evidence of people living under repressive regimes using the Internet to "get the word out" about events or to organize politically and then leap to the conclusion that the governments involved will somehow be forced to relent as a consequence of these actions To put it another way, such arguments appear to be based upon an explanatory leap of faith Perhaps it would be unrealistic to expect politicians and pundits to sort systematically through such issues before heralding an Internet-driven transition to world-wide democracy. attention among scholars: most of the literature on democratization in the developing world does not explore the potential role of the Internet, while the literature on the Internet and electoral politics focuses largely on the United States and other advanced industrial democracies.
|
Internet doesn’t play a role in democracy promotion – empirics prove
| 3,250 | 68 | 1,767 | 519 | 11 | 282 | 0.021195 | 0.543353 |
Cuban ICT Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,166 |
It would be a mistake to argue that the Internet could never contribute to political change in Cuba, just as it would be wrong to argue that it will definitely drive democratization. Indeed, almost all of the arguments against its democratic impact depend upon the continued success of the government's strategy of control. But controlling the Internet by restricting public access appears to be a very sustainable strategy, and it is unlikely that technological progress alone will alter this dynamic. Indeed, political change, driven by non-technological variables, is much more likely to impact Cuba's Internet than the other way around.
|
Drake et al 00 (William J. Drake was a Senior Associate and the Director of the Project on the Information Revolution and World Politics at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Shanthi Kalathil specializes in the political impact of information and communication technology (ICT). Her research focuses on the impact of ICT in authoritarian regimes, the global digital divide, and security issues in the information age. Taylor Boas is a Project Associate with the Project on the Information Revolution and World Politics. “Dictatorships in the Digital Age: Some Considerations on the Internet in China and Cuba” <http://carnegieendowment.org/2000/10/23/dictatorships-in-digital-age-some-considerations-on-internet-in-china-and-cuba/4e9e>) NM
|
just as it would be wrong to argue that it will definitely drive democratization But controlling the Internet by restricting public access appears to be a very sustainable strategy, and it is unlikely that technological progress alone will alter this dynamic. Indeed, political change, driven by non-technological variables, is much more likely to impact Cuba's Internet than the other way around.
|
Internet usage can’t solve democratization alone
| 640 | 48 | 397 | 100 | 6 | 61 | 0.06 | 0.61 |
Cuban ICT Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,167 |
What is notable about Cuba’s political succession from Fidel to Raúl is that it has been characterized by political stability. There has been no apparent evidence of rivalry or schisms within the ruling elite that have posed a threat to Raúl’s new position. In the aftermath of Fidel initially stepping down in 2006, Raúl mobilized thousands of reservists and military troops to quell a potential U.S. invasion. He also reportedly dispatched undercover security to likely trouble spots in the capital to deal with any unrest, but the streets remained calm with a sense of normalcy in day-to-day Cuba. Prospects for Change. As Raúl stepped into his new role as head of government, a number of observers predicted that he would be more open to economic reform than Fidel, pointing to his past support for opening up farmers’ markets in Cuba and the role of the Cuban military in successfully operating economic enterprises. Many have speculated that Cuba under Raúl might follow a Chinese or Vietnamese economic model. To date, however, there have not been any significant economic changes to indicate that Cuba is moving in the direction of a Chinese model. Nevertheless, with several minor economic policy changes undertaken by Raúl, there are some signs that more substantial economic changes could be coming.
|
Sulivan ‘8 (Sulivan, Mark P. (Specialist in Latin American Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division) “Cuba’s Political Succession: From Fidel to Raul Castro”. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22742.pdf Feb 28, 2008 acc. July 2, 13, ak)
|
What is notable about Cuba’s political succession from Fidel to Raúl is that it has been characterized by political stability. Raúl mobilized thousands of reservists and military troops to quell a potential U.S. invasion. He also reportedly dispatched undercover security to likely trouble spots in the capital to deal with any unrest, but the streets remained calm with a sense of normalcy in day-to-day Cuba. Prospects for Change. , a number of observers predicted that he would be more open to economic reform than Fidel, pointing to his past support for opening up farmers’ markets in Cuba and the role of the Cuban military in successfully operating economic enterprises. , there have not been any significant economic changes to indicate that Cuba is moving in the direction of a Chinese model. Nevertheless, with several minor economic policy changes undertaken by Raúl, there are some signs that more substantial economic changes could be coming.
|
Cuba is moving in the direction of stability – because it will democratize
| 1,310 | 74 | 954 | 213 | 13 | 153 | 0.061033 | 0.71831 |
Cuban ICT Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,168 |
The Economy. Economic development and the growth of a middle class may be important contributors to democratization. Internet-based electronic commerce is set to boom in parts of the developing world (most notably Asia and Latin America) and will provide many new opportunities for individual entrepreneurs, small businesses, larger internationally-oriented companies, and consumers. The resulting invigoration of national economies could help to foster pro-democracy attitudes, e.g., by increasing demands for transparency, accountability, and "good government" and an end to "crony capitalist" practices that are out of synch with the ethos of the global Internet economy. Alternatively, in some cases even Internet-oriented businesspeople and consumers may prefer to go along with an undemocratic regime than to rock the boat. Hence, it would be worth attempting to gauge the impact of Internet-based economic activity on the broad tenor of national political cultures, as well as on the attitudes and political demands of relevant individuals, firms, trade associations, etc.
|
Drake et al 00 (William J. Drake was a Senior Associate and the Director of the Project on the Information Revolution and World Politics at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Shanthi Kalathil specializes in the political impact of information and communication technology (ICT). Her research focuses on the impact of ICT in authoritarian regimes, the global digital divide, and security issues in the information age. Taylor Boas is a Project Associate with the Project on the Information Revolution and World Politics. “Dictatorships in the Digital Age: Some Considerations on the Internet in China and Cuba” <http://carnegieendowment.org/2000/10/23/dictatorships-in-digital-age-some-considerations-on-internet-in-china-and-cuba/4e9e>) NM
|
. Economic development and the growth of a middle class may be important contributors to democratization. Internet-based electronic commerce is set to boom in parts of the developing world (most notably Asia and Latin America) and will provide many new opportunities for individual entrepreneurs, small businesses, larger internationally-oriented companies, and consumers. Alternatively, in some cases even Internet-oriented businesspeople and consumers may prefer to go along with an undemocratic regime than to rock the boat. Hence, it would be worth attempting to gauge the impact of Internet-based economic activity on the broad tenor of national political cultures, as well as on the attitudes and political demands of relevant individuals, firms, trade associations, etc
|
Economic development key to democracy promotion
| 1,079 | 47 | 776 | 155 | 6 | 112 | 0.03871 | 0.722581 |
Cuban ICT Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,169 |
The Internet may affect individuals, by altering or reinforcing their political attitudes, making them ¶ more attuned to political events, and enabling them ¶ to participate in politics to a greater degree than ¶ they could otherwise. This does not automatically ¶ translate into a more activist population; as the ¶ USIP study notes, it could actually make citizens ¶ more passive by diverting their attention away from ¶ offline political activism and toward less significant ¶ online activity.37 Some have called this “slacktivism,” exemplified by the millions of individuals who ¶ signed online petitions to end genocide in Darfur ¶ but who took no further action.
|
Fontaine & Rogers 11 [Richard Fontaine and Will Rogers, “Internet Freedom A Foreign Policy Imperative in the Digital Age”, Center for a New American Economy, June 2011, pg. 16 http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_InternetFreedom_FontaineRogers_0.pdf] TH
|
The Internet may affect individuals by altering or reinforcing their political attitudes This does not automatically ¶ translate into a more activist population it could actually make citizens ¶ more passive by diverting their attention away from ¶ offline political activism and toward less significant ¶ online activity Some have called this “slacktivism,” exemplified by the millions of individuals who ¶ signed online petitions to end genocide in Darfur ¶ but who took no further action
|
Internet freedom will increase “slacktivism” – no increase in activism
| 668 | 71 | 490 | 107 | 10 | 76 | 0.093458 | 0.71028 |
Cuban ICT Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,170 |
Another concern with using Internet promulgation as a tool for democracy ¶ promotion is the limited group of recipient civil society actors. Muskhelishvili and ¶ Jorjoliani 2009 find that democracy promotion in Georgia failed to connect with all but an elite group of civil society actors before the ‘rose revolution’ in 2003. This led to a weak and uneven transition to democracy, where external actors were ill prepared to address the many problems that arose in the sphere of democratic ¶ development. Susan Stewart 2009 concludes from various studies conducted of ¶ democracy promotion before and after the ‘color revolutions’ that democracy ¶ promotion approaches are relatively standard: first, democracy promotion agencies wait until a leader emerges in the opposition, then they support him or her and the corresponding movement more or less unconditionally. Stewart argues that this has the negative effects for democracy promoters to be unprepared for environments where these individuals do not emerge and also to fail to take into account that ¶ these individuals come from the same structural environments as the leaders in power and are likely to exhibit similar or the same problematic leadership traits. ¶ She deduces that the traditional approach of external democracy promotion actors ¶ in authoritarian contexts, which is to rely heavily on support for civil society, has had only limited success in the case of Belarus
|
Firchow 12 (Pamina Firchow, She has a Ph.D. in Development Studies, an MSc in Comparative Politics from the London School of Economics and an M.A. in International Relations and Peace and Conflict Resolution, her research focuses on issues of conflict and international development. In particular, her research focuses on the nexus between transitional justice and international development, as well as the role of revolutions, uprisings and social movements as agents of change in Latin America, "A Cuban Spring? The Use of the Internet as a Tool of Democracy Promotion by United States Agency for International Development in Cuba", May 22,2013, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02681102.2013.793119#.UexMwY3VCSp) AZ
|
Another concern with using Internet is the limited group of recipient civil society actors democracy promotion in Georgia failed to connect with all but an elite group This led to a weak and uneven transition to democracy, where external actors were ill prepared various studies conducted of ¶ democracy promotion before and after the ‘color revolutions’ that democracy promotion agencies wait until a leader emerges in the opposition, then they support him or her and the corresponding movement this has the negative effects for democracy promoters to be unprepared for environments where these individuals do not emerge and also to fail to take into account that ¶ these individuals come from the same structural environments as the leaders in power and are likely to exhibit similar or the same problematic leadership traits the traditional approach of external democracy promotion has only limited success
|
Democracy promotion inevitably fails - studies and Georgia and Belarus prove
| 1,439 | 76 | 910 | 227 | 11 | 143 | 0.048458 | 0.629956 |
Cuban ICT Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,171 |
In addition, Clay Shirky 2011 makes the argument that policy that is designed to support dissidents on the Internet can backfire because the authoritarian regimes will seek to block the Internet and dissidents and thus furthering the digital divide and undermining the possibility for any online civil society to emerge. Although this does not seem to currently be the case in Cuba, it does demonstrate the precarious situation and that any kind of democracy promotion involving the Internet can lead to unintended consequences. Online dissidents in Cuba are always on the edge of losing connectivity, either by phone or ¶ Internet, and any kind of illegal activity is likely going to exacerbate this action—¶ whether it is directly targeted toward them or the dissident community as a whole.
|
Firchow 12 (Pamina Firchow, She has a Ph.D. in Development Studies, an MSc in Comparative Politics from the London School of Economics and an M.A. in International Relations and Peace and Conflict Resolution, her research focuses on issues of conflict and international development. In particular, her research focuses on the nexus between transitional justice and international development, as well as the role of revolutions, uprisings and social movements as agents of change in Latin America, "A Cuban Spring? The Use of the Internet as a Tool of Democracy Promotion by United States Agency for International Development in Cuba", May 22,2013, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02681102.2013.793119#.UexMwY3VCSp) AZ
|
policy that is designed to support dissidents on the Internet can backfire because the authoritarian regimes will seek to block the Internet and dissidents and thus furthering the digital divide and undermining the possibility for any online civil society to emerge it does demonstrate the precarious situation and that any kind of democracy promotion involving the Internet can lead to unintended consequences. Online dissidents in Cuba are always on the edge of losing connectivity any kind of illegal activity is likely going to exacerbate this action
|
Democracy promotions have unintended consequences and can exacerbate the current situation
| 792 | 90 | 554 | 128 | 11 | 86 | 0.085938 | 0.671875 |
Cuban ICT Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,172 |
When Cuba's benefactor, the Soviet Union, closed up shop in the early 1990s, it sent the Caribbean nation into an economic tailspin from which it would not recover for over half a decade.¶ The biggest impact came from the loss of cheap petroleum from Russia. Gasoline quickly became unobtainable by ordinary citizens in Cuba, and mechanized agriculture and food distribution systems all but collapsed. The island's woes were compounded by the Helms-Burton Act of 1996, which intensified the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba, preventing pharmaceuticals, manufactured goods, and food imports from entering the country. During this so-called "special period" (from 1991 to 1995), Cuba teetered on the brink of famine. Cubans survived drinking sugared water, and eating anything they could get their hands on, including domestic pets and the animals in the Havana Zoo.¶ Cubans became virtual vegans overnight, as meat and dairy products all but vanished from the marketplace.¶ The economic meltdown should logically have been a public health disaster. But a new study conducted jointly by university researchers in Spain, Cuba, and the U.S. and published in the latest issue of BMJ says that the health of Cubans actually improved dramatically during the years of austerity. These surprising findings are based on nationwide statistics from the Cuban Ministry of Public Health, together with surveys conducted with about 6,000 participants in the city of Cienfuegos, on the southern coast of Cuba, between 1991 and 2011. The data showed that, during the period of the economic crisis, deaths from cardiovascular disease and adult-onset type 2 diabetes fell by a third and a half, respectively. Strokes declined more modestly, and overall mortality rates went down.¶ This "abrupt downward trend" in illness does not appear to be because of Cuba's barefoot doctors and vaunted public health system, which is rated amongst the best in Latin America. The researchers say that it has more to do with simple weight loss. Cubans, who were walking and bicycling more after their public transportation system collapsed, and eating less (energy intake plunged from about 3,000 calories per day to anywhere between 1,400 and 2,400, and protein consumption dropped by 40 percent). They lost an average of 12 pounds.¶ It wasn't only the amount of food that Cubans ate that changed, but also what they ate. They became virtual vegans overnight, as meat and dairy products all but vanished from the marketplace. People were forced to depend on what they could grow, catch, and pick for themselves-- including lots of high-fiber fresh produce, and fruits, added to the increasingly hard-to-come-by staples of beans, corn, and rice. Moreover, with petroleum and petroleum-based agro-chemicals unavailable, Cuba "went green," becoming the first nation to successfully experiment on a large scale with low-input sustainable agriculture techniques. Farmers returned to the machetes and oxen-drawn plows of their ancestors, and hundreds of urban community gardens (the latest rage in America's cities) flourished.
|
SCHIFFMAN 4/18/13 (Richard Schiffman is an environmental journalist whose work has appeared in The Washington Post, NPR, and The New York Times. “How Cubans' Health Improved When Their Economy Collapsed” <http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/04/how-cubans-health-improved-when-their-economy-collapsed/275080/>) NM
|
When Cuba's benefactor, the Soviet Union, closed up shop in the early 1990s, it sent the Caribbean nation into an economic tailspin from which it would not recover for over half a decade.¶ The biggest impact came from the loss of cheap petroleum from Russia . During this so-called "special period" (from 1991 to 1995), Cuba teetered on the brink of famine. Cubans survived drinking sugared water, and eating anything they could get their hands on, including domestic pets and the animals in the Havana Zoo.¶ Cubans became virtual vegans overnight, as meat and dairy products all but vanished from the marketplace.¶ The economic meltdown should logically have been a public health disaster But a new study conducted jointly by university researchers in Spain, Cuba, and the U.S. and published in the latest issue of BMJ says that the health of Cubans actually improved dramatically . The data showed that, during the period of the economic crisis, deaths from cardiovascular disease and adult-onset type 2 diabetes fell by a third and a half, respectively. Strokes declined more modestly, and overall mortality rates went down.¶ This "abrupt do Cubans, who were walking and bicycling more after their public transportation system collapsed, and eating less They became virtual vegans overnight, as meat and dairy products all but vanished from the marketplace. People were forced to depend on what they could grow, catch, and pick for themselves-- including lots of high-fiber fresh produce, and fruits, added to the increasingly hard-to-come-by staples of beans, corn, and rice. Cuba "went green," becoming the first nation to successfully experiment on a large scale with low-input sustainable agriculture techniques
|
Cuba’s econ collapse helps Cubans health
| 3,087 | 41 | 1,718 | 479 | 6 | 272 | 0.012526 | 0.56785 |
Cuban ICT Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,173 |
To build the index, the researchers looked at 16 health indicators, including child mortality, number of doctors, immunisation coverage against measles, birth attendance by skilled health workers, health expenditure and drinking water access over the period 2005–2010. Cuba fared the best, followed by Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Mexico and Brazil. Haiti came last, with Guatemala, Bolivia, Venezuela, Honduras and Guatemala also lowly ranked.
|
Hirschfeld 6/5 (Daniela Hirschfeld, Editor in Chief at Galeria magazine, Búsqueda newsweekly Regional Assistant, Latin America Correspondent at SciDev.Net, studied science journalism at Harvard University, 6-5-13, http://www.scidev.net/global/policy/news/huge-health-inequalities-in-latin-america-revealed.html, “Huge Health Inequaities”)
|
the researchers looked at 16 health indicators access over the period 2005–2010. Cuba fared the best, followed by Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Mexico and Brazil. Haiti came last, with Guatemala, Bolivia, Venezuela, Honduras and Guatemala also lowly ranked.
|
Cuba has one of the best health records in Latin America
| 442 | 56 | 254 | 62 | 11 | 37 | 0.177419 | 0.596774 |
Cuban ICT Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,174 |
There’s a general consensus in both the scientific and political worlds that the principle of science diplomacy, at least in the somewhat restricted sense of the need to get more and better science into international negotiations, is a desirable objective. There is less agreement, however, on how far the concept can – or indeed should – be extended to embrace broader goals and objectives, in particular attempts to use science to achieve political or diplomatic goals at the international level. Science, despite its international characteristics, is no substitute for effective diplomacy. Any more than diplomatic initiatives necessarily lead to good science. These seem to have been the broad conclusions to emerge from a three-day meeting at Wilton Park in Sussex, UK, organised by the British Foreign Office and the Royal Society, and attended by scientists, government officials and politicians from 17 countries around the world. The definition of science diplomacy varied widely among participants. Some saw it as a subcategory of “public diplomacy”, or what US diplomats have recently been promoting as “soft power” (“the carrot rather than the stick approach”, as a participant described it). Others preferred to see it as a core element of the broader concept of “innovation diplomacy”, covering the politics of engagement in the familiar fields of international scientific exchange and technology transfer, but raising these to a higher level as a diplomatic objective. Whatever definition is used, three particular aspects of the debate became the focus of attention during the Wilton Park meeting: how science can inform the diplomatic process; how diplomacy can assist science in achieving its objectives; and, finally, how science can provide a channel for quasi-diplomatic exchanges by forming an apparently neutral bridge between countries. There was little disagreement on the first of these. Indeed for many, given the increasing number of international issues with a scientific dimension that politicians have to deal with, this is essentially what the core of science diplomacy should be about. Chris Whitty, for example, chief scientist at the UK’s Department for International Development, described how knowledge about the threat raised by the spread of the highly damaging plant disease stem rust had been an important input by researchers into discussions by politicians and diplomats over strategies for persuading Afghan farmers to shift from the production of opium to wheat. Others pointed out that the scientific community had played a major role in drawing attention to issues such as the links between chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere and the growth of the ozone hole, or between carbon dioxide emissions and climate change. Each has made essential contributions to policy decisions. Acknowledging this role for science has some important implications. No-one dissented when Rohinton Medhora, from Canada’s International Development Research Centre, complained of the lack of adequate scientific expertise in the embassies of many countries of the developed and developing world alike. Nor – perhaps predictably – was there any major disagreement that diplomatic initiatives can both help and occasionally hinder the process of science. On the positive side, such diplomacy can play a significant role in facilitating science exchange and the launch of international science projects, both essential for the development of modern science. Europe’s framework programme of research programmes was quoted as a successful advantage of the first of these. Examples of the second range from the establishment of the European Organisation of Nuclear Research (usually known as CERN) in Switzerland after the Second World War, to current efforts to build a large new nuclear fusion facility (ITER). Less positively, increasing restrictions on entry to certain countries, and in particular the United States after the 9/11 attacks in New York and elsewhere, have significantly impeded scientific exchange programmes. Here the challenge for diplomats was seen as helping to find ways to ease the burdens of such restrictions. The broadest gaps in understanding the potential of scientific diplomacy lay in the third category, namely the use of science as a channel of international diplomacy, either as a way of helping to forge consensus on contentious issues, or as a catalyst for peace in situations of conflict. On the first of these, some pointed to recent climate change negotiations, and in particular the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a good example, of the way that the scientific community can provide a strong rationale for joint international action. But others referred to the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit last December to come up with a meaningful agreement on action as a demonstration of the limitations of this way of thinking. It was argued that this failure had been partly due to a misplaced belief that scientific consensus would be sufficient to generate a commitment to collective action, without taking into account the political impact that scientific ideas would have. Another example that received considerable attention was the current construction of a synchrotron facility SESAMEin Jordan, a project that is already is bringing together researchers in a range of scientific disciplines from various countries in the Middle East (including Israel, Egypt and Palestine, as well as both Greece and Turkey). The promoters of SESAME hope that – as with the building of CERN 60 years ago, and its operation as a research centre involving, for example, physicists from both Russia and the United States – SESAME will become a symbol of what regional collaboration can achieve. In that sense, it would become what one participant described as a “beacon of hope” for the region. But others cautioned that, however successful SESAME may turn out to be in purely scientific terms, its potential impact on the Middle East peace process should not be exaggerated. Political conflicts have deep roots that cannot easily be papered over, however open-minded scientists may be to professional colleagues coming from other political contexts. Indeed, there was even a warning that in the developing world, high profile scientific projects, particular those with explicit political backing, could end up doing damage by inadvertently favouring one social group over another. Scientists should be wary of having their prestige used in this way; those who did so could come over as patronising, appearing unaware of political realities. Similarly, those who hold science in esteem as a practice committed to promoting the causes of peace and development were reminded of the need to take into account how advances in science – whether nuclear physics or genetic technology – have also led to new types of weaponry. Nor did science automatically lead to the reduction of global inequalities. “Science for diplomacy” therefore ended up with a highly mixed review. The consensus seemed to be that science can prepare the ground for diplomatic initiatives – and benefit from diplomatic agreements – but cannot provide the solutions to either. “On tap but not on top” seems as relevant in international settings as it does in purely national ones. With all the caution that even this formulation still requires.
|
Dickson '10 [David. Director of SciDev.net. “Science in diplomacy: “On tap but not on top”.” June 28, 2010. http://scidevnet.wor...onference-2010/. JCook.]
|
consensus in both the scientific and political worlds that the principle of science diplomacy, at least in the somewhat restricted sense of the need to get more and better science into international negotiations, is a desirable objective. There is less agreement, however, on how far the concept can – or indeed should – be extended to embrace broader goals and objectives, in particular attempts to use science to achieve political or diplomatic goals definition of science diplomacy varied widely among participants. Some saw it as a subcategory of “public diplomacy”, or what US diplomats have recently been promoting as “soft power” (“the carrot rather than the stick approach national scientific exchange and technology transfer, but raising these to a higher level as a diplomatic objective. Whatever definition is used, three particular aspects of the debate became the focus of attention during the Wilton Park meeting: how science can inform the diplomatic process; how diplomacy can assist science in achieving its objectives; and, finally, how science can provide a channel for quasi-diplomatic exchanges by forming an apparently neutral bridge between countries Acknowledging this role for science has some important implications. No-one dissented when Rohinton Medhora, from Canada’s International Development Research Centre, complained of the lack of adequate scientific expertise in the embassies of many countries of the developed and developing world alike. Nor – perhaps predictably – was there any major disagreement that diplomatic initiatives can both help and occasionally hinder the process of science. On the positive side, such diplomacy can play a significant role in facilitating science exchange and the launch of international science projects, both Climate Change, as a good example, of the way that the scientific community can provide a strong rationale for joint international action. But others referred to the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit last December to come up with a meaningful agreement on action as a demonstration of the limitations of this way of thinking. It was argued that this failure had been partly due to a misplaced belief that scientific consensus would be sufficient to generate a commitment to collective action, without taking into account the political countries in the Middle East (including Israel, Egypt and Palestine, as well as both Greece and Turkey). The promoters of SESAME hope that – as with the building of CERN 60 years ago, and its operation as a research centre involving, for example, physicists from both Russia and the United States – SESAME will become a symbol of what regional collaboration can achieve. In that sense, it would become what one SESAME may turn out to be in purely scientific terms, its potential impact on the Middle East peace process should not be exaggerated. Political conflicts have deep roots that cannot easily be papered over, however open-minded scientists may be to professional colleagues coming from other political contexts. Indeed, there was even a warning that in the developing world, high profile scientific projects, particular those with explicit political backing, could end up doing damage by inadvertently favouring one social group over another. Scientists should be wary of having their prestige used in this way; those who did so could come over as patronising, appearing unaware of political realities. Similarly, those who hold science in esteem as a practice committed to promoting the causes of peace and development were reminded of the need to take into account how advances in science – whether nuclear physics or genetic technology – have also led to new types of weaponry. Nor did science automatically lead to the reduction of global inequalities. “Science for diplomacy” therefore ended up with a highly mixed review. The consensus seemed to be that science can prepare the ground for diplomatic initiatives
|
Scientific Diplomacy fails – Multiple warrants.
| 7,388 | 47 | 3,949 | 1,149 | 6 | 617 | 0.005222 | 0.536989 |
Cuban ICT Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,175 |
During the period of the Cuban revolution, 1959 to the present, Latin America has witnessed a terrible parade of human rights violations – systematic, routine torture; legions of “disappeared” people; government-supported death squads picking off selected individuals; massacres en masse of peasants, students and other groups, shot down in cold blood. The worst perpetrators of these acts during all or part of this period have been the governments and associated paramilitary squads of El Salvador, Guatemala, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Mexico, Uruguay, Haiti and Honduras. Not even Cuba’s worst enemies have charged the Castro government with any of these violations, and if one further considers education and health care – both of which are guaranteed by the United Nations’ “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” and the “European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” – areas in which Cuba has consistently ranked at or near the top in Latin America, then it would appear that during the 46 years of its revolution, Cuba has enjoyed one of the very best human-rights records in all of Latin America. If, despite this record, the United States can insist that Cuba is the only “non-democracy” in the Western Hemisphere, we are left with the inescapable conclusion that this thing called “democracy”, as seen from the White House, may have little or nothing to do with many of our most cherished human rights. Indeed, numerous pronouncements emanating from Washington officialdom over the years make plain that “democracy”, at best, or at most, is equated solely with elections and civil liberties. Not even jobs, food and shelter are part of the equation. Thus, a nation with hordes of hungry, homeless, untended sick, barely literate, unemployed, and/or tortured people, whose loved ones are being disappeared and/or murdered with state connivance, can be said to be living in a “democracy” – its literal Greek meaning of “rule of the people” implying that this is the kind of life the people actually want – provided that every two years or four years they have the right to go to a designated place and put an X next to the name of one or another individual who promises to relieve their miserable condition, but who will, typically, do virtually nothing of the kind; and provided further that in this society there is at least a certain minimum of freedom – how much being in large measure a function of one’s wealth – for one to express ones views about the powers-that-be and the workings of the society, without undue fear of punishment, regardless of whether expressing these views has any influence whatsoever over the way things are.
|
Blum 05 (William Blum is an author, historian, and renowned critic of U.S. foreign policy. He is the author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II and Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower, among others., "The United States, Cuba and this thing called Democracy", December 2005, http://williamblum.org/essays/read/the-united-states-cuba-and-this-thing-called-democracy) AZ
|
During the period of the Cuban revolution, 1959 to the present, Latin America has witnessed a terrible parade of human rights violations – systematic, routine torture; legions of “disappeared” people; government-supported death squads picking off selected individuals; massacres en masse of peasants, students and other groups, shot down in cold blood Not even Cuba’s worst enemies have charged the Castro government with any of these violations if one further considers education and health care areas in which Cuba has consistently ranked at or near the top in Latin America, then it would appear that during the 46 years of its revolution, Cuba has enjoyed one of the very best human-rights records despite this record, the United States can insist that Cuba is the only “non-democracy” in the Western Hemisphere, we are left with the inescapable conclusion that this thing called “democracy may have little or nothing to do with cherished human rights , numerous pronouncements emanating from Washington officialdom over the years make plain that “democracy”, is equated solely with elections and civil liberties. Not even jobs, food and shelter are part of the equation. Thus, a nation with hordes of hungry, homeless, untended sick, barely literate, unemployed, and/or tortured people, whose loved ones are being disappeared and/or murdered with state connivance, can be said to be living in a “democracy” provided tha they have the right to put an X next to the name who promises to relieve their miserable condition, but who will do virtually nothing
|
US definition of democracy is flawed, Cuba has no issues with human rights no reason they need to change
| 2,699 | 104 | 1,558 | 442 | 19 | 248 | 0.042986 | 0.561086 |
Cuban ICT Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,176 |
Several countries have developed extensive, multilayered systems of internet censorship and surveillance. These systems use a variety of methods, often in combination, to curtail internet freedom:¶ Access to Web 2.0 applications such as Facebook and YouTube is blocked permanently or temporarily. These blocks often are imposed around particular events, as the Chinese government did during the 2008 unrest in Tibet and following the riots in Xinjiang in 2009. Burma cut off all access to the global internet for several days in 2007 after the violent crackdown on peaceful protests in the “Saffron Revolution.” Iran denies access to broadband to home and internet café users. Connection speeds are restricted to 128 kilobits per second to limit the ability of most internet users to access, download, or share audio and video files.¶ Technical filtering prevents access to specific content posted online or to broad swaths of information at the level of internet service provider (isp). It can target keywords, particular web addresses, or entire domain names. At least 25 countries, according to the Open Net Initiative, conduct technical filtering of the internet.¶ Human censors monitor and manually remove blog posts. They also shut down discussion forums that address forbidden subjects, such as human rights violations, criticism of political figures, or official corruption. Authorities in Russia and elsewhere resort to behind-the-scenes phone calls to pressure bloggers or website hosts to remove certain content.¶ Rather than rely entirely on direct intervention by government agencies, repressive regimes increasingly “outsource” censorship and surveillance to private companies — to internet service providers, blog-hosting companies, cybercafés, and mobile phone operators. Companies risk fines or loss of their business license if they fail to comply with requirements to filter political content, monitor internet activity, or collect data on internet users. Users are required to register with an isp when they purchase internet access at home or at work, so that they cannot operate online anonymously. Customers at cybercafés have to present identification, and cybercafés install software to monitor and filter customers’ web browsing. In Vietnam, cybercafé owners are required to keep a record for 30 days of all the websites their customers visit. Belarus requires cybercafé owners to register each user’s browsing history and to denounce to the police any user who goes to sensitive sites.¶ Repressive regimes resort to the clandestine use of paid pro-government commentators or state-funded websites or blogs to influence online discussions. The Chinese government employs an estimated 250,000 or more “50 Cent Party” commentators, who reportedly receive 50 cents for each pro-government post, while Russia has seen a proliferation of Kremlin-affiliated “web brigades.”¶ Email can be intercepted to monitor dissidents. China, Tunisia, and Iran conduct deep packet inspection, which enables state security to intercept email messages, deconstruct them, pick out keywords, remove or alter the content of these messages, and reconstruct them within milliseconds.¶ Authoritarian governments use general press laws against insult, blasphemy, leaking state secrets, etc. to punish online dissidents. Cuba prosecutes online journalists under generic charges such as presenting a “pre-criminal social danger.” China has issued more than 80 decrees that specifically address internet content and related issues. Vietnam introduced regulations in January 2009 to prohibit blogs from disseminating content that criticizes the government
|
Calingaert 10 (Daniel Calingaert is deputy director of programs at Freedom House, which receives funding from the U.S. State Department, Google, and other sources to promote internet freedom. “Authoritarianism vs. the Internet” <http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/5269>) NM
|
Access to Web 2.0 applications such as Facebook and YouTube is blocked permanently or temporarily. . Connection speeds are restricted to 128 kilobits per second to limit the ability of most internet users to access, download, or share audio and video files.¶ Technical filtering prevents access to specific content posted online or to broad swaths of information at the level of internet service provider (isp). It can target keywords, particular web addresses, or entire domain names. certain content.¶ Rather than rely entirely on direct intervention by government agencies, repressive regimes increasingly “outsource” censorship and surveillance to private companies — to internet service providers, blog-hosting companies, cybercafés, and mobile phone operators . Users are required to register with an isp when they purchase internet access at home or at work, so that they cannot operate online anonymously. Customers at cybercafés have to present identification, and cybercafés install software to monitor and filter customers’ web browsing .”¶ Email can be intercepted to monitor dissidents Authoritarian governments use general press laws against insult, blasphemy, leaking state secrets, etc. to punish online dissidents. Cuba prosecutes online journalists under generic charges such as presenting a “pre-criminal social danger.”
|
Countries can block speech several ways
| 3,649 | 40 | 1,339 | 532 | 6 | 193 | 0.011278 | 0.362782 |
Cuban ICT Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,177 |
Citizens in repressive environments, such as China and Iran, have shown their resolve to get around censorship online and to challenge government control of the internet. They cannot, however, overcome this censorship and control on their own. Repressive regimes are determined to prevent the internet from weakening their grip on power, and they have become adept at keeping free expression on the internet in check and thwarting the mobilization of political opposition online. The internet thus will only be effective in advancing freedom in repressive environments if the United States adopts a clear policy to support internet freedom and persuades its democratic allies to join in pursuing this policy.¶ ¶ Because repressive regimes use sophisticated, multilayered systems to control the internet, the U.S. response must be multifaceted. There is no silver bullet. No single technology, by itself, can overcome internet censorship. Instead, what is needed is a combination of policy initiatives to advance free expression online. These initiatives should stop the export of U.S. and European technology used to control the internet, promote international acceptance of internet freedom and respect for the rights of internet users, increase investment in technological innovation to mitigate online censorship and surveillance, and support citizens in oppressed societies who are working to expand the space for free expression on the internet.¶ ¶
|
Calingaert 10 (Daniel Calingaert is deputy director of programs at Freedom House, which receives funding from the U.S. State Department, Google, and other sources to promote internet freedom. “Authoritarianism vs. the Internet” <http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/5269>) NM
|
They cannot, however, overcome this censorship and control on their own. Repressive regimes are determined to prevent the internet from weakening their grip on power, and they have become adept at keeping free expression on the internet in check and thwarting the mobilization of political opposition online. The internet thus will only be effective in advancing freedom in repressive environments if the United States adopts a clear policy to support internet freedom and persuades its democratic allies to join in pursuing this policy There is no silver bullet. No single technology, by itself, can overcome internet censorshi
|
U.S. needs to do multiple things for Internet freedom in other countries
| 1,453 | 73 | 628 | 217 | 12 | 97 | 0.0553 | 0.447005 |
Cuban ICT Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,178 |
The creation of the legal possibility for investment in Cuba by U.S. telecom and satellite companies will not necessarily spur private sector investments in this¶ area. The risk, given the relative size of the market for telecommunications and satellite services in Cuba, is that the procedures and guidelines are too unclear and complex to motivate companies to make serious¶ efforts to explore investment possibilities. Thus, the¶ companies most capable of fulfilling the President’s directives by establishing expanded telecom and satellite links may be the least likely to actually undertake projects there. For example, while the CDA of¶ 1992 forbids investment in Cuba’s domestic telecommunications infrastructure, the presidential directives appear to authorize activities that, by nature, require investments that have in the past been considered contributions to Cuba’s “domestic infrastructure.” Thus, while items such as mobile phones and SIM cards appear consistent with the aim of facilitating expanded communications links, the large-scale¶ export of devices may violate prohibitions on investment in Cuba’s domestic infrastructure.
|
CSG 10 (The Cuba Study Group is a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization. Members include international relations analysts, 7/15/10, "Empowering the Cuban People Through Access to Technology" date, http://www.ascecuba.org/publications/proceedings/volume20/pdfs/cubastudygroupit.pdf) AZ
|
The creation of the legal possibility for investment in Cuba by . telecom and satellite companies will not necessarily spur private sector investments The risk, given the relative size of the market for telecommunications and satellite services in Cuba, is that the procedures and guidelines are too unclear and complex companies most capable of fulfilling the President’s directives may be the least likely to actually undertake projects there. while the CDA forbids investment in Cuba’s domestic telecommunications infrastructure, the presidential directives appear to authorize activities that require investments that have in the past been considered contributions to Cuba’s “domestic infrastructure.” mobile phones and SIM cards appear consistent with the aim of facilitating expanded communications links export of devices may violate prohibitions on investment in Cuba’s domestic infrastructure
|
No private sector investment - laws are contradictory and confusing
| 1,146 | 67 | 901 | 163 | 10 | 127 | 0.06135 | 0.779141 |
Cuban ICT Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,179 |
What would a Cuban transition look like? Why would it start? No one predicted the Arab Spring, and for Cuba the many possible permutations are well beyond the scope of this article. Cuban opposition blogger Yoani Sánchez writes that Cubans view transition as similar to a dilapidated building in Havana: “The hurricanes don’t bring it down and the rains don’t bring it down, but one day someone tries to change the lock on the front door and the whole edifice collapses.” In any event, given the hermetic nature of the regime and its successful resistance to U.S. influence, it is very unlikely that the United States will have much influence over its initiation. As the prominent Cuban dissident Oswaldo Payá argues, “One talks about the United States’ money for civil society . . . . The United States’ money won’t cause change in Cuba.”16 It is a point he has made repeatedly. If there is a Cuban Spring, then its emergence and ultimate success will hinge on its domestic wellsprings. In fact, this echoes the policy position of the administration of Barack Obama. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton put it in 2011, “These revolutions are not ours. They are not by us, for us, or against us, but we do have a role. We have the resources, capabilities, and expertise to support those who seek peaceful, meaningful, democratic reform.”17 Even the Catholic Cardinal in Cuba, Jaime Ortega, has cautioned against “a type of U.S. subculture which invades everything.”18 He was referring not only to culture, but also to politics
|
Weeks and Fiorey 12 (Gregory Weeks is an associate professor of political science and director of Latin American Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Erin Fiorey is an M.A. candidate in Latin American Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. She holds a B.A. from Wake Forest University., "Policy Options for a Cuban Spring", May/June 2012, http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/MilitaryReview/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20120630_art014.pdf) AZ
|
What would a Cuban transition look like? Why would it start? Cuban opposition blogger Yoani Sánchez writes that Cubans view transition as similar to a dilapidated building in Havana: “The hurricanes don’t bring it down and the rains don’t bring it down, but one day someone tries to change the lock on the front door and the whole edifice collapses In any event, given the hermetic nature of the regime and its successful resistance to U.S. influence, it is very unlikely the U S will have influence One talks about the United States’ money for civil society . . . . The United States’ money won’t cause change in Cuba . If there is a Cuban Spring, then its emergence and ultimate success will hinge on its domestic wellsprings. Catholic Cardinal in Cuba, Jaime Ortega, has cautioned against “a type of U.S. subculture which invades everything referring to culture politics
|
US money won't make a difference in helping Cuba
| 1,526 | 48 | 871 | 260 | 9 | 150 | 0.034615 | 0.576923 |
Cuban ICT Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,180 |
HAVANA – The toothbrush tells it all.¶ ¶ Martha Beatriz Roque carries it in her purse 24/7 because she fears she could be thrown in jail at any moment.¶ ¶ One of Cuba's best-known political dissidents, she leads a precarious existence. And she seems to be making little headway against Fidel Castro, who remains popular among many Cubans. But she continues her lonely fight.¶ ¶ "I have to do something for my people – and for me," she said over dinner in Havana.¶ ¶ Ms. Beatriz Roque, 59, and other Cuban dissidents have strong support in Washington, where U.S. officials have vowed to keep pressing for a change of government in Cuba.¶ ¶ How it will happen isn't at all clear.¶ ¶ While campaigning for re-election, Mr. Bush announced measures to tighten the longtime ban on trade with Cuba. Critics said he was pandering to South Florida's Cuban-American community. But James Cason, the chief U.S. diplomat in Cuba, said that "is not what this president is about."Mr. Bush is committed to seeing a rapid, peaceful democratic transition in Cuba, Mr. Cason said. And he's counting on the island's political opposition to help.¶ ¶ Hundreds of dissidents oppose the socialist government. But their movement is divided and heavily infiltrated by government spies. The opposition got some relief in recent weeks when Cuban authorities released seven jailed dissidents. Cuba watchers said the government probably freed them to improve relations with Spain, which broke with the Castro regime in 2003 after the jailing of 75 dissidents. ¶ ¶ ¶ 'Master puppeteer'¶ ¶ But the gesture doesn't mean the Cuban government is suddenly turning democratic, some say.¶ ¶ "Castro is a master puppeteer. He released a few people, but he's also been arresting people," Mr. Cason said. "It's a tactical thing." Ms. Beatriz Roque agreed, saying Mr. Castro still has the opposition in a vice grip. ”He opens up a little with the right hand but closes a lot with the left hand," she said.¶ ¶ Castro loyalists have a very different view of the dissidents, saying they have little support in the country and are propped up, financed and guided by the U.S. government.¶ ¶ "There is no punishment in this country for expressing ideas that are different than those of the government," said Roberto de Armas, a senior official at the Cuban Foreign Ministry. "What's not tolerated is collaborating with a foreign government to overthrow the Cuban government."¶ ¶ The four-decade ban on trade with Cuba is the toughest economic embargo imposed on any nation in history, he and other Castro loyalists add. It has caused billions of dollars in damage to the Cuban economy, and officials would like a change – they want normal relations with the United States.¶ ¶ "The Cuban government is not the enemy," Mr. de Armas said. "We don't portray Americans as people who eat children or have large fangs dripping blood."¶ ¶ But given the U.S. government's hostility toward Cuba, relations between the two nations remain at a low point, he said, and "it's not a realistic scenario" that Mr. Castro will meet with Mr. Bush anytime soon to negotiate.¶ ¶ Mr. Bush said in May 2002 that he would soften the embargo if Mr. Castro gave a sign that he was willing to move toward democracy and announce, for instance, free elections or economic reforms.¶ ¶ "That was a genuine offer," Mr. Cason said, "and the answer was, 'Hell no.' " ¶
|
Eaton 04 (Tracey Eaton is a journalist in Florida. He was the Dallas Morning News bureau chief in Cuba from 2000 to early 2005. Before that, he headed the paper’s Mexico City bureau.
He has written freelance articles for the Florida Center for Investigative Journalism, USA Today, Junior Scholastic, CubaNews, Cubaencuentro in Madrid and other publications. “In Cuba, Castro foes wage lonely fight” <http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/dissidents/foes.htm>) NM
|
Ms. Beatriz Roque, 59, and other Cuban dissidents have strong support in Washington, where U.S. officials have vowed to keep pressing for a change of government in Cuba.¶ ¶ How it will happen isn't at all clear.¶ ¶ But James Cason, the chief U.S. diplomat in Cuba, said that "is not what this president is about."Mr. Bush is committed to seeing a rapid, peaceful democratic transition And he's counting on the island's political opposition to help ¶ Hundreds of dissidents oppose the socialist government. But their movement is divided and heavily infiltrated by government spies Castro is a master puppeteer. He released a few people, but he's also been arresting people," It's a tactical thing." Ms. Beatriz Roque agreed, saying Mr. Castro still has the opposition in a vice grip. ”He opens up a little with the right hand but closes a lot with the left hand," Mr. Bush said in May 2002 that he would soften the embargo if Mr. Castro gave a sign that he was willing to move toward democracy and announce, for instance, free elections or economic reforms.¶ ¶ "That was a genuine offer," Mr. Cason said, "and the answer was, 'Hell no.' " ¶
|
Cuban Citizens key to reforms
| 3,386 | 30 | 1,139 | 577 | 5 | 199 | 0.008666 | 0.344887 |
Cuban ICT Negative - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,181 |
Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample Revisiting the Future opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorism’s appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups_inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises. 36 Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.
|
Harris & Burrows 9 Mathew, PhD European History @ Cambridge, counselor of the U.S. National Intelligence Council (NIC) and Jennifer, member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis” http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf
|
history may be instructive Great Depression lessons include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and sustainability of multilateral institutions in the twenty-first century the potential for greater conflict could grow in a volatile economic environment Terrorism’s appeal will decline if growth continues Terrorist groups will become self-radicalized in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of a economically-induced drawdown would be the Middle East worries could lead states to develop new security arrangements acquire additional weapons , and pursuing nuclear ambitions . It is not clear that stable deterrent relationship would emerge conflict could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict close proximity of nuclear rivals may place more focus on preemption leading to escalating crises conflict over resources, could reemerge protectionism could result in interstate conflicts Buildup of capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be difficult
|
2. Economic collapses causes global nuclear war
| 4,636 | 47 | 1,085 | 693 | 7 | 150 | 0.010101 | 0.21645 |
Politics DA - SCDI 2013.html5
|
Sun Country (SCDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,182 |
1. Public Opinion Many of the proposals in the bill have strong public support, even among Republicans. A recent Gallup poll showed that a path to citizenship for current unauthorized immigrants, given they meet certain conditions, has the support of 87 percent of Americans. That level of support was about the same for Republicans, Democrats and independents. The poll also shows strong support for strengthening border security, requiring businesses to check the immigration status of new hires, and providing legal status to those who earn advanced degrees in science or engineering. 2. Obama and Democrats Need It During his first campaign, President Barack Obama said he would work on passing an immigration reform bill. That promise took a back seat, however, to health care reform and the economy. Obama was also instrumental in killing the previous immigration reform bill as a U.S. senator during the George W. Bush administration. The current effort will be an opportunity for Obama to redeem himself and for the Democratic Party to deliver for one of their core constituencies – Latinos. 3. Republicans Need It On the Republican side, immigration reform is an opportunity for party members to put an issue that has harmed their chances with Latino voters behind them. During Republican primaries (both presidential and congressional), the Party hurt their chances with Latino voters due to some rhetoric that sounded, not just anti-immigration reform, but anti-Latino. Mitt Romney's use of the phrase "self-deportation," sounded insensitive to the struggles faced by some Latinos, for instance. The Party, therefore, has an incentive to put the issue away so it can focus on the issues where it can garner Latino support.
|
Nazworth 7/2 Napp Nazworth , Christian Post Reporter July 2, 2013|6:19 am 3 Reasons Immigration Reform Won't Pass, and 3 Reasons It Will Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/3-reasons-immigration-reform-wont-pass-and-3-reasons-it-will-99172/#IqvGzf7QEUfE5edx.99
|
Many of the proposals in the bill have strong public support, even among Republicans path to citizenship for current unauthorized immigrants, given they meet certain conditions, has the support of 87 percent of Americans. That level of support was about the same for Republicans, Democrats and independents Obama and Democrats Need It The current effort will be an opportunity for Obama to redeem himself and for the Democratic Party to deliver for one of their core constituencies – Latinos. On the Republican side, immigration reform is an opportunity for party members to put an issue that has harmed their chances with Latino voters behind them During Republican primaries (both presidential and congressional), the Party hurt their chances with Latino voters due to some rhetoric that sounded, not just anti-immigration reform, but anti-Latino. The Party, therefore, has an incentive to put the issue away so it can focus on the issues where it can garner Latino support
|
Will pass – bipartisan support and GoP needs to redeem themselves from election
| 1,733 | 79 | 975 | 275 | 13 | 156 | 0.047273 | 0.567273 |
Politics DA - SCDI 2013.html5
|
Sun Country (SCDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,183 |
If there is a vote on comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship in the House, it will pass with a bipartisan majority. If all but a handful of the House Democrats vote yes, and at least 20 Republicans from the list below come along, reform can easily clear the 218 necessary to pass the lower chamber. Looking at the list of 99 House Republicans below, it’s clear that capturing those 20 or so Republican votes is well within reach. Our target list includes several different groups of Republicans, such as: * Republicans with growing numbers of Latino and Asian constituents. While redistrictring has temporarily insulated many House Republicans from the “demographic cliff” their party faces if it caters only to white voters, at least 38 Republican members of Congress represent heavily Latino districts — and approximately 25 GOP memberes are in diverse swing districts where the growing Latino, Asian, and immigrant vote is crucial. These include California Republicans Jeff Denham, David Valadao, Gary Miller, Buck McKeon and Devin Nunes; Colorado Republican Mike Coffman; Florida Republicans Mario Diaz-Balart and Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (both of whom are longtime supporters of immigration reform); New York Republicans Peter King and Michael Grimm; and Nevada Republican Joe Heck. * Republicans with agricultural or high-tech interests in their districts. Both the agriculture and high-tech sectors urgently need immigration reform to secure a 21st Century workforce. Republicans who should support reform for the economic well being of their districts include Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Spencer Bachus, and Sam Johnson, all of whom represent agriculture-heavy districts, and Darrell Issa, whose district includes tech interests.
|
Greg Sargent 7/8, Washington Post, Can immigration reform pass the House? Maybe., Published: July 8 at 12:09 pm http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/07/08/can-immigration-reform-pass-the-house-maybe/
|
If there is a vote on comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship in the House, it will pass with a bipartisan majority If all but a handful of the House Democrats vote yes, and at least 20 Republicans from the list below come along, reform can easily clear the 218 necessary to pass the lower chamber it’s clear that capturing those 20 or so Republican votes is well within reach Republicans with growing numbers of Latino and Asian constituents at least 38 Republican members of Congress represent heavily Latino districts — and approximately 25 GOP memberes are in diverse swing districts where the growing Latino, Asian, and immigrant vote is crucial These include California Republicans Jeff Denham, David Valadao, Gary Miller, Buck McKeon and Devin Nunes; Colorado Republican Mike Coffman; Florida Republicans Mario Diaz-Balart and Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (both of whom are longtime supporters of immigration reform); New York Republicans Peter King and Michael Grimm; and Nevada Republican Joe Heck. Republicans with agricultural or high-tech interests in their districts. Both the agriculture and high-tech sectors urgently need immigration reform to secure a 21st Century workforce. Republicans who should support reform for the economic well being of their districts include Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Spencer Bachus, and Sam Johnson, all of whom represent agriculture-heavy districts, and Darrell Issa, whose district includes tech interests
|
Will pass – vote counts and bipartisan majority
| 1,760 | 47 | 1,472 | 267 | 8 | 223 | 0.029963 | 0.835206 |
Politics DA - SCDI 2013.html5
|
Sun Country (SCDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,184 |
In an initial victory for proponents of comprehensive immigration reform, the Senate on Tuesday easily passed a procedural vote to begin debate on the broad bipartisan measure, with just 15 senators -- all Republicans -- objecting. The preliminary 82-15 vote -- which required 60 votes for passage -- offers an initial show of strength for supporters of the legislation, although some Republicans who voted for the initial procedural measure say they will not support the final product unless amendments are added to strengthen the legislation’s requirements to secure the nation’s southern border.¶ A short while later, a vote on the motion to proceed -- which needed just a simple majority -- passed by a similar 84-15 margin.¶ The votes came hours after President Barack Obama, flanked by a broad array of supporters in remarks at the White House, urged Congress to act on the legislation and warned opponents that there is “no good reason to play procedural games or engage in obstruction.”¶ “If you’re serious about actually fixing the system, then this is the vehicle to do it,” Obama said.¶ A final vote on the legislation is not expected until before the chamber’s July 4 recess. Obama said Tuesday that he wants the bill to his desk by the end of the summer.
|
Dann 6-11 [Carrie. Politics for NBC. “Senate votes to begin historic immigration reform debate” NBC News, 6/11/13 ln//GBS-JV]
|
In a victory the Senate passed a procedural vote to begin debate on the broad bipartisan measure, The preliminary 82-15 vote offers an initial show of strength for supporters of the legislation, a vote on the motion to proceed passed by a similar 84-15 margin The votes came after Obama , urged Congress to act on the legislation A final vote on the legislation is expected before July 4
|
Top of the Docket
| 1,267 | 18 | 387 | 213 | 4 | 69 | 0.018779 | 0.323944 |
Politics DA - SCDI 2013.html5
|
Sun Country (SCDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,185 |
“What’s amazing,” John Cassidy says of the immigration-reform bill making its way through the Senate, “is that given the sheer compelling logic… it’s still very difficult to get a deal. And we still don’t know if this thing will go through.” He’s right: the electoral imperative for both parties is clear. Republicans desperately want to grab a larger share of the growing Hispanic segment of the electorate—Mitt Romney won just twenty-seven per cent of the Hispanic vote last year—and Democrats don’t want to relinquish any ground. Ryan Lizza, who writes about the Gang of Eight’s role in shepherding the reform bill in this week’s issue of the magazine, points out that there’s another factor working in favor of passage: “From Schumer and McCain’s perspective,” he says of two Senators who are working on an immigration deal, “it’s about proving that the Senate is not broken.” Cassidy and Lizza join Dorothy Wickenden on the podcast to discuss the chances that the bill will pass, and what the political ramifications will be either way. For supporters of reform, Cassidy says, there is still one reason to hope: “They’re not completely stupid, the Republicans.”
|
McKnight 6/20 POSTED BY MATTHEW MCKNIGHT, The New Yorker, POLITICAL SCENE: WILL IMMIGRATION REFORM PASS? JUNE 20, 2013 http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/06/political-scene-will-immigration-reform-pass.html
|
“What’s amazing,” the immigration-reform bill making its way through the Senate, “is that given the sheer compelling logic… it’s still very difficult to get a deal we still don’t know if this thing will go through.” the electoral imperative for both parties is clear. Republicans desperately want to grab a larger share of the growing Hispanic segment of the electorate and Democrats don’t want to relinquish any ground For supporters of reform, Cassidy says, there is still one reason to hope: “They’re not completely stupid, the Republicans.”
|
Will pass but it’s not guaranteed
| 1,166 | 33 | 544 | 191 | 6 | 87 | 0.031414 | 0.455497 |
Politics DA - SCDI 2013.html5
|
Sun Country (SCDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,186 |
President Obama is quietly moving forward on gun control. The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership. The executive steps will give federal law enforcement officials access to more data about guns and their owners, help keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, and lay the groundwork for future legislative efforts. It is unclear whether the National Rifle Association will challenge any of the executive actions in court. A spokesman for the NRA did not return a request for comment. The moves, which have not been widely touted by the administration, come as Obama ups his pressure on Congress to take action on gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings. The Senate is expected to begin floor consideration of legislation when it returns in April. Efforts to renew a ban in semi-automatic weapons with military-style features and high-capacity magazines have stalled in Congress. Democratic senators still hope to move gun control legislation that includes tougher background checks, but conservative Republican senators have threatened to filibuster it. If approved by the Senate, any bill would then face tough sledding in the GOP-controlled House. Gun control groups say Obama’s piecemeal approach falls short of what could be accomplished by legislation overhauling the nation’s gun laws. Still, they argue the actions remain important and will reduce gun violence. “They’ve taken direct aim at some of the bigger problems in the regulatory part of the issue and they’re doing it in the right way and that’s going to be very helpful,” said Mark Glaze, the director of Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns group. “Ultimately you need to close the loopholes in the law that will continue to undermine enforcement, but what they’re doing is precisely right.” They also illustrate the administration’s power to change gun laws despite inaction on Capitol Hill, a practice the president may need to duplicate in other policy areas amid congressional gridlock.
|
Yager, 3-29-’13 (Jordy, “Obama uses executive power to move gun control agenda forward” The Hill, http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/290885-obama-uses-executive-power-to-move-gun-control-forward)
|
Obama is quietly moving forward on gun control The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign The executive steps will lay the groundwork for future legislative efforts The moves have not been widely touted by the administration Obama’s piecemeal approach illustrate the administration’s power to change gun laws despite inaction on Capitol Hill
|
Obama will use an XO
| 2,198 | 20 | 491 | 349 | 5 | 74 | 0.014327 | 0.212034 |
Politics DA - SCDI 2013.html5
|
Sun Country (SCDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,187 |
President Obama could wind up issuing fewer executive orders than any two-term president in a century, records show. Obama has often exerted the power of his office in pursuit of his agenda, drawing charges from Republicans that he is acting like a “monarch” intent on destroying the Constitution’s balance of powers. But a review of the historical record shows Obama is on track to issue roughly the same number of executive orders as President George W. Bush, and fewer than President Clinton. Comparing Obama’s use of executive power to his predecessors is tricky, however, since presidents can wield their authority in a number of ways. His executive orders tell only part of the story, experts say. “They’re not the only measure of presidential assertion of authority,” said Kenneth Mayer, a University of Wisconsin political science professor who has studied the presidency extensively. “He’s actually been pretty aggressive on a number of fronts.” Instead of executive orders, Obama has enacted policy shifts through informal “executive actions” on issues like gun control, immigration and drone strikes overseas. His 2011 decision to halt the deportations of hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants, for example, was communicated via a memo from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. “Clearly, she was acting as an instrument of the president,” said Mayer, who penned a book on executive power entitled, “With the Stroke of a Pen.” That fact was not lost on Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who described the move as “an affront to the process of representative government.” “He’s circumventing Congress with a directive he may not have the authority to execute,” Grassley said at the time. The administration argued that it had the power to enforce the new policy through prosecutorial discretion. Obama is not the first president who has been accused of overstepping, especially when it comes to national security. Bush faced his own criticism after ordering warrantless wiretapping in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. Historically, executive orders vary widely on scope and importance. Obama’s orders, for instance, have ranged from the mundane (his order to shut the federal government last Christmas Eve) to the substantive (his 2009 order to shut Guantanamo Bay). As of Wednesday, Obama has issued 149 legally binding executive orders during his presidency, according to records kept by the National Archives and published in the Federal Register. The total includes 147 from his first term, and two this year. The actual number is far smaller than the figure of 923 that was widely circulated — and quickly debunked by an assortment of fact-checking websites — in the run-up to Obama’s reelection last November. By comparison, Bush had issued 173 executive orders through the end of his first term, according to The American Presidency Project, an undertaking by the University of California, Santa Barbara. Clinton had issued 200 executive orders through his first term. Franklin D. Roosevelt issued by far the most executive orders — 3,522 — and the practice dates back to President George Washington, who issued eight of them. Obama has at times used the power of legally binding executive orders to enact measures that Congress would not. Such was the case last month, when he issued an order meant to bolster the country’s defenses against the increasing threat of cyberattacks. That executive order came in lieu of cybersecurity legislation, which failed to pass Congress last year. Business groups and some Republican senators — including John McCain (R-Ariz.), John Thune (R-S.D.) and Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) — panned Obama’s unilateral move, saying the order could not “achieve the balanced approach that must be accomplished collaboratively through legislation.” But many of Obama’s boldest executive moves have come without a formal executive order. Earlier this year, the president unveiled 23 separate executive “actions” meant to curb gun violence in the wake of the shooting spree that left 26 people dead at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut. Three of them — including a measure ordering the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to study the causes of gun violence — were communicated via formal memoranda. The remaining 20 were directives that did not require the president’s signature at all, according to White House officials. The gun measures, which are still in the process of being enacted, sparked outrage from some congressional Republicans, including Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who complained that Obama was acting “like a king or a monarch.” The centerpiece of Obama’s executive power push has been the “We Can’t Wait” campaign he rolled out in the fall of 2011. The slogan was a direct shot at the gridlocked Congress. “We can’t wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job,” Obama said. “Where they won’t act, I will." The campaign included dozens of actions meant to address an array of issues, ranging from steps to help borrowers refinance the terms of home loans and create a new manufacturing hub in Ohio, to contentious recess appointments. The measures — some controversial, some not — were accomplished through a combination of new regulations promulgated by agencies, executive orders and other directives. Reached Wednesday for comment, one White House official acknowledged the president uses a wide variety of tools available to him as he looks for the best ways to implement his agenda. At times, that has meant wading into murky legal territory. The administration, for example, came under fire from lawmakers and groups across the political spectrum following last month’s release of a Justice Department white paper outlining specific circumstances under which the United States can conduct a drone strike against an American overseas. The president has signaled his intention to move forward unilaterally on other issues, including steps to counter climate change. But Obama’s powers are far from absolute. His orders could be undone by judicial action, new laws passed by congress or future presidents.
|
Goad, 3-28-’13 (Ben, “Obama finding ways to wield power without executive orders” http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/administration/290697-obama-shying-away-from-executive-orders)
|
Obama could wind up issuing fewer executive orders than any two-term president in a century Obama has issued 149 legally binding executive orders The actual number is far smaller than the figure of 923 that was widely circulated — and quickly debunked Obama’s powers are far from absolute. His orders could be undone by judicial action, new laws passed by congress or future presidents
|
Obama won’t issue XOs and they’ll be rolled back
| 6,113 | 48 | 385 | 966 | 9 | 64 | 0.009317 | 0.066253 |
Politics DA - SCDI 2013.html5
|
Sun Country (SCDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,188 |
What’s left among major initiatives is immigration reform. However, that faces a tough slog in the Senate and a possibly impossible trajectory in the House of Representatives. Its leading Republican sponsor, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, has already signaled that he might bail on the plan he helped craft if changes — including guaranteed bolstering of border security — aren’t added as the bill moves through the Senate.¶ In other words, official Washington will devote lots of time to little more than housekeeping matters. Congress could pass a few appropriations bills, reauthorize farm programs and raise the federal borrowing limit to avoid the disaster that would come with default. What that means is that not much more than the basics are on track to succeed this year.¶ That’s a big problem for Mr. Obama. The more time that passes, the less political capital he’ll have to muscle through his priorities. Unless he acts quickly, he could lose his chance to make his presidency truly historic. He needs more accomplishments to distinguish himself.¶ More practically, the media abhors a vacuum, and that’s what persistent inaction is creating. Reporters have no choice but to fill their news holes. As a result, minor kerfuffles and governmental failures, which would otherwise be relegated to the second tier, become front-page news for lack of competition.¶ Scandals blossom in the absence of a serious agenda. That’s one reason the Obama administration has been battered by the terrible trifecta of the snatching of reporters’ telephone logs, the continuing suspicions about the attacks in Benghazi and, most importantly, the targeting of conservative groups by the Internal Revenue Service. The recent news that the government has compelled telephone and Internet companies to fork over information about average citizens has also raised concerns because of the dearth of impactful actions otherwise in the nation’s capital.
|
Birnbaum 6/12 [Jeremy. Politics for the Washington Times. “Sensational Season for Scandal: When a Ship Runs Aground, it’s the Captain’s Fault” The Washington Times, 6/12/13 ln//GBS-JV]
|
What’s left is immigration reform faces a tough slog in the Senate and the House Rubio might bail if changes aren’t added Washington will devote lots of time to little more than housekeeping matters. That’s a big problem for Obama The more time that passes, the less political capital he’ll have to muscle through his priorities. Unless he acts quickly he could lose his chance the media abhors a vacuum, and that’s what persistent inaction is creating. Reporters have no choice but to fill their news holes minor kerfuffles and governmental failures, become front-page news for lack of competition Scandals blossom in the absence of a serious agenda That’s one reason the Obama administration has been battered by telephone logs Benghazi and the Internal Revenue Service
|
Political capital is key – Obama’s maneuvering overcomes hurdles
| 1,936 | 65 | 771 | 305 | 9 | 126 | 0.029508 | 0.413115 |
Politics DA - SCDI 2013.html5
|
Sun Country (SCDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,189 |
CAMBRIDGE – The United States is a nation of immigrants. Except for a small number of Native Americans, everyone is originally from somewhere else, and even recent immigrants can rise to top economic and political roles. President Franklin Roosevelt once famously addressed the Daughters of the American Revolution – a group that prided itself on the early arrival of its ancestors – as “fellow immigrants.”¶ In recent years, however, US politics has had a strong anti-immigration slant, and the issue played an important role in the Republican Party’s presidential nomination battle in 2012. But Barack Obama’s re-election demonstrated the electoral power of Latino voters, who rejected Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney by a 3-1 majority, as did Asian-Americans.¶ As a result, several prominent Republican politicians are now urging their party to reconsider its anti-immigration policies, and plans for immigration reform will be on the agenda at the beginning of Obama’s second term. Successful reform will be an important step in preventing the decline of American power.¶ Fears about the impact of immigration on national values and on a coherent sense of American identity are not new. The nineteenth-century “Know Nothing” movement was built on opposition to immigrants, particularly the Irish. Chinese were singled out for exclusion from 1882 onward, and, with the more restrictive Immigration Act of 1924, immigration in general slowed for the next four decades.¶ During the twentieth century, the US recorded its highest percentage of foreign-born residents, 14.7%, in 1910. A century later, according to the 2010 census, 13% of the American population is foreign born. But, despite being a nation of immigrants, more Americans are skeptical about immigration than are sympathetic to it. Various opinion polls show either a plurality or a majority favoring less immigration. The recession exacerbated such views: in 2009, one-half of the US public favored allowing fewer immigrants, up from 39% in 2008.¶ Both the number of immigrants and their origin have caused concerns about immigration’s effects on American culture. Demographers portray a country in 2050 in which non-Hispanic whites will be only a slim majority. Hispanics will comprise 25% of the population, with African- and Asian-Americans making up 14% and 8%, respectively.¶ But mass communications and market forces produce powerful incentives to master the English language and accept a degree of assimilation. Modern media help new immigrants to learn more about their new country beforehand than immigrants did a century ago. Indeed, most of the evidence suggests that the latest immigrants are assimilating at least as quickly as their predecessors.¶ While too rapid a rate of immigration can cause social problems, over the long term, immigration strengthens US power. It is estimated that at least 83 countries and territories currently have fertility rates that are below the level needed to keep their population constant. Whereas most developed countries will experience a shortage of people as the century progresses, America is one of the few that may avoid demographic decline and maintain its share of world population.¶ For example, to maintain its current population size, Japan would have to accept 350,000 newcomers annually for the next 50 years, which is difficult for a culture that has historically been hostile to immigration. In contrast, the Census Bureau projects that the US population will grow by 49% over the next four decades.¶ Today, the US is the world’s third most populous country; 50 years from now it is still likely to be third (after only China and India). This is highly relevant to economic power: whereas nearly all other developed countries will face a growing burden of providing for the older generation, immigration could help to attenuate the policy problem for the US.¶ In addition, though studies suggest that the short-term economic benefits of immigration are relatively small, and that unskilled workers may suffer from competition, skilled immigrants can be important to particular sectors – and to long-term growth. There is a strong correlation between the number of visas for skilled applicants and patents filed in the US. At the beginning of this century, Chinese- and Indian-born engineers were running one-quarter of Silicon Valley’s technology businesses, which accounted for $17.8 billion in sales; and, in 2005, immigrants had helped to start one-quarter of all US technology start-ups during the previous decade. Immigrants or children of immigrants founded roughly 40% of the 2010 Fortune 500 companies.¶ Equally important are immigration’s benefits for America’s soft power. The fact that people want to come to the US enhances its appeal, and immigrants’ upward mobility is attractive to people in other countries. The US is a magnet, and many people can envisage themselves as Americans, in part because so many successful Americans look like them. Moreover, connections between immigrants and their families and friends back home help to convey accurate and positive information about the US.¶ Likewise, because the presence of many cultures creates avenues of connection with other countries, it helps to broaden Americans’ attitudes and views of the world in an era of globalization. Rather than diluting hard and soft power, immigration enhances both.¶ Singapore’s former leader, Lee Kwan Yew, an astute observer of both the US and China, argues that China will not surpass the US as the leading power of the twenty-first century, precisely because the US attracts the best and brightest from the rest of the world and melds them into a diverse culture of creativity. China has a larger population to recruit from domestically, but, in Lee’s view, its Sino-centric culture will make it less creative than the US.¶ That is a view that Americans should take to heart. If Obama succeeds in enacting immigration reform in his second term, he will have gone a long way toward fulfilling his promise to maintain the strength of the US.
|
Nye 12 Joseph S. Nye, a former US assistant secretary of defense and chairman of the US National Intelligence Council, is University Professor at Harvard University. “Immigration and American Power,” December 10, Project Syndicate, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/obama-needs-immigration-reform-to-maintain-america-s-strength-by-joseph-s--nye
|
The U S is a nation of immigrants. In recent years US politics has had a strong anti-immigration slant But several prominent Republican politicians are now urging their party to reconsider its anti-immigration policies, and plans for immigration reform will be on the agenda at the beginning of Obama’s second term. Successful reform will be an important step in preventing the decline of American power. immigration strengthens US power. at least 83 countries and territories currently have fertility rates that are below the level needed to keep their population constant. America is one of the few that may avoid demographic decline and maintain its share of world population. Today, the US is the world’s third most populous country; 50 years from now it is still likely to be third This is highly relevant to economic power: whereas nearly all other developed countries will face a growing burden of providing for the older generation, immigration could help to attenuate the policy problem for the US. skilled immigrants can be important to long-term growth. There is a strong correlation between the number of visas for skilled applicants and patents filed in the US. At the beginning of this century, Chinese- and Indian-born engineers were running one-quarter of Silicon Valley’s technology businesses Immigrants or children of immigrants founded roughly 40% of the 2010 Fortune 500 companies. Equally important are immigration’s benefits for America’s soft power. The fact that people want to come to the US enhances its appeal, and immigrants’ upward mobility is attractive to people in other countries. The US is a magnet, and many people can envisage themselves as Americans, in part because so many successful Americans look like them. connections between immigrants and their families and friends back home help to convey accurate and positive information about the US. it helps to broaden Americans’ attitudes and views of the world in an era of globalization. Rather than diluting hard and soft power, immigration enhances both. China will not surpass the US as the leading power of the twenty-first century, precisely because the US attracts the best and brightest If Obama succeeds in enacting immigration reform in his second term, he will have gone a long way toward fulfilling his promise to maintain the strength of the US.
|
Reform’s key to heg
| 6,095 | 19 | 2,354 | 956 | 4 | 377 | 0.004184 | 0.394351 |
Politics DA - SCDI 2013.html5
|
Sun Country (SCDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,190 |
Some enduring problems stand squarely in the way of partnership and effective cooperation. The inability of Washington to reform its broken immigration system is a constant source of friction between the United States and nearly every other country in the Americas. Yet US officials rarely refer to immigration as a foreign policy issue. Domestic policy debates on this issue disregard the United States’ hemispheric agenda as well as the interests of other nations.
|
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]
|
Some enduring problems stand in the way of partnership and effective cooperation. inability of Washington to reform its broken immigration system is a constant source of friction between the U S and every other country in the Americas. immigration debates disregard the United States’ hemispheric agenda as well as the interests of other nations.
|
CIR’s key to Latin American relations
| 466 | 37 | 346 | 73 | 6 | 54 | 0.082192 | 0.739726 |
Politics DA - SCDI 2013.html5
|
Sun Country (SCDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,191 |
1. House Republicans A majority of the House Republican caucus is likely opposed to the Senate bill. The voteview blog, written by political scientists Christopher Hare, Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, estimates that if the House voted on the Senate bill, it would pass, 303 to 128, but, Republicans would split 103 to 128. Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said he will not bring a bill to the floor that does not get the support of a majority of his caucus. (This is known as the "Hastert rule.") Boehner also clarified last week that he would maintain the Hastert rule for any conference bill, or bill that is a compromise between the House and Senate bills, as well. 2. President's Second Term Since the 22nd Amendment was added to the Constitution limiting the president to two terms, significant pieces of legislation rarely get passed in a president's second term. Large, transformational bills generally require presidential leadership. A president's ability to usher such bills through Congress is significantly diminished, though, once they are no longer able to run for a second term. During the George W. Bush presidency, for example, he was successful at getting two tax cut bills and the Patriot Act passed during his first term, but failed to get Social Security reform and immigration reform in his second term. 3. Economic Uncertainty As the bill makes its way through Congress, the public may get cold feet as worries about the economy take precedence. There is a debate, though, over whether the law would help or hurt the economy. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, issued a report stating that law would hurt the economy because most new immigrants would receive more in government benefits than they pay in taxes. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued a report saying it would boost the economy by increasing investment and productivity. The CBO report also said, though, that wages would decrease slightly and the unemployment rate would increase slightly. Recent Gallup polls show that Americans' confidence in the economy is more negative than positive. Plus, when Gallup asked Americans an open-ended question about their greatest worries, the most common answers were the economy, the national debt and employment, in that order. With that high level of uncertainty about the economy, constituents in key districts may be reluctant to ask their congressional representatives to support a new, far-reaching law.
|
Nazworth 7/2 Napp Nazworth , Christian Post Reporter July 2, 2013|6:19 am 3 Reasons Immigration Reform Won't Pass, and 3 Reasons It Will Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/3-reasons-immigration-reform-wont-pass-and-3-reasons-it-will-99172/#IqvGzf7QEUfE5edx.99
|
A majority of the House Republican caucus is likely opposed to the Senate bill. The voteview blog, written by political scientists estimates that if the House voted on the Senate bill, it would pass, 303 to 128, but, Republicans would split 103 to 128 Boehner (R-Ohio) has said he will not bring a bill to the floor that does not get the support of a majority of his caucus. (This is known as the "Hastert rule.") Boehner also clarified last week that he would maintain the Hastert rule for any conference bill, or bill that is a compromise between the House and Senate bills, as well Since the 22nd Amendment was added to the Constitution limiting the president to two terms, significant pieces of legislation rarely get passed in a president's second term transformational bills generally require presidential leadership A president's ability to usher such bills through Congress is significantly diminished, though, once they are no longer able to run for a second term As the bill makes its way through Congress, the public may get cold feet as worries about the economy take precedence. There is a debate, though, over whether the law would help or hurt the economy. The Heritage Foundation issued a report stating that law would hurt the economy because most new immigrants would receive more in government benefits than they pay in taxes The CBO report also said, though, that wages would decrease slightly and the unemployment rate would increase slightly Gallup asked Americans an open-ended question about their greatest worries, the most common answers were the economy, the national debt and employment, in that order constituents in key districts may be reluctant to ask their congressional representatives to support a new, far-reaching law
|
Won’t pass – house republicans, 2nd term president, and economic uncertainty
| 2,482 | 76 | 1,754 | 401 | 11 | 289 | 0.027431 | 0.720698 |
Politics DA - SCDI 2013.html5
|
Sun Country (SCDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,192 |
While some U.S. lawmakers predict Congress can send an immigration bill to the president's desk soon, a lot of Americans consider that wishful thinking. Sixty-nine percent of registered voters say they don't think members of Congress will be able to break through the partisan gridlock to pass a comprehensive reform package this year, while 27% have more faith in their elected leaders, according to the Quinnipiac University survey released Friday. But those numbers show more optimism than in May, when slightly more voters–71%–didn't think they'd see an immigration bill come out of Congress, while fewer–25%–said the opposite. While the Senate passed a comprehensive package with bipartisan support late last month, the issue's fate now hangs in the hands for the Republican-controlled House. House Republicans met Wednesday to discuss the measure. According to those who attended the session, the GOP lawmakers agreed the country's immigration system needed to be fixed, but they were more divided over how to solve the problem. They rejected the Senate version and insisted on drafting their own bill, a move that will extend the immigration debate farther, possibly through the rest of the year. House GOP uncertain over immigration reform And the longer it takes for Congress to move on an immigration bill, the more likely it will become a big issue in next year's mid-term elections. But the poll indicates that a plurality of voters–47%–say their elected leaders' votes on the bill will make no difference on whether they decide to support their representatives' respective re-election bids. Twenty-eight percent say a vote for immigration reform make them more likely to back their representative, while 19% say it will make them less likely to do so. Five reasons immigration reform isn't close to the finish line Breaking it down by party, 45% of Republicans say it makes no difference, while slightly less–20%–say it makes them more likely and 30% say it makes them less likely to support their representative. For Democrats, 45% say it makes no difference, while 44% say it makes them more likely and 6% say less likely. The Quinnipiac University survey was conducted June 28-July 8, with 2,014 registered voters nationwide questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus 2.2 percentage points.
|
Ashley Killough 7/12, CNN Correspondent, Poll: More than two-thirds doubt immigration bill can pass http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/12/poll-more-than-two-thirds-doubt-immigration-bill-can-pass/
|
Sixty-nine percent of registered voters say they don't think members of Congress will be able to break through the partisan gridlock to pass a comprehensive reform package this year the Senate passed a comprehensive package with bipartisan support late last month, the issue's fate now hangs in the hands for the Republican-controlled House House Republicans agreed the country's immigration system needed to be fixed, but they were more divided over how to solve the problem. They rejected the Senate version that will extend the immigration debate farther, possibly through the rest of the year Five reasons immigration reform isn't close to the finish line Breaking it down by party, 45% of Republicans say it makes no difference, while slightly less–20%–say it makes them more likely and 30% say it makes them less likely to support their representative. For Democrats, 45% say it makes no difference, while 44% say it makes them more likely and 6% say less likely
|
Won’t pass – house republicans won’t vote for the senate bill
| 2,341 | 61 | 968 | 373 | 11 | 158 | 0.029491 | 0.423592 |
Politics DA - SCDI 2013.html5
|
Sun Country (SCDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,193 |
Three months after an elementary school massacre in Connecticut reignited a debate over the nation’s gun laws, President Obama is urging Congress to “join me in finishing the job” by taking swift action on gun-control legislation. Obama, in his weekly radio address released on Saturday, noted the preliminary steps taken in the Senate to advance such measures as universal background checks for all gun buyers and a federal crack-down on gun trafficking. But he chastised Congress for the slow pace of progress, contrasting their indecision with the widespread popular support across the country for strengthening the background check system and other proposals. “Today there is still genuine disagreement among well-meaning people about what steps we should take to reduce the epidemic of gun violence in this country,” Obama said. “But you – the American people – have spoken. You’ve made it clear that it’s time to do something.” Before departing on his trip to Israel and Jordan, Obama spoke with lawmakers from both parties about the gun measures under consideration, according to a White House official. The president plans to continue pressuring Congress on the issue, including additional travel outside of Washington designed to mobilize public support, said the official, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity. Obama’s remarks come after a difficult week for his gun violence agenda. After a ban on assault weapons — supported by Obama and authored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) — did not gain enough bipartisan traction on Capitol Hill, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) decided not to include it as part of a bill encompassing several other gun-control proposals that the Senate is scheduled to begin debating in early April. Reid’s decision severely diminished any prospect of passing a prohibition on hundreds of specific so-called assault weapons, although Feinstein still can introduce the assault weapons ban as an amendment to the full bill. The centerpiece of Obama’s gun-control agenda is universal background checks, which has by far the most support among Americans, and appears to have more momentum in the Senate than the assault weapons ban. In his radio address, Obama urged the Senate and the House to vote on each of the proposals he is championing – from background checks to bans on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines to school safety measures to the gun trafficking bill. “These ideas shouldn’t be controversial – they’re common sense,” Obama said. “They’re supported by a majority of the American people. And I urge the Senate and the House to give each of them a vote.”
|
Washington Post, 3-23-’13 (Philip Rucker, “Obama to Congress: Finish the job on gun control” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/03/23/obama-to-congress-join-me-in-finishing-the-job/)
|
Obama is urging Congress to “join me in finishing the job” by taking swift action on gun-control legislation Obama chastised Congress for the slow pace of progress Obama spoke with lawmakers from both parties about the gun measures under consideration The president plans to continue pressuring Congress on the issue Obama’s remarks come after a difficult week for his gun violence agenda. a ban on assault weapons did not gain enough bipartisan traction Obama urged the Senate and the House to vote on each of the proposals he is championing
|
Spending pc on gun control
| 2,648 | 26 | 542 | 424 | 5 | 90 | 0.011792 | 0.212264 |
Politics DA - SCDI 2013.html5
|
Sun Country (SCDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,194 |
Obama have a speech yesterday on gun control wherein he tried to shame the country for not supporting his proposal. Apparently the country has “forgotten those kids” the President told us, of course speaking about the Newtown shooting. It just so happens that the police in Connecticut released their investigation of Adam Lanza yesterday, telling us nothing that we either didn’t know or didn’t think was a likely conclusion. Obama of course ran with all of this, politicizing the murder of children. Because of course people who don’t support his gun control policies must hate children. The timing of Obama’s speech is curious. Surely the White House knew the Connecticut investigation was going to be released yesterday because by law in that state it was subject to FOIA requests. So perhaps the administration wanted to take advantage of that release, trying to create the chaotic conditions necessary to push through their gun control package. That said, surely the administration knows that important speeches like the one Obama believes he gave yesterday shouldn’t be given the day before a holiday weekend. While yours truly doesn’t celebrate Good Friday or Easter, a healthy majority of the country does celebrate them. From a political standpoint it makes no sense to give a big speech the day before those holidays begin. Yesterday is the sort of day you dump documents, announce the resignation of cabinet members or release bad news. It isn’t the day to make a big push on what the President considers an important piece of legislation. Maybe the White House thinks they can connect gun control, Newtown and the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If so, the connection was missed by 99% of the country. Obama can’t be pleased that his gun control measure is doomed to failure. He hates the Republican Party and will no doubt blame them for its defeat. Obama has to hate the Democrats who will also vote against it, who he likely views as traitors. His speech yesterday ramped up the rhetoric on this front. He’s no longer after an assault weapons ban, he’s now calling such guns ”weapons of war.” The left is always very good at changing language to suit their interests. On some level it’s surprising that Obama didn’t call ‘assault weapons’ ‘weapons of war’ in the first place. If he’s going to try and emotionally manipulate the country into supporting gun control, you would think he would go all the way with it. Like with Obamacare, the country doesn’t favor Obama’s gun control push. Obama has made the same mistake Bush made with social security reform in 2005. He’s wasted political capital on an issue he cannot win. After spending three months campaigning on this issue, to waste a big speech before a holiday weekend almost appears like amateur hour. There will be no additional support for Obama’s gun control efforts, he won’t be able to cajole his own party into fully supporting it. The President would be better off politically if he let this issue die in order to focus on something he might be able to win such as immigration. Obama strikes me as enough of a narcissist that he won’t let this issue die quickly enough.
|
Birn, 3-29-’13 (Steven, “Obama’s Failed Gun Control Shaming Speech” http://stevenbirnspeaks.com/2013/03/29/obamas-failed-gun-control-shaming-speech/)
|
Obama tried to shame the country for not supporting his proposal The timing of Obama’s speech is curious From a political standpoint it makes no sense to give a big speech the day before those holidays begin It isn’t the day to make a big push on what the President considers an important piece of legislation Obama can’t be pleased that his gun control measure is doomed to failure Obama has to hate the Democrats who will also vote against it, who he likely views as traitors the country doesn’t favor Obama’s gun control push. Obama has made the same mistake Bush made with social security reform He’s wasted political capital on an issue he cannot win to waste a big speech before a holiday weekend almost appears like amateur hour. There will be no additional support for Obama’s gun control efforts, he won’t be able to cajole his own party into fully supporting it. The President would be better off politically if he let this issue die in order to focus on immigration. Obama strikes me as enough of a narcissist that he won’t let this issue die quickly enough.
|
Gun control will drain pc*
| 3,157 | 26 | 1,069 | 538 | 5 | 191 | 0.009294 | 0.355019 |
Politics DA - SCDI 2013.html5
|
Sun Country (SCDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,195 |
What is of more interest to me, however, is what her selection reveals about the basis of presidential power. Political scientists, like baseball writers evaluating hitters, have devised numerous means of measuring a president’s influence in Congress. I will devote a separate post to discussing these, but in brief, they often center on the creation of legislative “box scores” designed to measure how many times a president’s preferred piece of legislation, or nominee to the executive branch or the courts, is approved by Congress. That is, how many pieces of legislation that the president supports actually pass Congress? How often do members of Congress vote with the president’s preferences? How often is a president’s policy position supported by roll call outcomes? These measures, however, are a misleading gauge of presidential power – they are a better indicator of congressional power. This is because how members of Congress vote on a nominee or legislative item is rarely influenced by anything a president does. Although journalists (and political scientists) often focus on the legislative “endgame” to gauge presidential influence – will the President swing enough votes to get his preferred legislation enacted? – this mistakes an outcome with actual evidence of presidential influence. Once we control for other factors – a member of Congress’ ideological and partisan leanings, the political leanings of her constituency, whether she’s up for reelection or not – we can usually predict how she will vote without needing to know much of anything about what the president wants. (I am ignoring the importance of a president’s veto power for the moment.) Despite the much publicized and celebrated instances of presidential arm-twisting during the legislative endgame, then, most legislative outcomes don’t depend on presidential lobbying. But this is not to say that presidents lack influence. Instead, the primary means by which presidents influence what Congress does is through their ability to determine the alternatives from which Congress must choose. That is, presidential power is largely an exercise in agenda-setting – not arm-twisting. And we see this in the Sotomayer nomination. Barring a major scandal, she will almost certainly be confirmed to the Supreme Court whether Obama spends the confirmation hearings calling every Senator or instead spends the next few weeks ignoring the Senate debate in order to play Halo III on his Xbox. That is, how senators decide to vote on Sotomayor will have almost nothing to do with Obama’s lobbying from here on in (or lack thereof). His real influence has already occurred, in the decision to present Sotomayor as his nominee.
|
Dickinson 9 professor of political science at Middlebury College and taught previously at Harvard University where he worked under the supervision of presidential scholar Richard Neustadt (5/26/09, Matthew, Presidential Power: A NonPartisan Analysis of Presidential Politics, “Sotomayor, Obama and Presidential Power,” http://blogs.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2009/05/26/sotamayor-obama-and-presidential-power/, JMP)
|
how members of Congress vote is rarely influenced by anything a president does Once we control for other factors – a member of Congress’ ideological and partisan leanings, the political leanings of her constituency, whether she’s up for reelection or not we can usually predict without know much of anything about what the president wants Despite the much publicized and celebrated instances , most legislative outcomes don’t depend on presidential lobbying
|
No vote switch; the plan has zero effect and it’s not real world. Votes are based off of internal dynamics and issues are compartmentalized.
| 2,699 | 140 | 457 | 424 | 24 | 71 | 0.056604 | 0.167453 |
Politics DA - SCDI 2013.html5
|
Sun Country (SCDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,196 |
On Tuesday, in his State of the Union address, President Obama will do what every president does this time of year. For about 60 minutes, he will lay out a sprawling and ambitious wish list highlighted by gun control and immigration reform, climate change and debt reduction. In response, the pundits will do what they always do this time of year: They will talk about how unrealistic most of the proposals are, discussions often informed by sagacious reckonings of how much “political capital” Obama possesses to push his program through.¶ Most of this talk will have no bearing on what actually happens over the next four years.¶ Consider this: Three months ago, just before the November election, if someone had talked seriously about Obama having enough political capital to oversee passage of both immigration reform and gun-control legislation at the beginning of his second term—even after winning the election by 4 percentage points and 5 million votes (the actual final tally)—this person would have been called crazy and stripped of his pundit’s license. (It doesn’t exist, but it ought to.) In his first term, in a starkly polarized country, the president had been so frustrated by GOP resistance that he finally issued a limited executive order last August permitting immigrants who entered the country illegally as children to work without fear of deportation for at least two years. Obama didn’t dare to even bring up gun control, a Democratic “third rail” that has cost the party elections and that actually might have been even less popular on the right than the president’s health care law. And yet, for reasons that have very little to do with Obama’s personal prestige or popularity—variously put in terms of a “mandate” or “political capital”—chances are fair that both will now happen.¶ What changed? In the case of gun control, of course, it wasn’t the election. It was the horror of the 20 first-graders who were slaughtered in Newtown, Conn., in mid-December. The sickening reality of little girls and boys riddled with bullets from a high-capacity assault weapon seemed to precipitate a sudden tipping point in the national conscience. One thing changed after another. Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association marginalized himself with poorly chosen comments soon after the massacre. The pro-gun lobby, once a phalanx of opposition, began to fissure into reasonables and crazies. Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who was shot in the head two years ago and is still struggling to speak and walk, started a PAC with her husband to appeal to the moderate middle of gun owners. Then she gave riveting and poignant testimony to the Senate, challenging lawmakers: “Be bold.”¶ As a result, momentum has appeared to build around some kind of a plan to curtail sales of the most dangerous weapons and ammunition and the way people are permitted to buy them. It’s impossible to say now whether such a bill will pass and, if it does, whether it will make anything more than cosmetic changes to gun laws. But one thing is clear: The political tectonics have shifted dramatically in very little time. Whole new possibilities exist now that didn’t a few weeks ago.¶ Meanwhile, the Republican members of the Senate’s so-called Gang of Eight are pushing hard for a new spirit of compromise on immigration reform, a sharp change after an election year in which the GOP standard-bearer declared he would make life so miserable for the 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. that they would “self-deport.” But this turnaround has very little to do with Obama’s personal influence—his political mandate, as it were. It has almost entirely to do with just two numbers: 71 and 27. That’s 71 percent for Obama, 27 percent for Mitt Romney, the breakdown of the Hispanic vote in the 2012 presidential election. Obama drove home his advantage by giving a speech on immigration reform on Jan. 29 at a Hispanic-dominated high school in Nevada, a swing state he won by a surprising 8 percentage points in November. But the movement on immigration has mainly come out of the Republican Party’s recent introspection, and the realization by its more thoughtful members, such as Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, that without such a shift the party may be facing demographic death in a country where the 2010 census showed, for the first time, that white births have fallen into the minority. It’s got nothing to do with Obama’s political capital or, indeed, Obama at all.¶ The point is not that “political capital” is a meaningless term. Often it is a synonym for “mandate” or “momentum” in the aftermath of a decisive election—and just about every politician ever elected has tried to claim more of a mandate than he actually has. Certainly, Obama can say that because he was elected and Romney wasn’t, he has a better claim on the country’s mood and direction. Many pundits still defend political capital as a useful metaphor at least. “It’s an unquantifiable but meaningful concept,” says Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. “You can’t really look at a president and say he’s got 37 ounces of political capital. But the fact is, it’s a concept that matters, if you have popularity and some momentum on your side.”¶ The real problem is that the idea of political capital—or mandates, or momentum—is so poorly defined that presidents and pundits often get it wrong. “Presidents usually over-estimate it,” says George Edwards, a presidential scholar at Texas A&M University. “The best kind of political capital—some sense of an electoral mandate to do something—is very rare. It almost never happens. In 1964, maybe. And to some degree in 1980.” For that reason, political capital is a concept that misleads far more than it enlightens. It is distortionary. It conveys the idea that we know more than we really do about the ever-elusive concept of political power, and it discounts the way unforeseen events can suddenly change everything. Instead, it suggests, erroneously, that a political figure has a concrete amount of political capital to invest, just as someone might have real investment capital—that a particular leader can bank his gains, and the size of his account determines what he can do at any given moment in history.¶ Naturally, any president has practical and electoral limits. Does he have a majority in both chambers of Congress and a cohesive coalition behind him? Obama has neither at present. And unless a surge in the economy—at the moment, still stuck—or some other great victory gives him more momentum, it is inevitable that the closer Obama gets to the 2014 election, the less he will be able to get done. Going into the midterms, Republicans will increasingly avoid any concessions that make him (and the Democrats) stronger.¶ But the abrupt emergence of the immigration and gun-control issues illustrates how suddenly shifts in mood can occur and how political interests can align in new ways just as suddenly. Indeed, the pseudo-concept of political capital masks a larger truth about Washington that is kindergarten simple: You just don’t know what you can do until you try. Or as Ornstein himself once wrote years ago, “Winning wins.” In theory, and in practice, depending on Obama’s handling of any particular issue, even in a polarized time, he could still deliver on a lot of his second-term goals, depending on his skill and the breaks. Unforeseen catalysts can appear, like Newtown. Epiphanies can dawn, such as when many Republican Party leaders suddenly woke up in panic to the huge disparity in the Hispanic vote.¶ Some political scientists who study the elusive calculus of how to pass legislation and run successful presidencies say that political capital is, at best, an empty concept, and that almost nothing in the academic literature successfully quantifies or even defines it. “It can refer to a very abstract thing, like a president’s popularity, but there’s no mechanism there. That makes it kind of useless,” says Richard Bensel, a government professor at Cornell University. Even Ornstein concedes that the calculus is far more complex than the term suggests. Winning on one issue often changes the calculation for the next issue; there is never any known amount of capita l. “The idea here is, if an issue comes up where the conventional wisdom is that president is not going to get what he wants, and he gets it, then each time that happens, it changes the calculus of the other actors” Ornstein says. “If they think he’s going to win, they may change positions to get on the winning side. It’s a bandwagon effect.”¶ ALL THE WAY WITH LBJ¶ Sometimes, a clever practitioner of power can get more done just because he’s aggressive and knows the hallways of Congress well. Texas A&M’s Edwards is right to say that the outcome of the 1964 election, Lyndon Johnson’s landslide victory over Barry Goldwater, was one of the few that conveyed a mandate. But one of the main reasons for that mandate (in addition to Goldwater’s ineptitude as a candidate) was President Johnson’s masterful use of power leading up to that election, and his ability to get far more done than anyone thought possible, given his limited political capital. In the newest volume in his exhaustive study of LBJ, The Passage of Power, historian Robert Caro recalls Johnson getting cautionary advice after he assumed the presidency from the assassinated John F. Kennedy in late 1963. Don’t focus on a long-stalled civil-rights bill, advisers told him, because it might jeopardize Southern lawmakers’ support for a tax cut and appropriations bills the president needed. “One of the wise, practical people around the table [said that] the presidency has only a certain amount of coinage to expend, and you oughtn’t to expend it on this,” Caro writes. (Coinage, of course, was what political capital was called in those days.) Johnson replied, “Well, what the hell’s the presidency for?”¶ Johnson didn’t worry about coinage, and he got the Civil Rights Act enacted, along with much else: Medicare, a tax cut, antipoverty programs. He appeared to understand not just the ways of Congress but also the way to maximize the momentum he possessed in the lingering mood of national grief and determination by picking the right issues, as Caro records. “Momentum is not a mysterious mistress,” LBJ said. “It is a controllable fact of political life.” Johnson had the skill and wherewithal to realize that, at that moment of history, he could have unlimited coinage if he handled the politics right. He did. (At least until Vietnam, that is.)¶ And then there are the presidents who get the politics, and the issues, wrong. It was the last president before Obama who was just starting a second term, George W. Bush, who really revived the claim of political capital, which he was very fond of wielding. Then Bush promptly demonstrated that he didn’t fully understand the concept either.¶ At his first news conference after his 2004 victory, a confident-sounding Bush declared, “I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. That’s my style.” The 43rd president threw all of his political capital at an overriding passion: the partial privatization of Social Security. He mounted a full-bore public-relations campaign that included town-hall meetings across the country.¶ Bush failed utterly, of course. But the problem was not that he didn’t have enough political capital. Yes, he may have overestimated his standing. Bush’s margin over John Kerry was thin—helped along by a bumbling Kerry campaign that was almost the mirror image of Romney’s gaffe-filled failure this time—but that was not the real mistake. The problem was that whatever credibility or stature Bush thought he had earned as a newly reelected president did nothing to make Social Security privatization a better idea in most people’s eyes. Voters didn’t trust the plan, and four years later, at the end of Bush’s term, the stock-market collapse bore out the public’s skepticism. Privatization just didn’t have any momentum behind it, no matter who was pushing it or how much capital Bush spent to sell it.¶ The mistake that Bush made with Social Security, says John Sides, an associate professor of political science at George Washington University and a well-followed political blogger, “was that just because he won an election, he thought he had a green light. But there was no sense of any kind of public urgency on Social Security reform. It’s like he went into the garage where various Republican policy ideas were hanging up and picked one. I don’t think Obama’s going to make that mistake.… Bush decided he wanted to push a rock up a hill. He didn’t understand how steep the hill was. I think Obama has more momentum on his side because of the Republican Party’s concerns about the Latino vote and the shooting at Newtown.” Obama may also get his way on the debt ceiling, not because of his reelection, Sides says, “but because Republicans are beginning to doubt whether taking a hard line on fiscal policy is a good idea,” as the party suffers in the polls.¶ THE REAL LIMITS ON POWER¶ Presidents are limited in what they can do by time and attention span, of course, just as much as they are by electoral balances in the House and Senate. But this, too, has nothing to do with political capital. Another well-worn meme of recent years was that Obama used up too much political capital passing the health care law in his first term. But the real problem was that the plan was unpopular, the economy was bad, and the president didn’t realize that the national mood (yes, again, the national mood) was at a tipping point against big-government intervention, with the tea-party revolt about to burst on the scene. For Americans in 2009 and 2010—haunted by too many rounds of layoffs, appalled by the Wall Street bailout, aghast at the amount of federal spending that never seemed to find its way into their pockets—government-imposed health care coverage was simply an intervention too far. So was the idea of another economic stimulus. Cue the tea party and what ensued: two titanic fights over the debt ceiling. Obama, like Bush, had settled on pushing an issue that was out of sync with the country’s mood.¶ Unlike Bush, Obama did ultimately get his idea passed. But the bigger political problem with health care reform was that it distracted the government’s attention from other issues that people cared about more urgently, such as the need to jump-start the economy and financial reform. Various congressional staffers told me at the time that their bosses didn’t really have the time to understand how the Wall Street lobby was riddling the Dodd-Frank financial-reform legislation with loopholes. Health care was sucking all the oxygen out of the room, the aides said.¶ Weighing the imponderables of momentum, the often-mystical calculations about when the historic moment is ripe for an issue, will never be a science. It is mainly intuition, and its best practitioners have a long history in American politics. This is a tale told well in Steven Spielberg’s hit movie Lincoln. Daniel Day-Lewis’s Abraham Lincoln attempts a lot of behind-the-scenes vote-buying to win passage of the 13th Amendment, banning slavery, along with eloquent attempts to move people’s hearts and minds. He appears to be using the political capital of his reelection and the turning of the tide in the Civil War. But it’s clear that a surge of conscience, a sense of the changing times, has as much to do with the final vote as all the backroom horse-trading. “The reason I think the idea of political capital is kind of distorting is that it implies you have chits you can give out to people. It really oversimplifies why you elect politicians, or why they can do what Lincoln did,” says Tommy Bruce, a former political consultant in Washington.¶ Consider, as another example, the storied political career of President Franklin Roosevelt. Because the mood was ripe for dramatic change in the depths of the Great Depression, FDR was able to push an astonishing array of New Deal programs through a largely compliant Congress, assuming what some described as near-dictatorial powers. But in his second term, full of confidence because of a landslide victory in 1936 that brought in unprecedented Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, Roosevelt overreached with his infamous Court-packing proposal. All of a sudden, the political capital that experts thought was limitless disappeared. FDR’s plan to expand the Supreme Court by putting in his judicial allies abruptly created an unanticipated wall of opposition from newly reunited Republicans and conservative Southern Democrats. FDR thus inadvertently handed back to Congress, especially to the Senate, the power and influence he had seized in his first term. Sure, Roosevelt had loads of popularity and momentum in 1937. He seemed to have a bank vault full of political capital. But, once again, a president simply chose to take on the wrong issue at the wrong time; this time, instead of most of the political interests in the country aligning his way, they opposed him. Roosevelt didn’t fully recover until World War II, despite two more election victories.¶ In terms of Obama’s second-term agenda, what all these shifting tides of momentum and political calculation mean is this: Anything goes. Obama has no more elections to win, and he needs to worry only about the support he will have in the House and Senate after 2014. But if he picks issues that the country’s mood will support—such as, perhaps, immigration reform and gun control—there is no reason to think he can’t win far more victories than any of the careful calculators of political capital now believe is possible, including battles over tax reform and deficit reduction.¶ Amid today’s atmosphere of Republican self-doubt, a new, more mature Obama seems to be emerging, one who has his agenda clearly in mind and will ride the mood of the country more adroitly. If he can get some early wins—as he already has, apparently, on the fiscal cliff and the upper-income tax increase—that will create momentum, and one win may well lead to others. “Winning wins.”¶ Obama himself learned some hard lessons over the past four years about the falsity of the political-capital concept. Despite his decisive victory over John McCain in 2008, he fumbled the selling of his $787 billion stimulus plan by portraying himself naively as a “post-partisan” president who somehow had been given the electoral mandate to be all things to all people. So Obama tried to sell his stimulus as a long-term restructuring plan that would “lay the groundwork for long-term economic growth.” The president thus fed GOP suspicions that he was just another big-government liberal. Had he understood better that the country was digging in against yet more government intervention and had sold the stimulus as what it mainly was—a giant shot of adrenalin to an economy with a stopped heart, a pure emergency measure—he might well have escaped the worst of the backlash. But by laying on ambitious programs, and following up quickly with his health care plan, he only sealed his reputation on the right as a closet socialist.¶ After that, Obama’s public posturing provoked automatic opposition from the GOP, no matter what he said. If the president put his personal imprimatur on any plan—from deficit reduction, to health care, to immigration reform—Republicans were virtually guaranteed to come out against it. But this year, when he sought to exploit the chastened GOP’s newfound willingness to compromise on immigration, his approach was different. He seemed to understand that the Republicans needed to reclaim immigration reform as their own issue, and he was willing to let them have some credit. When he mounted his bully pulpit in Nevada, he delivered another new message as well: You Republicans don’t have to listen to what I say anymore. And don’t worry about who’s got the political capital. Just take a hard look at where I’m saying this: in a state you were supposed to have won but lost because of the rising Hispanic vote.¶ Obama was cleverly pointing the GOP toward conclusions that he knows it is already reaching on its own: If you, the Republicans, want to have any kind of a future in a vastly changed electoral map, you have no choice but to move. It’s your choice.¶ The future is wide open.
|
Hirsh, Chief Correspondent National Journal, 2-7-’13 (Michael, “There’s No Such Thing as Political Capital” National Journal, http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-political-capital-20130207)
|
pundits will talk about how much “political capital” Obama possesses this talk will have no bearing on what actually happens Three months ago if someone had talked about Obama having enough political capital to oversee immigration reform and gun-control legislation this person would have been called crazy Obama didn’t dare to even bring up gun control, a Democratic “third rail for reasons that have very little to do with Obama’s political capital”—chances are fair that both will now happen What changed the horror of the 20 first-graders who were slaughtered As a result, momentum has appeared The political tectonics have shifted dramatically in very little time Republican members are pushing hard for a new spirit of compromise on immigration reform this turnaround has very little to do with Obama’s personal influence It has almost entirely to do with just two numbers: 71 and 27. That’s 71 percent for Obama, 27 percent for Mitt Romney, the breakdown of the Hispanic vote The point is not that “political capital” is a meaningless term The real problem is that the idea of political capital—or mandates, or momentum—is so poorly defined that presidents and pundits often get it wrong. “Presidents usually over-estimate it says Edwards presidential scholar at Texas A&M University. “The best kind of political capital is very rare. It almost never happens In 1964, maybe political capital is a concept that misleads far more than it enlightens It conveys the idea that we know more than we really do about the ever-elusive concept of political power, and it discounts the way unforeseen events can suddenly change everything. it suggests, erroneously, that a political figure has a concrete amount of political capital to invest any president has practical and electoral limits. Does he have a majority in both chambers of Congress and a cohesive coalition Obama has neither the abrupt emergence of the immigration and gun-control issues illustrates how suddenly shifts in mood can occur the pseudo-concept of political capital masks a larger truth about Washington You just don’t know what you can do until you try Winning wins depending on Obama’s handling of any particular issue, even in a polarized time, he could still deliver on a lot of his second-term goals, depending on his skill and the breaks. Unforeseen catalysts can appear political scientists who study the elusive calculus say political capital is, at best, an empty concept almost nothing in the academic literature successfully quantifies or even defines it there’s no mechanism there. That makes it kind of useless Winning on one issue often changes the calculation for the next issue; there is never any known amount of capita l if an issue comes up where the conventional wisdom is that president is not going to get what he wants, and he gets it, then each time that happens, it changes the calculus of the other actors If they think he’s going to win, they may change positions to get on the winning side. It’s a bandwagon effect.”¶ the outcome of the 1964 election was one of the few that conveyed a mandate. But one of the main reasons was Johnson’s ability to get far more done than anyone thought possible, given his limited political capital Johnson didn’t worry about coinage, and he got the Civil Rights Act enacted, along with much else: Medicare, a tax cut, antipoverty programs Momentum is not a mysterious mistress “It is a controllable fact of political life Bush threw all of his political capital at Social Security the problem was not that he didn’t have enough political capital whatever credibility Bush thought he had earned as a newly reelected president did nothing to make Social Security privatization a better idea in most people’s eyes Obama has more momentum on his side because of the Republican Party’s concerns about the Latino vote and the shooting at Newtown because Republicans are beginning to doubt whether taking a hard line on fiscal policy is a good idea, Presidents are limited in what they can do by time and attention span But this has nothing to do with political capital political capital is distorting it implies you have chits you can give out to people. It really oversimplifies why you elect politicians In terms of Obama’s second-term agenda, what all these shifting tides of momentum and political calculation mean is this: Anything goes there is no reason to think he can’t win far more victories than any of the careful calculators of political capital now believe is possible a new, more mature Obama seems to be emerging, one who has his agenda clearly in mind and will ride the mood of the country more adroitly. If he can get some early wins that will create momentum, and one win may well lead to others. “Winning wins
|
Political capital is fabricated- you can’t predict momentum or unplanned events. There’s only a risk the plan is a win.
| 20,469 | 120 | 4,757 | 3,401 | 20 | 798 | 0.005881 | 0.234637 |
Politics DA - SCDI 2013.html5
|
Sun Country (SCDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,197 |
[M. Politics for The New Republic. “Why Rubio Will Probably Walk The senator may be too risk-averse to strike a deal on immigration” The New Republic, 4/2/13 http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112814/marco-rubio-and-immigration-reform-why-hes-likely-walk?utm_source=The+New+Republic&utm_campaign=c6bd8a4b25-TNR_Daily_040313&utm_medium=email# //GBS-JV]
|
Cogan 4-2
|
Rubio Will Probably Walk The senator may be too risk-averse to strike a deal
|
Rubio’ll walk on CIR
| 351 | 20 | 76 | 29 | 4 | 14 | 0.137931 | 0.482759 |
Politics DA - SCDI 2013.html5
|
Sun Country (SCDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,198 |
Cuba: A Move to Loosen the U.S. Embargo? With key members of the U.S. Congress calling for a loosening of the embargo on Cuba, and President Obama open to improving relations with the island state, Cuba could be this year’s big surprise, Clemons says. Raul Castro has approved a series of economic reforms since taking over from his brother, Fidel Castro, including a new law easing travel restrictions on Cubans. The reforms have motivated some members of the U.S. House of Representatives, including Rep. Joe Garcia, D-Fla., to call for more dialogue with Havana. Newly elected Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., has urged Washington to end the travel ban on U.S. citizens visiting Cuba. Implementing reforms like these would have positive diplomatic repercussions far beyond Cuba, says Clemons. “Cuba is a nation of 11 million people with a strong echo effect. How we deal with Cuba is a positive indication of how the U.S. is going to deal and relate with other countries that have neither large economies nor armies but are part of the often ignored middle range of nations that should matter to us.”
|
Murray 2013 (Terrence Murray, The Financialist, 1-23-13, “The Geopolitical Agenda for 2013”, http://www.thefinancialist.com/the-geopolitical-agenda-for-2013/)
|
With key members of the U.S. Congress calling for a loosening of the embargo on Cuba, and President Obama open to improving relations with the island state, Cuba could be this year’s big surprise, The reforms have motivated some members of the U.S. House of Representatives, including Rep. Joe Garcia, D-Fla., to call for more dialogue with Havana. Newly elected Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., has urged Washington to end the travel ban on U.S. citizens visiting Cuba. Implementing reforms like these would have positive diplomatic repercussions far beyond Cuba, says Clemons. “Cuba is a nation of 11 million people with a strong echo effect. How we deal with Cuba is a positive indication of how the U.S. is going to deal and relate with other countries
|
Plan Popular with key members of congress
| 1,096 | 41 | 749 | 185 | 7 | 126 | 0.037838 | 0.681081 |
Politics DA - SCDI 2013.html5
|
Sun Country (SCDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,199 |
As a result of your actions and changing demographics, families are more readily reuniting across the Florida straits, opening new channels of commerce and communication that are encouraging reconciliation among Cuban-Americans and a more general reframing of how best to support the Cuban people. Cuba’s recent decision to lift exit controls for most Cubans on the island is likely to accelerate this process of reconciliation within the Cuban diaspora, thereby softening support for counterproductive tactics like the embargo. The new travel rules also require a re-think of the outdated U.S. migration policy in order to manage a potential spike in departures from the island to the United States. For example, the team handling your immigration reform bill should be charged with devising proposals to reduce the special privileges afforded Cubans who make it to U.S. soil.
|
Ted Piccone [Senior Fellow and Deputy Director, Foreign Policy]¶ MEMORANDUM TO THE PRESIDENT | January 17, 2013¶ Opening to Havana¶ http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2013/01/opening-to-havana
|
Cuba’s recent decision to lift exit controls for most Cubans on the island is likely to accelerate this process of reconciliation within the Cuban diaspora, thereby softening support for counterproductive tactics like the embargo
|
Support collapsing for the embargo now
| 877 | 39 | 229 | 136 | 6 | 34 | 0.044118 | 0.25 |
Politics DA - SCDI 2013.html5
|
Sun Country (SCDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.