Sei sulla pagina 1di 95


Economy UQ

High Workforce
Econ high now workforce growing
Schwartz 7/2 senior staff writer for the New York Times, Recipient of the
Nathaniel Nash Award
(Nelson D. Schwartz, 7-2-2015, "U.S. Economy Adds 223,000 Jobs; Unemployment
at 5.3%,", Date Accessed: 7-6-2015) //NM
Not too hot, not too cold. But not, alas, just right. The economy added a healthy 223,000
jobs last month, the Labor Department reported Thursday, but with other indicators showing wages flat and
many Americans remaining on the sidelines, the overall economic picture for workers was not nearly as bright.

Although the unemployment rate fell to 5.3 percent, the lowest in seven
years, that was driven largely by an exodus from the work force, rather
than more people finding jobs. Moreover, the strong payroll gains for April and May, which had led
many analysts to conclude that the economy might finally be gaining momentum, were revised downward by

the unemployment rate didnt go down for the

right reasons, said Liz Ann Sonders, chief investment strategist at Charles Schwab. Perhaps most
60,000 jobs. This was an O.K. report, but

discouraging, average hourly earnings didnt budge in June despite the drop in the unemployment rate from 5.5
percent in May, disappointing hopes that wages were finally increasing for most workers. It was a strong sign that
plenty of slack remains in the job market, and that companies do not yet feel much pressure to raise pay to attract

The share of American adults either working or looking for a

job, which in many ways is a better gauge of economic strength than the
of cited unemployment rate, fell 0.3 percentage point in June. With Junes
drop to 62.6 percent, the so called labor participation rate is now at its
lowest since 1977. Among prime age adults, those 25 to 54, there has been no improvement in
needed employees.

participation this year. The latest jobs report is likely to sharpen debate among Federal Reserve officials about when

have pointed to the healthy pace of job growth as a reason to raise rates
later this year. They say a stronger labor market will inevitably result in faster inflation, and the Fed needs
to start moving in anticipation of that trend. Some officials, however, point to the weak pace of
wage growth, which also continued in June, as evidence that concerns
about inflation are premature.
to start raising the Feds benchmark interest rate. Janet L. Yellen, the Feds chairwoman, and other

Low Consumer Spending

Despite recent growth, lack of consumer spending is hurting
the economy
McCarthy 7/6 Professor of history at the University of Louisville
(Justin, 7-6-2015, U.S. Consumer Spending Flat in June, at $90,, Date
Accessed: 7-6-2015) //NM

Americans' daily self-reports of spending averaged $90 for

the month of June, essentially unchanged from the previous two months .

The latest average is also consistent with the June averages in 2013 and 2014. Gallup's daily spending measure
asks Americans to estimate the total amount they spent "yesterday" in restaurants, gas stations, stores or online -not counting home, vehicle or other major purchases, or normal monthly bills -- to provide an indication of

The June 2015 average is based on Gallup Daily

tracking interviews with more than 14,000 U.S. adults. Americans'
reported spending had been rather stagnant from 2009-2012 on the heels
of the global financial crisis. Beginning in late 2012, the metric began to rise and
continued to do so into 2013. Since then, it has hovered around the $90
mark, compared with much lower averages near the $70 mark in 2009-2012. Although this year's June
average is no different from the June 2013 and 2014 averages, it remains well
Americans' discretionary spending.

above the June figures Gallup recorded between 2009 and 2012. Spending each June has typically dipped slightly
compared with May, making the $1 decline this year consistent with the average $3 decline each June from 2009
through 2014. Spending between June and July, however, has usually increased a little, so it could increase this
month as well. From a recent vantage point, the lack of increase in spending could be related to Americans'
stagnant view of the economy as a whole. Gas prices dipped slightly during the second half of June, so the lower
costs could mean Americans are recalibrating their spending in accordance with the relief they're feeling at the

The recent Fourth of July weekend was slated to have the lowest
holiday weekend gas prices in five years. Given the usual bump in July spending, the national

holiday had the potential to kick off a heightened level of month-long spending. Results for this Gallup poll are
based on telephone interviews conducted June 1-30, 2015, on the Gallup U.S. Daily survey, with a random sample
of 14,685 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. For results based on the
total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is 1 percentage point at the 95% confidence level.
The margin of error for the spending mean is $5. All reported margins of sampling error include computed design
effects for weighting. Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 50% cellphone respondents and
50% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. Landline and cellular
telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods.

Low Greece
Greek debt is disrupting US markets
Kim 7/6 ABC digital reporter
(Susanna, 7-6-2015, "How Greece's Economy Affects Americans ,",
Date Accessed: 7-6-2015) //NM
Greece's economic crisis contributed to a dip in U.S. stocks today , but
Americans may have learned their lesson from their past exposure to the nation. After the Greek
people voted "no" for creditors' austerity measure , a "Grexit," or a Greek exit
from the European Union, may or may not happen. With two previous bailouts for Greece
on the books, many investors have limited their exposure to Greek debt,
leaving many Americans' 401(k)s relatively untouched. Greece: Here's What Happens
Next Rice University economist Ted Loch-Temzelides acknowledges there's concern, but he said he doesn't believe
Americans will be affected in any noticeable way by Greek's crisis. " Markets

don't like uncertainty

and they react briefly to unusual news like this," he said. "However, the Greek risk has
already been priced in and I do not anticipate any further consequences for the U.S." Investor uncertainty over
Greece this year started as early as January, when Greek elections rocked markets as the far-left Syriza party came
into power. Greece isn't a major exporter to the U.S., though the country provides about 25 percent of the European
Union's olive oil. The Association of Cretan Olive Municipalities told Olive Oil Timeslast month that Greece's
referendum announcement and bank holiday stopped bulk olive oil transactions. The association did not respond to
a request for comment from ABC News. But other economists fear the larger macroeconomic effects of a "Grexit."
" Turmoil

in Greece and a potential exit could cause market shock waves in

the U.S. ," said Lindsey Piegza, Stifel's chief economist. She added, "Equity markets are likely to
stumble under the blanket of not knowing what is next ." First, there is
uncertainty over what could happen to the U.S. dollar . "Fears of what a Grexit means
and the possible contagion to other indebted countries is likely to cause volatility first and foremost, with
upward pressure on the U.S. dollar," she said. The value of the U.S. dollar
closely affects the country's many exporters. "Already a strengthening
dollar has eroded exports and manufacturing, sending business and
revenues overseas-- a trend that will likely be exacerbated, " she said. There's
also concern about not only the U.S. equities but also the bond market .
Piegza adds that a "flight to quality" trade is already underway with yields on German and U.S. bonds falling and
peripheral yields on the rise. Europe is more exposed to Greek's financial problems. The euro slid to a one-week low
against the dollar recently before bouncing back today to more than $1.10.

Econ Impact Scenarios

! China Cyber War

Economic decline leads to China cyber war
Hsu 11 [Economic Ties Could Help Prevent US-China War Jeremy Hsu,
Innovation News Daily Senior Writer; 01 November 2011 05:32 PM ET;]
As the U.S. faces China's economic and military rise, it also holds a
dwindling hand of cards to play in the unlikely case of open conflict.
Cyberattacks aimed at computer networks, targeted disabling of satellites
or economic warfare could end up bringing down both of the frenemies.
That means ensuring the U.S. economy remains strong and well-balanced,
with China's economy possibly representing the best deterrent, according to a new
report. The Rand Corporation's analysts put low odds on a China-U.S. military conflict taking place, but still
lay out danger scenarios where the U.S. and China face greater risks of
stumbling into an unwanted war with one another. They point to the
economic codependence of both countries as the best bet against open
conflict, similar to how nuclear weapons ensured mutually assured destruction for the U.S. and Soviet Union during the Cold
War. War Militaria Collectors www.JCAmericana.comWe Buy War Artifacts & Militaria Free Appraisals for AuthenticityLearn German in
10 Days Pimsleur Method. As seen on PBS - $9.95 w/ Free S&H.VA Home Loan
for Veterans www.VAMortgageCenter.comGet a Quote in 2 Minutes! VA Loans now Up to $729,000 with $0 Down. Ads by Google "It is
often said that a strong economy is the basis of a strong defense," the Rand report says. " In

the case of China, a

strong U.S. economy is not just the basis for a strong defense, it is itself
perhaps the best defense against an adventurous China." Such "mutually
assured economic destruction" would devastate both the U.S. and China,
given how China represents America's main creditor and manufacturer.
The economic fallout could lead to a global recession worse than that
caused by the financial crisis of 2008-2009. The U.S. still spends more than five times on defense
compared with China, but Rand analysts suggest that China's defense budget could outstrip that of the U.S. within the next 20
years. The U.S. Air Force and Navy's current edge in the Pacific has also begun to shrink as China develops aircraft, ships,
submarines and missiles capable of striking farther out from its coast. Existing U.S. advantages in cyberwar and anti-satellite
capabilities also don't offset the fact that the U.S. military depends far more heavily on computer networks and satellites than
China's military. That makes a full-out cyberwar or satellite attacks too risky for the U.S., but perhaps also for China. "There are no
lives lost just extensive harm, heightened antagonism, and loss of confidence in network security," Rand analysts say. "There

Open military conflict between China and the U.S. could also
have "historically unparalleled" economic consequences even if neither
country actively engages in economic warfare, Rand analysts say. The U.S.
could both boost direct defense in the unlikely case of war and reduce the
risk of escalation by strengthening China's neighbors. Such neighbors,
including India, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan, also represent possible
flashpoints for China-U.S. conflict in the scenarios laid out by the Rand
report. Other possible danger zones include the South China Sea, where
China and many neighboring countries have disputes over territorial
claims, as well as in the murkier realm of cyberspace. Understandably, China has shown
would be no 'winner.'"

fears of being encircled by semi-hostile U.S. allies. That's why Rand analysts urged the U.S. to make China a partner rather than rival
for maintaining international security. They also pointed out, encouragingly, that China has mostly taken "cautious and pragmatic"
policies as an emerging world power. "As

China becomes a true peer competitor, it also

becomes potentially a stronger partner in the defense as well as economic

field," the Rand analysts say.

US-China conflict leads to nuclear extinction

Johnson, 2001

(Chalmers, President of Japan Policy Research Institute, The Nation, 5/14, l/n)
China is another matter. No sane figure in the Pentagon wants a war with China, and all serious US
militarists know that China's minuscule nuclear capacity is not
offensive but a deterrent against the overwhelming US power arrayed
against it (twenty archaic Chinese warheads versus more than 7,000 US warheads). Taiwan, whose status
constitutes the still incomplete last act of the Chinese civil war, remains the most dangerous place on earth.

misstep in Taiwan by any side could bring the United States and China into a
conflict that neither wants. Such a war would bankrupt the United States,
deeply divide Japan and probably end in a Chinese victory, given that
China is the world's most populous country and would be defending
itself against a foreign aggressor. More seriously, it could easily escalate
into a nuclear holocaust. However, given the nationalistic challenge to China's sovereignty of any
Taiwanese attempt to declare its independence formally, forward-deployed US forces on
China's borders have virtually no deterrent effect.
Much as the 1914 assassination of the Austrian crown prince in Sarajevo led to a war that no one wanted,

! LL
Growth key to solve a laundry list of problems war,
proliferation, environment, disease and drug trafficking
Silk 93 (Leonard. Dangers of Slow Growth. Foreign Affairs. Vol 72 Issue 1.
1993/1994. )

monetary, and trade policy blunders helped to turn that earlier asset
deflation into the Great Depression of the 1930s, which lasted a full
decade--until the outbreak of World War II. I shall always remember the phrase of my old boss, Elliott V. Bell:
"Out of the wreckage of depression slithered the serpents of Nazism and
war." Nowadays, reversing the celebrated maxim of George Santayana, we believe or hope that those who
The last such asset deflation, credit crunch and wave of bankruptcies followed the Great Crash of 1929.

remember the past are not condemned to repeat it. Yet it is already evident that the long period of slow growth,
which some have called a "controlled depression," has produced revolutionary consequences of its own. It helped to
shatter the Soviet empire. As the British editor William Rees-Mogg has written: "A world economic crisis is a type of
world revolution. It destroys old structures, economic and political. The Soviet Union, with its rigid inability to adapt,
was the first to fall before the full force of the storm. Such a crisis destroys well-meaning politicians and promotes
men of power . . . . It destroys respect for government, as people discover that their leaders cannot control
events."[8] The burst of optimism that greeted the downfall of Soviet communism has given way to anxiety that
years will pass before the new states in the East can become effective market economies and democracies--and
that some may not make it at all before dictatorship returns. The end of the Cold War was expected to bring great
benefits to people in many countries as resources were shifted from military to social programs. Thus far, however,
the peace dividend only shows up in lost jobs and falling incomes. Theoretically there is no reason why this must be
so; in a rational world, the improved prospects for peace should have led to greater spending on consumer goods
and productivity-raising investment. But that can happen only if workers can be shifted to new jobs--and financial
resources reallocated to create those jobs. In the absence of such shifts of human and capital resources to
expanding civilian industries, there are strong economic pressures on arms-producing nations to maintain high
levels of military production and to sell weapons, both conventional and dual-use nuclear technology, wherever

Without a revival of national economies and the global

economy, the production and proliferation of weapons will continue , creating
buyers can be found.

more Iraqs, Yugoslavias, Somalias and Cambodias--or worse. Like the Great Depression, the current economic slump
has fanned the fires of nationalist, ethnic and religious hatred around the world. Economic hardship is not the only
cause of these social and political pathologies, but it aggravates all of them, and in turn they feed back on

undermine efforts to deal with such global problems

as environmental pollution, the production and trafficking of drugs, crime, sickness, famine,
AIDS and other plagues. Growth will not solve all those problems by itself. But economic growth--and
growth alone--creates the additional resources that make it possible to
achieve such fundamental goals as higher living standards, national and collective security, a
economic development. They also

healthier environment, and more liberal and open economies and societies.

! Space Colonization
Growth gets us off the rock solves inevitable extinction and
Ashworth, 10 (Stephen Ashworth is a long-standing Fellow of the British

Interplanetary Society. He works in academic publishing in the Voltaire Foundation,

part of Oxford University Towards the Sociology of the Universe, part 2 18
December 2010
There are thus two plausible end-points to our current phase of growth:
collapse back to a pre-industrial level (the supernova burns out), or continued growth
taking us onto a sustainable level of technological maturity (the baby grows up). The difference between
these two future courses is immense. In terms of population, the carrying capacity of
Earth for human populations is greater than the current 6 or 7 billion, but not very
much so, perhaps a few tens of billions (depending on the technologies available). Any retreat to medieval levels of
technology would cut this figure by a factor of ten, probably down to less than
a billion. But the carrying capacity of the Solar System is at least a million
times greater than that of a high-tech Earth, and that of the Galaxy at least a billion times greater
again than that of the Solar System. The present-day situation of human society is therefore that it finds itself at a cross-roads of

If growth is not maintained, then, unless they can reignite that growth phase, our
descendants are forever restricted to planet Earth. But must they necessarily fall back to a
unparalleled significance.

medieval or even more primitive level? Could industrial civilisation survive for a while in a zero-growth phase at around its presentday level of development, and if so, for how long? In any discussion of mankind and space, this is a key question which must be
addressed. Certainly, pre-industrial civilisations have survived with little change over millennial timespans, but to what extent does

The only types of industrial

civilisation we have observed so far have been that based on capitalist
economics, and that based on socialism, in which a political ideology takes over the role of capital.
industrial technology change this picture? And what about million-year timespans?

Capitalist societies would seem to be expansionary in their very nature: they are defined by the self-multiplying power of capital. But

could a socialist society, one with a suitable ideology which was sufficiently severely imposed, preserve
zero growth indefinitely? I think not, because societies evolve in an unpredictable manner.
Governments which have tried to maintain control in, say, Tokugawa Japan (1603-1868) or Soviet Russia
(1917-1989) have failed in their goals of stability (Japan) or planned growth (Russia), and modern liberal
democracy works by limiting its ambitions and ceding much power to the economy at large. Even a global dictatorship, which unlike
those two historical examples would by definition not face competition from abroad, would, I think, be unable to control all the

result would then be either the breakout of a new phase of growth, or
decline and collapse. In view of the likelihood of long-term adverse climate change
(whether triggered by industrial pollution, or asteroid impact, or an outbreak of super-vulcanism, or the return of iceage conditions, or solar variations), and in addition the persistent threat of global high-tech conflict
(whether spreading destruction by nuclear weapons, or computer viruses, or genetically
engineered organisms, or microscopic or macroscopic robots), decline would be the more
plausible outcome. Nevertheless, the question as to how long a global zero-growth industrial civilisation could
disruptive political, technological and economic forces emerging unpredictably worldwide over centuries and millennia.

survive in a stable state on one planet is an interesting one, though not one that is likely to attract unbiased analysis by modern

What, however, if growth is maintained? Surely Earth will become overburdened and that
while the resources of Earth
are limited, those of the Solar System are very much greater . Growth in population

growth will lead to environmental and social collapse? The point here is that,

sizes and in the usage of energy and raw materials may therefore continue for a number of centuries into the future, provided that
two conditions are met:
* Material growth on Earth levels off;
* Material growth in space and on other planets takes over the

Is this not equivalent to saying that Earth must settle down with a
zero-growth society before space development begins? No, so long as the
terrestrial and extraterrestrial economies are linked. While this remains true, it will be
upward trend.

possible for investors on Earth to invest capital in extraterrestrial development, and receive dividends back from that development.

While most Earth-dwelling people will remain on the mother planet, there will also be flows of people, goods and ideas between
Earth and her colonies, which must also have a profound economic effect. A net inflow of value to Earth is in any case necessary in
order that terrestrial investment in outer space does not merely produce inflation in the home economy. But that inflow need not be
of material goods, and is more likely to consist of energy (solar power delivered on microwaves or lasers) and information (software
and product development). But surely ultimately the limits of the Solar System will be reached, and the interplanetary civilisation
have to settle down as a zero-growth society? Yes, granted. But this differs from a zero-growth planet Earth due to the immense size
of the Solar System, which is larger than Earth by between four and six orders of magnitude, depending how far out one wants to go

An interplanetary industrial
civilisation is secure for the long term in a way that a monoplanetary one
is not, because it is too large to form a unity, either politically or environmentally, and because it is forced to adapt to a wide
range of hostile environmental conditions. It will therefore be secure against any conceivable
environmental or military disaster, because such a disaster can only affect a single planet, or at most a
to the distance of Mars, say, or to the Oort comet cloud far beyond Pluto.

limited region of the system. Climate change or world war on Earth has no effect on Mars, and vice versa. And with the majority of
the population in orbiting artificial space colonies, even a major change in solar luminosity could be tolerated (though such a change
is not expected to have a noticeable effect for hundreds of millions of years yet). With interplanetary civilisation, the social system
as a whole can tolerate decline and collapse in particular locations, because they can then be recolonised from outside. Once

However, in order for

interplanetary growth to occur in the first place, an economic mechanism
must be in place to drive it. The most suitable economic mechanism that
has been demonstrated so far is capitalism. Its need for continuous expansion makes it highly
humanity achieves interstellar status, this security factor is clearly vastly enhanced.

appropriate as an economic system for a society colonising its local planetary system.


Heg Sustainable
Despite alt causes, US hegemony is resilient

Babones 15
Salvatore Babones, professor of sociology and social policy at the University of
Sydney, American Hegemony Is Here to Stay, 6/11/15,
IS RETREAT from global hegemony in Americas national interest? No idea has percolated more widely over the past

The United States is not headed for the skids and

there is no reason it should be. The truth is that America can and should
seek to remain the worlds top dog. The idea of American hegemony is as old
as Benjamin Franklin, but has its practical roots in World War II. The United States
emerged from that war as the dominant economic, political and
technological power. The only major combatant to avoid serious damage to its infrastructure, its housing
decadeand none is more bogus.

stock or its demographic profile, the United States ended the war with the greatest naval order of battle ever seen
in the history of the world. It became the postwar home of the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and

America was, in every sense of

the word, a hegemon. Hegemony is a word used by social scientists to
describe leadership within a system of competing states. Americas only global rival
the World Bank. And, of course, the United States had the bomb.

in the twentieth century was the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union never produced more than about half of Americas
total national output. Its nominal allies in Eastern Europe were in fact restive occupied countries, as were many of
its constituent republics. Its client states overseas were at best partners of convenience, and at worst expensive
drains on its limited resources. The Soviet Union had the power to resist American hegemony, but not to displace it.

When the Soviet Union finally

disintegrated in 1991, American hegemony was complete. The United
States sat at the top of the international system, facing no serious rivals
for global leadership. This unipolar moment lasted a mere decade.
September 11, 2001, signaled the emergence of a new kind of threat to
global stability, and the ensuing rise of China and reemergence of Russia
put paid to the era of unchallenged American leadership. Now, Americas
internal politics have deadlocked and the U.S. government shrinks from
playing the role of global policeman. In the second decade of the twentyfirst century, American hegemony is widely perceived to be in terminal
decline. Or so the story goes. In fact, reports of the passing of U.S. hegemony are greatly
It had the bomb and an impressive space program, but little else.

exaggerated. Americas costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were relatively minor affairs considered in long-term
perspective. The strategic challenge posed by China has also been exaggerated. Together with its inner circle of
unshakable English-speaking allies, the United States possesses near-total control of the worlds seas, skies,
airwaves and cyberspace, while American universities, think tanks and journals dominate the world of ideas. Put
aside all the alarmist punditry.

American hegemony is now as firm as or firmer than it

has ever been, and will remain so for a long time to come. THE MASSIVE
federal deficit, negative credit-agency reports, repeated debt-ceiling
crises and the 2013 government shutdown all created the impression that
the U.S. government is bankrupt, or close to it. The U.S. economy imports
half a trillion dollars a year more than it exports. Among the American
population, poverty rates are high and ordinary workers wages have been
stagnant (in real terms) for decades. Washington seems to be paralyzed by perpetual gridlock.

On top of all this, strategic exhaustion after two costly wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has substantially degraded U.S.
military capabilities. Then, at the very moment the military needed to regroup, rebuild and rearm, its budget was hit

If economic power forms the long-term foundation for political

and military power, it would seem that America is in terminal decline. But
policy analysts tend to have short memories. Cycles of hegemony run in
centuries, not decades (or seasons). When the United Kingdom finally
by sequestration.

defeated Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815, its national resources were

completely exhausted. Britains public-debt-to-GDP ratio was over 250
percent, and early nineteenth-century governments lacked access to the
full range of fiscal and financial tools that are available today. Yet the
British Century was only just beginning. The Pax Britannica and the elevation of Queen Victoria
to become empress of India were just around the corner. By comparison, Americas current
public-debt-to- GDP ratio of less than 80 percent is relatively benign . Those
with even a limited historical memory may remember the day in January 2001 when the then chairman of the
Federal Reserve,

Alan Greenspan, testified to the Senate Budget Committee that if current

policies remain in place, the total unified surplus will reach $800 billion in
fiscal year 2011. . . . The emerging key fiscal policy need is to address the
implications of maintaining surpluses. As the poet said, bliss was it in that dawn to be alive!
Two tax cuts, two wars and one financial crisis later, Americas budget deficit was roughly
the size of the projected surplus that so worried Greenspan.

Heg is sustainable maintain comparative advantage in tech is

Karl 6/23/14 (David J. Karl is president of the Asia Strategy Initiative, an analysis
and advisory firm, and senior director of Geoskope, an intelligence company
focused on emerging markets, June 23rd, 2014, The Greatest Challenge to U.S.
National Security: A Weak Economy,
In his recent foreign-policy address at West Point, President Obama pushed back
against claims that Americas global leadership is in terminal decline. Hes
right to do so, since many of these claims are exaggerated and take little
account of the significant problems that are starting to weigh down
Chinas economic trajectory, including signs of a gigantic credit bubble
that has sparked talk that the country is approaching its own Lehman
moment. Its also true that the prophets of American decline ignore key
factors, like demographic advantages and the capacity for technological
innovations, which reinforce U.S. strategic power.

The US is the global hegemon now superior military

capabilities guarantee combat success their authors are

Kagan 12 Robert, senior fellow at Brookings, Not Fade Away,
ON_STRIPPED, 7/8/14 //mm
Less than a decade ago, most observers spoke not of Americas decline but
of its enduring primacy. In 2002, the historian Paul Kennedy, who in the late
1980s had written a much-discussed book on the rise and fall of the great powers,
America included, declared that never in history had there been such a great
disparity of power as between the United States and the rest of the world.
Ikenberry agreed that no other great power had held such formidable
advantages in military, economic, technological, cultural, or political capabilities....
The preeminence of American power was unprecedented. In 2004, the pundit

Fareed Zakaria described the United States as enjoying a comprehensive

uni-polarity unlike anything seen since Rome. But a mere four years later
Zakaria was writing about the post-American world and the rise of the
rest, and Kennedy was discoursing again upon the inevitability of American
decline. Did the fundamentals of Americas relative power shift so
dramatically in just a few short years? The answer is no. Lets start with the
basic indicators. In economic terms, and even despite the current years of
recession and slow growth, Americas position in the world has not changed.
Its share of the worlds GDP has held remarkably steady, not only over the
past decade but over the past four decades. In 1969, the United States produced
roughly a quarter of the worlds economic output. Today it still produces roughly a
quarter, and it remains not only the largest but also the richest economy in
the world. People are rightly mesmerized by the rise of China, India, and
other Asian nations whose share of the global economy has been climbing
steadily, but this has so far come almost entirely at the expense of Europe
and Japan, which have had a declining share of the global economy.
Optimists about Chinas development predict that it will overtake the United States
as the largest economy in the world sometime in the next two decades. This could
mean that the United States will face an increasing challenge to its economic
position in the future. But the sheer size of an economy is not by itself a good
measure of overall power within the international system. If it were, then
early nineteenth-century China, with what was then the worlds largest
economy, would have been the predominant power instead of the
prostrate victim of smaller European nations. Even if China does reach this
pinnacle againand Chinese leaders face significant obstacles to sustaining the
countrys growth indefinitelyit will still remain far behind both the United
States and Europe in terms of per capita GDP. Military capacity matters, too, as
early nineteenth-century China learned and Chinese leaders know today. As Yan
Xuetong recently noted, military strength underpins hegemony. Here the
United States remains unmatched. It is far and away the most powerful
nation the world has ever known, and there has been no decline in
Americas relative military capacityat least not yet. Americans currently
spend less than $600 billion a year on defense, more than the rest of the
other great powers combined. (This figure does not include the deployment in
Iraq, which is ending, or the combat forces in Afghanistan, which are likely to
diminish steadily over the next couple of years.) They do so, moreover, while
consuming a little less than 4 percent of GDP annuallya higher percentage than
the other great powers, but in historical terms lower than the 10 percent of GDP
that the United States spent on defense in the mid-1950s and the 7 percent it spent
in the late 1980s. The superior expenditures underestimate Americas actual
superiority in military capability. American land and air forces are equipped with the
most advanced weaponry, and are the most experienced in actual combat. They
would defeat any competitor in a head-to-head battle. American naval
power remains predominant in every region of the world.

Declines not inevitable The US is unparalleled in military


Soare 13 Simona, IPSDMH, Defense Studies, Researcher/Practitioner, Global

Goliath vs. Global Leader: the United States Difficult Choice,
fficult_Choice, 7/6/14 //mm
This article starts off by asking what makes this particular period in American
history so different from the previous four declinist waves of American
foreign policy. And the answer it comes up with after taking a closer look at the
pinnacle of systemic power military power is that the U.S. is poised to
remain the systemic Goliath for the foreseeable future. In particular, I argue
the empirical evidence offered by the declinist school of American foreign
policy is circumstantial and barely quantifiable. In other words, the global
Goliath is still undefeated in the military field where no signs of decline
are pertinently visible at this point.

Heg is sustainable china cant step up

White 13(Thomas White is currently in law school at Columbia. He has a BA and MA
in politics and international affairs from New York University and has studied in
worked in both the UAE and China.e )MM
U.S. hegemonic decline has been debated for decades, and the newest foil to its
authority is China. The U.S. currently exists as the world's one and only
superpower. But it is folly to believe that the U.S. will be deposed by China
anytime soon, even with its double-digit growth and increasing regional
influence. Reports foretelling the end of U.S. hegemony rely on raw data,
when it is international relationships that truly undergird world
superpowers. No economic, military, and public opinion formula will decide
the world's next global hegemon. These components matter--but not
without international legitimacy, as derived from, and defined by, a global
coalition of the willing. It is here that the U.S. reigns supreme. The U.S.
has won over, however begrudgingly, the international community as a
whole. And until this allegiance to the U.S. breaks down, she will remain
the absolute world superpower. The U.S. wields a power of influence,
persuasion, and leadership on the international stage that no other state
comes close to. She sets international law, ignores international law, and
is accountable to no one. China, while clearly jockeying for authority and
power, does not yet have legitimacy. Take France's invasion of Mali last year. It
was the U.S. who provided the necessary support, in effect running the operation to
combat Islamic militants. A scenario where France, a country with a permanent seat
on the UN Security Council, calls first on China for tactical support is tough to
imagine. China has seen its regional influence increase substantially in
recent years, but a situation where China and not the U.S. leads a
successful international coalition of allies is fantasy. In fact, the opposite
is true. China is far from being considered a trustworthy ally to the
international community, sitting on the periphery of many international
decision-making processes, for a number of reasons. China commits
deeply troubling human rights violations at home. China has yet to
disavow the brutal oppression of President Bashar al-Assad, and, along
with Russia, has held up UN resolutions condemning the regime. China is
also North Korea's last ally, a thoroughly unfortunate distinction. China's
relationship to human rights is anything but progressive. Censorship of

the press and the Internet, restrictions on freedoms of religion,

expression, association, prohibition of many independent labor unions and
organizations, and the repressive policies against many people in Western
China and Tibet spell trouble for the leaders in Beijing on the international
stage. Even though the U.S. is no human rights saint, she currently holds
legitimacy with a team of allies who prize consistency and stability, making a
global shift in power highly unlikely. If China continues on this path of
questionable governance and cavorting with questionable allies, no
serious block of internationally influential states will support a Chinese
hegemony over the current U.S. one. And so, China will remain a strong
regional and international player, but one that plays second fiddle to the
U.S. Still, the dogged sentiment of declining U.S. authority remains. China
predicts its economy will overtake that of the U.S. by 2019. But the likes of the U.K.,
France, Germany, Japan, etc. will not simply turn around and support China the
moment its GDP crosses some arbitrary threshold. Rich, industrialized nations are
not about to live in an international system dictated by Chinese rule. The U.S. and
China will engage in plenty of power struggles in the coming decades--but
it is unlikely that China will challenge U.S. authority and garner support
from the world's industrialized nations. The U.S., regardless of its failings,
rightfully holds firmly its influence over world values, and will do so
indefinitely, regardless of its economic and military strength in relation to
China. Amidst economic crises and an embarrassing era of political
dysfunction (See: government shutdown), the U.S. remains the world's
only superpower. An upheaval of the international power dynamic, in this century,
requires more than economic or military might. It requires democratic values,
respectable allies, and an appreciation of human rights. And until China can pass
these tests, the U.S. is in no danger of losing its allies or influence.

china leaders have no interest in challenging US heg

Chen 15(Dingding Chen is an assistant professor of Government and Public
Administration at the University of Macau)//mm
Needless to say, the Sino-U.S. relationship is one of the most important yet
complicated bilateral relationships in the world today. This explains why Chinese
Vice Premier Wang Yangs recent comments on Sino-U.S. relations have stirred up a
debate online (here and here). Wang Yang stated that China [has] neither the
ability nor the intent to challenge the United States. Partly because it is
rare for a senior Chinese leader to make such soft remarks with regard to
Sino-U.S. relations and partly because Wangs remarks are seemingly
inconsistent with Chinas recent assertive foreign policies, there has been
a fierce debate about the true meaning of Wangs remarks in the United
States. Most American analysts, however, are skeptical toward Wangs conciliatory
remarks and continue to believe that Chinas ultimate aim is to establish a Chinacentric order in Asia at the expense of the U.S. influence in Asia. In other words,
China seeks to replace the U.S. as the new global hegemon. The reactions from the
U.S. side, again, reveal the deep mistrust with regard to Chinas long term goals.
But such skepticism is misguided and even dangerous to Asias peace and stability
if left uncorrected. Why? Because Wang Yang was sincere when he said that
China does not have the capabilities and desires to challenge the United

States. The evidence of his sincerity is apparent. First let us look at

Chinas capabilities, which need to be especially formidable if China wants
to challenge the United States. Although Chinas comprehensive
capabilities have been growing rapidly for the past three decades, almost
all analysts inside and outside of China agree that there is still a huge gap
between China and the U.S. in terms of comprehensive capabilities,
particularly when the U.S. is far ahead of China in military and
technological realms. Chinas economy might have already passed the U.S.
economy as the largest one in 2014, but the quality of Chinas economy
still remains a major weakness for Beijing. Thus, it would be a serious
mistake for China to challenge the U.S. directly given the wide gap of
capabilities between the two. Even if one day Chinas comprehensive
capabilities catch up with the United States, it would still be a huge
mistake for China to challenge the U.S. because by then the two
economies would be much more closely interconnected, creating a
situation of mutual dependence benefiting both countries. Besides limited
capabilities, China also has limited ambitions which have not been
properly understood by many U.S. analysts. It is true that Chinas grand
strategy is to realize the China dream a dream that will bring wealth, glory, and
power to China again but this, by no means, suggests that China wants to
become a hegemon in Asia, or to create a Sino-centric tributary system
around which all smaller states must obey Chinas orders. Perhaps these
perceptions exist in the United States because many U.S. analysts have
unconsciously let ultra-realist thinking slip into their minds, thereby
believing that states are constantly engaged in the ruthless pursuit of
power and influence. But the structure of international politics has fundamentally
changed since the end of the Cold War, thus rendering any serious possibility of
world hegemony ineffective or even impossible. In essence, the costs of hegemony
outweigh the benefits of hegemony in this new era of international politics, thanks
to rising nationalism, nuclear weapons, and increasing economic interdependence
between major powers. The Chinese leaders understand this new and
changed structure of international politics and based on their
assessments, they have decided not to seek hegemony, which is a losing
business in this new era. Unfortunately, the U.S. is still obsessed with the
concept (or illusion) of hegemony, as Simon Reich and Richard Ned Lebow have
pointed out recently. The hegemony mentality is precisely the reason why the
United States has declined (slowly) in the post-Cold War era. Wrongly believing that
a stable global order needs U.S. hegemony, American leaders have adopted a grand
strategy of liberal interventionism, which has only caused self-inflicted wounds for
the U.S. economy and its global status. The tragedy, however, is that within U.S.
elite circles, this misperception about U.S. hegemony (here and here) sticks and is
unlikely to go away for a long time barring a major failure or crisis. At the end of
the day, our world can survive and prosper without a hegemon, regardless
of whether the hegemon is American or Chinese. The sooner American
leaders understand this point and believe Chinese leaders words, the
higher the chances of peace and stability worldwide.

US heg is here to stay

Salvatore Babones 6/11/15 (Salvatore Babones is an associate professor of
sociology and social policy at the University of Sydney. He is a comparative
sociologist who writes on comparative international development and on
quantitative methods for the social sciences.)
IS RETREAT from global hegemony in Americas national interest? No idea has
percolated more widely over the past decadeand none is more bogus. The United
States is not headed for the skids and there is no reason it should be. The truth is
that America can and should seek to remain the worlds top dog. The idea
of American hegemony is as old as Benjamin Franklin, but has its practical
roots in World War II. The United States emerged from that war as the
dominant economic, political and technological power. The only major
combatant to avoid serious damage to its infrastructure, its housing stock or its
demographic profile, the United States ended the war with the greatest naval order
of battle ever seen in the history of the world. It became the postwar home of the
United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. And, of course,
the United States had the bomb. America was, in every sense of the word, a
hegemon. Hegemony is a word used by social scientists to describe
leadership within a system of competing states. The Greek historian
Thucydides used the term to characterize the position of Athens in the
Greek world in the middle of the fifth century BC. Athens had the greatest
fleet in the Mediterranean; it was the home of Socrates and Plato, Sophocles and
Aeschylus; it crowned its central Acropolis with the solid-marble temple to Athena
known to history as the Parthenon. Athens had a powerful rival in Sparta, but no one
doubted that Athens was the hegemon of the time until Sparta defeated it in a bitter
twenty-seven-year war. Americas only global rival in the twentieth century was the
Soviet Union. The Soviet Union never produced more than about half of
Americas total national output. Its nominal allies in Eastern Europe were
in fact restive occupied countries, as were many of its constituent
republics. Its client states overseas were at best partners of convenience,
and at worst expensive drains on its limited resources. The Soviet Union had
the power to resist American hegemony, but not to displace it. It had the bomb and
an impressive space program, but little else. When the Soviet Union finally
disintegrated in 1991, American hegemony was complete. The United States sat
at the top of the international system, facing no serious rivals for global
leadership. This unipolar moment lasted a mere decade. September 11,
2001, signaled the emergence of a new kind of threat to global stability,
and the ensuing rise of China and reemergence of Russia put paid to the
era of unchallenged American leadership. Now, Americas internal politics
have deadlocked and the U.S. government shrinks from playing the role of
global policeman. In the second decade of the twenty-first century,
American hegemony is widely perceived to be in terminal decline.

U.S. primacy is sustainable

Ye 05 (Min, Ph.D Candidate, Princeton University, The U.S. Hegemony and

Implication for China, Jan 30,, JH)
Clearly Waltz argued that the unipolarity in the wake of the Cold War was
temporary. For one, nations rise and decline. The U.S relative power will decline
and it will increasingly become difficult for it to preserve unipolarity , as

other nations will come into each other aid to

balance against the U.S, because minor states feel safer to be with other
minor states. Waltzs prediction may not hold, however, if we consider the
following aspects of U.S power. First, from the aggregate power perspective, the U.S is
simply too powerful for the other nations to catch up . William Wohlforth has done a
comprehensive empirical study of U.S power, and concluded that U.S has enormous supremacy in
all aspects of military power and almost all aspects of economic power as
well, not to mention its normative and cultural powers. He also pointed out the
U.S is a benign hegemon and it is in the worlds benefit for its presence.
Similarly, Joanne Gowa observed that allies of the U.S benefited from trading with the
U.S, hence it is in the nations interest to have an enduring U.S hegemony .
Second, alliance against the U.S is unlikely and ineffective. Stephen Walt has listed
Robert Gilpin argued. Furthermore,

the causes for alliance formation. Alliances form not to balance the biggest power but to balance against the
biggest threat. Threat, in turn, is determined by (1) aggregate power, (2) geographic proximity, (3) offensive power,

The U.S is distant from all major powers geographically,

although the most powerful nation in the world. Clearly the U.S does not
demonstrate aggressive intentions against other major powers. Hence their
balancing against the U.S is unlikely. Wohlforth observed that the other major
powers before they balance against the U.S face counterbalancing of their
own. China was perceived as a potential balancer of the U.S in many cases. Yet,
China faces counterbalancing from Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Russia, and India
in the Asian continent alone. Similarly, the other major powers Russia,
Japan, India, and Europehave more difficulties dealing with their
relationships than their relations with the U.S. In belief, the American
hegemon not only does not face substantial balancing but serve as a
balancer against others balancing actions. As a result, we see more
bandwagoning with the U.S superpower rather than balancing. Finally,
as John Ikenberry and other scholars observed, the U.S unipolarity is a hegemony based on
constitutional order. At the end of the World War II, alongside its
supremacy in power, the U.S also established the UN, IMF, World Bank, and
other institutions in dealing with weapons proliferation and managing
relations with allies. U.S exercise of power was self restraint through its
memberships in the international institutions. Consequently, the other
nations in the world can not only benefit from this constitutional order but
to an extent exercise checks on the sole superpower and feel safer even in
the unipolar world.
and (4) aggressive intention.

A2: Heg Causes Conflict

U.S. withdrawal is worse than the status quoescalation and
economic collapse would draw will cause multiple escalatory
conflicts globally dragging the United States back into conflict

Robert J. Lieber (Professor of Government and International Affairs @ Georgetown

University) 2005 The American Era: Power and Strategy for the 21st Century p 53-4
Withdrawal from foreign commitments might seem to be a means of
evading hostility toward the United States, but the consequences would
almost certainly be harmful both to regional stability and to U.S. national interests.
Although Europe would almost certainly not see the return to competitive balancing
among regional powers (i.e., competition and even military rivalry between France
and Germany) of the kind that some realist scholars of international relations have
predicted,21 elsewhere the dangers could increase. In Asia, Japan, South
Korea, and Taiwan world have strong motivation to acquire nuclear
weapons which they have the technological capacity to do quite quickly.
Instability and regional competition could also escalate, not only between
India and Pakistan, but also in Southeast Asia involving Vietnam, Thailand,
Indonesia, and possibly the Philippines. Risks in the Middle East would be
likely to increase, with regional competition among the major countries of the
Gulf region (Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq) as well as Egypt, Syria, and Israel.
Major regional wars, eventually involving the use of weapons of mass
destruction plus human suffering on a vast scale, floods of refugees,
economic disruption, and risks to oil supplies are all readily conceivable.
Based on past experience, the United States would almost certainly be
drawn back into these areas, whether to defend friendly states, to cope
with a humanitarian catastrophe, or to prevent a hostile power from
dominating an entire region. Steven Peter Rosen has thus fittingly observed, If
the logic of American empire is unappealing, it is not at all clear that the
alternatives are that much more attractive.22 Similarly, Niall Ferguson has added
that those who dislike American predominance ought to bear in mind that the
alternative may not be a world of competing great powers, but one with
no hegemon at all. Fergusons warning may be hyperbolic, but it hints at the
perils that the absence of a dominant power, apolarity, could bring an
anarchic new Dark Age of waning empires and religious fanaticism; of endemic
plunder and pillage in the worlds forgotten regions; of economic stagnation and
civilizations retreat into a few fortified enclaves.23

U.S. withdrawal would leave behind a power vacuum, spurring

terrorism, economic turmoil and multiple nuclear wars.

Niall Ferguson, July/August 2004 A World Without Power, FOREIGN POLICY Issue
So what is left? Waning empires. Religious revivals. Incipient anarchy. A
coming retreat into fortified cities. These are the Dark Age experiences that a
world without a hyperpower might quickly find itself reliving. The trouble is,
of course, that this Dark Age would be an altogether more dangerous one than the
Dark Age of the ninth century. For the world is much more populous-roughly 20

times more--so friction between the world's disparate "tribes" is bound to be

more frequent. Technology has transformed production; now human societies
depend not merely on freshwater and the harvest but also on supplies of fossil fuels
that are known to be finite. Technology has upgraded destruction, too, so it is
now possible not just to sack a city but to obliterate it. For more than two decades,
globalization--the integration of world markets for commodities, labor, and capital-has raised living standards throughout the world, except where countries have shut
themselves off from the process through tyranny or civil war. The reversal of
globalization--which a new Dark Age would produce--would certainly lead
to economic stagnation and even depression. As the United States sought to
protect itself after a second September 11 devastates, say, Houston or Chicago, it
would inevitably become a less open society, less hospitable for foreigners seeking
to work, visit, or do business. Meanwhile, as Europe's Muslim enclaves grew,
Islamist extremists' infiltration of the EU would become irreversible,
increasing trans-Atlantic tensions over the Middle East to the breaking
point. An economic meltdown in China would plunge the Communist
system into crisis, unleashing the centrifugal forces that undermined
previous Chinese empires. Western investors would lose out and conclude that
lower returns at home are preferable to the risks of default abroad. The worst
effects of the new Dark Age would be felt on the edges of the waning great powers.
The wealthiest ports of the global economy--from New York to Rotterdam
to Shanghai--would become the targets of plunderers and pirates. With
ease, terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas, targeting oil tankers, aircraft
carriers, and cruise liners, while Western nations frantically concentrated on making
their airports secure. Meanwhile, limited nuclear wars could devastate
numerous regions, beginning in the Korean peninsula and Kashmir,
perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle East. In Latin America,
wretchedly poor citizens would seek solace in Evangelical Christianity imported by
U.S. religious orders. In Africa, the great plagues of aids and malaria would
continue their deadly work. The few remaining solvent airlines would simply
suspend services to many cities in these continents; who would wish to leave their
privately guarded safe havens to go there? For all these reasons, the prospect of
an apolar world should frighten us today a great deal more than it
frightened the heirs of Charlemagne. If the United States retreats from
global hegemony--its fragile self-image dented by minor setbacks on the imperial
frontier--its critics at home and abroad must not pretend that they are
ushering in a new era of multipolar harmony, or even a return to the good
old balance of power. Be careful what you wish for. The alternative to
unipolarity would not be multipolarity at all. It would be apolarity--a global
vacuum of power. And far more dangerous forces than rival great powers
would benefit from such a not-so-new world disorder.

Multipolarity is worse and transition will be rough Even if all

major power joined they will not replace American leadership
Zbigniew Brzezinski (Counselor at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies and a professor of foreign policy @ Johns Hopkins) 2004 The Choice:
Global Domination or Global Leadership p 2-4
In any case, the eventual end of American hegemony will not involve a
restoration of multipolarity among the familiar major powers that

dominated world affairs for the last two centuries. Nor will it yield to another
dominant hegemon that would displace the United States by assuming a
similar political, military, economic, technological, and sociocultural worldwide
preeminence. The familiar powers of the last century are too fatigued or too
weak to assume the role the United States now plays. It is noteworthy that
since 1880, in a comparative ranking of world powers (cumulatively based on their
economic strength, military budgets and assets, populations, etc.), the top five slots
at sequential twenty-year intervals have been shared by just seven states: the
United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, Japan, and Chula. Only
the United States, however, unambiguously earned inclusion among the top five in
everyone of the twenty-year intervals, and the gap in the year 2000 between the
top-ranked United States and the rest was vastly wider than ever before.' The
former major European powersGreat Britain, Germany, and Franceare
too weak to step into the breach. In the next two decades, it is quite unlikely
that the European Union will become sufficiently united politically to
muster the popular will to compete with the United States in the politicomilitary arena. Russia is no longer an imperial power, and its central
challenge is to recover socioeconomically lest it lose its far eastern
territories to China. Japan's population is aging and its economy has
slowed; the conventional wisdom of the 1980s that Japan is destined to be the next
"superstate" now has the ring of historical irony. China, even if it succeeds in
maintaining high rates of economic growth and retains its internal
political stability (both are far from certain), will at best be a regional
power still constrained by an impoverished population, antiquated
infrastructure, and limited appeal worldwide. The same is true of India, which
additionally faces uncertainties regarding its long-term national unity.
Even a coalition among the abovea most unlikely prospect, given their
historical conflicts and clashing territorial claimswould lack the
cohesion, muscle, and energy needed to both push America off its
pedestal and sustain global stability. Some leading states, in any case, would
side with America if push came to shove. Indeed, any evident American
decline might precipitate efforts to reinforce America's leadership. Most
important, the shared resentment of American hegemony would not dampen the
dashes of interest among states. The more intense collisionsin the event of
America's declinecould spark a wildfire of regional violence, rendered all the more
dangerously the dissemination of weapons of mass destruction.

U.S. primacy solves nuclear war

Thayer 07 (Bradley A.; Associate Professor in the Dept. of Defense and Strategic
Studies at Missouri State University; American Empire: A Debate Reply to
Christopher Lane: The Strength of American Empire; pg 103)
If the United States adopted offshore balancing, many of those allies
would terminate their relationship with the United States. They would be
forced to increase their own armaments, acquire nuclear weapons, and
perhaps ally against the United States, even aiming their nuclear weapons
at the United States. In those circumstances, the United States would be
far less secure and much worse of than it is now. That might be the future if
the United States changed its grand strategy. To be sure, at present the United
States is a great ally. It is rich and powerful, with many allies all over the world. It

wields enormous influence in international institutions as well. When a

global problem arises, countries turn to the United States to solve it.


Disease Extensions
The bubonic plague is already infecting hundreds

Dana Dovey @Danadovey 15, 1-28-2015, "What You Need To Know About
Madagascar's Bubonic Plague Outbreak," Medical Daily,
No, you did not misread the headline to this story. Not only does the bubonic plague still
exist, but its infected hundreds of individuals on the island of
Madagascar, off the coast of Africa. In fact, this is nearly an annual
occurrence for the island nation. Unlike the plague of the past, however,
this form is not only harder to contain but can kill nearly 24 hours after
initial exposure. The Black Death At one point in time the bubonic plague was the single most terrifying
disease on the planet. Also known as the Black Death, this bacterial infection literally shaped Europe into the
continent we recognize today after killing off an unbelievable 60 percent of its population in the 14th century. Like
all things in life, however, the reign of the Black Death could not last forever, and today, thanks to recent medicine,
it is barely a shadow of its former self. Modern medicine has made it so that the plague that once killed six in 10
people now has an 85 percent survival rate. The plague is caused by a bacterium found mainly in rodents, and
because its impossible (and not advisable) to kill every rat on the planet, its likely that remnants of the plague will
persist forever. While the random occurrence of the plague is expected, outbreaks are completely unnecessary,

they're what the WHO "was

designed to contain." So far, they havent been able to do a very good job
of this. The death rate of the plagues has nearly doubled since the
outbreak first began in November of last year, Reuters reported. As reported by
Vice, the plague, has, well, plagued Madagascar on a near annual basis since the early 1990s . Madagascar
is not alone in its plague resurgence, though, since even places as
developed as New York City are home to rat species known to carry the
pathogen. However, the widespread poverty, unplanned urbanization, and poor health care in Madagascar has
helped to propel a few isolated instances of the bubonic plague into a full-blown outbreak. Even worse, the
WHO warns that if something isnt done fast the spread of the plague in
urban areas of the countries will rapidly increase. Why The Rest Of The World Should Be
according to World Health Organization director Margaret Chan, and

Concerned Unfortunately, it seems that the preservation of human life is not enough for an event to gain

this form of the plague is not your average bacterial

infection, and it's best to stop it before it reaches pandemic proportions.
One of the most disturbing dimensions of the current outbreak , according to
Chan, is that the species of fleas which carry it have developed an immunity
against the insecticide deltamethrin. On top of being immune to our first
line of defense, this form of the plague, the pneumonic plague kills with
incredible speed. Within 24 hours of being infected death is a high
possibility. Back in November, only around two percent of reported plague cases were of the pneumonic form,
but Vice reported this number has since risen. The pneumonic plague also doesnt need a
flea host to spread and can be transmitted from person to person via
coughing. "It doesn't spread quite as much as the flu in this case," Dr. Stephen Morse, epidemiology professor
widespread recognition. Still,

at Columbia University, told Vice, adding that it it's a "much more efficient transmission method than being bitten
by fleas." Early intervention is the best bet in both treating and preventing the spread of the plague. Its been
reported that together, the WHO and the local partner it supports, Institut Pasteur, have created an inexpensive test
that brings back a plague diagnosis in 15 minutes. Hopefully, this will help to reduce the death toll and control the
spread of the condition

If a new pandemic breaks out in the U.S. we will be


Bear14, 1-31-2014, "Could the Plague Return to Kill us All?," Mysterious Universe,
Its easy to revel in the knowledge that such a scenario is fiction however a new report published in the January
2014 edition of the journal Lancet Infectious Disease speculates that the devastating Bubonic Plagues of the past
could return with devastating force. Why bring this up now? Cant we treat the bacteria that causes Plague with

new strains of
plague bacteria, Yersinia pestis, could spontaneously rise again and we
may have limited ability to fight it. Combine that with our modern
transport infrastructure and its the perfect storm for a pandemic of
global proportions. As part of the study, researchers analysed the remains of two people who died from
modern antibiotics? Yes, we can but an international team of researchers suggest that

the Plague of Justinian which occurred between 541 and 543 A.D. Like the Black Death of the 14th century its
impact upon society was overwhelming. Disturbingly, it was found that two different strains of Yersinin pestis were
responsible for each plague. This means that thes e

deadly pathogens arose independently

twice before, suggesting that it could happen again. Right now, there may
be another deadly strain waiting to spring upon an overconfidant and
unsuspecting public. While bubonic plague is now treatable, it could tear
through developing nations where access to health care is significantly
reduced. Additionally, should an outbreak occur in a developed nation, the
virulence of the pathogen could be so great that it quickly overwhelms
public health response abilities. Should the new strain have acquired
antimicrobail resistant genes, antibiotics will be useless and we will be
just as defenceless as peasents on 14th century Europe. Dont think you are safe just because you live in
a developed nation either. Bubonic plague arose in Sydney in the early 1900s and as recently as 2012 in the US. In
fact there are 10 to 15 reported cases of bubonic plague in the US every year according to the CDC

Pandemic predication and efforts are essential

Matt Mccarthy 15, 1-9-2015, "These Viruses Could Cause the Next Ebola-Like
Pandemics," Slate Magazine,
The Ebola epidemic in West Africa isnt over, but as it recedes from the headlines,
its time to consider whats coming for us next. Pandemic prediction isnt
cheap, but waiting for an outbreak to happen can be even more costly.
Economic losses due to SARS were estimated to be anywhere from $15
billion to more than $50 billion; the cost of the Ebola outbreak will almost
certainly exceed that figure. By contrast, Daszak estimates that it would
cost a total of $6.3 billion to discover all of the viruses that infect
mammalsa fraction of the cost required to respond to a global pandemic
like Ebola or SARSand that information will ultimately lead to better
disease monitoring, treatment, and preventative measures at the cusp of
the next outbreak. Its a massive endeavor, but a necessary one. Once we
know whats out there, well be able to figure out whats coming for us.

U.S. disease preparedness is extremely low

Clinical Advisor 15, 3-24-2015, "Governments need to prepare for infectious
disease outbreaks,"
If anything kills over 10 million people in the next few decades, it's most
likely to be a highly infectious virus, rather than a war , Bill Gates told a crowd at a

To illustrate the lack of preparedness countries have to

address a potential disease outbreak, Gates and associates built an Ebola
Treatment Unit (ETU) simulation. Audience members were asked to put on
all of the safety gear required of a health-care provider working in West
Africa and then take it off without getting contaminated. Clinicians who
had worked in West Africa during the epidemic were there to help
audience members understand the process. The attendees were required to give out
TED Talk in Vancouver.

placebo pills, dress a cot with sheets, and set up an IV all while donning big rubber boots, a plastic suit, mask,
hood, and second set of gloves and other protective equipment. Nina Gregory, of NPR, was at the TED Talk and
shared her experience: When I caught sight of my own reflection and saw those lumbering around in the mock
ETU suited up like this along with me it was unnerving, Gregory wrote. Imagine being on the other side: sick,
dying of Ebola, and this giant, anonymous figure with not one fragment of skin or hair showing, is there to treat you,
to try to save your life. "We wanted to give people the sensory and visual limitations we had in working in West
Africa, Luanne Freer, an emergency medicine doctor from Montana told NPR. Once

you put the suit

on, you only have 90 minutes with your patients in the hot zone because
people wearing the protective suits are at risk of fainting. My team had
to care for 15 people," said Freer. "If our bodies would only let us stay in
the hot zone for 90 minutes, some of our patients couldn't get care. We
were faced with a Sophie's Choice: Do I leave or do I feed that baby? And
we should never have to make that choice."

America needs to prepare for diseases better

Walter Tsou 14, 10-28-2014, "Lessons from Ebola: The Infectious Disease Era, And
The Need To Prepare, Will Never Be Over," No Publication,
One thing I can say with certainty: Ebola will not be the last or most deadly
infectious disease outbreak in America. The era of infectious diseases is
not over and should never be treated as such. In the public health world,
we know that nature regularly reminds us of the hubris of ignoring
infectious diseases. The only way to prepare for the next unknown outbreak is to
consistently support public health and health care systems. The U.S. Ebola
response shows we need to rethink how the country is managing
biological threats. The appointment of an emergency-basis Ebola
coordinator was an important step but it also raised the fact that
theres a fundamental gap in the existing leadership structure. It
demonstrated the need moving forward for the White House to have a permanent,
full-time public health leader one who can lead a consistent and coordinated
government-wide approach to preparedness, and who can effectively manage
prevention, response and recovery activities for future crises, as well as the
ongoing, day-to-day infectious disease threats that we are treating all too casually
as routine. A strong leader would be able to improve risk communications to better
inform the public as events unfold in an honest, respectful way, thereby guarding
against gratuitous fear mongering and clarifying what the government actually can
or cannot do (versus the private health care systems role in establishing and
maintaining infection control, treatment and training practices in hospitals and
facilities). While the Ebola crisis raises many concerns, it also shows how
much the rest of the world turns to and relies on the United States for the
expertise and leadership from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention to the National Institutes of Health to medical and public
health experts to manage serious global infectious threats. But, without

sufficient and sustained investments, our defenses and capabilities falter, and our
complacency becomes our biggest threat.

A2: Circumvention Rogue

The NSA is not a rogue agency its activities are overseen and
Lowry 5/26 (Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, The un-scary truth about
NSA spying, 5/26/15,
If the National Security Agencys bulk data program expires, the coroner should conclude that it was Death by

Rarely has a controversial government program been so

fiercely debated and so poorly understood. Authorized by soon-to-expire Section 215 of the
Bumper Sticker.

Patriot Act, it has been brought to the edge of extinction by a couple of simple but inaccurate phrases, including
listening to your phone calls and domestic spying. You can listen to orations on the NSA program for hours and
be outraged by its violation of our liberties, inspired by the glories of the Fourth Amendment and prepared to mount
the barricades to stop the NSA in its tracks and still have no idea what the program actually does. Thats what

their case against the program becomes so

much less compelling upon fleeting contact with reality. The program involves so-called metadata, information about phone calls, but not the content of the calls things like the numbers
the opponents leave out or distort, since

called, the time of the call, the duration of the call. The phone companies have all this information, which the NSA
acquires from them. What happens next probably wont shock you, and it shouldnt. As Rachel Brand of the Privacy

is stored in a database that may be searched

only by a handful of trained employees, and even they may search it only
after a judge has determined that there is evidence connecting a specific
phone number to terrorism. The charge of domestic spying is redolent of the days when J. Edgar
Hoover targeted and harassed Martin Luther King Jr. Not only is there zero evidence of any
such abuse, it isnt even possible based on the NSA database alone. There
are no names with the numbers. As former prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy points out, has more personal identifying information. The NSA is hardly a rogue agency.
Its program is overseen by a special panel of judges, and it has briefed
Congress about its program for years. In the context of all that is known
about us by private companies, the NSA is a piker. Take the retailer Target, for example.
and Civil Liberties Oversight Board writes, It

According to The New York Times, it collects your demographic information like your age, whether you are married
and have kids, which part of town you live in, how long it takes you to drive to the store, your estimated salary,
whether youve moved recently, what credit cards you carry in your wallet and what Web sites you visit. Of course,
the Fourth Amendment applies to the government, not private entities like Target. The amendment protects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of our persons, houses, papers, and effects. If the NSA were breaking into
homes and seizing metadata that people had carefully hidden away from prying eyes, it would be in flagrant
violation of the Fourth Amendment. But no one is in possession of his or her own metadata. Even if the NSA didnt

The Supreme Court has

held that you dont have an expectation of privacy for such information in
the possession of a third party. One frightening way to look at mail delivery is that agents of the
state examine and handle the correspondence of countless of millions of Americans. They arent
violating anyones Fourth Amendment rights, though, because no one expects the outside
exist, metadata would be controlled by someone else, the phone companies.

of their envelopes to be private. There are legitimate criticisms of the NSA program. It currently hangs on vague
phrasing in the Patriot Act. Congress should make it unmistakable that it is authorizing exactly what the NSA is

the program doesnt deserve the ignominy that has it in such

political peril. The House has passed a reform that might render the
program unworkable, and the Senate hasnt yet been able to act. It is hard to match the power of a
doing. But

bumper sticker.

NSA activities are being thoroughly overseen by FISA and

other courts
Schlanger 15 (Margo Schlanger, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan
Law School, Intelligence Legalism and the National Security Agency's Civil Liberties
Gap, February 2015,
The opinions suggest that the court is supervising the surveillance process with
close attention but not adjudicating its merit. And in some ways, that approach is inherent
in the judicial role. I have distinguished throughout this Article between rights or compliance or law

on the one hand, and interests or balancing or policy on the other. Courts, including the FISA Court, sit on the
law side of that divide. The dynamics of judicial law - pronouncement are, however, very different than for executive
compliance work. Executive branch lawyers role commits them to the search for yes when it can be, even if
they are simultaneously capable of delivering no when it must be. And executive lawyers tend to consider their

Judges, by contrast, begin

with a norm of impartiality rather than client service, and are far less
constrained with respect to whatever policy issues bear on their legal
decision-making, as well as with respect to legal interpretation itself. Thus
the FISA Court could serve as a body that engages in the should
question, at least to some extent, as part of the legal interpretive process.
Other courts examining the permissibility of the NSAs FISA surveillance
have done just that. 228 That the FISA Court did not take on the should question in any significant
clients preferences close to binding on policy issues, when such issue arise.

way, prior to the Snowden disclosures, may be in part due to the absence of adversarial briefing , as elaborated
upon in Part IV . 229 But my sense is that one - sided briefing is only part of the explanation. The FISA Courts one party procedures have a deeper impact, as well. The ex parte modality alters not just who communicates with the
court but how the government and court communicate with each other. Sometimes FISA judges make their
influence felt by the traditional judicial process of issuing a decision: the 2009 order suspending the NSAs access to
internet metadata 230 is one example. But much more often, facilitated by the ex parte nature of the proceedings,

General Counsel Robert Litt explained in congressional testimony in 2013:
When we prepare an application for a FISA [order], whether its under [Section 702 ] or
it seems that the courts views are delivered in the form of less formal advice to the government.

a traditional FISA [warrant], we first submit to the court whats called a read copy, which the court staff will review

they will almost invariably come back with questions,

concerns, problems that they see, and theres an iterative process back
and forth between the government and the FISA court to take care of
those concerns so that at the end of the day were confident that were
presenting something that the FISA Court will approve. That is hardly a
rubber stamp. Its rather extensive and serious judicial oversight of this
and comment on. And

A2: China FIT CP

Solvency Deficits
The Bilateral Trade Investment would not solve. China would
take advantage of US companies.
Scissors 14
Derek, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where he
studies Asian economic issues and trends. In particular, he focuses on the Chinese
and Indian economies and US economic relations with China and India. He is author
of the China Global Investment Tracker, an adjunct professor at George Washington
University, where he teaches a course on the Chinese economy. Before joining AEI,
Scissors was a senior research fellow in the Asian Studies Center at the Heritage
Foundation. He has also worked in London for Intelligence Research Ltd., taught
economics at Lingnan University in Hong Kong, and served as an action officer in
international economics and energy for the US Department of Defense. Stop the USChina Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) Talks, American Enterprise Institute, //NA
Washington and Beijing are ostensibly having serious discussions of a
bilateral investment treaty to improve transparency and other aspects of
the trans-Pacific investment environment. One hopes its not really true,
that the American side is just humoring the Chinese, because its
impossible at present to see such an agreement benefiting the US.
Excluding bonds, Chinese investment in the US set a record last year. Its on pace to
set another record this year. Just last week, Chinese technology giant Lenovo was
approved by the US to buy IBMs low-end server unit. A Chinese group that includes
state-owned enterprises bid for American chip-maker Omnivision. Theres also
Chinese investment in property, energy, and finance. The main complaint Beijing
can offer in this context is that a court decision in favor of a Chinese enterprise over
the US government took too long. In stark contrast, American acquisitions in the
PRC are on course for their worst performance in over a decade, even while there is
strong American spending elsewhere in the world. There is good reason for the
China-specific aversion: the Communist Party is harassing foreign companies,
with American technology firms near the top of the list. Qualcomm has been
found guilty of violating Chinas anti-monopoly law, punishment yet to be
announced. Microsoft is next in line. At best, the law is bizarrely and harmfully
applied, witness tiny InterDigital accused of bullying giant Huawei. At worst, it is
Beijing coercing lower prices and technology transfer. The PRC did not treat
multinationals well prior to General Secretary Xi Jinpings government taking office
and has treated them considerably worse since. American business can be shortsighted in its approach to China (though others can apparently be worse).
Believing a bilateral investment treaty (BIT) is a solution to the current
bout of mercantilism would be exceptionally short-sighted. Looking
backward, the lesson from Chinas WTO accession is clear: do not sign an
agreement hoping to bind the PRC when the Party has another
development path in mind. Looking forward, the recent policy shift what China
wants indicates that any BIT concessions what the US wants would be
imaginary. They would shortly be finessed, sidestepped, or simply ignored. A BIT
signed in 2015, for example, would see American business in 2018 complaining that
the Chinese are cheating and calling for a free trade agreement to create a truly

open market. Again. For Beijing to merely return to the pre-Xi government days
would be an improvement. But the new governments hypocrisy in its words
versus its actions robs it of the credibility needed for a proper BIT
negotiation. For that, there must also be clear and sustained progress in showing
that market competition is welcome from all comers, including multinationals. On
this side of the Pacific, the US should treat Chinese investment on the basis of how
it affects our economy. That the PRC is a poor partner is not a good reason to shoot
ourselves in the foot by blocking beneficial transactions. It is, however, a good
reason to put a BIT on hold for a good while.

China would not be a reliable partner. China blatantly

disregards US laws and regulations.

Sluzas, 6/19
Robin, Assistant to Exec. Dir., Triton College Foundation, Can the US trust China in
trade deals?, Chicago Tribune, //NA
While I recognize that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a logical step to
promote future business growth for the U.S., I still have reservations.
Specifically, there should be concern about Chinas penchant for flagrant
disregard of U.S. trade regulations and cybersecurity protections. Most
recently, it is thought (but not yet proved) that China hacked into the U.S. Office of
Personnel Management computers, compromising millions of Americans personal
information. It occurs to me that Chinese values regarding business are
vastly different from our own. I have no reason to believe that built-in
environmental, labor and intellectual property protections would be
honored. It just doesnt seem to be the Chinese way of doing business.
Further, it is assumed that U.S. company imports would be well-received
by the Chinese populace at large, giving the U.S. access to an evergrowing Chinese middle class. My question is, why would the Chinese
government want to buy our imports when they may have the ability to
steal our production and cybersecrets and then use them to put a billion
Chinese nationals to work? If I were Chinese, Id be thinking, Why pay
import tariffs and shipping costs when I can make everything in-house?
And how do we stop them from committing cyber- and industrial
espionage? How do we stop them from bullying smaller Asian/Pan-Pacific
countries into doing things their way? How do we make sure China stays
true to the built-in protections of the agreement? Simply put, theyre
bigger than us with a lot more people. Theoretically I think the Trans-Pacific
Partnership should happen. But I worry that China is not a trustworthy business
partner, and the U.S. has no way of ensuring it will be.

BIT is bad for both US and China: laundry list of reasons

Drake 13
Celeste, Trade & Globalization Policy Specialist at the AFL-CIO (American Federation
of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations), BIT with China Is the Wrong
Solution to the Wrong Problem, AFL-CIO, //NA

The United States is currently negotiating a bilateral investment treaty

(BIT) with China. When most people think of a bit, they think of something that
goes in a horses mouth, or maybe a small piece of something. Unfortunately, this
kind of BIT can be much more harmful than either of those things. A BIT is a treaty
between two countries in which each country promises to give rights and privileges
but impose no obligationsto investors from the other country. Usually these
investors are large corporations. If you wonder why the United States would
negotiate a treaty that grants rights and privileges to foreign corporations
(rights and privileges home-grown corporations dont have, by the way), youre not
alone. And if you are wondering why the United States would negotiate
such a treaty with China right nowwhen the United States already has a
$315 billion merchandise trade deficit with Chinayoure also not alone.
The AFL-CIO opposes the move to negotiate a BIT with China. Here are some
reasons you should be concerned, too: 1. The United States is negotiating
from a model BIT (and unlike other trade negotiations, this sample text is
public, so we know for the most part what a BIT with China would look like). The
model BIT does not effectively protect fundamental labor rights, including
freedom of association, collective bargaining and freedom from forced
labor. Given that the Chinese government does not adequately protect its
workers in these critical areas, making it easier for U.S.-based companies
to invest in China could exacerbate, rather than improve labor abuses in
China. 2. U.S. companies attracted to China by the prospect of a low-labor
rights regime could actually make our trade deficit with China worse if
they export their artificially cheaper products to the United States,
displacing products from the United States or other countries. This
practice is sometimes called social dumping. 3. Without adequate and
effective labor protections, global corporations essentially pit both
countries against each another in a competition to lower their costs, which
suppresses wages and working conditions for all. This is sometimes called
the race to the bottom. 4. The model BIT contains investor-to-state
dispute settlement (ISDS), a process that allows foreign investors who
think a law or regulation may impact the value of its investment to skip a
countrys domestic courts and bring their claims to a private panel (this
process is called arbitration). In other words, foreign investors can bypass
state and federal courts (the courts where all U.S.-owned businesses have to
bring their claims) and instead pursue their legal claims in front of
undemocratic, unaccountable panels of attorneysnot judges. 5. Most of
the attorneys who form the arbitration panels come from elite law firms, and
alternate between acting as panelists and acting as mouthpieces for global
investors. 6. ISDS has been used to challenge democratically-enacted laws
designed to promote public good. When corporations win, citizens lose,
either because their government has to fork over precious taxpayer
dollars to pay off the investor, or because the government agrees to
withdraw the law or regulation at issue. 7. Despite the fact that the U.S.
government and various state governments already have spent millions
defending ISDS claims, the U.S. government still included it in the model
BIT. 8. In the China context, state-owned enterprises, which are essentially an arm
of the Chinese government, could use ISDS. This would allow a foreign country to
use what is supposed to be a commercial process to engage in what should be
resolved through diplomacy. 9. The model BIT would do nothing to address

the Chinese governments record of violating trade commitments. Since it

joined the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Chinese government has
ignored commitments regarding market access for U.S. firms; enforcement
of intellectual property rights; subsidies; dumping; export restrictions;
currency exchange manipulation; and according equal status to national
and foreign products. The U.S. government has had to resort to legal
challenges over a wide variety of infractions, from chicken feet to
electronic payment processing to rare earth minerals. 10. U.S. workers
already have been hurt by trade with Chinalosing more than 2.7 million
jobs since 2001 and having their wages suppressedby $37.0 billion in
lost wages in 2011 alone. Workers cannot afford more bad trade policy
decisions. The current U.S. approach to BITs is unacceptably flawed, and if
the United States pursues a BIT with China now, it is likely to cause
further harm to U.S.-based producers and Americas working families.
Workers in both the United States and China deserve better.

BIT shows little results in combating Chinese cyber-attacks

Leavenworth 6/25
Stuart, Beijing Bureau Chief, McClatchy Newspapers, Feds Slow to Confront China
about Cyberattacks, Government Technology, //NA
In a teleconference briefing on Monday, a senior State Department official
told reporters that cyber issues will certainly be discussed at this weeks
Strategic Security Dialogue, an annual U.S.-Sino meeting that has been held for the last six years.
This years talks, which began Tuesday and end Wednesday, include Secretary of State John Kerry and Treasury
Secretary Jacob Lew and their Chinese counterparts, Vice Premier Wang Yang and State Councilor Yang Jiechi.
Some of the (hacking) revelations are fairly recent, and those will certainly be talked about in very direct terms,
both at the Strategic Security Dialogue, but also in all of the other sort of tracks where we have a chance to raise
these issues, said the official, who agreed to talk to reporters on the condition of anonymity. U.S. officials say they
are particularly concerned about Chinese military units reportedly assigned to hack into U.S. companies to steal
intellectual property for the benefit of Chinese industries. The Obama administration sees this activity as separate
from traditional spying, and last year it indicted five members of the Peoples Liberation Army for industrial

Segal said the U.S.-Sino talks may well produce some kind of
upbeat announcement, perhaps on a bilateral investment treaty. But the
two sides dont appear ready to seriously engage on cyber concerns, he
said. He also expressed doubts the administration is taking steps to prevent further breaches of government

computers. Last week, the White House announced a 30-day cyber security sprint to shore up federal networks
and prevent successful hacking. The

optimist in me wants to believe it will result in

some change, said Segal, director of the Council on Foreign Relations
Digital and Cyberspace Policy Program. The pessimist isnt sure.

Advantage CP Answers

A2 OSW Counterplan (Econ/Heg/Tech


Solvency Deficits
Doesnt solve foreign trust thats the most important internal
Washington Blog 15
Washington Blog, 5 Ways Mass Surveillance Is Destroying Our Economy, 2/17/15, SJE

Privacy is a prerequisite for a prosperous economy . Even the White House admits:
People must have confidence that data will travel to its destination
without disruption. Assuring the free flow of information, the security and privacy of data,
and the integrity of the interconnected networks themselves are all essential to American and
global economic prosperity, security, and the promotion of universal rights. Below, we discuss five
ways that mass surveillance hurts our economy. 1. Foreigners Stop Buying American Foreigners are
starting to shy away from U.S. Internet companies, due to the risk that
American spooks will spy on them. American tech companies including Verizon,
Cisco, IBM and others are getting hammered for cooperating with the NSA and failing
to protect privacy. The costs to the U.S. economy have been estimated to be in
the hundreds of billions of dollars . And see this and this. That doesnt even take into account
the just-revealed NSA program of infecting virtually all popular Western hard drives with spyware. This will cause
huge markets like China to insist that locally-produced hard drives be used, to make it harder for the NSA to hack

the NSAs shenanigans are hurting dual pillars of the U.S. tech
sector: computers and Internet. (The sale of mobile devices might not be far behind.) 2. Trust and
the Rule of Law Two Main determinants of Prosperity Are Undermined By Surveillance Trust is KEY for a
prosperous economy. Its hard to trust when your government, your internet service provider and your
favorite websites are all spying on you. The destruction of privacy by the NSA directly
harms internet companies, Silicon Valley, California and the entire U.S.
economy (Facebook lost 11 millions users as of April mainly due to privacy concerns and that was before the
into them. So

Snowden revelations). If people dont trust the companies to keep their data private, theyll use foreign companies.

destruction of trust in government and other institutions is destroying

our economy.

Wind Sector High Now

Wind energy is booming any ev before the 2013 tax credit is
Hill 14
Joshua, senior reporter for CleanTechnica, US Wind Industry Booming, Already Surpassing 2013 Levels, 10/22/14, SJE

The US wind industry is booming, installing more in the first 9 months of

2014 than was installed throughout all of 2013. The figures come from the American Wind Energy
Association (AWEA), which predicts 2014 will finish strong and push through to stepped-up installations throughout
2015. According to the AWEA, 19 projects have already been completed in the United States this year, based on
third quarter results released Monday. The

American wind industry responded to the

extension of the Production Tax Credit in 2013 by setting new records for
the number of new wind farms under construction and reaching the lowest
wind energy costs ever seen, said the AWEAs CEO, Tom Kiernan. With continued technological
innovation, wind energy has become so affordable that it offers utilities and
consumers an irresistible value, he added, citing recent Department of Energy (DOE) data
showing the cost of US wind power down by more than half over five years. We believe
Congress will do what it takes so we can keep these U.S. factories open and offer this increasingly affordable source
of electricity to more Americans, instead of seeing the 92 percent drop-off we saw in 2013 when the tax credit was

With the cost of wind energy competing with all traditional

means of energy generation, and according to some reports handily beating fossil fuels like coal,
the boost to the US wind industry is no surprise. That wind energy is
outperforming coal is also no surprise, given the regularity with which such reports pop up these days.
last allowed to expire.

And while the US is often more well known for its solar industry, wind power has proven itself in the past. According
to another report published earlier this year by AWEA, the US wind industry delivered 30% of all new generating
capacity over the previous five years.

The driving force behind the growth and

subsequent uncertainty of the US wind industry has been the Production Tax
Credit (PTC). The PTC provides a lower tax rate to US wind industry
developers over the first 10 years of the project. Many challenge the need for renewable energy to be
afforded governmental help, all the while forgetting that coal, for example, not only has a history of government
incentives and subsidies, but relies on them to this day. The PTC helps correct flaws in the U.S. electricity market
that does not value winds benefits for protecting the environment and consumers, said Michael Goggin, AWEA
Research Director. Wind energy creates billions of dollars in economic value by drastically reducing pollution that
harms public health and the environment, but wind developers do not get paid for that, even though consumers

the US Internal Revenue

clarified rules regarding how wind projects quality for the PTC
specifying that there is no fixed minimum amount of work or monetary or percentage threshold to qualify. The
clarification spurred analysts to suggest 2015 would yield the greatest
otherwise bear those costs. The US wind industry also recently received a boost after
Service (IRS)

benefit , creating with it heightened expectations for the year. With the tax credit threshold
clarified, developers and projects will move ahead freeing up almost 3 GW of projects that
were in the pipeline and creating a larger-still pipeline as developers aim to initiate their projects before the
possible end of the PTC. Stably-priced wind energy also protects consumers from price spikes for fuel, but that is
not accounted for in the highly regulated electricity market because other energy sources get to pass their fuel

the PTC correct for those market

failures to reach a more efficient market outcome.
price increases directly on to consumers, Goggin said. Policies like

Offshore wind is not job creation and is not K2 manufacturing

their studies are wrong
Linowes 12 Lisa Linowes. June 27th, 2012. Wind energy jobs: Are the numbers
pulled from thin air? Wind Action.

The American Wind Energy Association has made extending the Production Tax Credit ('PTC') its
primary focus this year. Documents available on the trade group's website show that about $4 million of its 2012 budget ($30
million) was directed toward securing extension of the PTC. With job growth the number one political issue in the United States,

calls for rebranding of the wind industry as an economic

engine that will produce steady job growth, particularly in the
manufacturing sector. The problem for AWEA is that the industry's own record
on job growth lacks credibility. Accurate information available in the public
suggests the industry has inflated its overall job numbers. Section 1603 and Jobs
Seventy-five percent of the Section 1603 largesse was lavished on big
wind, yet, despite billions in public funding, the wind sector experienced a loss of 10,000
direct and indirect jobs in 2010 bringing AWEA's reported total to 75,000 jobs[1]. In April, NREL released its
estimates of direct and indirect jobs created by projects receiving 1603 funding. The agency relied on the
JEDI model ("Jobs and Economic Development Impacts") to estimate gross jobs, earnings, and
economic output supported through the construction and operation of
solar photovoltaic (PV) and large wind projects. But an investigation by the House
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations rightly objected to NREL's conclusions. The Subcommittee found
that NREL overstated the number of jobs created under 1603, that it failed
to report on the more important net job creation, and ignored potential
jobs that would be created given alternative spending of Federal funds .
The key sticking point was that NREL did not validate its models using
actual data from completed projects. The Subcommittee concluded that models used to estimate job
AWEA's strategic plan

creation were no substitute for actual data and added: "The Section 1603 grant program was sold to the American people as a

the Treasury and Energy Departments do not have

the numbers to back up the Obama Administration's claims of its success
in creating jobs." The problem with JEDI Since NREL's JEDI model provides a gross analysis only, it does not
necessary stimulus jobs program, and yet,

consider how building a renewable energy facility might displace energy or associated jobs, earnings, and output related to other
existing or planned energy generation resources (e.g., jobs lost or gained related to changes in electric utility revenues and
increased consumer energy bills, among other impacts). In other words, the model is one-sided, only considering the benefit side of

So what data do we have on wind industry

jobs? Not much. Apparently, AWEA is the only source of nationwide employment
statistics in the United States for wind-related jobs. Of the purported 75,000 direct and
a cost-benefit comparison and ignores everything else.

indirect jobs, the majority (around 60%) work in finance and consulting services, contracting and engineering services, and
transportation and logistics. Twenty thousand are employed in wind-related manufacturing with the remaining jobs tied to
construction and O&M. But validating this information is not possible since no industry codes exist that isolate wind power
establishments or wind turbine and wind components establishments. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
bundles wind-related manufacturers under the same code as the "Turbine and Turbine Generator Set Units" manufacturing industry
(NAICS 333611), which includes "establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing turbines (except aircraft) and complete turbine
generator set units, such as steam, hydraulic, gas, and wind." At the end of 2010, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported 26,218
total jobs in this industry. It's not credible that AWEA's estimated manufacturing jobs could represent the vast majority of
employment under the NAICS 333611 classification.[2] Navigant's Magic In December, AWEA commissioned Navigant Consulting,
Inc. to study the impact of the PTC on job growth in the wind industry. The study, also based on the JEDI model, considered two
scenarios, one where the PTC is extended for 4 years (2013-2016); the other where the PTC expires at the end of this year.
Navigant's model showed that extension of the PTC would provide a stable economic environment and allow the wind industry to
grow to nearly 100,000 American jobs over four years, including a jump to 46,000 manufacturing positions. Expiration of the PTC
showed a loss of 37,000 jobs. The message to Congress was clear: extend the PTC or you will be blamed for American jobs being
lost. Even Interior Secretary Salazarpeddled AWEA's numbers despite the Congressional report that raised doubts about the model.
Recent statements by AWEA prompted us to look at the numbers even further. In May, AWEA's Denise Bode told Windpower Monthly
that of the estimated 75,000 wind jobs, at least 30,000 were manufacturing jobs -- a jump of 10,000 jobs! Where did the additional
manufacturing jobs come from? As it turns out, Navigant tabulated direct and indirect jobs but also quietly added INDUCED jobs -those jobs created when the overall level of spending in an economy rises due to workers newly receiving incomes. Factoring in
'induced employment' was a radical departure from job figures previously provided by AWEA. Induced job figures are more abstract
and inherently unreliable but a convenient way to inflate job numbers. We could find no documentation that explained this change in
job reporting nor was the change footnoted in the Navigant study. We spoke with a Navigant represent who suggested AWEA might
have been incorrectly treating 'induced jobs' as 'indirect jobs' in its prior reports but that would not explain the inflation in
manufacturing jobs. Total job counts would have stayed about the same. In looking at the Navigant modeled numbers, it appears
the wind industry currently only provides 58,000 direct and indirect jobs, not 75,000. A four-year extension of the PTC could result in
a possible 70,000 direct and indirect jobs by 2016 (scenario 2) -- 5,000 less than the number AWEA touts today! Conclusion

The change in job counts raises serious credibility issues about the
industry's employment strength. But the absolute numbers tell only a piece of the story. Since Navigant's

study is based on JEDI, the job figures represent gross numbers and do not consider them in the context of the larger economy. In
that sense, Navigant's findings, like NREL's study, tell us nothing about the true impact of the PTC. But one thing does appear to be
true: AWEA's job figures, dating back to least 2009, may be nothing more than figures pulled from thin air. [1] Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory

reports (p. 7): "The American Wind Energy Association, meanwhile, estimates that the entire

wind energy sector directly and indirectly employed 75,000 full-time

workers in the United States at the end of 2010 - about 10,000 fewer fulltime-equivalent jobs than in 2009, mostly due to the decrease in new wind
power plant construction." A recent AWEA blog (February 3, 2012) confirms the 75,000 is still current. [2]
Wind manufacturing represents under 1% of the 11.5 million domestic
manufacturing jobs in 2010

2AC OSW Not Key to Manufacturing

Wind not key to overall U.S. manufacturing --- parts will just be
IER, 11 (11/14/2011, Institute for Energy Research, Rebutting Ms. Bodes Wind

Current Wind Industry Jobs According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS),
the number of wind manufacturing jobs has remained relatively flat over
the past 3 years at an estimated 20,000 jobs. (See chart below.) The majority of the 75,000
jobs (60 percent) that Ms. Bode quotes are in finance and consulting services, contracting and engineering services,
and transportation and logistics. Only 3,500 jobs were in construction and 4,000 in operations and maintenance in

Wind turbine manufacturing is responsible for a very small share (less

than 1 percent) of the total manufacturing jobs (11.5 million) in the United
States in 2010. According to the DOE report that evaluated the 20 percent
wind energy in 2030, turbine assembly and component plants would
supply about 32,000 manufacturing jobs in 2026. But the American Wind
Energy Associations assessment is that the number would be 3 to 4 times
that amount under a long-term stable policy environment. As CRS notes,
the real number will be dependent not only on the demand for wind, but
also on corporate decisions of where to produce the needed components.
Those decisions could very well result in manufacturing jobs outside of the
United States. As CRS notes, imports of wind generating equipment increased from $482.5 million in 2005

to $2.5 billion in 2008, held at $2.3 billion in 2009 and decreased to $1.2 billion in 2010 due to lower relative

European suppliers were the leaders in wind equipment imports to the
United States, South Korea and China are now becoming players in the
U.S. market.
demand for new wind energy, declining prices, and new manufacturing plants in the United States.

Offshore Wind Turbines will just be manufactured in China and

boost their hegemonic rise DOE grants prove Cheaper prices
and experience
Yuan Yuan 14 (Liu Yuanyuan, [international correspondant for Renewable Energy

World], China Boosts Offshore Wind Development, 5/22/14,
An industry expert at NDRC indicated that the combined capacity of approved offshore wind farms
in China, including intertidal projects, has exceeded 4,000 MW. The combined capacity of offshore
wind projects scheduled to start construction by 2015 will exceed 300 MW, according to data from CNREC. The
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) said in early May that it will allocate up
to $141 million to three pioneering offshore wind demonstration projects
over the next four years to help speed up the deployment of more efficient offshore wind power
technologies. Benefiting from the support for offshore wind projects in the U.S.,
Fishermen's Energy's 25MW offshore windmill backed by Xiangtan Electric
Manufacturing, a China-based electrical equipment manufacturer, won a
US$4 million grant from the DOE, subject to regulatory approvals.

1AR OSW Not Key to Manufacturing

Wind not key to manufacturing jobs
Platzer 11 Michaela D. Congressional Research Service, "U.S. Wind Turbine
Manufacturing: Federal Support for an Emerging Industry" 9/23/11 Cornell University
ILR School,
article=1871&context=key_workplace, 8/21/12
Wind turbine manufacturing is responsible for a very small share of the
11.5 million domestic manufacturing jobs in 2010, well under 1%. It seems
unlikely, even given a substantial increase in U.S. manufacturing capacity,
that wind turbine manufacturing will become a major source of
manufacturing employment. In 2008, the U.S. Department of Energy forecast that if wind power
were to provide 20% of the nations electrical supply in 2030, U.S. turbine assembly and component plants could
support roughly 32,000 full-time manufacturing workers in 2026.82 AWEAs more optimistic projection is that the
wind industry could support three to four times as many manufacturing workers as at present if a long-term stable

Further employment
growth in the sector is likely to depend not only upon future demand for
wind energy, but also on corporate decisions about where to produce
towers, blades, nacelles, and their most sophisticated components, such
as gearboxes, bearings, and generators.
policy environment were in place, which implies a total of 80,000 jobs.83

Clean energy doesnt boost manufacturingdeveloped

ASBC '11
American Sustainable Business Council, "American Sustainable Business Council
White House Briefing: Creating Jobs and Building a Sustainable Economy," 6/2/11
AD 8/19/11
Despite its hardships, American manufacturing still represents a considerable
share of the U.S. economy. The sectors gross output in 2005 was $4.5 trillion,
and it still supports nearly 13 million jobs, or nearly 10 percent of total nonfarm employment. The clean energy sector is projected to reach $226 billion
annually by 2016. Demand for solar and wind power will continue to expand
over the next twenty years, and upwards to 80% of these new jobs will be in
the manufacturing sector. Clean energy manufacturing offers an
opportunity to strengthen and expand Americas middle class. But
theres one big problem: we dont make most of these systems here
in the U.S. Fully half of Americas existing wind turbines were
manufactured overseas. We rank fifth among countries that
manufacture solar components, even though the solar cell was born in
America. The fact that other countries are prepared to deliver these
products and we are not means that every new American bill
creating demand for renewable energy systems and energy efficiency
services actually creates new jobs overseas, even though we the US has a
robust manufacturing infrastructure and skilled workforce.

NDolo concludes neg

NDolo 2/16 (Michael NDolo Vice President of Camoin Associates, email to

Jacob Hegna, Offshore Wind's Potential Economic Benefits 2 February 2015)//JHH

you published an article that described the possible economic

benefits of offshore wind power. Myself and many other nationally competitive debaters read that
article to make the argument that without offshore wind, the United States
manufacturing sector will face a significant decline , however offshore wind
production can completely reverse this. Would you agree or disagree with this claim?
Michael: Disagree. No way is offshore going to completely reverse the
Jacob: In 2010,

manufacturing decline . Jacob: Would you mind if I quoted this email in a debate round, assuming I
use a proper citation? Michael: Sure. No problem.

Manufacturing Not K2 Econ

Manufacturing is not key to the U.S. economy

Hassett, 10 (Kevin, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise

Institute, Obama's Obsession Drives Progress in Reverse: Kevin Hassett, 8/15/10,
Manufacturing has been on a moreorlesssteady decline as a share of
national output for decades, part of the natural evolution of the U.S.
economy. Its time politicians stop calling this a national crisis. Lots of
firms went bankrupt during the recession without the federal government
sweeping in to save them. Big manufacturing firms had to be rescued because of their symbolic
power. Massive government intervention, it seems, is advisable to save the auto industry because manufacturing
output is somehow more valuable than other types of output. Like the rest of Obamas economic policy, the
foundation for this idea is nonexistent. Small wonder his economists are quitting. Plan Power Later in his talk at GM,
Obama pledged to insist that management, workers, creditors, suppliers, dealers, shareholders, everybody get
together and come up with a plan so that we can start building for the future. I guess that means the problem with

automakers were swamped by insanely high

labor costs after years of unwise concessions to unions ; the problem was that we
the American auto industry was not that the

never had a presidential orator brilliant enough to urge everyone to get together and craft a plan to save
manufacturing. Truth is, we already know Obamas plan: to tax you to keep the rustladen, unionheavy industrial
sector afloat. Sadly, similar thinking seems to be catching like a plague. Two days before the presidents speech, the
House voted 379 to 38 to pass H.R. 4692, which recommends establishing a presidential task force to create a
National Manufacturing Strategy to revive U.S. industries. Special Treatment You might ask, whats the harm in yet
another government study? Heres what. One provision in the bill would require the president to include, in each
years federal budget, information on how the spending plan advances the manufacturing strategy. That would give

Manufacturing has been declining as a

share of U.S. gross domestic product for some time, from about 28 percent in 1950 to
about 11 percent in 2009. Any economist can tell you that this decline is not
necessarily a cause for concern. Over the past few decades, our economy
has transformed dramatically, and the importance of innovation has
increased sharply. A 2006 study by the Federal Reserve found that investment in intangible capital is
more important today, in the aggregate, than investment in tangible capital. We have become an
ideas economy. Thats not a problem. Its economic evolution, a natural
and positive force. The agricultural sector has seen a similar decline in the last 60 years, falling to 1
manufacturing special treatment in every budget.

percent of GDP from roughly 7 percent.

Manuf High Now

Manufacturing High Now

Bartash 14 (Jeffry Bartash, [Reporter for Marketwatch in Washington],

Manufacturers boost production to highest level in 10 years, 11/3/14,
U.S. manufacturers boosted production in October to the highest level in 10
years and wracked up a big increase in new orders, a survey of executives
found. The Institute for Supply Management said Monday its manufacturing
index jumped to 59% from 56.6% in the prior month. Readings over 50%
indicate more companies are expanding instead of shrinking. Economists
surveyed by MarketWatch has expected the index to be little changed at 56.5%. The
index is compiled from a survey of executives who order raw materials and other
supplies for their companies. The gauge tends to rise or fall in tandem with the
health of the economy An index that tracks production edged up by 0.2 points to
64.8%, marking the highest level since May 2004. Manufacturers have been one
of the stellar performers in the economy over the past year, benefiting by
surging sales of autos, airplanes and other big-ticket items. Nor do
manufacturers show any sign of letting up. The ISMs new-orders index
climbed 5.8 point to 65.8%, trailing only a 66.7% reading in August as the highest
level since 2009.

2AC OSW Economy Turn

Offshore wind Siphons off jobs from other more productive
parts of the economy
Green, 9 --- Resident Scholar at the AEI (2/23/2009, "Green" Illusions,

Let's review the reasons why governments cannot create jobs, and why labelling them "green" doesn't change the
basic dynamics. Let's start with the fallacy that governments can create jobs. This fallacy was exploded all the way

only way governments can create jobs is by first obliterating other jobs.
Sometimes, they obliterate other jobs by diverting taxpayer money away
from the economic uses the taxpayer would have pursued if they had kept
their taxes. Other times, they obliterate jobs by imposing regulations that
kill off one industry in favour of another. In still other situations, they
impose mandates, such as using recycled paper to create an artificial
market for recycled paper which reduce jobs in fresh-paper production. In
the green energy case, they are doing all of the above: Taxpayer dollars are being used to subsidize the
back in 1845 by a French politician and political economist named Frdric Bastiat. Bastiat pointed out that

renewable energy sector; damaging regulations are being implemented on the traditional fossil fuel sector, and
mandates for the use of renewable energy are being issued, creating a false market in wind power at the expense
of fossil fuel and nuclear power. Governments also invariably siphon off a good part of the money for
"administration," creating civil service jobs that pay comparatively higher wages than the private sector for similar

government efforts to create jobs cost the economy jobs and,

adding insult to injury, divert limited resources to inefficient uses, causing
economic underperformance.
activity. Inevitably,

Will destroy the economy with greater costs and electricity

prices --- Germany proves
OKeefe, 12 --- CEO, George C. Marshall Institute (12/22/2012, William, The
Wind Tax Credit: Green Welfare,, JMP)
Many European countries, especially Germany, have traveled the clean energy road and
by doing so have put their economies into a ditch. An analysis of Germanys rush to
renewables by the European Institute for Climate and Energy warned of
impending doom for the German economy caused by the lemming like
charge to the Green mirage of affordable renewable energy. The report went on,
The problem is that these energy sources are weather-dependent and
thus their sporadic supply is starting to wreak havoc on Germanys power
grid and is even now threatening to destabilize power grids all across Europe! after tens of billions of euros

spent on renewable energy systems and higher prices for consumers, not a single coal or gas-fired power plant has
been taken offline. To the contrary, old inefficient German plants have been brought back into service in an effort to
stabilize the grid. With an economy that increasingly is reliant on electric power generation, we need to focus on
abundant, reliable, and affordable sources of electric power generation. For the foreseeable future, that source is

There is a clear lesson from 40 years of energy industrial policy

initiatives, including the wind tax credit. It is simply not possible to create
technological short cuts by throwing money at alternative energy systems.
natural gas.

2AC OSW Blackouts Turn

Empirical technical problems cause blackouts, prevent
constant power generation, add extra costs
Gaertner 10

Edgar, independent editor and consultant on risk evaluation and sustainability

issues, former editor-in-chief for the World Wide Fund for Nature, Germanys
Offshore Wind: Wasted Resources, Environmental Blight, 12/1,
Barely two months after the inauguration ceremony for Germanys first
pilot offshore wind farm, Alpha Ventus in the North Sea, all six of the
newly installed wind turbines were completely idle, due to gearbox
damage. Two turbines must be replaced entirely; the other four
repaired. Friends of the project, especially Germanys environment minister,
Norbert Roettgen, talked of teething problems. The problem is far more
serious than that, for wind turbines in the high seas are extremely
expensive for power consumers, even when they run smoothly. When
they dont, the problem intensifies. Germany could face blackouts a
new dark age. The Alpha Ventus failures created intense pressure for Areva
Multibrid, a subsidiary of the semipublic French nuclear power company Areva.
Every standstill day, with the expensive towering turbines standing
idle and not generating a single kilowatt hour of electricity, causes
lost revenue. Environmental economist and meteorologist Thomas Heinzow
of the University of Hamburg estimated the operators revenue shortfall at
almost $6,500 (5,000) per turbine per standstill day. Instilling additional
consternation within Areva was the certainly not unreasonable fear that
already skittish investors could get cold feet, and wander off in search of less
risky ventures. Actually, Areva, Areva Multibrid and the construction engineers
can consider themselves lucky that the North Sea was relatively calm, thanks
to the summer heat wave. Installing turbines and blades is done via jack-up
platforms, a tricky business under the best circumstances. With anything
above Beaufort Wind Force 3 (an 810 mph gentle breeze), the work
becomes downright risky. The six Areva Multibrid wind turbines stand 280
feet (85 meters) above the waves at the gearbox and turbine hub. Their
heavy blades are 380-feet (116-meters) in diameter. Each turbine
weighs 1,000 metric tons (2.2 million pounds), including the tripod base,
which rises up from the sea floor 100 feet (30 meters) beneath the surface of
these notoriously rough and frigid North Sea waters. Imagine trying to
disassemble and then rebuild these monsters in anything other than
calm seas. The good news is that Alpha Ventus also includes six even
bigger wind turbines, supplied by the formerly German company REpower,
which now belongs to Indias Suzlon Corporation. These turbines have thus far
been running faultlessly. However, there are enough other issues
associated with operating offshore turbines to send additional shivers
up the spine.

1AR OSW Blackouts Turn

Wind causes blackouts and requires backup generators---turns
electricity cost internal link and warming
Snyder and Kaiser 8
Brian, LSU Center for Energy Studies, Mark J, Ecological and Economic Cost-Benefit
Analysis of Offshore Wind Energy, Renewable Energy, 34, 2009, pp 1567-1578,
Online 12
One of the most substantive criticisms of wind power is that it is unable to
provide constant, predictable power to the grid. The electricity grid is
designed to send a constant AC load to consumers and it relies on
large power plants producing predictable and steady electricity. Wind
energy is not steady and varies on the scale of minutes, hours, days and
months and the changes in wind power output are difficult to predict ahead of
time [7]. Therefore, integrating wind power into the electricity grid will
require backup systems (especially natural gas fired power plants)
that can respond quickly to changing production from wind farms [8]. This
increases the total national cost of electricity. The DOE has estimated
that the supply up to 20% of the nations electrical use from wind power would
cost up to $5/MW h in integration costs [9].

2AC OSW Unpopular

Offshore wind costs PC Obama pushes despite controversy
Todd Sperry, CNN correspondent, 8-16-2012 Wind farm gets US approval
despite controversy
DA: 6/8/14
A massive

offshore wind farm planned for Cape Cod that has generated fierce political and

legal controversy

has cleared all federal and state regulatory hurdles. The Federal Aviation Administration said Wednesday the Cape Wind project, the first of

its kind in the United States, would not interfere with air traffic navigation and could proceed with certain conditions. Previous agency approvals were challenged in court, including a

Obama administration first

approved the power generating project, which has now been on the books for more than a decade, in April 2010 despite opposition from residents.
ruling last year that forced the latest FAA safety evaluation. A leading opposition group said another legal challenge was possible. The

Opponents over the years have included the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Democrat of Massachusetts whose family compound is in Hyannis Port. 125 years of wind power

Critics claim the wind farm with its 130 turbines would threaten wildlife and aesthetics of Nantucket Sound. Some
local residents also fear it will drive down property values. The administration
has pushed

a "green energy" agenda


as a way to create jobs and lessen U.S. dependence on oil imports.

That effort, however,

has been sharply criticized by congressional Republicans who have said certain
high-profile projects are politically driven. They also have skewered certain Energy
Department programs that extended millions in taxpayer loans and other aid to
alternative energy companies or projects that faltered or did not meet expectations. The Republican-led House
Oversight and Government Reform Committee is investigating the political assertions around Cape Wind as part of
a broader review of "green energy" projects supported by the administration. The panel's chairman, California's Darrell Issa, wrote President Barack Obama last week saying that

White House interest in the Massachusetts project is "well known" and that the FAA had been under political
pressure to approve it.

1AR OSW Unpopular

Counterplan perceived as picking winners triggers GOP
backlash and spills over to new controversy over offshore
Zack Coleman, E2 Wire THE HILLs Environment and Energy Blog, 11-9- 2012, DA: 6/11/14
GOP senators accuse Interior of playing favorites in offshore wind deal Two
GOP senators are accusing the Interior Department of playing favorites by offering Atlantic waters for
wind farms but not oil and gas development. At issue is a lease for
developing commercial wind power in federal waters off the Delaware coast. The area in
question is off limits to oil-and-gas drillers in President Obamas five-year offshore drilling plan. GOP
Sens. David Vitter (La.) and Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) sent a letter Friday to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar asking
him to evaluate the economics of the potential wind farm against a
comparably sized oil-and-gas deal. The administration has a habit of
picking energy-industry winners and losers , and we want an explanation.
Secretary Salazar should at least be able to defend the economics of the lease sale for wind energy. For example, the
federal government receives significant revenue from royalties for
offshore oil and gas production in the form of rents, royalties, bonus bids and taxes. Can the same
be said for this offshore wind project? Vitter said in a Friday statement. The
administration has cited environmental reasons for the restriction on Atlantic
and Pacific offshore drilling. It says its plan still permits exploration for 75 percent of identified reserves. Obama revised
his offshore drilling plan following the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. When Interior released the administration's final leasing

Republicans in both the House

and the Senate have criticized Interior for its handling of offshore drilling
plan in June, it described the blueprint as "responsible" and "cautious."

in response to the 2010 spill. They say Interior acted too quickly by imposing a drilling freeze in the Gulf of Mexico, and complain

GOP lawmakers say Obama's five-year offshore

plan is too limited. They want to open the Atlantic and Pacific to drilling ,
saying drillers could unlock previously undiscovered reserves. Vitter and Alexander said increasing
offshore oil-and-gas leases would generate new revenue that could help
pay down the deficit. They said oil and gas firms would pay handsomely for the right to explore those areas, and
noted they would owe federal royalties on anything they dredge up. The senators wanted to compare
that to what Interior offered NRG Bluewater Wind Delaware LLC for the wind lease sale.
that rules instituted since then are overly burdensome.

Offshore wind causes controversy GOP and environmentalists

backlash to Obama push
Darrell Delamaide is a writer, editor and journalist with more than 30 years'
experience. He is the author of three books and has written for magazines,
newspapers, and online media. A specialist in business and finance, he lived in
Europe for many years, has traveled widely, and has a master's degree from
Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs. 4-30- 2010 U.S.
Approval of Cape Cod Offshore Wind Project Will Not End Controversy DA: 6/8/14


Obama administration approved the controversial

in Nantucket Sound and will be the first

Cape Wind project, which calls for a wind farm of 130 turbines

offshore wind project in the country. But it is sure to generate


controversy as opposition was voiced by everyone from environmental

groups to Native American tribes to Cape Cod residents, who are disturbed at the prospect that they will
see the wind turbines as specks on the horizon. The turbines will be five miles from shore at their closest point, and 14 miles and their most distant. The
late Sen. Edward Kennedy opposed the project because the turbines will be visible from the Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port. Massachusetts Gov. Deval
Patrick, however, welcomed the project and was present at the Boston announcement of the federal government approval. The state wants to have 20%
of its energy from renewable sources by 2020. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar made it clear that the decision is final and that the administration is
confident it can withstand the court challenges that are sure to come.

The project has been under review for

nearly 10 years.

There are about a dozen other offshore projects being contemplated, most of them off the Eastern seaboard north of
Chesapeake Bay. A number of northern European countries are already operating offshore wind farms in the north Atlantic. The Cape Wind farm is
expected to begin generating electricity by the end of 2012, pending the outcome of the legal challenges. It will provide sufficient electricity for threequarters of the 225,000 residents of Cape Cod. An attempt to block the project by the American Council on Historical Preservation, which cited the

sites on the Cape, was opposed by Patrick and governors from

Environmentalists oppose the project
because it interferes with habitats of numerous marine animals and birds, and because of its visual impact on the
historical value of the Kennedy compound and other

Delaware, New York, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Maryland.


Offshore wind funding causes controversy GOP budget

Jessica Goad et al is the Manager of Research and Outreach for the Center for
American Progresss Public Lands Project. Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean
Policy at the Center. Christy Goldfuss is the Public Lands Project Director at the
Center. 12-6-2012 7 Ways that Looming Budget Cuts to Public Lands and Oceans
Will Affect All Americans DA:
On January 2, 2013 a set of large, across-the-board spending cuts to nearly all federal agencies is set
to take place in accordance with the Budget Control Act 2011. These massive slashesknown as the fiscal showdown or sequestrationare a direct result of
conservatives in Congress holding the American economy hostage in order to
safeguard tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. While much has been written and said about what this would do to the economy, health care, national security, and other major

The fiscal showdown is the

latest in a series of budget conflicts that have come to a head over the last year. Because the
domestic programs, one relatively unexplored issue is the effect it would have on some of Americas most treasured assets: our oceans and public lands.

Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reductionthe super committeewas unable to come to an agreement on how to address the deficit, massive, automatic cuts to federal programs
will take place unless Congress agrees by years end on an alternative set of budgetary measures to replace sequestration. If they fail to do so, federal spending will be automatically
slashed by $1.2 trillion from 2013 through 2021, with approximately $109 billion in cuts coming in fiscal year 2013. Despite the fact that Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH)
offered a plan with $800 billion in new revenue, he has not outlined any specific or realistic path to get there and wants to lower tax ratesa plan that heads in the wrong direction. As a
result, the country is now in a precarious situation. Only an eleventh-hour deal will prevent cuts that former Secretary of Defense Robert Gateswho served under both President George
W. Bush and President Barack Obamahas said would have a catastrophic effect on national security. Sequestrations impacts could be equally calamitous for the management of
federal programs that safeguard American lives, fuel our economy, and provide treasured sites for rest and recreation. Sequestration will have a bigand negativeimpact on land and
ocean management agencies. Heres how itll affect all Americans: Less accurate weather forecasts Slower energy development Fewer wildland firefighters Closures of national parks
Fewer places to hunt Less fish on your table Diminished maritime safety and security Congressional Republicans are beginning to wake up to the reality that our financial woes cannot be
solved simply by slashing spendingadditional sources of revenue must be part of the equation. Several conservatives have recently broken ranks from GOP taxation task-master,
lobbyist Grover Norquist, who is most known for the pledge he convinced many in Congress to sign promising to reject any tax increases. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) recently suggested that
he is not obligated to honor the pledge he made with Norquist to oppose tax increases. This is good news for the American people who enjoy government serviceseverything from a
strong military to the interstate highway system to public educationbecause it means that an honest conversation about addressing the deficit that includes both new revenues and

unless more conservatives join this trend, sequestration will be inevitable, in which case we are
going to have to start making do without some of these vital services we now consider fundamental to
cuts can move forward. But

our daily lives. In this issue brief, we examine seven key areas where federal land and ocean management agencies, such as the Department of the Interior and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, make critical investments on which Americans have come to depend and what cutting these agencies might mean, including: Less accurate weather
forecasts Slower energy development Fewer wildland firefighters Closures of national parks Fewer places to hunt Less fish on our tables Diminished maritime safety and security Overall,
the Office of Management and Budget predicted in a recent report that sequestration will cut $2.603 billion in fiscal year 2013 alone from the agencies that manage the hundreds of
millions of acres of lands and oceans that belong to U.S. taxpayers. There is no doubt Americans will feel the impacts of such massive cuts. In particular, we will see reductions in many
services provided by land and ocean management agencies such as weather satellites, firefighters, American-made energy, and hunting and fishing opportunities. Additionallyand
perhaps most obviouslythe cuts will likely cause some level of closure, if not complete closure, at many of our parks, seashores, and other cherished places. Losing funding for these
critical services and infrastructure also reduces their tremendous value as job creators and economic drivers. Americans depend on our public lands and ocean management agencies in
three crucial areas: Providing safety and security (weather forecasting, park rangers, firefighters, the Coast Guard, etc.) Enhancing economic contributions (the Department of the
Interior leveraged $385 billion in economic activity such as oil and gas, mining, timber, grazing, and recreation in 2011) Preserving Americas shared history, heritage, and recreation
opportunities (national parks, forests, seashores, and historic landmarks) Voters recognize the value of these services and by nearly a 3-to-1 margin oppose reducing conservation funds
to balance the budget. A poll conducted by the Nature Conservancy determined that 74 percent of voters say that, even with federal budget problems, funding for conservation should
not be cut. And in the 2012 election, voters across 21 states approved ballot measures raising $767 million for new parks and conservation initiatives. As these statistics clearly show,
many citizens are willing to pay a little more in order to fund conservation and related programs. In order to continue providing these necessary services to the American people,


must put forward a realistic plan that embraces both revenue increases and spending cuts. Such an approach would maintain as much
funding as possible for these critical and valued government programs. The cost to administer our lands and ocean agencies is a sound investment for Americans due to the economic

Attempting to balance the budget and avoid the fiscal showdown simply by cutting
spending without a plan to increase revenue means we will be less prepared for the next Hurricane Sandy. It means we will be unable to control massive wildfires
and societal benefits they provide.

Impact on


as quickly as we can today. And it means we will have fewer places to hunt, fish, and relax.
public lands and
The White House Office of
Management and Budget released a report in September determining that the sequestration percentages for the non-defense function would be a reduction of 8.2 percent for
discretionary appropriations and 7.6 percent for direct spending. All of the cuts described in this issue brief are nondefense discretionary, except for one account in the Coast Guard that
has a defense function and would receive a 9.4 percent cut totaling $50 million in fiscal year 2013. It is important to note that the Office of Management and Budget does not provide
much specificity about how these cuts would be administered to individual programs within agencies. It lists them only in terms of high-level budget line items where appropriations are
tracked. For example, the analysis shows that the National Park Service operations budget will lose $183 million, but it does not specify which services or which parks will bear the brunt
of this reductionthose decisions are left to the agencies and departments themselves. It is therefore difficult to guess what sort of cuts the agencies might makefor example, which
areas might close, which programs might end, how many jobs will be lost, and other details. Nevertheless, we can easily assume that cuts on such a massive scale will have a major
impact on a number of fronts, and that Americans will feel them with regard to the services and values that the agencies provide. Less accurate weather forecasts One of the most
important and evident investments that the federal government makes is in weather prediction. But sequestration could threaten the governments ability to provide accurate weather
forecasting by cutting the budget for the agency where weather prediction is housed. If this happens, Americans will get less precise daily weather reports and will suffer through less
accurate natural disaster predictions for hurricanes, blizzards, droughts, tornadoes, and other weather events from the mundane to the catastrophic. The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Agency is the central agency for critical weather prediction resources. Its National Weather Service is the nations primary source of the data and analysis, forming the basis
of everything from the forecasts you receive from meteorologists on the morning news to the National Hurricane Centers storm-tracking capabilities to the long-term projections of
global climate change. Even the Weather Channels forecasts come from this agencys data. The United States is already falling behind other nations when it comes to forecasting
capabilities. As accurate as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys predictions of the track of Hurricane Sandy proved to be, European models predicted its landfall days before
U.S. models did. As a result, when meteorologists sought to predict the arrival and intensity of the large storm that slammed into the New York/New Jersey area less than a week after
Sandy, they frequently referenced the European models predictions to lend more credibility to their reports. Even though our domestic weather prediction capabilities trail the Europeans
in many capacities, sequestrations 8.2 percent cut would make them even worse. One specific example involves the ongoing effort to replace our nations aging weather monitoring
satellites. The Government Accountability Office predicted that even at current spending levels, to buy replacement satellites, there will likely be a gap in satellite data lasting 17 to 53
monthsthe time it takes the old satellite to shut down and when its replacement can come online. During this time, the accuracy of advance warnings of impending weather disasters
such as hurricanes and blizzards could decline by as much as 50 percent. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction account would
face a $149 million reduction, according to the Office of Management and Budgets projections. This would almost certainly extend the amount of time the country will have to get by
with lower-quality storm predictions and warnings, potentially causing more damage and fatalities due to inaccurate weather prediction. Slower energy development


development is an important and legitimate use of our lands and oceans. Both onshore lands and the Outer Continental Shelf (lands owned by the
U.S. that are underwater offshore) provide substantial natural resources used for energy. In fact, 32 percent of the oil, 21 percent of the natural gas, and 43 percent of the coal produced

Sequestration, however, could potentially hinder government agencies from

planning, studying, and permitting this energy development by limiting their resources and available staff. Public lands and oceans
in the United States comes from federal lands and waters.

also offer significant opportunities for renewable energy development. Recently, the Department of the Interior announced that it had approved 10,000 megawatts of solar, wind, and
geothermal energy on public lands, more than all previous administrations combined. The agency is also making progress when it comes to offshore wind development. The Cape Wind
project has received all its permits and is preparing to begin construction on the countrys first offshore wind farm, in Massachusetts Nantucket Sound. And after completing the first
phase of its Smart from the Start initiative, which identifies areas off the Atlantic coast that will be offered to developers, the agency issued its first lease under the program in October.
But all of this progress could be drastically slowed under sequestration. Land and

the programs

ocean management agencies face cuts to

that allow them to plan for, study, permit, and help build fossil fuel and renewable energy projects on an efficient timeline. This means projects will

take longer to get approved and set up, delaying the process of energy development and in some cases potentially stopping it completely. The stalling of energy development from our
own public lands and oceans will also mean a greater reliance on foreign energy sourcesan outcome weve been trying to get away from for years. Specifically, the Department of the
Interiors Bureau of Land Management faces an $85 million cut to its Management of Lands and Resources account in fiscal year 2013 alone. Part of this account is devoted to energy
and minerals management, including permit processing and environmental analyses of energy projects. The Departments Fish and Wildlife Service also has funds that allow it to study
the impacts of energy development on species and habitats, but the account that is in part devoted to this purposeResource Managementwill be slashed by $105 million in 2013
under sequestration. These types of cuts could delay the environmental review process, making it more difficult for renewable energy projects on public lands to actually get off the

the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management will be cut by

This agency manages exploration, science,
leasing, permitting, and development of offshore energy resources , both fossil and
ground. In terms of offshore energy development,

$13 million in fiscal year 2013 if the sequester moves forward.

renewable. Such a large cut to this agencys budget could slow down the recent progress made on offshore wind energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf.

A2 Cyber Treaty Counterplan


Solvency Deficit
Countries refuse to sign the treaty

CNN 12 CNN Alex Fitzpatrick, Fri December 14, 2012, CNN, U.S. refuses to sign UN
Internet treaty,
The United States, along with the United Kingdom and Canada, is refusing to sign a
United Nations treaty on telecommunications and the Interne t that has been
under negotiation for the past two weeks. Terry Kramer , the U.S. Ambassador to the World
Conference on International Telecommunications, said Thursday that "the
U.S. cannot sign the [treaty] in [its] current form." "We candidly cannot
support an ITU treaty that is inconsistent with a multi-stakeholder model
of Internet governance," said Kramer during a conference session. "As the ITU has stated, this
conference was never meant to focus on Internet issues. However, today we are in a situation where we still have

policy should not be determined by member states but by citizens,
communities, and broader society, and such consultation from the private
sector and civil society is paramount," he continued. "This has not happened here." The U.S.
decision to withdraw comes following a surprise move late Wednesday in which the chair
of the conference called a voice vote on controversial proposal that
encourages governments to help expand global Internet access. It was approved in a
controversial manner that left some participants confused and upset. Additionally, many countries -- the
U.S. included -- are opposed to including in the treaty any language about the Internet at all. Dr.
text and resolutions that cover issues on spam and also provisions on Internet governance."

Hamadoun I. Tour, chair of the conference, released a statement arguing the agreed-upon treaty does not include
Internet provisions. Instead, he said the controversial proposal voted upon Wednesday is found in a non-binding
annexed resolution to the treaty. "The conference did NOT [sic] include provisions on the Internet in the treaty text,"
said Tour. "Annexed to the treaty is a non-binding Resolution which aims at fostering the development and growth
of the Internet." Kramer had initially indicated the U.S. would remain engaged in negotiations after Wednesday's
diplomatic ruckus. He also denied rumors the U.S. would be leaving the conference earlier this week. Later on
Thursday, several other countries indicated they agreed the conference is the wrong forum to discuss Internet

the World Conference on International Telecommunications, or WCIT, the conference

was intended to update a treaty governing international
telecommunications that hasn't been refreshed since 1988 . Since the conference
began, the American delegation has argued that Internet governance issues
are outside the scope of the conference. Other countries, including Russia and China,
disagreed, submitting proposals intended to help governments fight cyberattacks and spam. The Americans
-- and many open Internet advocates -- warned those proposals would be
used to censor Internet users and would open the door to further
disruptions to the open web. SEE ALSO: Unexpected controversy erupts at UN Internet conference
issues. Called

The U.S. also argued in favor of governments taking a hands-off approach to the Internet. "The Internet has given
the world unimaginable economic and social benefit during these past 24 years," said Kramer. "All without U.N.

A Treaty Would Do Nothing to Prevent Cyberterrorist Groups

Lin 12 Herbert Lin (Chief Scientist of the Computer Science and

Telecommunications Board of the National Research Council) June 8, 2012 | 4:14
p.m. EDT, USnews, A Treaty Would Do Nothing to Prevent Cyberterrorist Groups,
Traditional arms control approaches do not work well in thinking about the
world of cyberwar, and many obstacles stand in the way of such a treaty today. A treaty would
not constrain the behavior of sub-national entities (e.g., terrorist groups, organized
crime), which have some interest and capability to wage cyberwar. The instruments of

cyberwarfare are technically hard to distinguish from those of cyberespionage,

and the latter is not illegal under international law since all nations pursue it. Accountability would be difficult
to enforce, given a lack of clarity about who might be responsible for a
cyberattack that rises to the level of "warfare." Verification of a treaty that banned the instruments of
cyberwarfare would be virtually impossible. Before we are ready to begin negotiating any kind of treaty regarding
cyberwarfare, a few preliminary steps are in order. First, research is needed on whether some kind of arms control

The fact that

traditional arms control doesn't extend well into cyberspace should not be
taken to mean that no form of cyberarms control is feasible. Second, nations
concerned about cyberwarfare should seek common ground. "Common ground" might include
agreement in cyberspace, whose scope and nature are as yet unknown, could still be useful.

developing a common language with which to describe the issues, such as understanding what activities constitute
a significant cyberattack; how might damage or harm from a cyberattack be assessed; what
activities might constitute evidence of hostile intent; how should cyber exploitation and intelligence-gathering be
differentiated from cyberattacks; how, if at all, should exploitations for economic purposes be differentiated from
exploitations for national security purposes; how, if at all, should military computer systems and networks be

nonstate parties that

might launch cyberattacks; and how nations might respond to such attacks. Third , it may be
possible to reach agreement regarding certain topics in cyberspace
outside the domain of national security. For example, many nations recognize fraud and child
separated from those of the civilian population; how to determine the significance of

pornography as significant problems in cyberspace and have to some extent agreed on measures to deal with

third-party attacks may be another

common interest. If the steps above bear fruit, the resulting regime may go a long way toward laying the
them. Protection of national infrastructures from

foundation for a more far-reaching treaty regarding cyberwarfare should that be deemed desirable

Treaty on cyber weapons would be totally unenforceable

Lindsay 12 Jon Lindsay (Research Fellow at the University of California Institute on
Global Conflict and Cooperation at UC-San Diego) June 8, 2012 | 4:14 p.m. EDT,
USnews, International Cyberwar Treaty Would Quickly Be Hacked to Bits,
Calls for international cyberwarfare treaties are certainly well-intentioned: The
frightening prospect of widespread destruction of the computing networks that run the nation's power, water,

apocalyptic rhetoric of catastrophic cyberwar used to justify consideration
of a cyberarms control treaty is overblown and misrepresents the actual
threat. An international treaty is the wrong sort of solution to this problem and might even
encourage the very activity it seeks to constrain. A cyberweapon (like Stuxnet, which
transportation, and military command and control systems is something we would all like to avoid. However,

damaged Iranian uranium enrichment) is not like a nuclear bomb or a gun that can be used to damage many
different types of targets all around the world. Traditional weapons can be tested on a range, stockpiled in an

A cyberweapon, by contrast, must be

engineered against any particular target, and this requires a lot of
intelligence, technical expertise, test infrastructure, and operational
management. A cyberattack is less like a strategic bombing attack delivered by a formidable force of
arsenal, and fired predictably at their targets in wartime.

airplanes and missiles and more like a special operation staged by a daring band of commandos far behind enemy

A cyberweapon for espionage (like the spyware Duqu and Flame) likewise require lots of
planning and expertise to control. Covert operations are risky gambles (they might fail or be
compromised if mistakes in planning or execution are made), and the damage they cause is far
more unpredictable than that of traditional weapons . States resort to covert action

options only when they don't have the will or ability (for either material or political reasons) to use overt force.
When states act covertly, they break the domestic laws of other states (which is why spies can be caught and
tried). Usually states moderate their ambitions for covert action because they don't want to trigger escalatory

Cyber-operations, like other types of intelligence

take place in the shadows. An international treaty on
cyberweapons would be like an international treaty against espionage and covert action. This is
retaliation in the event the operation is compromised.
and covert operations,

totally unenforceable, since such activity is designed to evade detection and attribution. There will be
no comprehensive cyberweapons treaty because it is, unfortunately, not in the interest of the (very few) states that
have the capabilities to create such weapons to come to shared definitions, agreed monitoring, and enforcement

Even if it were somehow

possible to get agreement not to use cyberweapons of a particular type,
this would only provide incentives for states to discover the loopholes and
exceptions in the law. This is fundamentally what malicious hacking entails, after all: superficial
mechanisms, and credible commitments to refrain from using them.

obedience to the rules (in silicon or law) in order to evade defenses and make mischief. The Trojan Horse observed

similarly, malware
can only exploit vulnerabilities because code in the target system allows it to do so. Moreover, the
techniques for engineering complex cyberattack and exploitation will evolve far , far
faster than international agreements, and states would be foolish to put their faith in protection
of international law alone. The rhetoric of cyberwar is frightening, but the reality is more complicated.
A world without cyberweapons is probably more desirable, but an
international treaty is not the way to get there. I am not a lawyer (I write as an
the norms of gift-giving in ancient Greece, and this hastened the downfall of Troy;

international security scholar), but I suspect that existing international law of war and legal mechanisms for
managing covert operations in this country are probably sufficient, or at most need just marginal adjustments, in

Cyberwar is not a revolutionary

development, but a complicating electronic elaboration on clandestine and
covert operations, and states have been conducting these for centuries
order to deal with the problems posed by cyberweapons.

2AC Links to Politics

Military Cyber Operations Policies Sap PC

Belk & Noyes 12

[Robert and Matthew, Rsch @ The Belfer Center,]

there are interagency political issues that complicate uniform cyber

policy. DHS has the responsibility to protect U.S. citizens within the borders, but the vast majority of cyber
resources reside at NSA and DoD. A 2009 National Research Council (NRC) report suggests that military
external cyber operations would have implications for other agencies
missions (including DoS and Treasury).59 A consideration for policy makers, therefore, will be the facility in
aligning these various interests.

Lastly, the authorization for the use of force constitutionally rests with Congress.
Should an agency decide to engage in external cyber operations that could
be considered a use of force, it may require Congressional approval.
Achieving this politically (and expeditiously) may prove problematic. This
suggests that the need exists for establishing pre-approved authority levels, and having a robust debate to
establish norms for acceptable cyber action.

1AR Links to Politics

No risk of a link turn - turf battles mean no agency rallies
Dycus 10 (Stephen Dycus, Professor at Vermont Law School, 08/11/10, JOURNAL
OF NATIONAL SECURITY LAW &POLICY, Congresss Role in Cyber Warfare,, AB)

Congress must work hand in hand with the Executive , however, to confront
these evolving threats. The importance of collaborative planning can be seen in a
recent exchange of correspondence in which leaders of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence wrote to the Director of
National Intelligence to ask about the adequacy of the Director of National Intelligence and Intelligence Community authorities
over cybersecurity.6 The Director answered: This is a very important issue . . . . A judgment regarding the
adequacy of DNI authorities and any changes, additions, or clarifications will necessarily depend on the Administrations

We have more
work to do in the Executive Branch before I can give you a good answer.7
The strategic, technological, and political problems described here
present challenges of unprecedented complexity. The risks of error both in
the formulation of a cyber warfare policy and in its execution are
substantial. And despite the importance of developing a coherent, coordinated response to this threat,
it seems unlikely that we will find a way to overcome entirely the
strategic plan on cyber, and where the center of gravity will be within the Executive branch. . . .

endless turf battles among federal agencies and congressional

committees.8 Still, the need is so pressing and the stakes are so high that we cannot afford not to try. The very future of
the Republic may depend on our ability not only to protect ourselves from enemies armed with cyber weapons, but also to use
such weapons wisely ourselves. This article examines some of the relevant legal issues and suggests some possible solutions.

A2 Mexican Renewables Counterplan


2AC CP Not Solve Grid

No transmission capacity
Wood 12 - PhD in Political Studies @ Queens, Professor @ ITAM in Mexico City
(Duncan, et al, Wilson Center,
For the state of Baja California, this problem is made even more acute because there is no
interconnection between the state and the national grid, making
export of electricity to private consumers in other states impossible
at the present time. Mexicos national grid is in fact three grids, with
Baja California Norte and Baja California Sur each having their own independent system. A further
level of difficulty is found with cross-border transmission. A quick survey
of the above map shows that there are only a limited number of
interconnections across the border. Furthermore, only 5 of these
connections are bi-directional. In Baja California, the Miguel-Tijuana and the Imperial
Valley-Rosarita interconnections (both 230kV AC) have a combined capacity of 800 MW, in Coahuila the
Eagle PassPiedras Negras interconnection (138kV HVDC) has a capacity of only 38 MW, and in Tamaulipas
the Laredo-Nuevo Laredo (138kV VFT) and McAllen-Reynosa (138kV HVDC) interconnections have a

interconnections are maxed out and

therefore cannot be considered for future cross-border electricity
trade. In addition to these lines operated by CFE, there are two
privately owned transmission lines of 310 MW (owned by Intergen) and 1200 MW
(owned by Sempra). The problem of cross-border transmission has been
identified in a number of previous reports on wind and renewable energy in
combined capacity of

250 MW. These

Mexico,5 and in 2010 the two

has met a

number of times,


with each

countries set up a task-force to address

there appears to be little

the issue.6 Although this group


behind the

side blaming the other for lack of progress .

2AC Links to Politics

CP saps political capital gets drawn into other issues
Wilson 13 Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson
International. Center for Scholars (Christopher E., January, A U.S.-Mexico Economic
Alliance: Policy Options for a Competitive Region,
At a time when Mexico is poised to experience robust economic growth, a
manufacturing renaissance is underway in North America and bilateral trade is
booming, the United States and Mexico have an important choice to make:
sit back and reap the moderate and perhaps temporal benefits coming naturally
from the evolving global context , or implement a robust agenda to improve the
competitiveness of North America for the long term . Given that job creation and
economic growth in both the United States and Mexico are at stake, t he
choice should be simple, but a limited understanding about the
magnitude, nature and depth of the U.S.-Mexico economic relationship
among the public and many policymakers has made serious action to
support regional exporters more politically divisive than it ought to be.

1AR Links to Politics

CP drains PC
Farnsworth 12 VP of the Council of the Americas and Americas Society (Eric,
The United States and Mexico: The Path Forward, Nov 30,, CMR)
The election of Enrique Pea Nieto and the re-election of President Obama mean that
the U.S.-Mexican relationship has a unique opportunity to grow closer and
bring numerous benefits to both sides of the border . To fully appreciate this unique
opportunity, both sides must invest political capital and be prepared to
engage domestic public opinion when it comes to explaining why our
countries are united by much more than a fence.

Huge opposition to the counterplan


purpose of this fund is to reinforce efforts already under way in Mexico to

ensure their (sic) own economic development, Cornyn said. The funding would make grants

available for projects to construct roads in Mexico, to facilitate trade, to develop and expand their education
programs, to build infrastructure for the deployment of communications services and to improve job training and
workforce development for high-growth industries. As WND reported recently,

opposition is

mounting to similar programs, including President Bushs North American Security and Prosperity
Partnership. Plans by government agencies and private foundations alike promoting deeper
cooperation between the three countries including even a plan for a common currency
called the amero are getting more scrutiny in the media, by activists and by public

No link turns support is minimal to non-existent

Sanchez 5 (Marcela, Our Sad Neglect of Mexico, May 28,, CMR)
There is a strong sense in this country that Mexico's problems are of its
own making, and must be solved by Mexico. That is why former Bush official Richard A. Falkenrath and
others say a significant infusion of U.S. aid into Mexico is a " nonstarter ." Indeed,
Mexico desperately needs to collect more taxes and reform its energy sector and labor laws -- healing itself by
removing structural constraints that make it more a Third World nation than the economic powerhouse it could
become. The North American Free Trade Agreement, signed more than 10 years ago by Canada, Mexico and the
United States, was supposed to generate more jobs in Mexico, raise salaries and reduce people's incentive to
emigrate. That proved to be wishful thinking. In fact, NAFTA has not generated the number of new jobs predicted,
nor has it alleviated rural poverty in many areas of Mexico. That would require, according to an upcoming report on
NAFTA by the Institute for International Economics, "a sustained period of strong growth and substantial income

a minority to be sure, who say

Washington must get involved more directly. Otherwise, they argue, Mexico won't be able
to reduce disparities for at least another hundred years. Among them is Robert Pastor, a former Carter
administration official who has tirelessly argued for a North American Investment
Fund. Pastor cites a 2000 World Bank estimate that Mexico would need $20 billion per year for a decade in
transfers to poorer states." There are some in this country,

Pastor is under no
illusions that such a fund will be created any time soon. Certainly the Bush
essential infrastructure and educational projects to reduce that 100 years to 10.

administration is not talking about any such ideas within the recently launched Security and Prosperity Partnership
of North America, the latest ambitiously named project that won't even touch on immigration, although immigration

The administration and Congress are under

little pressure to deepen the U.S. commitment to Mexico, not when the
public is increasingly fearful of and resentful toward immigrants, particularly
Mexicans. But if anything, such sentiments prolong illegal immigration in the sense that they distract citizens
is directly connected to security and prosperity.

and leaders alike into thinking that if you put up enough barriers, Mexicans will go away.

A2 H1B Counterplan (Tech


2AC H1Bs Not Key Tech Competitiveness

H-1B workers dont contribute to tech supremacy
a. They have low-level, low-responsibility jobs
b. They dont fit into the best and brightest category
c. Its hyped by the tech industry
Matloff Professor of Computer Science @ UC Davis 8 (Norman, Center
for Immigration Studies, H-1Bs: Still Not the Best and the Brightest May,, Mike)
In pressuring Congress to expand the H-1B work visa and employment-based green
card programs, industry lobbyists have recently adopted a new tack. Seeing that their past cries of a tech labor

their new buzzword is innovation.

Building on their perennial assertion that the foreign workers are the
best and the brightest, they now say that continued U.S. leadership in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) hinges on our
ability to import the worlds best engineers and scientists. Yet, this
Backgrounder will present new data analysis showing that the vast majority
of the foreign workers including those at most major tech firms are people of just
ordinary talent, doing ordinary work. They are not the innovators the
industry lobbyists portray them to be. I presented some initial analyses along these lines in an
shortage are contradicted by stagnant or declining wages,

earlier Backgrounder,1 showing for instance that STEM foreign students at U.S. universities tend to be at the less-

a simple but powerful

idea: If the foreign workers are indeed outstanding talents, they would be
paid accordingly. We can thus easily determine whether a foreign worker is
among the best and the brightest by computing the ratio of his [SIC]
salary to the prevailing wage figure stated by the employer. Lets call this
the Talent Measure (TM). Keep in mind that a TM value of 1.0 means that
the worker is merely average, not of outstanding talent . I computed median TM values for
selective universities. Here I present a much more direct analysis, making use of

various subgroups of interest. A summary of the results is: The median TM value over all foreign workers studied was just a hair over 1.0. The median
TM value was also essentially 1.0 in each of the tech professions studied. Median TM was near 1.0 for almost all prominent tech firms that were
analyzed. Contrary to the constant hyperbole in the press that American (and Western European) kids are weak at math in comparison with their
counterparts in Asia, TM values for guest workers from Western European countries tend to be higher than those of the Asians. Again noting that a TM
value of 1.0 means just average, the data show dramatically that most foreign workers, the vast majority of whom are from Asia, are in fact not the best
and the brightest. Note that the statutory definition of prevailing wage takes into account experience levels. In other words, the TM value for a worker
compares him to workers of the same level of experience, not to the workforce as a whole. Thus the modest TM values found here for the guest workers
cannot be dismissed by pointing to the fact that many of the guest workers are younger. This article also presents further data showing an equally
important point: Most foreign workers work at or near entry level, described by the Department of Labor in terms akin to apprenticeship. This counters
the industrys claim that they hire the workers as key innovators, and again we will see a stark difference between the Asians and Europeans. Methodology

Department of Labors Permanent labor Certification

Program (PERM),2 which consists of information supplied by employers when they sponsor foreign worker for permanent residency, i.e.
The analysis uses data from the

green cards. There are advantages to using this database rather than its H-1B cousin. First, it addresses the concern expressed by some that H-1B Labor
Condition Applications (LCAs) are merely requests for permission to hire foreign workers, without specifying actual workers, who may be chosen later. By
contrast, each record in the PERM data is for an actual foreign worker, containing his actual salary and other information. (The PERM form allows an
employer to specify salary as a range rather than as a single value, but this is rarely used.) Second, the PERM data include information concerning the
nationality of the foreign worker, enabling the between-country comparisons in the analysis here. Finally, the PERM data show the current visa status of
the worker, which is typically H-1B but is sometimes O-1. The law defines the O-1 visa as applying to workers of extraordinary ability. Since these are the

while most workers in the PERM

database are H-1Bs, the converse is not true; many H-1Bs are not
sponsored for green cards. Typically employers only sponsor their better H-1Bs for permanent
residency. Thus if the PERM data show that most workers in the PERM data are
not the best and the brightest, then even fewer of the H-1Bs overall are
in that category. The analysis uses the 2007 PERM data. The data were first screened, eliminating hourly
workers of interest here, it gives us a basis of comparison. Note that

workers, clear typographical errors, and so on. Talent Measure Analysis Again, I take as our Talent Measure (TM)
the ratio of a workers salary to the prevailing wage claimed by the employer. The employer is legally required to
pay at least the prevailing wage, and must state on the PERM application how that wage level was determined.3
Since the application will be rejected if the wage offered is below the prevailing wage, by definition all values of TM
will be at least 1.0. The latter value means the average worker, i.e. of average talent, so if most workers have TM
values close to 1.0, then most are probably not the best and the brightest. With that it mind, lets look at TM

The trend, both general and for

STEM occupations, is clear: Most TM values are only a little higher than
1.0, indicating that most of the foreign workers are not outstanding
talents. The sole exceptional occupation is mathematicians. Though rather few
values, both overall and also for some specific occupations:

workers are in this category, the TM value is worth some comment. The anomaly is likely due to the recent interest
in data mining, which has created a de facto two-tier wage structure among mathematicians, in which those who
specialize in data mining are paid much more. Since the prevailing wage figures do not distinguish between these
tiers, the official prevailing wage value set for mathematicians will be well below the market wage for data miners.

Lobbyists for the

big firms often claim that abuse of the H-1B program occurs mainly in
Indian-owned bodyshops (firms that subcontract H-1Bs to larger companies), while by
contrast the big firms are hiring the best and the brightest. Yet neither
this scapegoating of the Indians nor the claim of hiring the top talents is
warranted. Consider the TM values after disaggregation by firm: Though these figures are slightly above the
overall figures we saw earlier, they still show that the firms are not paying salaries
indicating top talents. Even Microsoft, on the high end of the companies shown here, is not
paying top dollar, as seen by restricting attention to Microsofts workers holding the O-1 visa. As O-1 is
Thus it is probable that even these foreign workers are not the best and the brightest.

specifically for, in the phrasing of the statute, workers of extraordinary ability, this gives us a measure of the
salaries Microsoft pays to those foreign workers who in fact are the best and the brightest. The median TM for
Microsoft O-1 workers is 1.404. That represents a salary premium of more than double what the firm is giving its
foreign workers in general, so there does not appear to be much support for Microsofts claim that most of their H-

it is readily apparent that even the most prominent

tech firms, which are in the vanguard of the industry movement pressuring
Congress to expand foreign worker programs, generally do not hire from
the best and the brightest league. East vs. West The lobbyists love to claim that
the industry resorts to hiring foreign workers because Americans are weak
in math and science. Various international comparisons of math/science
test scores at the K-12 level are offered as evidence. The claims are specious
after all, both major sources of foreign tech workers, India and China,
refuse to participate in those tests, and India continues to be plagued with
a high illiteracy rate. Serious educational research, including an earlier Arizona State university report4
1Bs are of extraordinary talent. Thus again,

and a recent major study by the Urban Institute5 show clearly that mainstream American kids are doing fine in
STEM. Nevertheless, the Asian mystique persists. The image is that our tech industry owes its success to armies
of mathematical geniuses arriving to U.S. graduate schools from Asia. Once again, though, the data do not support
this perception. Here is a comparison of TM values for foreign workers from the major Asian countries and their
The differences here are not large, but nevertheless, all of the
Western nations have higher median TM values than all the Asian nations
quite the opposite of the portrayal by the industry lobbyists. Taking a
closer look, lets tabulate median TM for the major worker-sending nations
in both hemispheres, against the major occupations: While still mild, the
trend again indicates that the Western foreign workers are the more
talented ones. Finally, what about individual firms? Interestingly, the gap between East and West widens.
counterparts in Europe and Canada:

Lets check the firms with the largest numbers of foreign workers:

There are some interesting exceptions for

As noted, recently the

industry lobbyists have adopted an innovation theme, in which they claim
that the U.S. lead in tech depends on hiring innovators from abroad. The
analysis above demonstrates that the foreign workers are in fact generally
not outstanding talents, thus casting serious doubt on the claim that innovators are
being hired. Here we pursue this point further, by examining the level at which the imported workers are hired. The PERM data use the following
China, but in general the trend follows the previous pattern. Level of Hire

classification scheme:6
Level I is defined by the Department of Labor as for beginning level employees who have only a basic understanding of the
occupation [and who] perform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment. Workers at Level II perform moderately complex tasks that
require limited judgment. Clearly, neither Level I nor II is for innovators. Level III implies more sophisticated responsibilities, but only Level IV suggests
that innovators are being hired, workers who plan and conduct work requiring judgment and the independent evaluation.... Previous work7 analyzed H1B data, finding that most H-1Bs are concentrated in Levels I and II. In the tables below we extend that work in the PERM data, adding analysis by
occupation, nationality and firm. The results first show, once again, that rather few of the foreign workers are at Level IV, the level of real expertise
whose description is associated with innovation. Most are in fact in Levels I and II, whose DOL definitions are for apprentice-like positions with only limited
exercise of judgment, clearly not jobs for innovators. Second, this pattern also holds individually for the most common job titles. Third, the East-vs.-West
pattern observed earlier for the TM data also holds for levels of expertise, with Asians typically being hired into non-innovative jobs while more Europeans

are in the types of positions that could involve innovation. The last table is striking. Most of the big firms hire almost no workers at all at Level IV.

Since it is these very firms that are arguing they need foreign workers in
order to innovate, there appears to be a striking disconnect between what
they say and do. Discussion and Conclusions The lobbyists for the tech industry and
the American Immigration Lawyers Association know that crying
educational doom-and-gloom sells. Even though it was people born and
educated in the United States who were primarily responsible for
developing the computer industry, and even though all major East Asian
governments have lamented their educational systems' stifling of
creativity, the lobbyists have convinced Congress that the industry needs
foreign workers from Asia in order to innovate. The data show otherwise.
Most foreign tech workers, particularly those from Asia, are in fact of only
average talent. Moreover, they are hired for low-level jobs of limited
responsibility, not positions that generate innovation. This is true both
overall and in the key tech occupations, and most importantly, in the firms most stridently
demanding that Congress admit more foreign workers. Note again that the analyses presented here
confirm and provide much sharper quantitative insight into previous work showing
that the H-1Bs are of just average talent. It has been shown for instance that foreign students in the
U.S. tend to be concentrated in the less-selective universities, and that they receive a lower percentage of research
awards relative to their numbers in the student population. In the workforce, the foreign nationals in the U.S.

To be
sure, the author is a strong supporter of facilitating the immigration of the
world's best and brightest. He has acted on that belief, by championing the hiring of extraordinarily
talented researchers, mostly from India and China, into his department faculty. But as seen here , very few of
the foreign workers are of that caliber. Expansion of the guest worker
programs - both H-1B visas and green cards - is unwarranted .
participate in teams applying for patents at the same percentage as do the U.S. citizens, and so on.


1AR H1Bs Not Key Tech Competitiveness

No internal link to tech innovation- majority of H-1B workers
are in biochem and physics research, not tech or computers
Matloff 3 (Norman, Professor of Computer Science, University of California, ON
The industry lobbyists often imply that a large fraction of their H-1B
workers are hired from U.S. universities where the workers had been
studying for PhDs. For example, Daryl Hatano of the Semiconductor Industry Association testified to
Congress, Non- U.S. citizens now represent over half of the Ph.D.s graduating from U.S. universities in
semiconductor fields . . . To have access to the foreign talent graduating from Americas universities, U.S.

The American
Electronics Association argued that nearly half of all Ph.D.s graduating
from American universities in the technical fields of computer engineering
and electrical and electronic engineering are awarded to foreign nationals .
companies must apply for H-1B visas for their foreign professional workers.171

Given this heavy investment in education, supported by U.S. dollars, it is in the national interest to retain this talent
[using the H-1B program]. 172 Jenny Verderi, Intels Manager of Education and Workforce Policy, said,173 We are
not able to find enough qualified U.S. workers in certain disciplines year after year, particularly in the science and
engineering areas . . . there has been a shortage in the areas that we hire at for quite some timeand thats

The lobbyists figures about percentages of

foreign students in U.S. postgraduate programs are indeed correct.174 But the
implication that the lobbyists are making for H-1Bs is not correct. On the contrary, the
overall proportion of H-1Bs who transitioned from U.S. universities is only
about 20 percent.175 About 7.6 percent of workers in the general H-1B
population have a PhD.176 That figure is already much smaller than the
implications made by the industry lobbyists, but in fact for
computerrelated H-1Bs the figure is even smaller.177 This is due largely to
the fact that most of the PhD H-1Bs are in non-computer areas, working as
university postdoctoral research assistants in biology, chemistry and
physics. For example, in the year 2000, there were 14,778 science postdocs on temporary visas.178 The
primarily Masters and Ph.D. design engineers.

number of yearly H-1B visas granted around that time was 115,000,179 and 7.6 percent of this is 8,740. Even

it is clear that the

vast majority of PhD H-1Bs are university researchers in the physical and
biological sciences, not computer scientists or engineers working in
accounting for the fact that many foreign postdocs hold J-1 visas rather than H-1B,

H-1Bs dont solve tech supremacy-The workers arent even

highly skilled
Miano, lawyer and computer programmer, 9 [John, Do We Need Foreign
Technology Workers?, 4/8, The New York Times,]
The fact is, our immigration policy is very welcoming to highly skilled
workers, and has been for decades. But this aspect of the immigration
system tends to get little attention. Instead, much of the debate in
this area has been driven by a dumbing down of what "highly skilled"
means. When the annual quotas on H-1B visas are exhausted, one

often hears lobbyists arguing that the world's best and brightest are
being shut out.
But for the most part the people who seek H-1B visas -- and may be barred by
the quotas -- are not extremely highly skilled workers. A college degree from
a correspondence school can qualify someone for an H-1B visa.
Employers making skill-based prevailing wage claims for H-1B
computer workers classify most as being at the lowest skill level. The
reported wages for the majority of H-1B computer workers is in the
bottom 25th percentile of U.S. wages. In short, H-1B is a cheap labor
program being marketed as a program for the highly-skilled.

2AC Links to Politics

Counterplan is political suicide on all frontscompletely
destroys bipartisanship
SacBee 10 (Obama Pushes Immigration Reform, Finally, July 1,, Mike)
In his first major speech on immigration reform as president, Barack Obama said today what he had to say. In
keeping with his cool persona, he brought some welcome reason and rationality amid the overheated rhetoric and

everyone agrees the immigration system is

broken. But in noting the political gridlock on the issue, Obama also
acknowledged that there is no bipartisan consensus on the solution . The
president blamed "political posturing and special interest wrangling " and
faulted Republicans he said had succumbed to the "pressures of partisanship and electionyear politics." "I'm ready to move forward, the majority of Democrats are ready to move forward and I
believe the majority of Americans are ready to move forward. But the fact is that without bipartisan
support, as we had just a few years ago, we cannot solve this problem," Obama (shown in the
Associated Press photo above) said at American University in Washington, D.C. " Reform that brings
accountability to our immigration system cannot pass without Republican
votes," he added. "That is the political and mathematical reality." That moment
overreaction to Arizona's new law. Almost

Obama referred to was in 2007, when Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Republican Sen. John
McCain of Arizona proposed a sweeping immigration reform bill. President George W. Bush was on board. But

the right wing of the GOP, stopped that

momentum cold. By calling such proposals "amnesty," they made it political suicide for
a Republican with national ambitions to sign on to such a measure . Three years later, the
opponents, including especially vociferous foes on

situation is, if anything, worse. And frustrations have led to measures like the Arizona law, set to take effect later
this month, which calls on law enforcement to check the immigration status of residents if they have a reasonable
suspicion they might be illegal. Critics call it a recipe for racial profiling, and Sacramento and other California cities
have announced boycotts in response. Obama supports a plan similar to the : Further secure the borders, penalize
businesses that hire illegal immigrants and offer a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already living here -- if

The president has been criticized by

reform advocates for not more aggressively pushing their cause . His
they pay fines and back taxes and learn English.

administration made the political calculation that it wanted to first pass an economic stimulus, health care reform
and a financial regulatory overhaul. The first two are law, and the third will almost certainly win final passage when

it's time for immigration reform. But

that one may turn out to be the toughest to pass of all .
the Senate returns from its July Fourth recess. So now

1AR Links to Politics

Immigration is the NEW third rail in politics: touch it and DIE
Rotterdam, senior fellow at the John Locke Foundation, 7

[Marc, Immigration: The New Third Rail of American Politics HUMAN EVENTS Posted
Immigration is the new third rail of American politics. I know, because I remember
the old third rail. The old third rail, of course, was Social Security. Touch it, and die
politically. Back in the eighties the Republican Party would routinely come up with plans in Congress to
reform Social Security. Like clockwork -- when the next Congressional election came around -- the Democratic
Party led by then Speaker Thomas Tip O' Neil would demagogue the issue; and pronounce with TV ads that
Republicans wanted to privatize Social Security and, by the way, cut or eliminate grandmas benefit check.


its the Democrats turn to touch the new third rail, immigration.
to the Democrats nationally, and its happening to them here in North Carolina
incumbents were forced to play defense; as the late Lee Atwater used to say,

Its happening
Congressional republican

If you're defending in

campaigns -- you're losing!

During the "Gingrich revolution" of 1994 Republican challengers in

congressional districts through out America were schooled that words mattered and that the best defense was a
good a good offense. So the Republican message reflected the will of the majority of Americans that the social
security contract must not be broken. And the phrasing in speeches and advertising reflected the will of the
majority. A key phrase was that many republican used and continue to use today is this -- "We need to preserve,
protect, and strengthen social security. Republican incumbents and challengers alike were encouraged to
inoculate on the issue -- in essence to preemptively strike with a positive message prior to being attacked. Still,
and until this day, social security reform remains a volatile issue with the American electorate and to some degree a
net plus for democrats. One only look at George W. Bush's 2005 proposal for personal savings accounts for younger
workers. It was dead on arrival in congress and it fell on deaf ears with the American public. It seems to me that
in the 2008 election

the new emotional and substantive issue that the elite politicians did not

grasp (John McCains amnesty bill) but now is squarely in their face -- is illegal immigration with all its
ramifications. Securing the borders and national sovereignty are issues that neither party can ignore. One only
look at how Hillary Clinton flubbed the question in a recent Democratic debate regarding New York Governor
Spitzers decision to issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens to see the impact this issue can have on ones national
standing and poll numbers. (And by the way -- the a directive was recently rescinded under intense public pressure
by Governor Spitzer.) In the Republican presidential primary both Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney have tried to out
do each other on the issue but both have little credibility with the voters based on past performances while in
office. Sanctuary cities have been the main topic of discussion between the two campaigns. In the last
Republican debate both Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Romney chose to attack each either rather than to offer substantive
solutions. On the campaign trail both have been supportive of a physical fence and or virtual fence but with no
date certain for completion. Now leading the polls in Iowa and South Carolina is former Governor Mike Huckabee
who has laid out a detailed plan for border security and enforcement. His plan also includes a date certain for
completion of a physical fence. Here in North Carolina, many Republican legislators in the General Assembly are
trying to hold the Easley Administrations feet to the fire with respect to the rule of law and Easleys constant
attempts to circumvent the process when it comes to issuing drives licenses to illegal aliens. And recently -- the
community college system's lawyer issued a directive violating the law and admitting illegals aliens to community
colleges if they pay out of state tuition. Debate is ensuing within the UNC system along the same lines. What is

illegal immigration is becoming the defining issue of the 2008 election.

Those who stand for amnesty, drivers licenses for illegal aliens, in state or
out of state tuition for illegal aliens at our institutions of learning and
open borders will pay a price at the polls. Conversely those who respect
the rule of law, our sovereignty and the will of the American people will be
rewarded politically when the citizens of this country cast their votes in
the fall.
clear is that

Liberalizing Immigration is too hot to handle

LAT, 7 [THE NATION; NEWS ANALYSIS; Immigration proved too hot for Bush,
Congress to handle. Janet Hook. Los Angeles Times. Jul 1, pg. A.20]

For most of this year, immigration reform looked like an issue whose time had finally come, with the unusual

spectacular collapse of the Senate's bipartisan immigration legislation last week
demonstrated that the seemingly auspicious political environment was no
match for an issue that was just too hot to handle. The bill's demise relegates illegal
confluence of a Republican president, a Democratic Congress and the public all demanding a solution. But

immigration to a backlog of national problems -- such as Social Security's impending insolvency and the federal
budget deficit -- that the president and Congress have not been able to solve. "It smells an awful lot like Social
Security," said former Rep. Leon E. Panetta, a California Democrat who had a big hand in the last overhaul of
immigration law, in 1986. "People

are hesitant to touch a solution, because it is

going to aggravate some very powerful constituencies who are going to come
after them." The obstacles to reaching a consensus on immigration speak volumes about the nation's politics and culture -- and how
much they have changed in the two decades since Congress last dealt with the problem. Since President Reagan signed the landmark legislation,
which legalized some 3 million undocumented immigrants, the media environment has been transformed by talk radio and a 24/7 cable news cycle
that fuels emotions on the political extremes. An influx of illegal immigrants has altered the population across the nation, not just in a handful of

the political system has become so polarized that lawmakers'

compromise-building skills seem to have atrophied. In the wake of those changes, the
Senate battle over immigration showed how hard it now is for Congress and the
president to confront emotional issues when an incensed minority tries to
derail the efforts. Polls have shown that most Americans favor allowing illegal
immigrants to become citizens if they learn English, pay fines and meet
other requirements. But the opinions expressed on senatorial phones
and in e-mails were overwhelmingly those of the politically agitated
opposition. Proponents of legalization contend the problem of illegal immigrants will only get harder to
solve as the number grows -- and as public anger intensifies. "The divisions get deeper and
wider with the passage of time," said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), a presidential candidate. But the issue is
border states. And

not an easy one to overlook: Illegal immigration is woven tightly into the fabric of day-to-day lives across the country. Failure to decide how to handle
the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. is tantamount to establishing a permanent underclass larger than the population of Ohio.
Absent of federal action, a major shift could occur in the national balance of power on illegal immigration: More state and local governments are likely
to act on their own in response to clamor for a crackdown. The result would be to the detriment of those who seek a solution more accepting of illegal

players in the debate -- especially those who took the lead in seeking a
comprehensive solution -- are unlikely to risk another dramatic failure .
immigrants and could create a patchwork of conflicting laws. Nevertheless, it is hard to see Bush and Congress revisiting the issue soon.

Bush, the immigration initiative was the domestic policy capstone of his second-term agenda -- and the cornerstone of his plan to expand the GOP by
making his party more welcoming to Latinos. Now, his domestic policy cupboard is bare, and his hopes of building a lasting GOP majority are in
tatters. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a leading Bush ally on the issue, has seen his presidential prospects dim in no small measure because of his
support for the immigration bill. His rivals for the presidency delight in pointing out that he cosponsored the bill with liberal icon Sen. Edward M.
Kennedy (D-Mass.). For Democrats, who control the House and Senate, another failed attempt at immigration overhaul could be exploited by
Republicans who criticize their stewardship of Congress as unproductive. And incumbents of both parties risk the wrath of a public that is increasingly
jaundiced about Washington's ability to address major problems. "Americans don't believe the government is representing them, acting on their
behalf," said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). "We will not restore their confidence if we fail to act." The immigration bill, the product of a "grand bargain" by a
bipartisan coalition including Kyl and Kennedy, died in part because its backers' enthusiasm wasn't strong enough against the intensity of its
opponents. Its authors

were operating in a very different political environment than

in 1986.

Back then, there were far fewer illegal immigrants, concentrated in a handful of states. Crafting an
immigration compromise required lawmakers only to balance the competing concerns of special interests

lawmakers largely
didn't have to worry about managing powerful national political forces.
Few politicians thought of it as a life-or-death political issue. "It was much more an
directly affected by the policy -- employers, immigrant groups, agribusiness;

insiders' debate," said Doris Meissner, who served as immigration commissioner during the Clinton
administration. "It did not engage the country in the way this debate is engaging the country. It was not a

immigration is a national issue that reaches far beyond

the interests directly affected. And border security concerns have
heightened since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. A Gallup Poll in 2000 found
that only 15% of those surveyed worried a great deal about illegal
immigration; that jumped to 45% this year. What's more, polls indicate that
the issue is figuring more prominently in how voters size up political
candidates. In a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press last month, 54% said a
galvanizing issue." Now

presidential candidate's stand on immigration would be very important in their decision on how to vote; 34%

As recently as 2004, immigration was not even

in the top 20 issues. "What is clear is the level of anxiety about illegal
immigration has been rising, and been accelerating in the last few years,"
said it would be somewhat important.

said Roberto Suro, director of the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center. "One element of the anxiety is a sense the
federal government has failed in one of its basic responsibilities." Grover Norquist, a conservative activist who
supported the Bush immigration initiative, contends that politicians and analysts have exaggerated the potential
political fallout from supporting liberalization of immigration law. "You cannot show me an election where
immigration was the deciding issue," Norquist said. "If this was a silver-bullet issue, where is President
Tancredo?" he said, referring to the longshot presidential campaign of Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), a leading

lawmakers -- especially in conservative states -fear political fallout because the bill provoked opposition that was
striking in its intensity and viciousness. Critics threatened to seek
primary opponents for Republican backers of the bill. Proponents were
booed and heckled at party conventions and town-hall meetings. Some lawmakers
received threats and reported them to the Capitol Police. "You should go into the witness protection
critic of illegal immigration. But it is not surprising that

program because of your work on this issue," said one letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). The
crucial Senate roll call last week reflected a bipartisan consensus that the bill was fraught with risk for anyone

Of the 33 senators who may run for reelection in 2008, 23

voted to kill the immigration bill. That suggests that one legacy of the
immigration imbroglio is a transformation of the issue from a shining
opportunity for bipartisan cooperation into the new "third rail" of American politics -- an
issue that, like Social Security reform, politicians will flee as if their
political lives are at stake.
facing voters soon.

Immigration is the new 3rd rail of politics, ignites massive and

vocal oppositionits a key national flashpoint
Chicago Tribune, 7 [Immigration issue becomes politics' newest third rail; Jill
Zuckman. Jun 30, 2007. pg. 1]

Congress' dramatic failure this week to reach consensus on immigration reform is almost certainly a harbinger
of what's not to come: major legislative accomplishments through the end of President Bush's term. The House
and Senate are sharply divided, and Bush, his popularity low, is mired in lame-duck status. Congress typically
becomes dormant during a presidential election year, and bipartisan cooperation will likely slide further out of
reach in 2008 on everything from energy to education to retirement to health-care legislation. Few issues

immigration reform, which has become the new

third rail of politics -- touch it and you die, the saying goes. Illegal immigrants
have become a lightning rod for impassioned discontent in some quarters,
making it increasingly difficult for politicians to find common ground without
risking the retribution of voters. Public opinion polling shows voters are
increasingly concerned about the problem, worrying that immigrants
are taking jobs and straining government services. Overwhelmingly, they
oppose efforts to make it easier for undocumented immigrants to
become citizens, but they are split on other potential remedies. The bill that died Thursday had support
from just 30 percent of Americans, recent polls showed. Members of Congress reflect the
sentiments of their constituents, especially the most vocal ones, and the
immigration measure was doomed in large part by a well-organized grass-roots
campaign by angry opponents. If the immigration bill had not failed in the Senate, it was surely
doomed in the House. "It touched a nerve, and the shock of it shot right
through the Senate," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "It lit up the
switchboards here for weeks and ignited a debate that strained our
normal alliances here and at home in our states." National flash point Even while
showcase this paralysis as much as

fights over issues such as gay rights, abortion and gun control may be losing some of their energy, in part

immigration seems to be
moving to center stage to fill that role of flash point for the nation's
emotional debates over its identity. Ironically, both sides agree that the nation's
because Democratic leaders have softened their more purist stands,

immigration system is broken, with porous borders posing a national security threat and an estimated 12 million

"There's a consensus on the

problem, but no consensus on the solution," said Gary Jacobson, a political
scientist at the University of California, San Diego. "Congress has a hard time dealing with issues where
undocumented immigrants living inside the U.S. with an uncertain future.

public divisions are strong and there isn't any sign of a public consensus on any particular solution." The issue
divided both parties, with Republican opponents the most adamantly against the immigration compromise as
they labeled it an "amnesty" bill that undermined the rule of law. Business-oriented Republicans have been
much more in favor of accommodating immigrants than cultural conservatives, straining the GOP coalition. On
the Democratic side, many objected to the bill's provision that would have given preference to skilled workers

Supporters of the measure, meanwhile,

could not match the opponents' intensity; even its creators called it an imperfect
compromise. "It was a complicated challenge that was very controversial," said Sen. Dick Durbin
of Illinois, the assistant Democratic leader. "It was easy for its critics to exploit."
when awarding visas, at the expense of reuniting families.


Politics Link Turns

SDA is bipartisan and popular with the public
Wicklander 15
Carl, reporter for the Independent Voter Network, Bipartisan Secure Data Act Has
Votes to Pass House, But Will Lawmakers Drag Their Feet?, 2/9/15, SJE
Last week, a bipartisan group of legislators introduced a bill intended to protect Americans
privacy and online data. In a press release, U.S. Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), and

Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) announced that the purpose of the Secure Data Act of 2015 is not to restrict the
ability of intelligence agencies to collect data in general. However, they do intend to re-assert the role of Congress
in regulating these activities: Congress has allowed the Administrations surveillance authorities to go unchecked
by failing to enact adequate reform. . . . With threats to our homeland ever prevalent, we should not tie the hands
of the intelligence community. But unwarranted, backdoor surveillance is indefensible .
The Secure Data Act is an important step in rebuilding public trust in our intelligence agencies and striking the
appropriate balance between national security and civil liberty. The bill is an attempt to specifically guard against
backdoor searches, including those where identifiers such as phone numbers and e-mail addresses known to
belong to Americans are employed to conduct the searches. For years, privacy advocates have denounced these
types of searches as a way to skirt the law. According to the Register, a UK-based tech site, Under the proposed
Secure Data Act, developers cannot be forced to insert security holes into devices and code. An ACLU lawyer
quoted in the story said that the previous bills success might indicate that at least in the House they know how

Massie, Lofgren, and Sensenbrenner tried to

pass a similar version of the Secure Data Act near the end of the 113th Congress. The
legislation passed with broad support, 293-123, but was not included in
the omnibus bill that passed at the end of the session . A Senate version of the Secure
important it is to secure encryption efforts.

Data Act was introduced by Oregon U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D) in January. His bill is still waiting to move through the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Regaining the peoples trust may be one of the

Polls have consistently

shown that Americans do not approve of the current methods of
surveillance and data collection.
harder obstacles when it comes to regulations on spying and surveillance.

SDA has overwhelming bipartisan support

Whippy 15
Peter, Congressional Staffer, Sensenbrenner, Massie & Lofgren Introduce Secure
Data Act, US House of Representatives Press Releases, 2/4/15, SJE
Bipartisan lawmakers today reintroduced the Secure Data Act to protect Americans
privacy and data security by prohibiting surveillance agencies from requiring or compelling surveillance

A similar amendment to the Department of Defense

last year passed the House of Representatives by an overwhelming

backdoors in products and services.

Appropriations Act

293-123 vote. This amendment was not included in the CRomnibus. U.S. Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner (R- Wis.),
Thomas Massie (R- Ky.), and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), sponsors of the Secure Data Act of 2015, issued the following
statement: Congress has allowed the Administrations surveillance authorities to go unchecked by failing to enact

Last Congress, the Massie-Sensenbrenner-Lofgren amendment garnered

support from an overwhelming bi-partisan majority in the House as a provision to the
Defense Appropriations bill, but unfortunately, was not included in the CRomnibus. With
adequate reform.

threats to our homeland ever prevalent, we should not tie the hands of the intelligence community. But
unwarranted, backdoor surveillance is indefensible. The Secure Data Act is an important step in rebuilding public
trust in our intelligence agencies and striking the appropriate balance between national security and civil liberty.

Embargo Impact Turns

Lifting the Embargo will increase sex trafficking the
government is empirically willing to hide it.
CIA 5/15/13 Central Intelligence Agency. (Do they need qualifications? Jk they are an
independent US government agency responsible for providing national security intelligence).
May 15, 2013. The World Factbook. Accessed 7/5/13 //SH

Cuba is a source country for adults and some children subjected to forced
labor and sex trafficking; prostitution of children reportedly occurs in Cuba as
prostitution is not criminalized for anyone above 16 years old; the scope of
trafficking within Cuba is particularly difficult to gauge due to the closed nature of
the government and sparse non-governmental or independent reporting tier rating:
Tier 3 - Cuba does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the
elimination of trafficking and is not making significant efforts to do so; the
government did not publicize information about government measures to
address human trafficking through prosecution, protection, or prevention
efforts during the reporting period (2010) Illicit drugs: Territorial waters and air
space serve as transshipment zone for US- and European-bound drugs; established
the death penalty for certain drug-related crimes in 1999 (2008)

Maintaining the embargo is vital to sustaining Cuban
Canney 12

(Alexis, The Threat of Lifting the US Embargo, Akismet, March 1 2012,

Cubas political isolation and economic limitations have spelled success

for its wildlife in the last 50 years. With Cubas limited ability to develop as other Caribbean
nations have, and the continuing US embargo helping to keep Cuba in the past, Cubas natural resources have been

However, no embargo can last forever, and

many believe that the US embargo will end soon. While some might look
forward to celebrating the end to the hostility and the new potential to
enrich the Cuban economy, others worry about the future of Cubas unique
natural environment. Like any other country, Cuba does have a history of environmental exploitation.
preserved in a way not seen in most of the world.

Only a few years after Columbus discovery, Spanish settlers arrived and began to clear the land to establish
plantations. This deforestation only worsened through the following centuries. Cubas original forest cover had been
90%. In 1959, it stood at a meager 14%. However, one of Fidel Castros priorities since 1959 has been to conserve
Cubas natural resources. Since then, reforestation has slowly taken place, and today over 26% of the country is
forested. Although Castro, and Cuba as a whole, should be recognized for its dedication to conservation, in truth, a
lot of the preservation of Cubas land has been due to Cubas inability to develop it as most first world countries
would have done. With the withdrawal of support from the Soviet Union in 1991, Cubas economy collapsed.

capitalism driving its development, Cuba has avoided much of the
environmental destruction seen in other first world countries. Due to
these political and economic factors, and also to the fact that Cuba is an island, Cuba has
developed in a unique way. Cuba boasts incredible biodiversity and is home to more than 7,000
Without access to modern technologies, Cuban turned to sustainable organic farming practices.

endemic species of plants and animals. One of these includes the bee hummingbird, the smallest bird in existence.
Cubas coral reefs are of particular excitement for marine scientists. As coral reefs worldwide have been suffering
the effects of global warming, pollution, boats, and fishing, Cubas reefs have been the least affected.
Unfortunately, this paradise is threatened by many problems, despite efforts, including pollution, biodiversity loss,

If the embargo is lifted, US

tourists will flood the island, promoting the construction of new resorts
which will destroy beach habitats along the coasts. With the economy also flooded with
and deforestation. On top of this, threat of US tourism looms.

US dollars, possibly pulling Cuba out of its economic downturn, will Cuba continue to refuse the tempting
technologies which have devastated richer countries environments? With US companies eager to drill for oil off
Cubas shores, putting pressure on the government to lift the embargo, this question becomes especially urgent.

To complicate matters further, environmentalists from both Cuba and the

US are limited in the amount of work they can do by the embargo.
Communication is tricky. Calls to the US in Cuba are expensive, while the internet is restricted to most
Cubans. While scientists can sometimes receive academic permits to study in Cuba, the US rarely allows Cuban

Although lifting the embargo would end these

problems, as well as enriching the Cuban economy, the question is, as
always, would the environmental degradation be worth it? As it moves forward, is
scientists to enter the country.

there a way that Cuba can preserve its unique environment?


Neolib Good
Free Markets are key to preventing war, and tech innovation
Bandow 05
(Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, specializing in foreign policy and civil
liberties. He worked as special assistant to President Reagan and editor of the political
magazine Inquiry.) November 2005[]
a world that seems constantly aflame, one naturally asks :

What causes peace? Many people, including

spreading democracy will discourage war. But
new research suggests that expanding free markets is a far more
important factor, leading to what Columbia Universitys Erik Gartzke calls a capitalist
peace. Its a reason for even the left to support free markets. The capitalist
U.S. President George W. Bush, hope that

peace theory isnt new: Montesquieu and Adam Smith believed in it. Many of Britains classical liberals, such as
Richard Cobden, pushed free markets while opposing imperialism. But World War I demonstrated that increased
trade was not enough. The prospect of economic ruin did not prevent rampant nationalism, ethnic hatred, and
security fears from trumping the power of markets. An even greater conflict followed a generation later. Thankfully,
World War II left war essentially unthinkable among leading industrialized - and democratic - states. Support grew

corollary is that creating democracies out of dictatorships will reduce
conflict. This contention animated some support outside as well as inside
the United States for the invasion of Iraq. But Gartzke argues that the
democratic peace is a mirage created by the overlap between economic
and political freedom. That is, democracies typically have freer
economies than do authoritarian states. Thus, while democracy is
desirable for many reasons, he notes in a chapter in the latest volume of
Economic Freedom in the World, created by the Fraser Institute,
representative governments are unlikely to contribute directly to
international peace. Capitalism is by far the more important factor. The
shift from statist mercantilism to high-tech capitalism has transformed the economics behind war. Markets
generate economic opportunities that make war less desirable. Territorial
aggrandizement no longer provides the best path to riches. Free-flowing capital
markets and other aspects of globalization simultaneously draw nations together
and raise the economic price of military conflict. Moreover, sanctions,
which interfere with economic prosperity, provides a coercive step short of
war to achieve foreign policy ends. Positive economic trends are not enough to prevent war, but
for the argument, going back to Immanual Kant, that republics are less warlike than other systems.

then, neither is democracy. It long has been obvious that democracies are willing to fight, just usually not each
other. Contends Gartzke, liberal political systems, in and of themselves, have no impact on whether states fight.
In particular ,

poorer democracies perform like non-democracies . He explains:

Democracy does not have a measurable impact, while nations with very
low levels of economic freedom are 14 times more prone to conflict than
those with very high levels. Gartzke considers other variables, including alliance memberships,
nuclear deterrence, and regional differences. Although the causes of conflict vary, the relationship between
economic liberty and peace remains. His conclusion hasnt gone unchallenged. Author R.J. Rummel, an avid
proponent of the democratic peace theory, challenges Gartzkes methodology and worries that it may well lead
intelligent and policy-wise analysts and commentators to draw the wrong conclusions about the importance of
democratization. Gartzke responds in detail, noting that he relied on the same data as most democratic peace
theorists. If it is true that democratic states dont go to war, then it also is true that states with advanced free
market economies never go to war with each other, either. The point is not that democracy is valueless.


political systems naturally entail free elections and are more likely to
protect other forms of liberty - civil and economic, for instance. However,
democracy alone doesnt yield peace. To believe is does is dangerous:
Theres no panacea for creating a conflict-free world. That doesnt mean
that nothing can be done. But promoting open international markets - that
is, spreading capitalism - is the best means to encourage peace as well as
prosperity. Notes Gartzke: Warfare among developing nations will remain unaffected by the capitalist peace
as long as the economies of many developing countries remain fettered by governmental control. Freeing those

Its a particularly important lesson for the anti-capitalist

left. For the most part, the enemies of economic liberty also most
stridently denounce war, often in near-pacifist terms. Yet they oppose the
very economic policies most likely to encourage peace. If market critics dont realize
the obvious economic and philosophical value of markets - prosperity and freedom - they should
appreciate the unintended peace dividend. Trade encourages prosperity
and stability; technological innovation reduces the financial value of
conquest; globalization creates economic interdependence, increasing the
cost of war. Nothing is certain in life, and people are motivated by far more than economics. But it
economies is critical.

turns out that peace is good business. And capitalism is good for peace.

Breaking down neoliberalism kills leadership

Dumnil and Lvy 09 (Directors of Research at the Centre National de la

Recherche Scientifique in Paris [Grard Dumnil and Dominique Lvy. The Crisis of
Neoliberalism and U.S. Hegemony.])
Beginning the historical investigation at the end of the 19th and early 20th
centuries in the United States, neoliberalism appears as the third such social order.
A first financial hegemony prevailed from the beginning of the century, but it was
destabilized during the Great Depression and the New Deal, a period of intense
class struggle. The social order characteristic of the period that stretches from the New Deal to the late
1980s can be denoted as social democratic or Keynesian, with significant differences among countries. Its main
social feature was a compromise between managerial and popular classes, paralleling the containment of
capitalist interests. How neoliberalism was established historically lies beyond the limits of
the present study. Conversely, the description of the methods used is rather straightforward. A new discipline was
imposed on workers, with the control of their purchasing power, new labor conditions, and the decline of welfare.
While, after World War II, a large percentage of profits were conserved within nonfinancial corporations to the end of

profits were lavishly distributed as dividends and, up to

2000s, a large fraction was paid out as interest. Policies aiming at price stability were
substituted for macro policies tending to growth and employment . Financial regulations inherited
from the Great Depression were gradually lifted. Restrictions to
international trade were eliminated to the benefit of free trade, and the
free international mobility of capital was imposed to most countries .
Neoliberal globalization allowed for the deployment of transnational corporations worldwide. The United States
emerged from the two world wars as the leading international power. While other
imperialist countries, as France or the United Kingdom, were still involved in the
defense of their traditional empire, the United States abandoned the first
attempts at the constitutions of such an empire at the end of the 19th century, to the benefit of the
Wilsonian vision of the informal dominance of the most advanced among capitalist
countries, with the gradual imposition of the dollar as international currency. The Great Depression did not
investment, in neoliberalism,

destabilize this hegemony, which was dramatically consolidated by the victorious participation of the country in
World War II. The United States never accepted the new rules of the Bretton Woods agreements limiting
international trade and the international movements of capital, and the dollar was confirmed as a substitute for a
truly international currency. After World War II,

the United States fought for

the defense, in front of the

their own dominance worldwide. Everywhere,

The U.S. economy came to dominate
the nonfinancial and financial world economy. The transnational corporations of the
country were the most powerful, in particular financial institutions. In the
Soviet Union, of the so-called free world and for

corruption, subversion, and wars were used to these ends.

1970s, many analysts of global trends pointed, however, to a decline of U.S. hegemony and the formation of a

Neoliberalism inverted these trends and

strengthened the preeminence of the U.S. economy. As of the 2000s, the U.S.
economy was presented to other major capitalist countries as a model to
be emulated, and the United States as a leader to be followed.
triad (the United States, Europe, and Japan).

Historical data and developments prove neoliberalism isn't the

root cause of economic inequality or crises.
Norfield 12 (PhD Candidate in Economics at SOAS - University of London [Tony.
"The most detailed account available more praise for The Failure of Capitalist
Writing on the Economics of Imperialism blog, Tony Norfield praises Andrew Klimans
The Failure of Capitalist Production as probably the most detailed, and
effective, assessment of the economic statistics behind what happened [during the
economic crisis] that is available. Norfield writes: The Failure of Capitalist
Production has two main theses. Firstly, it argues that the major post-war crisis of
the 1970s did not result in enough destruction of capital values to provide the basis
for sustained accumulation thereafter. This meant that profitability showed little, if
any, sign of recovery and economic growth remained weak. This, in turn, set the
stage for credit-driven, speculative bubbles, not least the biggest and most recent
one that has burst with such intractable consequences. Secondly, and following
from this analysis, it argues that the common radical arguments about the
nature of the crisis are myths. Neoliberal economic policies did not cut
real wages and did not divert resources into finance and away from production.
A close look at the data for the US finds no evidence for these assertions.
Instead, the slow growth of incomes and investment is shown to be a
consequence of problems with capital accumulation, problems that resulted from
inadequate profitability His case is well made, and is convincing. These are
critical points for an attack on the notion that mistaken government policies
or a neoliberal coup, as some writers suggest are the root cause of the
crisis. Kliman shows that the deterioration in profitability, investment,
growth, etc, began in the late 1960s or in the 1970s, prior to the beginnings
of the neoliberal era that is usually dated from 1979-81 with the Reagan (US)
and Thatcher (UK) political regimes.

Neoliberalism is key to hegemony. It makes the global order

stable and cooperative
Edelman 10 (former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, was Principal Deputy
Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs, [Eric S. Understanding
Americas Contested Primacy, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments])
Huntington has pointed out that US primacy at the end of the Cold War was
important for two other reasons. The first was that no other power in the
international system could make comparable contributions to
international order and stability. The second was that the perceived failure of

the Soviet model left the United States as the only major power whose
national identity is defined by a set of universal political and economic
values. Because these values were not central to the national identity of other
powers they did not have the same drive as the United States to promote
them in international affairs. This willingness to provide certain global
public goods that increased the chances of international cooperation was
also acknowledged by Robert Jervis, who was otherwise skeptical about the effort to
maintain US primacy. It also facilitated acceptance of US primacy and the
unipolar system by other countries. Those observations remain valid today.24
Although the point remains controversial it seems apparent that America, while
clearly creating some resentments with its policies, continues to be seen
(particularly by governments) as relatively benign in its interactions with
other powers. America shares a fundamental view of the world rooted in the
neoliberal orthodoxy of free markets, open societies, and democratic
institutions that emerged as a consensus prescription for peace and prosperity
after the collapse of communism. This transnational liberalism inclines
national elites to see a broad confluence of interest with the United States and
reduces their tendency to try and counterbalance American power. As the
guarantor of the international world economy and a provider of security and
stability because of its alliance system, the United States provides global public
goods which others cannot provide. In that sense the question that Stanley
Hoffman posed some years ago of whether the United States should pursue primacy
or world order seems to be a false dichotomy. As Michael Mandelbaum has
persuasively argued, to the degree that there is world order, it exists
because American primacy, combined with the triumph of neoliberal ideas,
has allowed the United States to provide governmental functions to the rest
of the world, chief among them being the maintenance of the global commons
air, sea, and space.

Neoliberalism solves global poverty.

Bandow 1 (Senior fellow at the CATO Institute [Doug Bandow. Globalization
Serves the World's Poor, March 25th, 2001])
Indeed, the problems of globalization must always be "compared to what?" Yes,
factories pay low wages in Third World countries. But workers in them have neither
the education nor the skills to be paid at First World levels. Their alternative is
not a Western university education or Silicon Valley computer job, but an
evenlower-paying job with a local firm or unemployment. The choice is
clear: according to Edward Graham of the Institute of International
Economics, in poor countries, American multinationals pay foreign citizens
an average of 8.5 times the per capita GDP. Overall, the process of
globalization has been good for the poor. During the 1980s, advanced
industrialized countries grew faster than developing states. In the 1990s, as
globalization accelerated, poor nations grew at 3.6 percent annually, twice that of
their richer neighbors. Despite the illusion of left-wing activists that money
falls from the sky, poverty has been the normal condition of humankind
throughout most of history. As even Marx acknowledged, capitalism is
what eliminated the overwhelming poverty of the pre- industrial world.
That remains the case today. Resource endowment, population level and density,

foreign aid transfers, past colonial status none of these correlate with economic
wealth. Only economic openness does.The latest volume of the Economic Freedom
in the World Report, published by the Cato Institute and think tanks in 50 other
countries, finds that economic liberty strongly correlates with economic
achievement.Policies that open economies strongly correlate with economic growth.
By pulling countries into the international marketplace, globalization
encourages market reforms. With them comes increased wealth.


Threats Real
Our identification of threats are accurate -- recognition of
enmity is a pre-requisite to accurate foreign policy planning.
Doran 11 Professor at NYU

Michael Scott Doran, a Visiting Professor at the Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of
Public Service at New York University. He is a former Senior Director for the Middle
East at the National Security Council and a former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary
of Defense. Response: Arab Spring, Persian Winter: Will Iran Emerge the Winner
From the Arab Revolt?. Foreign Affairs. New York: Jul/Aug 2011. Vol. 90, Iss. 4; pg.
The authors are arguing against a straw man. No one, myself included,
believes that the resistance bloc led by Iran is "omnipotent," and no
one argues that the best way to counter it is by "relying solely on security
relationships with the region's elites." The danger from Iran is asymmetric:
Tehran has developed a set of tools that, time and again, have proved
their effectiveness against Washington by denying it local allies,
increasing the economic cost of its operations, and killing its soldiers. It is
precisely this sly, semicovert nature that permits Kaye and Wehrey to
plausibly claim that the resistance bloc is "more fractured than is
commonly understood." They provide no evidence for this assessment. If
significant fissures do truly exist, then the United States should hammer at
them hard, cracking apart the bloc once and for all. Yet ultimately, the belief in
the weakness of these bonds is just that-an article of faith, not a reasoned
analysis. The Iranian- Syrian axis took shape in the early 1980s as an
outgrowth of the Iran-Iraq War. Tehran and Damascus had a shared
hostility toward Baghdad and toward the U.S.-led regional order more
broadly. This enmity toward U.S. interests, especially, still holds true
today: Iran and Syria have maintained the longest continuous regional alliance
since the states of the Middle East gained their independence in the years
after World War II. Hezbollah, for its part, is organically connected to Iran's
Revolutionary Guards. Are there tensions among these actors? Undoubtedly,
as there are in any relationship. But is there any serious reason to believe that
the bloc can be split apart without regime change in either Iran or Syria? No.
Kaye and Wehrey exhibit what might be called the academic fallacy, in
which the necessary simplicity of strategic concepts is mistaken for
simple-mindedness (hence the diagnosis of "a two-dimensional
reading of the strategic map"). The Middle East is inherently complex
and presents policymakers in Washington with a multiplicity of actors
that operate from a large variety of motives. It is important, however,
not to let a fascination with complexity make one blind to enduring
and consequential concentrations of power. The United States must train
itself to see a large dune as something more formidable than just endless
grains of sand. By dismissing the cohesion of the resistance bloc, and
by denying the severity of the threat that bloc poses, the hands-off

approach of Kaye and Wehrey inevitably leads to the incoherence of

current U.S. policy. Syria is an instructive case. The uprising there has
created the most remarkable of circumstances: a problem in the Middle East in
which the United States' strategic interests and its values are in perfect
alignment. Even more, street protests and the state's brutal crackdown have
given Washington potential leverage over a regime that has famously eluded
all previous efforts at coercion. Yet U.S. officials have given the Assad regime a
pass. On April 7, three weeks into the uprising, Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton played therapist to Bashar al-Assad, the mixed-up adolescent. "What
we have tried to do with him," she said, "is to give him an alternative vision of
himself." On May 6, even after the regime had shown its most brutal face,
Clinton restated her belief that Damascus has "an opportunity still to bring
about a reform agenda." Among his many crimes, Assad aided the murder
of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, is widely assumed to have been behind the
killing of the Lebanese leader Rafiq Hariri, and today is slaughtering
civilians on his own streets with a cruelty unusual even by the standards of
Arab autocracies. Of all the dictators in the region, why is it this murderer who
receives the therapeutic approach? The contrast with how Washington treated
Egypt's Hosni Mubarak is striking. In February, President Barack Obama
expressed a universal commitment to democratic values and on that basis
demanded that Mubarak step down immediately. Thanks in part to the depth of
U.S. influence in Egypt, Obama got his wish: Mubarak, a U.S. ally of 30 years,
was given the bum's rush. By contrast, Assad, an enemy of long standing and
a much more brutal dictator than Mubarak, is being treated with kid gloves.
Above all, the United States must distinguish clearly between friend
and foe. When U.S. policymakers and experts see only complexity and
avoid clear categorization, they end up treating the United States'
allies as enemies and its enemies, including Iran, as allies.

! Defense
No impact threat construction isnt sufficient to cause wars
Kaufman 9
Stuart J Kaufman, professor of Political Science and International Relations at the
University of Delaware. Narratives and Symbols in Violent Mobilization: The
Palestinian-Israeli Case. Security Studies 18:3, 400 434
Even when hostile narratives, group fears, and opportunity are strongly
present, war occurs only if these factors are harnessed. Ethnic
narratives and fears must combine to create significant ethnic hostility
among mass publics. Politicians must also seize the opportunity to
manipulate that hostility, evoking hostile narratives and symbols to gain or
hold power by riding a wave of chauvinist mobilization. Such mobilization
is often spurred by prominent events (for example, episodes of violence) that
increase feelings of hostility and make chauvinist appeals seem timely. If the
other group also mobilizes and if each side's felt security needs threaten the
security of the other side, the result is a security dilemma spiral of rising
fear, hostility, and mutual threat that results in violence. A virtue of this
symbolist theory is that symbolist logic explains why ethnic peace is
more common than ethnonationalist war. Even if hostile narratives,
fears, and opportunity exist, severe violence usually can still be avoided if
ethnic elites skillfully define group needs in moderate ways and
collaborate across group lines to prevent violence: this is
consociationalism.17 War is likely only if hostile narratives, fears, and
opportunity spur hostile attitudes, chauvinist mobilization, and a security

Generic Security Good

Threat construction is good it allows us to anticipate and
prevent danger
Berke 98
Joseph Berke, Found. And Dir. Arbours Crisis Centre, 1998, Even Paranoids Have Enemies, p. 5-6
Internal and external persecution come together in the theoretical model of the paranoid process a set of
developmental and defensive mechanisms which serve to delineate the individuals inner psychic world and
his experience of his emerging self, while, at the same time, contributing to the shaping of his sense of

One of this models core

components, the paranoid construction refers to a cognitive
reorganization taking place in an attempt to sustain a comfortable
sense of self which, however, may be at the expense of reality testing .
significant objects in his experiential world (Meissner 1986).

This process, in its extreme form, leads to the formation of a persecutory bond, where a link is established
between, on the one hand, the paranoid individual and, on the other, his persecutors and the terrifying
forces that threaten to engulf him. This can become a rigid construction that reinforces the spiral of
paranoia-persecutionparanoia. Meissner understands this mechanism as offering a sense of cohesion and
durability to a fragile self, though it often involves a high degree of pathology and victimization. Instances of
this process abound in individuals, institutions, and groups (including whole nations) where views of internal
and external situations are (ab)used to service a brittle sense of identity. Fully recognizing this predicament,
and the dangers involved, requires thinking about and tolerating our own conflictual parts.

Paradoxically, a certain degree of paranoia is desirable as it is a basis

for discrimination (Segal 1994); when we let a new experience touch us,
we acknowledge that it may be bad or good, which enables us to
anticipate danger. In leaders of an organization, for instance, a
certain degree of paranoid potential can be a useful resource, as
opposed to a dangerous naivety that would prevent the leader from
becoming aware of the situations of activation of aggression in the
group, or regression to primitive levels of functioning. Where the
leader can be aware of, and apprehend risk and danger, there is the
possibility of preparation for the group to face them and cope with

Scenario creation isn't the same as threat construction, its

crucial to see if policies are a good idea and reduce the risk of
nuclear war.
Jarvis, School of Economic & Political Science, 2k3
(Darryl S.L. Jarvis - School of Economics & Political Science, U. of Sydney - 2K3
"Political Risk in International Relations: Empirical Experiences and Conceptual
Approaches" School of Economics and Political Science, Working Papers)

Scenario generation has its origins in the Cold War when strategic analysts developed the method for
helping to think futuristically about driving forces, chains of events, or possible trigger points that might lead
to conflict between the Warsaw Pact and NATO, and how, if this occurred, the conflict might proceed. In

scenario generation was used to plot logically plausible

possibilities and then to model responses, strategic positioning
strategies, and to formulate war-fighting and contingency plans. Cold
War scenario generation was said to be so successful in modeling
circumstances of possible nuclear confrontation with devastating and
mass annihilation outcomes, that policy makers were moved to

develop the doctrine of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) and various

avoidance strategies to avert the possibility of nuclear
confrontation.64 The essence of scenario generation is defined by Geoff
Coyle as a justified and traceable sequence of events which might plausibly
be imagined to occur in the future.65 Importantly, scenarios are not
forecasts, preferences or predictions, but plausible, challenging
descriptions of what might happenin the form of a set of stories
about alternative futures.66 To this end, scenario analysis builds on many of the techniques of the Delphi
method. But rather than use intermediaries to design survey questionnaires, identify experts and synthesize and interpret responses ,
scenario generation allows experts to develop scenarios that lay bare
assumptions and the rationale on which interpretations are made,
and to develop possible sketches of anticipated events and their
probable time lines. The thinking behind this is to allow those who
utilize scenarios to make informed decisions and to evaluate the
scenarios generated relative to the assumptions on which they have
been based. Apart from the military, some of the first institutions to employ scenario generation were commercial organizations.
The Royal Dutch Shell Company, for example, pioneered scenario analysis under the auspices of three prominent individuals, Peter Schwartz,
Kees van der Heijden and Peter Checkland.67 However, despite some 30 years of scenario generation no formal models exist; indeed the notion
of formal techniques is actively resisted. Rather, scenario generation stresses creative, imaginary, challenging discourses about possible futures
by looking at the dominant drivers of societal change and risk. These are normally categorized under the well known PEST acronym (political,
economic, social and technological factors) as the primary drivers of change and risk, and primary determinations of future worlds, processes

Scenarios, however, are not used to write the future but to

outline possibilities in relation to key decisions that need to be taken
today and of the possible future implications of these decisions given
a constantly changing environment. It is, in this sense, an attempt to
map possible trajectories and outcomes and logically construct
images of cause and effect so that the ramifications of decision
making can be understood in terms of its collateral implications and
consequences. Peter Schwartz encapsulated the process with the provocative title of his book: The
and events.

art of the Long View.68 The precise methods associated with

scenario generation are numerous and the method employed

normally contingent on the intended purpose. Angela Wilkinson and Esther Eidinow, for example, suggest that scenario generation falls into four
discrete categories: identified objectives, known constitutive / environmental elements; formally mapped trajectories; scenarios generated. 2.
Inductive Method: Development of a series of scenarios from an assemblage of a series of possible events. 3. Incremental Approach: Develops
images and maps and describes an official futureor the one the organization thinks most likely to emerge, and then develops scenarios on
the basis of decisions and how they will interact with the official future and their possible consequences and effects. 4. Normative Approach:
Starts with a set of characteristics of assumed conditions, or a scenario framed in a forward time horizon, and works backwards to see what it
requires (decisions, events, processes, attributes) to get there and if this is feasible.69 Peter Schwartz suggested that just as novels have
themes which provide continuity, logical connections, and thus a central narrative enabling interpretation and assessment, scenarios too need a
theme. But what? Schwartz suggested several themes; challenge and response, for example: Perhaps Londons position as a centre for financial
services is challenged by Frankfurt or Tokyo; what are the drivers and uncertainties which will affect the viability of a strategic response? Other

The theme is not important

per se, but a tool providing a catalyst or fulcrum via which to stress
test the assumptions, the logicality of outcomes, the implications of
strategic decisions and the risks and opportunities that might
present. As with other third generation approaches, scenario analysis is not a
panacea, offering both insights but also displaying limitations. It embraces
lateral creative thinking and challenges organizations (commercial,
non-commercial and state based) to think about alternative futures or
events otherwise not anticipated. To the extent that it is able to do this
successfully, it has obvious advantages for contingency planning, risk identification,
themes suggested included

winners and losers or infinite possibility.

mitigation planning and risk avoidance. It thus helps various commercial, state and non-commercial actors
to navigate uncertainty and risk environments rather than stumble upon them without due thought to
management and response. The normal caveats about such approaches apply, however: the quality of the
analysis is directly proportionate to the quality of the analysts; interpretative discretion if not managed and
appropriately tested and checked, can derail the construction of quality scenarios and their utility

Disease Securitization Good

Fear and securitization of disease is key to prevent the
explosion of global epidemics
Duncan Watts (writer for Slate magazine) April 30, 2003 Outbrea: In epidemics, is fear
a good thing

All the fuss

may well have contained what could have been a truly panic-worthy
epidemic. While we have yet to learn how bad the epidemic will get, it is
almost certain that without the WHO's pre-emptive global alert and the
resulting avalanche of news stories about the disease, the situation
could have been far worse than it is. Though SARS is not quite as contagious as the flu, it can still
But this eminently reasonable reasoning fails to account for the evidence that is not at hand:

be spread through relatively casual contact. If lots of sick people were taking long plane flights or wandering
around on the streets for days, the risk of catching it from them might not be negligible. We know that a handful
of individuals can spread the disease from one country to 26 others in a matter of weeks (SARS was introduced to
Hong Kong, which now has the highest rate of infection, by a single person arriving from mainland China). How
much worse would the epidemic be if travelers had not avoided certain cities; if airports had not quarantined

if sick people had not confined themselves (or been

confined) to their homes? Almost certainly much worse, in which case we would have had the
hysteria and the economic damage, anyway. And we'd also have an epidemic on a
scale that was really something to panic about. All this should lead us to rethink
Roosevelt's famous quip about fearing only fear itself: It appears that fear can be a useful
tool for the public good. One reason that HIV managed to spread globally ,
breaking out of its core population of gay men, prostitutes, and intravenous drug users, was due to a
general perception that it couldn't. AIDS is the problem that it is today because we weren't
scared enough. (And perhaps we still aren't scared enough. Even as the number of HIV-positive
symptomatic passengers; and

individuals soars past the 30 million mark in Africa, health clinics continue to reuse needlesa practice that has

our real
concern ought not to be that we are too easily scared, but that we are
been recognized for over a decade as the single most effective way to spread the virus.) So,

too easily reassured . China, for example, might have prevented the epidemic from spreading outside
the rural area in which it first broke out if its public health authorities had instilled a little more preventive fear in
the population. Articles suggesting that fear of the disease and not the disease itself is the real problem may

if they persuade us not to

take the next such outbreak of disease as seriously, they will not be
doing us a favor in the long term. But, you may wonder, how much fear is healthy? And faced
usefully enable us to go about our lives in a more productive fashion; but

with a myriad of imaginable threats, which ones should we be most scared of? As terrifying as a 90 percent
mortality rate is, there are good reasons that the WHO did not consider the African Ebola outbreak to be of the
same magnitude as SARS in China. By nature, Ebola is much harder to transmit than SARS; it also debilitates its
victims relatively quickly. As long as local response is swift, the potential for Ebola to spread globally is limited, no
matter how devastating an outbreak is. Ebola is literally too deadly for its own good. SARS, by contrast, had
"global" written all over it from the very first; it was the WHO's recognition of this that prompted such an early
and aggressive awareness campaign. In 1918, the Spanish flu caused more than 20 million deaths worldwide
and was the most deadly epidemic of all time. In the United States, the disease's spread was drastically
accelerated by large public gatherings celebrating Armistice Daywhich were held well after the epidemic was in

early wave of fear about this deadly disease might have averted much of
the catastrophe. This historical lesson has not been lost on the WHO, and the rest of us would do well to
full swing. Many more Americanssome 675,000were killed by influenza than by the Great War itself.

pay attention, too. In a world that is growing ever more connected, at an ever faster pace, the distant has become
near, and the burdens of others have become our burdens. Under those circumstances, it's OK to be a little afraid
in fact, our

fear may be what saves us.

Alt Fails
The alt fails material habits influence state action more than
discourse they cant change top-level state behavior because
theres a massive psychological bias towards maintaining
existing practices only working within existing institutional
logics solves violence
Hopf 10
(Ted, Associate Professor of Political Science at The Ohio State University, The logic
of habit in International Relations, European Journal of International Relations
published online 16 June 2010,
The logics of habit and practice differ fundamentally from the logics of
consequences and appropriateness by stressing that the actions of actors
in the world are often not the product of deliberate calculation of any
sort, instrumental or normative. The practice turn also has reminded
constructivist IR scholars that intersubjective reality is not just spoken
into existence, but is acted into existence, too (Neumann, 2002).
Constructivism has long ignored what states and their agents do,
while concentrating on what they say . Discourse has been reduced to
texts, ignoring practices. If interaction creates intersubjective reality,
theorists of practice pointed out, then we should be paying attention to
these actions, not just exchanges of words. If practice theory moves the
level of sociological attention down from conscious ideas and values to the
physical and the habitual, then the practice turn has yet to fully appreciate
what it means to be habitual (Swidler, 2001: 75). The logic of practice is more
reflective and agential than the logic of habit and, consequently, expects far
more change in the world. The logic of practice is dedicated to removing the
human mind from the theorization of practice, while the logic of habit
makes the automatic system in the brain a critical factor in explaining
unreflective perceptions, attitudes, and practices. While the logic of
practice treats unreflective practices as the taproot for all other logics of
action, the logic of habit assumes, at least at this early stage of
theorization, that all logics have their place in everyday life. The
practice turn is still too agential, expecting agents to be able to effect
change in prevailing social structures with far greater frequency than
habit would permit. The practice turn underestimates the social,
cognitive, even phsyiological, power of habit to prevent change . It
ignores the psychological advantage of the status quo that the logic
of habit foregrounds (Eidelman and Crandall, 2009: 85106).