1NCUniqueness: Trump’s agenda is failing massively. He desperately needs a win in order push any of his policies. Rucker June 27th 2017 (Philip Rucker is the White House Bureau Chief for The Washington Post. He previously has covered Congress, the Obama White House, and the 2012 and 2016 presidential campaigns. He joined The Post in 2005 as a local news reporter. Who’s afraid of Trump? Not enough Republicans — at least for now. June 27th, 2017 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whos-afraid-of-trump-not-enough-republicans--at-least-for-now/2017/06/27/cee56720-5b57-11e7-9b7d-14576dc0f39d_story.html?utm_term=.4acc20310346)

Scrambling to line up support for the Republican healthcare bill, President Trump got on the phone Monday with Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and

urged him to back the measure. The president’s personal plea was not enough. On Tuesday, Lee said he would vote against the bill. Senate GOP leaders later postponed the planned health care vote because too many other Republican senators also opposed — for now, at least — legislation that would deliver on Trump’s campaign promise to scale back the law known as Obamacare. Trump had hoped for a swift and easy win on health care this week. Instead he got a delay and a return to the negotiating table — the latest reminder of the limits of his power to shape outcomes at the opposite end of Pennsylvania Avenue. History suggests that presidents who have governed successfully have been both revered and feared. But Republican fixtures in Washington are beginning to conclude that Trump may be neither , despite his mix of bravado, threats and efforts to

schmooze with GOP lawmakers. The president is the leader of his party, yet Trump has struggled to get Republican lawmakers moving in lockstep on health care and other major issues, leaving no signature legislation in his first five months in office. The confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch is his mostcited achievement to date. “This president is the first president in our history who has neither political nor military experience, and thus it has been a challenge to him to learn how to interact with Congress and learn how to push his agenda better,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who opposes the current healthcare bill. The Senate could pass a revised version of the bill once lawmakers return from their July 4 recess and pick

up deliberations. Still, some Republicans are willing to defy their president’s wishes — a dynamic that can be attributed in part to Trump’s singular status as a disrupter within his party. “The president remains an entity in and of itself, not a part of the traditional Republican Party,” said Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), a moderate who represents a district Trump lost by 16 percentage points. “I handle the Trump administration the same way I handled the Obama

administration. When I agree, I work with them. When I oppose, I don’t.” In private conversations on Capitol Hill, Trump is often not taken seriously. Some Republican lawmakers consider some of his promises — such as making Mexico pay for a new border wall — fantastical. They are exhausted and at times exasperated by his hopscotching from one subject to the next, chronicled in his pithy and provocative tweets. They are quick to point out how little command he demonstrates of policy. And they have come to regard some of his threats as empty, concluding that crossing the president poses little danger . “The House healthcare vote shows he does have juice, particularly with people on the right,” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (RS.C.) said. “The Senate healthcare vote shows that people feel that health care is a defining issue and that it’d be pretty hard for any politician to push a senator into taking a vote that’s going to have consequences for the rest of their life.” Asked if he personally fears Trump, Graham chuckled before saying, “No.” Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who has distanced himself from Trump on various issues, said few members of Congress fear permanent retaliation from the president. “He comes from the private sector, where your business partner today isn’t always your business partner tomorrow,” Issa said. “Just because you’re one way today doesn’t mean you’re written off. That’s the ‘Art of the Deal’ side.” One senior Republican close to both the White House and many senators called Trump and his political operation “a paper tiger,” noting how many GOP lawmakers feel free “to go their own way.” “Members are political entrepreneurs, and they react to what they see in the political marketplace,” said the Republican, who spoke on the

condition of anonymity to avoid alienating the White House. John Weaver, a GOP consultant and frequent Trump critic, was blunter in explaining why Trump has been unable to rule with a hammer. “When you have a 35

percent approval rating and you’re under FBI investigation, you don’t have a hammer,” he said, referring to the probe of possible connections between the Trump campaign and Russia. Trump’s approval rating in Gallup’s daily tracking poll stood Tuesday at 39 percent, with 57 percent of Americans disapproving of his performance. But a significant portion of those supporters, particularly in red states and districts, still strongly back Trump. White House officials contest the suggestion that Trump does not instill fear among fellow Republicans in Congress, though argue that their strategy is not one of fear. “Our legislative strategy isn’t to scare people into passing bills,” principal deputy White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in an email. “That doesn’t work for any president. We helped negotiate and facilitate the major breakthroughs on health care in the House and are doing the same in the Senate.” The president’s political shop, meanwhile, is laboring to force more Republicans to bend to his wishes. America First Policies, a Trump allied super PAC staffed by former aides, launched a negative advertising effort against Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) after he spoke out against the bill Friday. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) complained about the ads to White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, and the super PAC said Tuesday that it would pull the spots after Heller said he was open to further negotiations, according to two people familiar with the decision. America First Policies has been mulling similar ads against other Republicans who have broken ranks, hoping to make lawmakers believe they will pay a price for betraying Trump and imperiling his agenda. The super PAC also is considering grassroots campaigns across the country to mobilize Trump supporters in key states during the July 4 recess, as a way to ratchet up pressure on wavering lawmakers. Trump allies have encouraged major GOP donors to reach out to senators who oppose the bill. Las Vegas casino moguls Sheldon Adelson and Steve Wynn have both spoken by phone with Heller to prod him along, according to people familiar with the discussions. Trump has been hungry for a legislative policy victory on Capitol Hill, and he and his advisers see health care as the best chance for one this summer. The president is playing a less public role advocating for the legislation than he did leading up to this spring’s vote on a House bill, when he used his relationship with conservative members of the House Freedom Caucus to eventually bring them to the table. In the Senate talks, Trump has been working largely behind the scenes to lobby senators, with personal phone calls and other entreaties. Unlike the House, where rank and file Republicans may be likely to follow Trump’s lead, the Senate naturally is a more independent institution. Many senators fashion their own political brands and have outsize egos, and some Republicans ran away from Trump in their reelection races last year. Chris Whipple, author of “The Gatekeepers,” a new history of White House chiefs of staff, said the tumult inside Trump’s White House — and the president’s lack of a coherent message or vision for his policy agenda — inhibits his ability to enforce party discipline in Congress.

“Nothing instills fear on Capitol Hill like success, and all this White House has been able to do is one failure after another,” Whipple said. “There are just zero points on the board so far. Who’s going to be afraid of that?” In the early years of Barack Obama’s presidency, Democrats on Capitol Hill largely stayed in line — in part because they saw Obama as a powerful political force and believed there were risks in breaking with him. During negotiations over the Affordable Care Act, Rahm Emanuel, then the White House chief of staff, served as the enforcer, reminding Blue Dog Democrats that they owed him their loyalty because he helped recruit and elect them as head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Early in President George W. Bush’s tenure, fellow Republicans in Congress saw his White House as a finely tuned machine that could not be crossed. “You never wanted to get on the wrong side of the Bush White House because the staff was disciplined, dedicated and extremely loyal to the president,” said Ryan Williams, a Republican operative. “If you crossed or undermined the president or his administration, the Bush diehards would remember it forever.” Trump’s lieutenants, by contrast, have struggled to force Republicans into line. In March, when House Republicans were slow to rally behind the healthcare bill, White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon told Freedom Caucus members that they must stop waffling and vote for the legislation. Bannon was immediately rebuffed by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), who has been in the House for more than three decades. Barton icily told Bannon that the only person who ordered him around was “my daddy” — and that his father was unsuccessful in doing so, according to several Republicans with knowledge of the meeting. In an interview Tuesday, Barton smiled wryly when asked about the incident. “I will admit on the record that I took exception to a comment that he made,” Barton said. “There is a separation of powers, and the president has a role and the Congress has a role. That’s all I’ll say.”

Link: Win will give Trump momentum to push rest of agendaZelizer 17 (Julian Zelizer is a history and public affairs professor at Princeton, “Don't count President Trump out just yet,”4/2/17, http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/31/opinions/dont-count-trump-out-zelizer/)

(CNN)It would be a big mistake to count President Trump out too soon. Although he has experienced a difficult two

months, it is important to remember that other presidents have survived incredibly rocky starts and gone on to enjoy two-terms. Without question, President Trump has been making an enormous number of serious mistakes and miscalculations. He has allowed his political capital to go out the window with sloppily crafted executive orders banning refugees, by badly

mishandling the negotiations over repealing the Affordable Care Act, and by making almost no progress on the legislative front. His wild tweets and irresponsible statements are contributing to his low national approval ratings (other presidents have had similarly low approval ratings). The courts and Congress have been able to check the President on several occasions, while a grassroots opposition movement called Indivisible succeeded at shaking legislators in both parties, forcing them to think twice about quickly throwing their support behind the President. The investigation into Russia is the most serious threat that he faces. When former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn asked for immunity in exchange for his testimony, every American with a historical memory could not help but ask if he would become this

administration's John Dean. And yet it is important to remember that other presidents, two-term presidents, have been able to survive rocky and controversial starts to their presidency. Republican Ronald Reagan, who ended up remaking American politics by pushing the national debate sharply to the right, struggled during his first few months in office. His proposed cuts to the budget were met with a fierce resistance as Americans discovered what his rhetorical attacks on government would actually mean if implemented into law. The laggard state of the economy made it difficult for Reagan to expand his public support especially as his economic package stalled in a Republican-dominated Senate Budget Committee. He didn't sign his first bill -- cutting back dairy price supports -- until March 31 at George Washington University Hospital the morning after he was shot in an assassination attempt. President Bill Clinton had trouble through his first summer in the White House. A series of controversial and problematic cabinet appointments, including a series of missteps with his Attorney General (Janet Reno, his third choice, was not confirmed until March) left him looking incompetent and stifled progress on his legislation. His watered-down compromise over whether gays and lesbians could serve in the military, "don't ask, don't tell" left many mad with him and few particularly pleased with the outcome. Clinton also stalled on his legislative agenda while moving away from a middle-class tax cut that he had promised in the campaign. His approval ratings fell from 64% in February 1993 to about 37% in May 1993. One month later, Time magazine ran a cover story calling Clinton the "Incredible Shrinking President." One of his more experienced advisers, Vernon Jordan, complained that "There's nobody over there that's ever worked in the White House before." But Clinton and Reagan recovered and each went on to have pretty successful runs in

Washington. Reagan bounced back following his physical recovery from the assassination attempt by pushing a historic supply-side tax cut through Congress in the summer of 1981. It energized Republicans and created a foundation for him to move forward with other policies including massive increases in defense spending. While he would continue to experience difficult moments, such as the large Democratic gains in the 1982 midterm elections and the Iran-Contra scandal, he went on to become an iconic president. It took Clinton longer to recover. His budget in the summer of 1993, which increased taxes on corporations and the wealthy, was a long-term policy success in terms of reducing the deficit, but caused enormous turmoil as conservatives labeled him as a big government liberal in hiding. Like Trump's, Clinton's initial health care plan failed. The blow helped Republicans retake control of both chambers of Congress in 1994 for the first time in 40 years. During his second term, the House voted to impeach him in December 1998 for perjury over an extramarital affair. Yet Clinton did survive and enjoyed two terms with skyrocketing approval ratings and achievements on issues such as deficit reduction, counterterrorism and health care that remain central. Can President Trump do the same? Clearly it is possible that he could end up more like Herbert Hoover or Jimmy Carter, meaning that the problems he is experiencing will not go away and that he will be a one-term president -- at most. With a major scandal looming over the White House involving possible collusion between his campaign and Russia, the possibilities for this presidency to spin out of control remain very real. An emboldened House Freedom Caucus and Democratic minority, is not going to make things any easier for this President, and it seems that the investigation into Russia-gate is about to ramp up. Constituents opposed to Trump, who have a taste of victory after protesting Republican town hall

meetings, will have that much more determination to take on the rest of his agenda. But his opponents should also be cognizant that Trump does have the ability to rebound. The Russia scandal could easily turn out to be more like Iran-Contra, where an explosive and devastating investigation never quite reaches the president himself and where the targets of the investigation are able to frame the issue as being about overly partisan inquisitors undermining national security. Democrats might also conclude that any attempt to remove Trump from office through impeachment would be self-defeating, since Vice President Mike Pence is very conservative and is more likely to work well with

the Freedom Caucus on policies the left would strongly oppose. If Trump can get his act together, he could push for legislation, such as some kind of bold infrastructure plan, that would make it much more difficult for all Democrats and non-Freedom Caucus Republicans to oppose. This would create the potential for a bipartisan victory, remaking himself into an independent and breaking through some of the partisan alliances that have thus far held firm . Trump, whose tweets this week went after the Freedom Caucus, has the potential to weaken the group, a key source of obstruction in Congress since 2010, and that could appeal to Democrats. A crafty Trump could do this while continuing to move forward with his very aggressive deregulatory agenda, combined with a Reaganesque supply side tax cut, that keeps Republicans as a whole happy with having him in the White House. This would be a one-two punch that would quickly put Democrats on the defensive. Trump, who is still doing well in polling with Republicans, can continue to offer his base of supporters red meat with renewed attacks on illegal immigrants and a push for "law and order" in the cities. The conservative part of his populism has been a big selling point and he has proven to have the capacity to play to the darkest elements of the right wing. Trump can still, in the words of Steve Bannon, "deconstruct the administrative state." It's untrue that Obamacare will "explode" on its own, but Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price can do enormous damage to this fragile program, making it less effective and less appealing in the coming years. For instance, he could lower the cost-sharing subsidies that insurers have relied on, a step which would create instability in markets. Trump can slowly build a stronger coalition for change by making the Affordable Care Act seem worse to most voters. As Steve Rattner

wrote, "if the effectiveness of the A.C.A is diminished . . . Rest assured that the Republicans will try to blame Obamacare's supporters." This is really an "it can go either way" moment for Trump. His next step is crucial. The problems he faces are very real, while the progress that he has made on certain issues and the potential to break through the current challenges are equally significant. Part of the answer to the story will rest, not so much with Trump, but with what his opponents do in the coming months and whether they are

able to capitalize on the vulnerabilities and instabilities that have been exposed in the White House as a result of the ACA fiasco. His opponents should be aware, however, that just as big loss in politics sets the groundwork for more losses

by allowing opponents to see all your vulnerability, one big win can create the political momentum that gives presidents a chance to move on with other issues and even win re-election.

Internal Link: The replacement for the Affordable Care Act will devastate the economy. Newkirk 6/17 (Vann R. Newkirk II is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he covers politics and policy. “How the AHCA Could Cause an Economic Downturn.” https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-ahca-recession-report/530322/)

If there’s any single binding policy narrative for the first five months of Donald Trump’s presidency, it’s that the president is against regulations that kill jobs. In his June 1 Rose Garden speech announcing the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, Trump bemoaned it as a policy that “could cost Americans as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025.” He’s touted his success in making deals to keep factory jobs in the country, and has claimed that his work “includ[es] a record number of resolutions to eliminate job-killing regulations.” So how would Trump and his job-creating party feel about a law that costs a million jobs over the next decade and decreases total business activity by hundreds of billions over the same time period? They have a chance to decide just that as the Senate deliberates a reconfigured American Health Care Act,

the Republican plan to replace Obamacare. A new report from the Commonwealth Fund and George Washington University researchers

Leighton Ku, Erika Steinmetz, Erin Brantley, Nikhil Holla, and Brian K. Bruen finds that the AHCA would slash total jobs by about a million, total state gross domestic products by $93 billion, and total business output by $148 billion by 2026. Most of those jobs would be shed from the health-care industry, which would contract severely over that frame. Most of the losses in economic activity would come in states that have expanded Medicaid to low-income adults under the Affordable Care Act. The structure of the House bill that passed in May would lead to an interesting whirlwind of economic effects, according to this report. The AHCA repeals most of the taxes that supported the Affordable Care Act just about immediately, which might even act as a short-term stimulus. Between 2018 and 2020, authors predict the economy would actually grow by over 800,000 jobs, which notably would buoy jobs reports for

two straight elections. The health-care industry, however, would begin sloughing jobs immediately. Things get dicier after 2020. Reductions in federal funding for coverage through massive cuts to Medicaid and reduction of private-insurance subsidies all but reverse those gains by 2021, and begin what the researchers call “a period of economic and medical hardship in the U.S.” after that. Federal Medicaid funds and under the ACA themselves currently act as a stimulus to state governments, and the AHCA would cut those funds even below pre-ACA levels, and cap them. Since that stimulus has multiplicative effects on businesses and total output, the AHCA slashes state outputs by amounts far greater than the amount of federal funds divested. In New York alone, the Commonwealth Fund report indicates the state gross domestic product would

decrease by $10.5 billion by 2026 over current projections, and total business output by $16 billion. And similar losses would come across every state in every sector. Of course the most dramatic effects would be in the health-care industry. Per the Congressional Budget Office estimates, 23 million fewer people are expected to be insured under the House’s draft of the AHCA. The industry will simply have to contract in the face of such losses of eligible patients, and in the face of increases in uncompensated care. This report suggests a net loss of about 700,000 jobs in the health-care sector alone. And while the president and his allies have worked hard to ensure the job security of rather small numbers of factory and coal-mining jobs in the Midwest and Appalachia, losses in the health-care industry (which employs millions of blue-collar workers) would hit those areas hard too. Kentucky and West Virginia would lose 16,000 combined jobs in the health-care sector alone. Through their amendments, House Republicans have pulled off a rare policy feat: Their version of the AHCA invests much more federal money than the pre-Obamacare government ever did to insure fewer people and cuts taxes for small business owners and the wealthy while

also killing jobs and economic activity. Their program is neither entirely austere nor a big-government boondoggle, yet manages to incorporate the pitfalls of each approach. Those contradictions might not matter for the prospects of the law’s passage, though, since it is front-loaded with economic sweeteners that should benefit Republicans in the all-important next two elections. The version of the AHCA currently being advanced under a shroud of secrecy in the Senate is expected to be different from the House version, and might include provisions like a delay of Medicaid cuts and a restructuring of tax credits that will soften the long-term economic

blow of the law. But, as previous analyses by Ku and others suggest, any repeal of Obamacare that leads to coverage losses

and large-scale reductions in Medicaid will have larger direct economic effects and “feedback effects” on the economy and jobs. Some clever maneuvers in the Senate might delay the cliff and make the AHCA more politically palatable, but if it does pass the chamber and Trump’s desk, the losses will come.

Impact: Economic decline causes global nuclear war Stein Tønnesson 15, Research Professor, Peace Research Institute Oslo; Leader of East Asia Peace program, Uppsala University, 2015, “Deterrence, interdependence and Sino–US peace,” International Area Studies Review, Vol. 18, No. 3, p. 297-311

Several recent works on China and Sino–US relations have made substantial contributions to the current understanding of how and under what circumstances a combination of nuclear deterrence and economic interdependence may reduce the risk of war between major powers. At least four conclusions can be drawn from the

review above: first, those who say that interdependence may both inhibit and drive conflict are right.

Interdependence raises the cost of conflict for all sides but asymmetrical or unbalanced dependencies and negative trade expectations may generate tensions leading to trade wars among inter-dependent states that in turn increase the risk of military conflict (Copeland, 2015: 1, 14, 437; Roach, 2014). The risk may increase if one of the interdependent countries is governed by an inward-looking socio-economic coalition (Solingen, 2015); second, the risk of war between China and the US should not just be analysed bilaterally but include their allies and partners. Third party countries could drag China or the US into confrontation; third, in this context it is of some comfort that the three main economic powers in Northeast Asia (China, Japan and South Korea) are all deeply integrated economically through production networks within a global system of trade and finance (Ravenhill, 2014;

Yoshimatsu, 2014: 576); and fourth, decisions for war and peace are taken by very few people, who act on the basis of their future expectations. International relations theory must be supplemented by foreign policy analysis in order to assess the

value attributed by national decision-makers to economic development and their assessments of risks and opportunities. If leaders on either

side of the Atlantic begin to seriously fear or anticipate their own nation’s decline then they may blame this on

external dependence, appeal to anti-foreign sentiments, contemplate the use of force to gain respect or

credibility, adopt protectionist policies, and ultimately refuse to be deterred by either nuclear arms or prospects of socioeconomic calamities. Such a dangerous shift could happen abruptly , i.e. under the instigation of actions by a third party – or against a third party.

Yet as long as there is both nuclear deterrence and interdependence, the tensions in East Asia are unlikely to escalate to war. As Chan (2013) says, all states in the region are aware that they cannot count on support from either China or the US if they make provocative moves.

The greatest risk is not that a territorial dispute leads to war under present circumstances but that changes in the world economy alter those circumstances in ways that render inter-state peace more precarious . If China and the US fail to rebalance their financial and trading relations (Roach, 2014) then a trade war could result, interrupting transnational

production networks, provoking social distress, and exacerbating nationalist emotions. This could have unforeseen consequences in the field of security, with nuclear deterrence remaining the only factor to protect the world from Armageddon, and unreliably so. Deterrence could lose its credibility: one of the two great powers might gamble that the other yield in a cyber-war or conventional limited war, or third party countries might engage in conflict with each other, with a view to obliging Washington or Beijing to intervene.

Extensions

Uniqueness

Agenda dead nowRussia ensures Trump’s agenda is stalled now – he needs a win to push anything this yearDawsey 6/2 (Josh Dawsey is a White House Reporter for Politico. “Trump needs quick wins, but Congress not poised to deliver.” http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/02/donald-trump-russia-congress-239079)

In a conference room near his office last Monday, House Speaker Paul Ryan gave conservative activists some unwelcome news: He wanted the Senate, House and White House on the same page before a tax reform bill was introduced, according to people present — and that would likely be after Labor Day. Senate Republicans are also nowhere near a solution on health care legislation, according to senators and several people familiar with their talks. "I don't see a comprehensive health care plan this year," Sen. Richard Burr, a North Carolina Republican, said Thursday in a

local TV interview. As for the promised $1 trillion infrastructure plan, the president's aides have begun talking about shaping a proposal, but that is "a ways off," one senior White House official said. In other words, as the special prosecutor probe into potential Russian collusion heats up, White House officials fear it could be a long, hot summer — with few tangible accomplishments to tout. And they worry how an antsy president, who wants things done immediately and has a rudimentary understanding of the legislative process, will handle it — particularly if the investigation dominates news media coverage. “We’re going to do all these things by Sept. 30? Give me a

break. We’re going to cut taxes, pass health care, set aside sequestration?” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican. Trump has agreed in meetings with advisers to spend the summer focusing on the legislative agenda — traveling to push a health care agenda in June, and for tax reform in July and August, according to a senior White House official. This person said the

campaign is slated for the "upper Midwest states." In the meantime, Trump has grown impatient in recent days about the slow pace of accomplishments. And some Republicans believe the White House hasn’t gotten enough credit for what they have achieved so far. The senior White House official said the administration should have communicated better about rolling back regulations — and had spent much time on the Neil Gorsuch confirmation, a significant move for conservatives. Senior Trump White House officials said Trump is heavily engaged on tax reform — meeting several times a week with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Gary Cohn, the president's chief

economic adviser. Publicly, the administration is trying to push a feeling of momentum, with Trump claiming on Thursday that a tax bill is “moving along” and Cohn promising on Friday a tax plan by the end of summer. And some lawmakers say the White House appears to have learned lessons from the health care push. "This has been a more constructive process than health care," said Rep. Mark Sanford, a South Carolina Republican. "They've had any number of different listening sessions. They seem to be getting more orderly and

finding their sea legs." But the White House and lawmakers know that tax reform is likely to be even more complicated than health care, and they know Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will likely not take pressure well like

Ryan did on rushing a vote, according to several administration officials. Most importantly, they are concerned about keeping focus on the legislative agenda for a week without distractions from the special prosecutor's Russia probe, the president's attention span, a splintered Republican Party and the president's Twitter account. "The U.S. Senate should switch to 51 votes, immediately, and get Healthcare and TAX CUTS approved, fast and easy. Dems would do it, no doubt!" Trump tweeted on Tuesday. The post drew laughs from aides on the Hill and some lawmakers. "No one had any clue what that tweet meant," one senior GOP aide said. Trump has also indicated, as he did earlier this week, that the tax bill was already in Congress — puzzling

legislators. "How is he saying the bill is making progress?" one Capitol Hill aide asked. "There is no bill!" An effort from some in the White House — particularly chief strategist Steve Bannon — to link health care and some tax cuts to secure Senate votes is "going nowhere," in the words of one White House official. "That's the question," another White House official said,

when asked whether Trump can focus to push an agenda. And, according to several people in the administration, there is widespread disagreement on what a final tax plan will look like. Administration officials continue to make conflicting

public statements — and the administration could be hobbled by a difficult spending and shutdown fight that will

likely come to a head on Capitol Hill late this summer or in early fall. Conservatives meanwhile are quickly lowering their expectations on the robust accomplishments they had predicted before Trump took office — with a Republican House and Senate in his

corner. And they see time ticking off the clock before the midterm elections, particularly with the president's low approval ratings. "People are anxious and worried things won't get done," said Matt Schlapp, a conservative activist. "The agenda needs to get done this year. I don't see how

it gets any easier. It's kind of put-up-or-shut-up time." Ryan made clear to the conservatives at last Monday’s meeting that substantive legislation needed to move this year, according to one person present, or it would be difficult to make it happen. "It's the most disappointing nothingness that anyone could have imagined," said one conservative activist close to the administration. "Everyone expected a flurry of activity, and there's nothing anyone can point to." Several conservative activists said that Republicans on Capitol Hill initially believed

that the Russia investigation was overblown — and that the news media were overhyping the revelations. But now, with several investigations and new revelations almost every day, Republicans have begun to worry more , these activists

said. "When you talk to a member or their staff these days, you hear about Russia," the activist said. "The Russia

stuff is really starting to distract people. I didn't think that two or three months ago. Before, I think everyone thought this was the less version of Benghazi. They don't feel that way anymore."

Trump can’t get his agenda through now due to a split GOP and controversy. Golshan 6/7 (Tara Golshan, Vox. “Trump desperately needs a win. Republicans may not be able to deliver him any.” https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/7/15739594/trump-republicans-health-care-tax-reform)

President Donald Trump is desperate not to look like a loser. Mired in scandal and facing public testimony from his former FBI director this week, Trump needs some policy wins. Badly. So he haphazardly declared this week “infrastructure week” in a feeble and unsuccessful attempt to dictate conversation on Capitol Hill, and held an elaborate

“signing ceremony” in the White House that wasn’t for legislation or an executive order at all. Instead, he relished in applause for signing a nonbinding letter to Congress outlining his wish to privatize air traffic control — which no one on Capitol Hill seems hell bent on paying attention to. Then he turned to top Republicans on Capitol Hill to hear some news on what were supposed to be this year’s big-ticket policy issues: health care and tax reform. He met with Republican congressional leaders in the White House and hosted a dinner with Republican lawmakers Marco Rubio and

Tom Cotton on Tuesday. But Trump’s desire to get some big policy wins fast has hit a snag with the congressional calendar. They have yet to enact a single signature piece of legislation. The Senate has the mere beginnings of its own draft of the health care bill, and tax reform will likely be sitting on the sidelines until it is resolved. Sure, there have been a lot of distractions — chief among them being Trump’s tangle with investigations into his campaign’s connections to Russia. “There’s no doubt that keeping members focused on investigations detracts from our legislative agenda,” Trump’s director of legislative affairs,

Marc Short, told reporters this week, according to Politico. And soon they'll have to turn their attention to must-do work

like passing spending bills and raising the debt ceiling. But Republicans still have to resolve major internal divisions on health care, and the delays are causing a legislative backup in the House. They want to turn to tax reform, but for legislative procedural reasons they have to pass a budget through both the House and Senate first — not an inconsequential feat. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), who sits on the Senate Budget Committee, summed up the state of budget talks succinctly: “I don’t know anything about it. I’m on the budget committee and I don’t know,” he said Tuesday. They were planning to handle the budget in June. All this means that congressional Republicans face the possibility of having done nothing of consequence by September 30, the end of their first fiscal year in power. Taken together, the do-nothing Congress is shaping up to be a major problem for the Republican Party. House Republicans will be back defending their seats in no time. And for Trump, it's a lost opportunity to get where he wants

to be — winning. Republicans thought they had a foolproof strategy. It unraveled. Starting in January, congressional Republicans had what they thought was a foolproof strategy to get their big-ticket items, health and tax reform, through slim majorities in the House and Senate. It would work if everything went just right. They’ve been attempting to push these two major agenda items through a complicated process called budget reconciliation. It allows Republicans to pass their legislation with only 51 votes in Senate, steering clear of Democrats looking to stall the majority party’s agenda with the filibuster. But internal discord has

stalled the process, and ever since, Republican legislators have been wading into uncharted legislative waters.

Trump’s legislative agenda is dead now due to his perception to lead. Vargas 6/8 (Mark Vargas is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is co-founder and president of tech startup Licentiam. From 2007-2010, he served as a civilian within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. “After the James Comey hearing, Trump can kiss his legislative agenda goodbye.” http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/after-the-james-comey-hearing-trump-can-kiss-his-legislative-agenda-goodbye/article/2625445)

Thursday's Senate Intelligence Committee hearing starring former FBI Director James Comey was must-see TV. For more than 2.5 hours, the world stood still to hear the testimony from the most famous former law enforcement official in the country. Is President Trump guilty of obstruction of justice or just simply negligence and a disregard for protocol and process during an FBI investigation? Either way, Special Counsel

Robert Mueller has a tough job to do, and the stakes are incredibly high. But with the investigation in its early stages, one thing is already very clear: Trump's entire legislative agenda is on life support. In other words, he can kiss it goodbye. Candidate Trump campaigned aggressively and very successfully that he was going to "drain the swamp" in Washington. He also pledged, in a contract with voters, that in his first 100 days, he would reform the tax code, fix healthcare, build a wall and end illegal immigration. To a frustrated electorate, this was music to their ears. As the best-selling author of The Art of the Deal, Trump promised to bring his skills to Washington and negotiate deals that would Make America Great Again. For the very first time, America would be winning. In fact, we'd be winning so much that we would grow tired of it. He was smart, and our politicians were "stupid." And on the campaign trail he seemed

to enjoy reminding the crowd how smart he was and that he attended Wharton. But under President Trump, the country has seen very little winning. His push for a healthcare bill failed at first in March, and the House was forced to pull the

vote to avoid embarrassment after earlier guaranteeing a legislative achievement. And the controversy surrounding Russia and his campaign and the word "collusion" have dominated headlines and weakened his ability to lead. His credibility has also taken a beating, and a historically low approval rating demonstrates that his entrance into Washington hasn't been as smooth and seamless as he had promised as a candidate campaigning. The real loser after today's historic hearing is not the Republicans or even the Democrats — it's everyone in the country. It's the working single parent struggling to provide for her children or that

middle-class, blue-collar family, or that small-business owner. Why? Because Trump's entire legislative agenda is now gone. Say goodbye to tax reform, or health reform, or infrastructure improvement legislation. Trump may not have committed an obstruction of justice, but in the court of public opinion, he is now a liability and is untrustworthy. Image is everything, and perception is reality, and as an expert in marketing and personal branding Trump must know this. For decades, the name "Trump" was synonymous with some of the world's tallest buildings. And today it is now a punch line. America has always been great. And, as a country, we are resilient, and we will eventually recover. But so long as Trump is president, the country won't be winning anytime soon – and those hurt the most will be the ones that voted for him.

AT: Infrastructure ThumperDems won’t give Trump a win on infrastructureZanona 6/6 (Melanie Zanona, The Hill. “Dems lose appetite for deal with Trump on infrastructure.” http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/336461-dems-lose-appetite-for-deal-with-trump-on-infrastructure)

Major elements of President Trump’s infrastructure initiative are facing staunch opposition from Democrats, increasing the likelihood that Republicans will have to go it alone. Making a deal with Democrats on Trump’s rebuilding plan

was always going to be a challenge for the administration. But Trump’s sinking approval ratings, his polarizing tweets and his administration’s move to block oversight requests from the minority party have further eroded Democrats’ appetite to work with the president on one of his chief campaign promises . “The president doesn’t make it any easier on himself,” said Democratic strategist Brad Bannon. “He’s going to have a hard time getting Democratic votes.” The White

House formally launched its $1 trillion infrastructure push this week with a string of events aimed at ramping up support. Infrastructure

legislation has long been billed as one of the few things that could receive broad bipartisan support this Congress, with Trump at one point calling Democrats “desperate” for such an initiative. But Trump kicked off his infrastructure campaign Monday by announcing a proposal to separate air traffic control from the federal government — one of the most controversial infrastructure ideas floated by the administration so far, and one that was quickly rejected by Democrats. “Trump’s ‘infrastructure week’ appears to be little more than a Trojan Horse for undermining workers’ wages and handing massive tax breaks to billionaires and corporations,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement. “Trump’s ideas for privatizing Air Traffic Control — which recycle a tired Republican plan that both sides of the aisle have rejected — would hand control of one of our nation’s most important public assets to special interests and the big airlines.” The proposal would transfer the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) air traffic control operations to an independent outside agency over three years “at no charge,” removing 30,000 FAA employees from the federal payroll. The FAA would still maintain safety oversight. A similar spinoff plan for air traffic control stalled on the House floor last year because it lacked the votes to pass. Supporters of the proposal hope Trump’s leadership will help erode opposition this time around. On the Democratic side of the aisle, however, Trump’s endorsement appeared to have the opposite effect. Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) took to the Senate floor to bash the plan, while his office blasted out a fact sheet seeking to rebut claims that the administration has made about efforts to upgrade the country’s infrastructure. “Privatization, whether it’s for the construction of roads and bridges or in aviation, often leaves the average American with the short end of the stick and gives big corporations way too much power,” Schumer said. “If this week is all about privatization, it will be another broken promise that President Trump made to the working people of

America.” The remarks from Schumer and Pelosi are a far cry from their statements following Trump’s election. At the time, both leaders mentioned infrastructure as an area where they would be willing to work with Trump, though they always maintained they would only support the package under certain conditions. Pelosi emphasized that her party is still willing to work with the GOP on the issue, but said that the “Republican Congress must stop pushing plans that fail to create good-paying jobs for hard-working Americans.” Trump’s infrastructure proposal, which was outlined in his budget request last month, would spend $200 billion to inject $1 trillion worth of overall investment into the nation’s transportation system by largely incentivizing private firms to back projects. The private-sector model has raised concern among Democrats and rural Republicans who fear investors would only be attracted to projects that can recoup their revenue cost through tolls or user fees. “A private-sector-driven infrastructure plan means tolls, tolls, tolls — paid by average working Americans,”

Schumer said. Democrats have also panned the administration’s budget request for proposing major cuts to several transportation programs, while at the same time advocating for increased infrastructure investment, which Schumer called a “sleight of hand.” Several groups of Democrats have signaled that they would prefer to move ahead with their own infrastructure plans, including the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), which recently outlined a $2 trillion proposal in an effort to create a contrast with Trump. “In reality, President Trump and Congressional Republicans are pushing a trillion-dollar corporate giveaway that would create tax incentives for Wall Street to privatize our roads, bridges, sanitation systems, and utilities, while raising tolls,

fees, and bills — all through taxpayer subsidies,” the CPC outline says. But there are other factors that are likely holding Democrats back from working with Trump on infrastructure. With Republicans struggling to enact their legislative agenda, and Trump besieged by the FBI’s investigation into Russian election meddling, Democrats see little reason to deliver the administration a win. “The reality is, it’s hard to convince anybody to do anything when you have a 36 percent job approval rating, because no one fears you,” Bannon said. Further stoking Democratic outrage is a new policy from the White House allowing federal agencies to ignore requests for information from lawmakers in the minority party unless they have approval from a committee or subcommittee chair. In practice, the policy gives Republicans the power to stop all Democratic requests for

documents. Meanwhile, the president on Monday reignited public feuds with the mayor of London, the media, Democrats and his own Justice Department in a recent series of tweets. The firestorm is only likely to further drive Democrats away.

Link

Generic LinkA win is necessary to revive Trump’s agenda --- perception of strength is more important than policy specificsMarshall 17 (Josh Marshall, “Trump's Base Support Begins To Erode,” 4/3/17, https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trumps-base-support-begins-to-erode)

President Trump’s dismal poll numbers continue to be one of the few sources of joy and mirth in the bleak political hellscape his presidency has created. From a low of 35% a week ago in the daily Gallup Approval tracking poll, his approval number perked back up to 40%, only to fall back this weekend to 38%. Sad!, as they say. [image of graph omitted] What I hadn’t looked at in a while was the Rasmussen daily tracking poll

which had had Trump at a wildly improbable 55% approval rating as recently as mid-February. Even Rasmussen now has Trump down at 43% approval, his lowest rating yet in that poll. For years Rasmussen has specialized in various synthetic or questionable metrics, most of which have the effect of bolstering favored candidates. One of the less strained is to focus on “strong” approval and disapproval, as opposed to mere “approval.” But here too the numbers for Trump are bad. The most recent Rasmussen number puts Trump’s “strongly approve” number at 28%, down from 44% at his inauguration. Perhaps even more notable, “strongly disapprove” is at 47%.

Almost half of Rasmussen’s already skewed sample “strongly disapproves” of President Trump. These

numbers are notable and entertaining. But the most interesting data in the latest batch of polls comes from the McClatchy/Marist poll. In this poll, released on the 31st, Trump has an approval number at 38%, down from 41% in February,

broadly in line with other polls. Lee Miringoff, who runs the Marist poll, discusses the various details of the poll here. Really every number is dismal. But this, I think, is the most significant. From the Marist write-

up … There has been a profound shift in public opinion about whether or not President Trump is fulfilling campaign promises. 57% of Americans either strongly agree, 18%, or agree, 39%, that Trump is making good on the

promises he made on the campaign trail. This is down from 71% in February. Regardless of party, fewer voters think he is keeping his word. Of note, 83% of Trump’s Republican base, down from 96% previously, believe Trump is fulfilling campaign promises. “President Trump needs a major legislative win to get on track,” says Dr. Lee M. Miringoff, Director of The Marist College Institute for Public Opinion. “No doubt the GOP in Congress will be closely watching the

president’s standing among Republican voters.” Those are steep drops and this is the big danger for Trump – likely

a much greater danger, in the short term at least, than the scandal investigations most politicos are focusing on. Trump’s inability to repeal Obamacare is, I suspect, most of what is showing up in this drop. He simply failed to do something that, at

least in numerical congressional majority terms, should have been simple. That made him look weak and ineffectual – frankly, silly. That and not corruption or ties with Russia is what will eventually sink Trump with his base . It’s worth noting that many Trump voters actually would have been hurt by the repeal of Obamacare. But political perceptions are never that linear or straightforward . Especially for the kind of politics Trump appeals to, strength and the ability to compel action is central to support, even when the object of support is trying to do things individual supporters might not entirely agree with. Beyond the Obamacare repeal debacle, I suspect the reality is starting to sink in that Trump doesn’t have any clue what he’s doing as President and his top staffers and

advisors show an almost unprecedented level of infighting and disorganization. Trump simply hasn’t been able to get much of anything done. He continues to treat executive orders as a kind of proxy for legislation, even though the great majority of his EOs have pretty minimal effect. A new president whose party controls Congress should pass a mass of legislation in his first months in office.

That’s been true of Trump’s last three predecessors – each of whom had total or near total control of Congress.Trump is well into his first hundred days, has passed no substantial legislation and looks unlikely to do so any time soon.

Only successful presidential leadership can break through the Russia hazeMerica 6/6 (Dan Merica, CNN. “Trump's stalled presidency: Legislative agenda sputters amid Russia cloud.” http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/06/politics/trump-agenda-russia-congress/index.html)

Washington (CNN)Donald Trump's legislative agenda is stalled on Capitol Hill, collateral damage to a mix of swirling controversies -- including the firing of FBI Director James Comey and Russia investigation -- and the President's off-the-cuff style that has Republican lawmakers constantly responding to the crisis du jour .

After Trump's unexpected 2016 win, Republicans were bullish at the start his presidency about winning wholesale changes to health care, remaking the tax system and rebuilding America's infrastructure. Nearly five months in, though, little of that has happened. And Trump's top aides are now acknowledging the problem. "There's no doubt that keeping members focused on investigations detracts from our legislative agenda and detracts from what we're trying to deliver to the American people," Marc Short, Trump's White House director of

legislative affairs, told reporters on Monday. Stunted progress Short's blunt comments echo what Republicans in the White House and on Capitol Hill have said in private about the continual drip, drip, drip of controversies coming from the White House. With only so many hours to work each week, the controversies have forced Republicans to spend time responding to Trump stories and protecting the party, leaving them largely unable to move legislation through a contentious Congress. Trump's flagging approval rating -- 37% in the most recent

Gallup poll -- is at or near historic lows for this early in his presidency, a fact that has not helped the issue. Public disapproval has hardened Trump's opposition, giving Democrats hope for the future and has provided some Republicans the cover to stand up to the President when needed. Democrats learned early on in Trump's presidency that there is no upside to working with the contentious leader. Special and primary elections this year have found Democrats trumpeting their opposition to Trump, not their willingness to work with him.

And Democrats on Capitol Hill have done the same, disavowing Trump more than working with him. "In all honesty, I think it's a stalled Congress," Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, told CNN's Manu Raju on Tuesday. "So the President's going to have to lead. Tweeting doesn't help, but Congress is more broken than just his tweets." To spur his legislative agenda, Trump will meet with House Speaker Paul Ryan, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Majority Whip Steve Scalise, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn Tuesday afternoon, according to a White House official. The meeting will focus on health care, tax

reform and next steps in the President's agenda, Short said. Republicans, like Graham, are hopeful that the meeting will lead to more coordination between the White House and Capitol Hill.

Trump scandals have paralyzed his agenda – he’s failing to change the subject now – the plan lets him do thatPeyronnin 6/12 (Joe Peyronnin is an associate journalism professor at Hofstra University and an adjunct journalism professor at New York University. “Will Trump’s Tangled Web Fracture The GOP?” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trumps-tangled-web_us_593ef31ce4b014ae8c69e316)

President Donald Trump’s tangled web of scandals has plagued his administration, paralyzed his domestic agenda and undermined America’s long cherished global relationships. Arizona Senator John McCain, a Republican and no fan of Trump, criticized the president in an interview with the Guardian Sunday. Asked if America’s global standing was much better under President Barack Obama he responded, “As far as American leadership is concerned, yes.” South Carolina’s Senator Lindsay Graham, who ran against Trump in the GOP primaries last year, expressed his frustration with the president on Face the Nation Sunday. “Well, I think it was true that he’s not under investigation for colluding with the Russians, and I don’t think what was said amounts to obstruction of justice. Now, what the president did was inappropriate,” he said. Then, perhaps addressing Trump, he added, “You may be the first president in history to go down because you can’t stop inappropriately talking about an investigation that if you just were quiet, would clear you.” Following reports that the president may have shared classified information with the Russian foreign minister and ambassador last month, Tennessee’s Senator Bob Corker provided

reporters a gloomy characterization of the White House. “Obviously, they’re in a downward spiral right now and have got to figure out a way to come to grips with all that’s happening .” Following former FBI Director James Comey’s

damning testimony about the president last week, some Republicans are straining to explain their continued support for Trump even though he reportedly asked Comey to publicly exonerate him. House Speaker Paul Ryan explained, “The president’s new at this. He’s new to government, and so he probably wasn’t steeped in the long-running protocols that establish the relationships between the

Department of Justice, FBI and the White House. He’s just new to this.” As the dark cloud of scandal hangs over the White House, the president is having difficulty filling key positions throughout his administration. Staff shakeups are rumored, with the latest being a report by Politico that White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus has until July 4th to clean up the mess. Meanwhile, against the advice of his advisers, Trump continues to strike out on Twitter. “I believe the James Comey leaks will be far more prevalent than anyone ever thought possible. Totally illegal? Very ‘cowardly!’” he wrote Sunday. The president has repeatedly hinted for weeks that there may be tapes of his conversations with James Comey. If tapes do exist they could set the record straight on exactly whether he asked Comey in their private meetings to end the investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn, whom he fired last month. Skeptics note that it is hard to believe that the president would not immediately release a tape that supports his account of the

Comey meetings. Meanwhile, the White House is doing all it can to change the subject, but with little success . On Monday, President Trump held his first meeting with his full cabinet, reminding his team, “We’re here to change Washington.” He called Democrats “obstructionists” and went on to tout his own accomplishments as president. With news cameras rolling on the proceeding, he said, “Never has there been a president ― with few exceptions, in the case of FDR he had a major Depression to handle ― who passed more legislation, who’s done more things than what we’ve done.” Well President Trump, you are certainly no Franklin Delano Roosevelt, President Harry Truman passed more legislation than you, and much of what you have passed is not significant.

Congressional action snowballs – boosts trump’s agendaYoung 17 (J.T. Young, served in the Treasury Department and the Office of Management and Budget, and as a congressional staff member. “Trump’s success depends on Congress,” 1/31 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/31/trumps-success-depends-on-congress/)

Donald Trump successfully ran against the Republican establishment. Can he now successfully govern with it? The answer will determine his

presidency’s fate. Regardless of how much President Trump can do through executive action — and he has started off

sprinting — governing means working with Congress to legislate. A presidency is like a marathon. It requires

endurance — even when you know you could go faster. The Constitution’s checks and balances ensures the president and Congress will have both a complimentary and complicated relationship. The president is elected nationally, but that national election is actually a series of local elections. Members of Congress are elected locally but Congress — by virtue of being comprised of

535 local elections nationwide — as an entity is elected nationally, too. The legislative process exemplifies their complicated relationship. Congress is the legislative branch, but for legislation to become law, the president must concur or

Congress must override his veto. And once law enacted, it is the president’s role to implement it. In these and in other ways, the two are

thrust together. And if the government is to function at its best — and as intended — the two need to work together. The relationship

between the new Congress and the new president has not started off well. Mr. Trump won his nomination, and then the White House, by running against the establishment. The first portion of that establishment is the Republicans, who now hold majorities in both bodies of Congress. The second portion is the Democrats, who now are a sizable opposition party in both congressional bodies. The establishment was

not welcoming of Mr. Trump. First the Republicans and then the Democrats did all they could to defeat him. Since his victory, even Republicans have been tepid in their embrace. So to their complimentary and complicated relationship, the president and Congress bring an uncustomary level of conflict as well. Yet despite this, the two — particularly Mr. Trump and the congressional Republican majorities — need to work together for their own sakes as well as the government’s. To understand why, we need look no further than Mr. Trump’s immediate predecessor. Barack Obama found out the hard way the limits of going it alone in Washington. The executive branch’s authority has its limits. Despite expanding them greatly and using them aggressively, Mr. Obama’s tenure will eventually be looked upon objectively as one of squandered potential. Mr. Obama can point to Obamacare and Dodd-Frank as accomplishments of his presidency. However even here, Mr. Obama’s inability to work with Republicans cost him bipartisan support — and both accomplishments look likely soon to suffer for it in this Congress. And after his first midterm election, when he suffered a debacle and Democrats lost the House, his legislative accomplishments for the most part ended. For his last six years — three-quarters of his presidency — he governed without Congress. As a result, Mr. Obama’s ability to govern paled in comparison to other Democratic presidents with similar electoral mandates. Mr. Obama was the first Democrat to win two terms with popular vote majorities since FDR. And he won the largest popular vote majority of any Democrat since LBJ. Yet, Mr. Obama was neither Roosevelt nor Johnson in terms of governing, precisely because he never approached their ability to work with Congress. Mr. Trump and the Republican Congress start behind where Mr. Obama and Democrats did in 2009. He won the White House but lost the popular vote, so

Mr. Trump has less political capital than Mr. Obama did. In Congress, Republicans’ 52-seat Senate majority and 241-seat

House majority are well behind Democrats’ 57 Senate seats and 256 House seats in 2009. However Republicans may actually benefit from their comparatively weaker position. In this case, necessity may be the mother of cooperation. In 2009, Mr. Obama and congressional Democrats were both strong in their own right. This strength may have served to encourage complacency and independence. Republicans in 2017 do not suffer from such comparative strength — perhaps they will avoid Democrats’ earlier faults. The formula for Republicans winning in 2017, as they did in 2016, is simple. Mr. Trump and congressional Republicans need each other. As Mr. Obama proved in reverse, in Washington

success means governing together. It means making laws. Despite all the attention Mr. Obama’s unilateral approach and

executive orders gathered, nothing is as effective — or enduring — in propagating policy as legislation. To produce it, Mr. Trump and the Republican majority must work together. It would be all too easy for the new president to fall victim to Mr. Obama’s mistake. Taking the quick way of governing alone is comparable to trying to run a marathon as a sprint. Bursts of speed have their place in any race — and in any presidency. However, relying on speed for an extended duration gives only the illusion of success. While how you start is important, even more is how you finish.

Early College HS Link There is bipartisan support for early college high schools. Ripon Advance News Service 2017 (Ripon Advance News Service March 28th, 2017 Cassidy, Reed announce reintroduction of bipartisan, bicameral bill to rein in college costs, https://riponadvance.com/stories/cassidy-reed-announce-reintroduction-bipartisan-bicameral-bill-rein-college-costs/)

High school students would have more opportunities to earn college credits and get a jumpstart on their future careers under bipartisan, bicameral legislation announced by U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and U.S. Rep. Tom

Reed (R-NY) on Friday.¶ The Making Education Affordable and Accessible (MEAA) Act would provide grants that help higher education institutions establish dual and concurrent enrollment and early/middle college programs that enable high school students to earn college credits before graduation. Grants could be used to cover students’ tuition, fees and books.¶ “This legislation will help reduce the financial strain on Louisiana families and help students receive the quality education they can use to excel,” Cassidy said. “In order to bring high-skilled, well-paying jobs with good benefits to Louisiana and our nation, we need a highly capable workforce. This bill provides a next step in training American workers for the

jobs of tomorrow.”¶ According to the National Center for Education Statistics, early college students on average earn 36 college credits, and 30 percent of early college students earn an associate’s degree .¶ The new legislation would also provide grants to support the professional development of teachers in dual and concurrent enrollment programs and would extend additional support for course design, the course approval process, community outreach and student counseling.¶ “We care about expanding educational opportunities that would lower the cost of college for hardworking families,” Reed said. “Dual and concurrent

enrollment programs offer students quality educational options that will prepare them for meaningful careers. This bill is a bipartisan, common sense higher education solution and I am proud to work with the other sponsors of this legislation to ease the burden of paying for college.”¶ A coalition of educational organizations support MEAA, which Cassidy and Reed introduced with U.S. Sens. Gary Peters (D-MI) and Al Franken (D-MN), and U.S. Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO).¶ Kris Amundson, executive director of the National Association of State Boards of Education, said, dual enrollment is a proven high school and

college completion strategy and an important tool for strengthening the U.S. workforce.¶ Early college high schools allow students to gain a critical academic and financial head start on higher education , said Stephen Tremaine, vice

president of Bard Early Colleges, “and they significantly increase students’ chances of completing a college degree, and at a greatly reduced cost.”¶ KnowledgeWorks President and CEO Judy Peppler added that by providing grants for different learning options, MEAA will make college a reality for hundreds of thousands of low-income, first-generation students.

STEM LinkBipartisan support exists for STEM funding gives Trump the win he is looking for. Jeffrey Mervis 16, Reporter for Science Magazine. 6/23/16, “Senators introduce bipartisan bill to support U.S. research and education” http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/senators-introduce-bipartisan-bill-support-us-research-and-education

The U.S. science community got a big pat on the back today from members of the Senate commerce and science committee.

The senators delivered their encouraging message in the form of a bipartisan bill that would reauthorize

programs at the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and tweak policies on science education and innovation across the federal government. Two years in the making, the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act finally makes its appearance as the Senate’s proposed replacement of the 2010 America COMPETES Act that expired in 2013.

The new bill (S.3084) was crafted by Senators Cory Gardner (R–CO) and Gary Peters (D–MI) and has the backing of the committee’s chairman, Senator John Thune (R–SD), and ranking member Senator Bill Nelson (D–FL). It is much closer to the community’s view of the federal role in research and education than a sheaf of legislation adopted by the U.S. House of Representatives in the past year. It endorses NSF’s current approach to choosing what research to fund, urges the executive branch to find ways to reduce the amount of time that universities and scientists spend complying with rules governing recipients of federal research dollars, and calls for the spread of NSF’s wildly popular Innovation Corps program to train budding academic entrepreneurs.

Research lobbyists hope that the bill’s support for the two criteria NSF uses to select the best research—� scientific quality and broader societal impacts—will put to rest the 3-year battle between scientists and the House science committee. The committee’s chairman, Representative Lamar Smith (R–TX), and other Republican legislators have repeatedly ridiculed dozens of NSF grants that they feel are frivolous or a waste of money, and their versions of an NSF reauthorization bill proposed a different metric, namely, that NSF certify every grant is “in the national interest.” They have also urged NSF to narrow the scope of its research portfolio by reducing spending in the social sciences and geosciences.

But the senators flatly reject those arguments and strongly defend the agency’s practices. “Its peer review and merit review processes have successfully identified and funded scientifically and societally relevant research and should be preserved,” the bill declares.

The bill’s language on easing the so-called “administrative burden” on campus-based research is also music to the ears of university officials. Its Title II tells the White House Office of Management and Budget to take a series of steps to address the long-standing problem of ensuring that universities are accountable for federal dollars without strangling them in unnecessary red tape. One change aims to save time and effort by having funding agencies adopt a just-in-time process for grant applicants that would require them to submit certain information only after their application has passed initial scrutiny and seems likely to be funded. Another would draw on a centralized database of investigator profiles that all agencies could tap during the grantsmaking process. The bill does not go as far as a 2015 recommendation from a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine panel to create a quasi-independent Research Policy Board to ride herd over the process and take preventive steps, instead calling for an interagency working group that would try to resolve issues as they arise.

The 150-page bill offers guidance on a host of other issues. It would create an outside advisory council to suggest how to improve the government’s $3 billion investment in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education. It backs greater use of prizes, competitions, and crowdsourcing to foster innovation. It tells NSF to do even more to broaden participation in science by women and underrepresented minorities, including a program that targets elementary students. And, in a symbolic move, it would change one word in the name of the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), a 37-year-old program that helps states that receive relatively little federal research money compete for science funding. By substituting “established” for “experimental,” the lawmakers are signaling their desire to make the program permanent at NSF and several other agencies.

Bipartisan coalitions support the planSEC 15 – STEM Education Coalition. 10/8/15, “Coalition Praises Bipartisan Support by 34 House Members for STEM in ESEA” http://www.stemedcoalition.org/2015/10/08/coalition-praises-broad-bipartisan-support-for-stem-funding-in-esea/

The STEM Education Coalition issued the following statement on a bipartisan letter coauthored by U.S.

Representatives Richard Hanna (R-NY) and Joe Courtney (D-CT) and signed by 34 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, sent to House and Senate leaders supporting a Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) provision that would provide dedicated funding to every state to boost STEM education activities:

Our Coalition is dedicated to elevating STEM education as a national priority and we are really pleased to see a large group of House members from both parties come together in support of this goal . Representatives Hanna and Courtney have recruited a large and diverse group of their fellow members to echo this call for action to ensure the

nation’s major education law will help provide support to states to improve STEM education. In today’s economy every student needs to have a strong foundation in the STEM subjects in order to land and succeed in virtually any job – from the shop floor to the research lab to the boardroom. Congress has an obligation to ensure our nation’s schools have the resources to build that foundation.

In mid-July, the U.S. Senate joined the House in passing legislation to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, otherwise known as No Child Left Behind. The letter from House members calls on the leaders of the respective House and Senate Education Committees, who are now negotiating a final agreement, to include a specific provision (Title II.E) from the Senate’s bill. This provision supports partnerships between schools, businesses, non-profits, and institutions of higher education, which would then support a wide range of STEM-focused objectives, including recruitment, retention, and professional development of educators; expansion of learning opportunities both in and outside the classroom; and closing achievement gaps for at-risk and high-need student populations.

Impact

Diversionary WarTrump’s agenda leads to a quick and severe recession---he’ll wag the dog, and start a diversionary conflictRosario 16 (Justin Rosario, author at Left Wing nation, “Raging Egomaniac Trump Is Already Taking Credit For Obama's Economy (For Now),” 12/28, http://thedailybanter.com/2016/12/trump-obama-economy/)

But there's a problem with Trump taking responsibility for the Obama's rather healthy economy already: It ain't gonna last. The Washington Post's Catherine Rampell explains. With so many economic metrics already so strong, there’s likely only one direction the economy can head in the medium term: down. Recent Federal Reserve forecasts suggest that we’ve already reached close to full employment, that inflation will soon

pick up and that output growth will continue to slog along at our new normal of about 2 percent. More troubling, since Trump doesn't actually understand anything about the economy and is surrounding himself with rabid ideologues, his mishmash of "policies" will almost certainly cause an unnaturally severe recession . For example, the planned huge tax cuts to the rich will explode the deficit, "forcing" Trump to slash the very programs (SNAP, Medicaid, unemployment benefits) his less affluent followers rely on. But fiscal austerity is a proven failure on every conceivable level, inevitably leading to a recession. And then it gets worse. Trump is currently proposing a trillion dollar infrastructure binge when he takes office. Republicans, who have been blocking infrastructure spending to hurt the economy (no, seriously),

will most likely give their new (illegitimate) leader much of what he wants. The problem is that wasting a stimulus package on an already healthy economy means you won't have it available when the economy actually needs it . Rampell is

guessing that Trump will A. Find a scapegoat and B. Declare the official numbers wrong and/or possibly do what Republicans have accused Obama of doing for years: Cooking the books. But there's a fourth option that Rampell apparently isn't pessimistic enough to consider.

Just like Putin, Trump could start a war as a distraction . A loud and splashy ground war somewhere in the Middle East or Southeast Asia (as a proxy in the upcoming Cold War with China) would drag the public's (and media's) focus away from a faltering economy and keep it riveted on pretty explosions. Toxic patriotism will (once again)

have a chilling effect on anyone questioning the president "during a time of war," taking the pressure off of Trump and the GOP for their impending gross fiscal mismanagement. The bottom line here is that Trump's grandiose

claims about "his" economy are going to run headlong into harsh and unyielding reality, leaving the "savior" of America in an untenable position that will lead to rash and dangerous actions . We're about to find out what happens when America's economy is run by unrestrained ego instead of ideology. Or expertise. Or common sense. Or even basic math.

These conflicts escalate to nuclear warMann 14 (Eric Mann is a special agent with a United States federal agency, with significant domestic and international counterintelligence and counter-terrorism experience. Worked as a special assistant for a U.S. Senator and served as a presidential appointee for the U.S. Congress. He is currently responsible for an internal security and vulnerability assessment program. Bachelors @ University of South Carolina, Graduate degree in Homeland Security @ Georgetown. “AUSTERITY, ECONOMIC DECLINE, AND FINANCIAL WEAPONS OF WAR: A NEW PARADIGM FOR GLOBAL SECURITY,” May 2014, https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstream/handle/1774.2/37262/MANN-THESIS-2014.pdf)

The conclusions reached in this thesis demonstrate how economic considerations within states can figure prominently into the calculus for future conflicts. The findings also suggest that security issues with economic or financial underpinnings will transcend classical determinants of war and conflict, and change the manner by which rival states engage in hostile acts toward one another. The research shows that security concerns emanating from economic uncertainty and the inherent vulnerabilities within global financial markets

will present new challenges for national security, and provide developing states new asymmetric options for balancing against stronger states.¶ The security areas, identified in the proceeding chapters, are likely to mature into global security threats in the immediate future . As the case study on South Korea suggest, the overlapping security issues associated with economic decline and reduced military spending by the United States will affect allied confidence in America’s security guarantees. The study shows that this outcome could cause regional instability or realignments of strategic partnerships in the Asia-pacific region with ramifications for U.S. national security. Rival states and non-state groups may also become emboldened to challenge America’s status in the unipolar international system.¶ The potential risks associated with stolen or loose WMD , resulting from poor security, can also pose a threat to U.S. national security . The case study on Pakistan, Syria and

North Korea show how financial constraints affect weapons security making weapons vulnerable to theft, and how financial factors can influence WMD proliferation by contributing to the motivating factors behind a trusted insider’s

decision to sell weapons technology. The inherent vulnerabilities within the global financial markets will provide terrorists’ organizations and other non-state groups, who object to the current international system or distribution of

power, with opportunities to disrupt global finance and perhaps weaken America’s status . A more ominous threat originates from states intent on increasing diversification of foreign currency holdings, establishing alternatives to the dollar for international trade, or engaging financial warfare against the United States.

Tax Reform ImpactCorporate tax reform increases income inequality and the deficitPhillips 17 (Richard Phillips, senior policy analyst at ITEP. “Congress Shouldn't Defy Public Opinion and Good Policy by Cutting Taxes for Corporations and the Wealthy.” 1/17 http://www.taxjusticeblog.org/archive/2017/01/congress_shouldnt_defy_public.php)

Members of Congress have floated fundamental changes to the tax code for years, but last week marked a ramping up of these efforts as Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan met with President-elect Donald Trump and his advisors to discuss how to move forward with tax reform in 2017. Plans floated by the incoming administration and Trump would dramatically cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations and eliminate revenue necessary to meet the nation’s most basic priorities. In other words, if either the blueprint for Ryan or Trump’s plans (or some combination of both) becomes law, the outcome will likely be the furthest thing from true “reform” of our tax system. In the last major

successful federal tax reform effort in 1986, lawmakers stood by the principle that any tax reform legislation should be revenue and distributionally neutral. The basic idea was that these two principles would allow Democratic and Republican lawmakers to put aside their broader ideological disputes and focus on making the tax code more efficient in ways that everyone could agree on. This approach resulted in the 1986 tax reform legislation, which is rightly heralded as a major milestone in improving the tax code. More recently, former House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp sought to replicate this approach with his proposal for comprehensive tax reform in 2014. While the plan ultimately fell short of fully achieving revenue and distributional neutrality over the long run, Camp’s proposal at

least laid out a path that lawmakers could revisit if they wanted to replicate 1986 tax reform efforts. Ryan and Trump’s tax reform proposals are in sharp contrast to these previous reform efforts. At the heart of their tax plans is a major cut in the top

income tax rates for the wealthy and corporations. As an ITEP analysis of Ryan’s “A Better Way” tax plan shows, his plan would lose $4 trillion in tax revenue over a decade , with as much as 60 percent of the tax cuts going to the top 1 percent. Similarly, ITEP found that Trump’s revised tax plan would lose $4.8 trillion, with 44 percent of the tax cut going to the top 1 percent. Rather than attempting to stay revenue or distributionally neutral, Ryan and Trump’s tax plans are chiefly a huge tax cut for the wealthy and corporations. But even if Ryan and Trump chose to meet the lofty standards of the 1986 tax reforms, it would not be sufficient

given our current fiscal and economic state. After decades of tax cuts, our nation faces an $8.5 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. It’s a hard truth for politicians to swallow, but the nation needs to roll back these tax cuts to help lower the growing debt and to create fiscal space for public investments in things like healthcare and infrastructure . In addition, our nation is facing an increasingly economically unequal society . For the past several decades income inequality has grown, with the top 1 percent now capturing more than 20 percent of all income. Increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations would help counteract this trend. Put simply, the guiding principles of tax reform should be to raise enough revenue to meet the nation’s priorities. Further, tax reform should be progressive and categorically avoid shifting more of the nation’s income to the wealthiest Americans, who already continue to capture a greater share of the nation’s wealth due to lawmakers’ past policy decisions. Recent polling indicates the overwhelming majority of Americans (regardless of how they voted) neither want tax cuts for corporations nor the wealthy. Ryan and Trump’s so-called “tax reform” plans go against the will of the broader public. Our nation’s elected officials need to change course on tax reform.

High deficit spending causes heg decline and nuclear warKhalilzad 11 (Zalmay Khalilzad (was the United States ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Nations during the presidency of George W. Bush and the director of policy planning at the Defense Department from 1990 to 1992). “The Economy and National Security.” National Review. February 8th, 2011. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/259024/economy-and-national-security-zalmay-khalilzad)

Today, economic and fiscal trends pose the most severe long-term threat to the United States’ position as global leader. While the United States suffers from fiscal imbalances and low economic growth, the economies of rival powers are developing rapidly. The continuation of these two trends could lead to a shift from American primacy toward a multi-polar global system, leading in turn to increased geopolitical rivalry and even war among the great powers. The current recession is the result of a deep financial crisis, not a mere fluctuation in the business cycle. Recovery is likely to be protracted. The crisis was preceded by the buildup over two decades of enormous amounts of debt throughout the U.S. economy — ultimately totaling almost 350 percent of GDP — and the development of credit-

fueled asset bubbles, particularly in the housing sector. When the bubbles burst, huge amounts of wealth were destroyed, and unemployment rose to over 10 percent. The decline of tax revenues and massive countercyclical spending put the U.S. government on an unsustainable fiscal

path. Publicly held national debt rose from 38 to over 60 percent of GDP in three years. Without faster economic growth and actions to reduce deficits, publicly held national debt is projected to reach dangerous proportions. If interest rates were to rise significantly, annual interest payments — which already are larger than the defense budget — would crowd out other spending or require substantial tax increases that would undercut economic growth. Even worse, if unanticipated events trigger what economists call a “sudden stop” in credit markets for U.S. debt, the United States would be unable to roll over its outstanding obligations, precipitating a sovereign-debt crisis that would almost certainly compel a radical retrenchment of the United States internationally. Such scenarios would reshape the international order. It was the economic devastation of Britain and France during World War II, as well as the rise of other powers, that led both countries to relinquish their empires. In the late 1960s, British leaders concluded that they lacked the economic capacity to maintain a presence “east of Suez.” Soviet economic weakness, which crystallized under Gorbachev, contributed to their decisions

to withdraw from Afghanistan, abandon Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and allow the Soviet Union to fragment. If the U.S. debt problem goes critical, the United States would be compelled to retrench , reducing its military spending and shedding international commitments. We face this domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth. Even though countries such as China, India, and Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their economies are

growing faster than ours, and this could alter the global distribution of power. These trends could in the long term produce a multi-polar world. If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but when a new

international order will emerge. The closing of the gap between the United States and its rivals could intensify geopolitical competition among major powers , increase incentives for local powers to play major powers against one another, and undercut our will to preclude or respond to international crises because of the higher risk of escalation. The stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has been the era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their competitive dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar international systems produced both world wars. American retrenchment could have devastating

consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional powers could rearm in an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would be a heightened possibility of arms races , miscalculation , or other crises spiraling into all-out conflict.

ACA Repeal Bad ImpactACA repeal causes pandemicsKahn 16 (Laura H. Kahn, research staff of Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security Laura, “Biodefense and the next presidency”, 12/13, http://thebulletin.org/biodefense-and-next-presidency10280)

Our current strategy, if one can call it that, is to conduct surveillance and put out the “ fires ”— new disease outbreaks—when they appear. This approach relies on robust medical and public health infrastructures , which do not exist

everywhere—even within the United States. That brings me to my final topic. Public health preparedness. In the preamble to the US Constitution, the authors

included “…promote the general Welfare…” as part of the government’s responsibility. Health is certainly necessary for general welfare , and requires access to healthcare. Doctors and nurses are the eyes and ears of public health surveillance , but their effectiveness depends upon whether they are available . If someone doesn’t have access to healthcare, but has a deadly, communicable disease, then the risk of an outbreak spreading unchecked increases. During the Ebola outbreak in West Africa in 2014, a poor Liberian showed up at a Texas emergency room with a non-specific fever. He was given antibiotics and sent home, and ultimately died of Ebola. Fortunately this incident didn’t lead to a widespread Ebola

outbreak in Texas, but it’s the kind of thing that could. Obamacare may have its faults, but one thing it does right is provide millions of Americans with health insurance who would not have it otherwise . From a public health perspective, access to healthcare is absolutely critical for pandemic preparedness. During the

election, candidate Trump repeatedly stated that Obamacare was a “disaster” and should be repealed . More recently, president-elect Trump

announced that he might keep parts of the Affordable Care Act. It’s hard to know what he believes or wants to do. But one thing is clear: If he repeals it, and we get hit with a deadly pandemic, the public should hold him and the Republican Congress accountable. Better to

avoid that outcome, and keep in place a system that ensures more Americans have access to doctors . The health of the nation literally depends on it.

Pandemics risk extinction – no burnout, human transportation is reaching the tipping point for global contagionBar-Yam 16 (Yaneer Bar-Yam, MIT PhD, Founding President of the New England Complex Systems Institute, PhD in Physics, “Transition to extinction: Pandemics in a connected world,” NECSI, July 3, 2016, http://necsi.edu/research/social/pandemics/transition)

Watch as one of the more aggressive – brighter red  –  strains rapidly expands. After a time it goes extinct leaving a black region. Why does it go

extinct? The answer is that it spreads so rapidly that it kills the hosts around it. Without new hosts to infect it then dies out itself. That the rapidly spreading pathogens die out has important implications for evolutionary research which we have

talked about elsewhere [1–7]. In the research I want to discuss here, what we were interested in is the effect of adding long range transportation [8]. This includes natural means of dispersal as well as unintentional dispersal by humans, like adding airplane routes, which is being done by real world airlines (Figure 2). When we introduce long range transportation into the model, the success of more aggressive strains changes. They can use the long range transportation to find new hosts and escape local extinction . Figure 3 shows that the more transportation routes introduced into the model, the more higher aggressive pathogens are able to survive and spread. As we add

more long range transportation, there is a critical point at which pathogens become so aggressive that the entire host population dies. The pathogens die at the same time, but that is not exactly a consolation to the hosts. We call this the phase transition to extinction (Figure 4). With increasing levels of global transportation, human civilization may be approaching such a critical threshold. In the paper we wrote in 2006 about the dangers of global transportation for

pathogen evolution and pandemics [8], we mentioned the risk from Ebola. Ebola is a horrendous disease that was present only in isolated villages in Africa. It was far away from the rest of the world only because of that isolation. Since Africa was developing, it was only a matter of time before it reached population centers and airports. While the model is about evolution, it is really about which pathogens will be found in a system that is highly connected, and Ebola can spread in a highly connected world. The traditional approach to public health uses historical evidence analyzed statistically to assess the potential impacts of a disease. As a result, many were surprised by the spread of Ebola through

West Africa in 2014. As the connectivity of the world increases, past experience is not a good guide to future events. A key point about the phase transition to extinction is its suddenness. Even a system that seems stable, can be destabilized by a few more long-range connections, and connectivity is continuing to increase. So how close are we to the tipping point? We don’t know but it would be good to find out before it happens. While Ebola ravaged three countries in West Africa, it only resulted in a handful of cases outside that region. One possible reason is that many of the airlines that fly to west Africa stopped or reduced flights during the epidemic [9]. In the absence of a clear connection, public health authorities who downplayed the dangers of the epidemic spreading to the West might seem to be vindicated. As with the choice of airlines to stop flying to

west Africa, our analysis didn’t take into consideration how people respond to epidemics. It does tell us what the outcome will be unless we respond fast enough and well enough to stop the spread of future diseases , which may not be the same as the ones

we saw in the past. As the world becomes more connected, the dangers increase. Are people in western countries safe because of higher quality health systems? Countries like the U.S. have highly skewed networks of social interactions with some very highly connected individuals that can be “superspreaders.” The chances of such an individual becoming infected may be low but events like a mass

outbreak pose a much greater risk if they do happen. If a sick food service worker in an airport infects 100 passengers, or a contagion event happens in mass transportation, an outbreak could very well prove unstoppable .

ACA creates a dedicated prevention fund that solves vaccines, health response, and tracking – there’s a litany of scenarios for disease spread that make it extremely likelyColman, J.D., former Washington State Department of Health employee, 16 (Victor Colman, J.D., former Washington State Department of Health employee *note – the author of this specific paper isn’t clear, but Colman is the director of the COPC, the firm that authored it* “About the Prevention and Public Health Fund”, http://copcwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/About-the-Prevention-and-Public-Health-Fund.pdf)

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), for the first time in the nation’s history, created a dedicated fund for prevention. The Prevention and Public Health Fund (PPHF) provides backbone funding for programs and services in Washington State

that touch the lives of millions of people every day. Established under the Affordable Care Act, the Fund has provided funding to States and communities to provide programs and services to : Prevent and control diabetes, heart disease, and obesity Track and monitor disease trends , and provide data that communities and health care partners use to identify vulnerable populations and address priority health problems Provide training and incentives to the public health workforce and their healthcare partners to adopt evidence-based disease prevention programs Support people in their efforts to quit tobacco Provide breast and cervical cancer screening and early diagnosis Protect children and adults from vaccine preventable diseases through immunization education, outreach, and reminder systems Work with health plans to improve the delivery of clinical and other preventive services Enhance epidemiology and laboratory capacity that enables state and local health officials to respond to infectious diseases and emergencies that put citizens’ lives and health at stake – including natural disasters, terrorist attacks, infectious disease outbreaks, and unsafe food, air and water. Why it’s

important Effective, affordable health care is essential for improving health, but what happens beyond the doctor’s office also has a major impact on how healthy we are. There is increasing understanding of how important it is to combine good medical care with support in our daily lives to carry out a doctor’s advice . The Prevention and Public Health Fund is the nation’s largest single federal investment in prevention and takes an innovative approach by supporting cross-sector and public- private partnerships and

collaborations to improve outcomes. The Prevention Fund will provide $14.5 billion over the next 10 years to improve public health and prevent chronic illnesses, including obesity and related diseases, through increased screenings, counseling and community-based prevention programs. The Fund supports services and programs that allow health to be improved in communities, schools, workplaces and homes by supporting healthier lifestyles and eliminating obstacles to healthy life choices.

Xenophobia ImpactTrump wins on education reform legitimize the rest of his agenda – including his immigration and anti-Muslim policiesWilliams 17 (Conor P. Williams is a senior researcher in New America’s Education Policy Program and founder of its Dual Language Learners National Work Group. Williams is a former first-grade teacher who holds a Ph.D. in government from Georgetown University, a master’s in science for teachers from Pace University and a B.A. in government and Spanish from Bowdoin College. “Williams: The Temptation to Compromise With Trump on Schools — and Why It Might Kill Education Reform.” January 18, 2017. https://www.the74million.org/article/williams-the-temptation-to-compromise-with-trump-on-schools-and-why-it-might-kill-education-reform)

As the prospect of unified GOP control of the federal government roars into view, some of those Republicans are discovering that, hey, the orange guy might just have the juice they need to push through a reform priority or two. As my New America colleague Kevin Carey has put it,

conservatives and Republicans in Washington, D.C., who, after eight years out of power and for reasons that range from wishful

thinking to much worse, are busily convincing themselves that Donald Trump is redeemable. He is not. His bigotry is bone-deep. Indeed, après le deluge de Trump, some conservative education reformers have started feeling out the center and left of what remains of the education reform movement to ask us to swallow our concerns and work with the incoming administration “for the kids.” I asked Shavar Jeffries, president of the Democrats for Education Reform (a key progressive reform organization) about the dynamics of this situation. He explained them this way: “We think that just because we strongly disagree with the president-elect on a variety of different policies and the rhetoric undergirding those policies, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t a number of policies that we agree with and would benefit the families that we advocate for...even if it’s one issue, even if it’s one out of a hundred, we’re gonna work to ensure that it’s positive going forward.” Other progressive reformers agree. Ned Stanley, deputy director of the New York Campaign for Achievement Now, emailed me, “For the reformers I know, their focus in education has little to do with conservatism or progressivism and the policies they advocate for can’t be cleanly placed into Democratic or Republican thought silos ... Which is to say, the question we’re asking is how a dramatically larger number of students can have access to significantly greater options and opportunity in their lives. That’s a moral question, but not necessarily a political

one.” And the political question behind that moral one is relatively manageable: Why shouldn’t progressives who believe in school choice sign up to back a hypothetical Trump administration proposal to dramatically expand it? Well, “do it for the kids” is a much more complicated ask than it seems. First of all, most of the old education reform priorities that commanded bipartisan support are big, hairy ideas that spark disagreements in the details. For instance, school choice is not a panacea. Well-crafted choice programs can open doors of opportunity for underserved children. But these are hardly inevitable. Badly designed choice programs with limited oversight generally do nothing for the students they serve. Though it’s a fool’s errand to predict Trump’s plans, it’s fair to say that his team has given no signals that it’s interested in building oversight and accountability into its school choice

proposals. Sure, that’s a garden-variety challenge of working across party lines. In Washington, policy wins come at the price of ideological priorities. For instance, in order to secure conservative support for Obama’s signature health care reform law, progressives

needed to adopt long-standing conservative policy ideas — like the individual mandate. OK, bad example. But you get the drift — even if the Trump administration’s approach to school choice (or school accountability, or teacher evaluations ,

or etc.) isn’t ideal, progressive reformers will have to weigh any possible benefits against those costs . At present, there’s little evidence to suggest that Trump-branded reform proposals will be even vaguely tempting to progressive reformers

animated by equity and accountability. Of course, standard-issue bipartisan trade-offs aren’t the only challenge. Trump poses a second challenge for progressive reformers who believe in the promise of charter schools but also work on issues proximate to immigration or civil rights. Consider this relatively likely scenario: the Trump administration moves forward with its regularly reiterated plans to deport millions of undocumented immigrants and begins proceedings to close the border to Muslims. Meanwhile, his Department of Education announces plans to establish a large federal grants competition with billions of dollars available to states who expand their charter school sectors. For the purposes of argument, however unlikely it might be, let’s assume that the grants competition

includes significant accountability measures that would increase the chance that the program helps underserved children. Progressive education reformers eager to have more high-quality school options available for these kids would clearly be

tempted to support such a proposal. And yet, any engagement on this would also be a tacit normalization of the

extraordinary damage that Trump’s immigration proposals are likely to do to U.S. politics, governance and civil society. Civil rights organizations sympathetic to education reform would be understandably confused to find progressive allies denouncing Trump’s radical immigration policies while assisting his administration’s work on education. Is it worth it to move a few education reform priorities if those efforts permanently cost progressive reformers their existing networks of allies and supporters? Are short-term reform goals worth that sort of long-term detonation of political capital? “Trump has acted in a whole variety of bigoted ways,” says Jeffries. “It makes it much harder for people to work with him. A great many of his policies — not only his rhetoric — are xenophobic, are Islamophobic ... he’s said things that are misogynistic, that are racially insensitive, and that makes it hard to

work with him.” Or, to put it another way — this wouldn’t really be garden-variety bipartisan policymaking. Trump is different from the usual, as most of D.C.’s conservative education reformers admitted when they proclaimed themselves #NeverTrump fellow-travelers. They shouldn’t be surprised if progressive reformers balk at helping Trump’s abhorrent behavior soak into American politics and governance.

Anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim policies like the travel ban are xenophobia at its worstZogby 17 (Dr. James J. Zogby is the author of "Arab Voices" (Palgrave Macmillan, October 2010) and the founder and president of the Arab American Institute (AAI), a Washington, D.C.-based organization which serves as the political and policy research arm of the Arab American community. “Trump’s Executive Order Is An Existential Threat To America.” 3/12 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trumps-executive-order-is-an-existential-threat-to_us_58c31c58e4b070e55af9eeca)

Last week President Donald Trump issued a revised Executive Order (EO or Order) restricting immigration from six majority Muslim countries and more than halving the US refugee program. This version includes some significant changes: it is more carefully written; it removes Iraq from

the list of countries falling under the ban; and it exempts those with green cards and valid visas. Nevertheless, it remains a false, dangerous, cruel, arbitrary, and bigoted assault on Muslims and the very idea of America as an open, welcoming society. The EO is based on the false premise that it is designed to protect Americans from foreign terrorists. Arguments to this effect peppered the Order and were used by the three Cabinet Secretaries who spoke after it was issued. Attorney General Sessions, for example, in addition to citing the single case of a naturalized Somali American who was convicted of planning a terrorist attack in 2014, claimed that the FBI is currently investigating 300 refugees for possible terrorist activity (a charge that is included in the EO). The Somali American case is the only known instance where a former refugee from one of the six countries sought to engage in violence. Given the Administration’s penchant for “alternative facts”, the first ever mention of 300 individuals “under investigation” must be taken with a grain of salt until it can independently be verified. In fact, just a few days before the release of the EO, the Department of Homeland Security released a study concluding that immigrants, in general, are not a security threat since most recorded terrorist crimes were committed by individuals who became radicalized after living in the US, and that, in any case, “country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist

activity”. While immigrants and refugees from the six countries included in the ban are not responsible for terrorism in the US, that hasn’t stopped Administration spokespersons from using them as scapegoats to justify their proposed policies. The Order, itself, is designed to set up Muslims as a “bogeyman” in order to win support for Trump’s efforts to overhaul of the entire immigration/refugee program . Just as the

“bogeyman” of the Mexican rapist and drug dealer was used to justify the Wall and planned mass deportations, Muslim terrorists are being used to validate gutting the refugee program and limiting admission of “undesirables” from North Africa, and Southwest and South Asia. Some have argued that this is the precursor to President Trump making good on his promise of a general “Muslim ban”. It very well may be, since the EO states that more countries may be added in the future - with an Administration spokesperson suggesting that 13 or 14 countries may soon

be included. Additionally, the EO includes mention of a still undefined ideology test for admittance to the US. Arabs, including US citizens, who have already undergone similar screening by Border Patrol officials, can testify to how insulting and intrusive

this process can be. Laptops and phones have been seized and downloaded, and individuals have been asked for their views on the Iraq War, whether they support Israel, their views about the US President, and

their religious beliefs. This is a sure-fire way to discriminate against an entire group of people - and, I might add, not just Muslims. So the EO appears to be designed to exclude not “potential terrorists” but individuals who fail to pass an arbitrary ideological litmus test. Just as insidious as the “temporary ban” and the mechanisms that will be developed to exclude more individuals after it is lifted (if it is lifted and not expanded) is the suspension of the refugee program and the pledge to significantly reduce the number of refugees from all countries being allowed into the US. From the earliest days of his presidential campaign, when candidate Trump first warned about the dangers of refugees, saying “we don’t know who these people are,” major church-based refugee resettlement groups responded forcefully with evidence demonstrating the thoroughness of the vetting process. The process currently used to screen refugee applicants is already

exceptionally rigorous, taking more than two years to complete. But preying on fears of Muslims, Trump has persisted with the lie that refugees are not screened. Now he has issued this EO establishing that his Administration after ordering a freeze on

refugee admittance for 120 days, will ultimately reduce the number of refugees allowed into the US from 110,000 to 50,000. This is unconscionable, since those who apply for admission as refugees are desperate souls seeking to escape life-threatening situations. They have risked everything in the hopes of securing safety and opportunity for their families. They are the most vulnerable people on earth and fear mongering at their expense is a cruel and heartless act. The architects behind all of the Administration’s machinations are a small cadre of ultra-nationalist advisers who have argued that America is a white Judeo-Christian culture facing an existential threat from foreigners - specifically Latinos and Muslims. They fear that “their” country and its culture are at risk of being diluted and transformed and that action must be taken to save “America”, as they see it. On the one hand, they are right. America is changing, as it always has. Where they are wrong is that the very idea of America is

found not in exclusion, but in its inclusiveness and its absorptive capacity to become new. The same xenophobic fear being expressed by the President and his supporters today once prompted others before them to agitate against Jews, Catholics, Eastern Europeans, Chinese, and every other wave of new immigrants that came to our shores. It was they who said “Irish need not apply”, passed the notorious Asian Exclusion Act, led the forced deportation of Mexican American citizens, lynched Italians, committed gang violence against Eastern Europeans, supported the internment of Japanese, instigated against Jews, and fought against equal rights for African Americans. The idea of America is bigger than the one the xenophobes have espoused

and so, time and again, they lost. Thank God they did, because what kind of country would we be, had they won? Not learning the lessons of history, this Administration is trying once again to impose exclusionary policies . They are building a Wall, ordering mass deportations, and issuing a bigoted Executive Order. When all is said and done, it’s not refugees and immigrants, Latinos or Muslims, who pose an existential threat to the American idea. That threat comes from this Administration and its policies.

AFF Answers

Uniqueness

Yes Trump AgendaGOP will push Trump’s agenda despite scandalsWerner 6/9 (Erica Werner, Associated Press. “With an eye on agenda, Republicans shrug off Comey revelations, stick with Trump.” http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-republicans-comey-trump-20170609-story.html)

The FBI chief he fired called the president a liar, but the response from many Republicans was a collective shrug. The GOP still needs Donald Trump if it has any hope of accomplishing its legislative agenda and winning elections, and it's going to take more than James Comey's testimony to shake them. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on

Friday boasted of the GOP's accomplishments under Trump thus far, and promised more to come, making no mention of Comey in a speech. A group of House conservatives discussed taxes and the budget, with no reference to Comey or the

federal investigations into Russia's election meddling and possible collusion with the Trump campaign. Elsewhere, there were few outward signs of concern from the top Republican officials, donors and business leaders who gathered largely behind closed doors in Park City, Utah, for a conference hosted by former presidential candidate Mitt Romney. "The people in this room, who

give money to the Republican Party and who are focused on helping get Republicans elected, they do it because they believe in an agenda," Spencer Zwick, House Speaker Paul Ryan's fundraising chief, said in an interview. As for the Comey testimony, "there's nothing we

can do about it," Zwick said. It all underscored what's become a hardening dynamic of the Trump presidency: Republicans on Capitol Hill and off are mostly sticking with the president despite the mounting scandals and seemingly endless crises that surround him. Though some are privately concerned, and frustration is regularly voiced about the president's undisciplined

administration and the distractions he creates, Republicans have scant incentive to abandon him now. Trump's signature remains key to the still-nascent GOP agenda, and he has the ability to appoint judges to lifetime appointments, a thrilling prospect for conservatives. And, despite Trump's low approval ratings nationally, his core base of supporters remains firmly behind him. Those voters will be key to the GOP's success in next year's midterms when Republicans will be defending a fragile majority in the House and looking to pick up seats in the Senate, thanks to a favorable map that has a large group of Democratic incumbents up for re-election in states that voted for Trump. "I think the last 24, 48 hours were all good for the president, confirmed he was telling the truth all along, that he wasn't under investigation," GOP Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio said Friday, referring to Comey's confirmation that he had informed Trump that the president wasn't being personally investigated. Comey also bluntly accused the Trump White House of lying, asserted that Trump asked him to back off an investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, and contended that Trump fired him in an effort to change the course of the Russia

investigation. But Republicans chose to ignore those things and focus on the aspects of Comey's testimony on Thursday

that were favorable to Trump. Trump himself, appearing alongside the president of Romania on Friday, attacked Comey and said some of his testimony wasn't true. "I think he was exonerated," GOP Rep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina, who chairs the conservative House

Freedom Caucus, said Friday of Trump. "He said that he wasn't under investigation and indeed that was verified." Ryan and other Republicans explained away Trump's interactions with Comey as the understandable blunders of a Washington neophyte.

GOP is still advancing Trump’s agenda despite Russia Brownstein 6/15 (Ronald Brownstein is Atlantic Media's editorial director for strategic partnerships. “The GOP's Risky Calculation for 2018.” https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/gop-trump-congress/530340/)

Scandals have typically operated as a cloud over a president’s agenda. But the Russia-related legal challenges swirling around President Trump are functioning more like a cloak for his joint agenda with congressional Republicans . That difference captures the GOP’s decision to govern in a manner aimed almost entirely at stoking their hard-core base—a critical calculation that could determine their fate in the 2018 election, and possibly the 2020 contest, as well. In the week since fired FBI Director James Comey

leveled his explosive charges at the president, Capitol Hill Republicans have followed a two-track response. With virtual unanimity, they have insisted that even if Trump did everything Comey alleged, the behavior does not warrant criminal action or impeachment. And simultaneously, while the Trump-Comey confrontation has monopolized media attention, both chambers have advanced deeply conservative policy proposals—with House Republicans voting to repeal the major financial regulations approved under former President Barack

Obama, and Senate Republicans working in private toward a plan to repeal Obama’s Affordable Care Act. Both of these responses rest on the calculation that Republicans can best avoid losses in 2018 by mobilizing their base supporters, no matter how other voters respond to their actions. But the choice to aim their governing decisions at such a narrow spectrum of Americans could magnify the risks

facing Republicans in 2018—and, for that matter, Trump in 2020. As Trump’s presidency careens through increasingly turbulent waters, congressional Republicans are lashing themselves ever more tightly to its mast. That was most apparent in their collective shrug at Comey’s Senate Intelligence Committee testimony. Strikingly, no leading Republican argued that Comey was fabricating when he said Trump encouraged him to drop the FBI investigation into former National Security

Adviser Michael Flynn. Rather, in virtual unison, Republicans declared that even if Trump made the remarks Comey reported, his actions were at most inappropriate, and not illegal. The unanimity among Hill Republicans contrasted sharply with the response to Comey’s testimony from the mainstream legal community. Some experts defended Trump’s actions. But a wide array of former federal prosecutors, like prominent former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara; Watergate investigators; and law professors argued that the pattern of behavior Comey described justified opening an obstruction-of-justice investigation. Congressional Republicans have

summarily dismissed those conclusions. That supine acceptance follows the pattern established when Trump previously violated other norms, like not releasing his tax returns. Every time Trump has broken a window, GOP leaders have obediently swept up the glass, if sometimes after some initial grumbling. That pattern of deference could help explain why Trump might imagine Republicans would ultimately defend him even if he fired special counsel Robert

Mueller, as he’s reportedly mused this week. The decision to lock arms around Trump over Russia and Flynn reinforces the implications of the agenda congressional Republicans are pursuing . In both chambers, GOP leaders have rejected even pro forma negotiations with Democrats to order to advance a legislative program centered on repealing a wide array of Obama-era actions. Trump’s executive orders have likewise centered on undoing his predecessor’s regulations program, particularly those limiting the carbon emissions linked to global climate change. Recent national polls found that almost three-fifths of Americans opposed both the House-passed legislation to repeal the ACA and Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate treaty. Each, however, drew more support than opposition from self-identified Republicans (although about one-fourth of even Republicans opposed each idea). Likewise, in one poll, while about two-thirds of Republicans supported repealing financial regulations, most Americans opposed the idea.

Infrastructure ThumperInfrastructure will be a win for TrumpGoldsmith 5/26 (Stephen Goldsmith is the Daniel Paul Professor of Government and Director of the Innovations in American Government Program at Harvard University. He has 25 years of experience with infrastructure finance and economic policy as a two-term mayor of Indianapolis, deputy mayor of New York City, and advisor to public entities. “How Trump can score a big league bipartisan win on infrastructure.” http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/economy-budget/335292-how-trump-can-score-a-big-league-win-on-infrastructure)

Amidst the fireworks surrounding this week’s rollout of the Trump administration’s detailed budget proposal, the president has begun to quietly lay the groundwork for what could be one of the most consequential pieces of legislation to actually garner bipartisan support on Capitol Hill. Dropped into the budget rollout with little fanfare was a blueprint for what could be the most ambitious infrastructure initiative in a generation . Undoubtedly the past few months have been marked by bitter partisan battles on high-priority Republican policy items from the repeal of the Affordable Care Act to a broad rewrite of the tax code. Whether the president’s tax and healthcare proposals will ever make it through Congress given the

intense Democratic opposition and lack of GOP consensus on these issues remains to be seen. Infrastructure, however, has the possibility of being the elusive bipartisan win. In response to the president's promise of a $1 trillion infrastructure booster,

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) recently doubled down, saying, “We Democrats have always believed in this.” For Republicans, a new infrastructure bill would be a major achievement to unlocking private sector investment in our nation’s roads, bridges, and airports. It would also be a huge political win for the president , played out over countless ribbon cutting ceremonies across the country. For Democrats, an infrastructure package with increased spending levels would bring badly needed surface transportation dollars back to their districts and states. Both parties could play a meaningful role in passing a truly transformational piece of legislation with broad support.

Link

Link Turn – Ed Reform UnpopularEducation reform is a political firestorm – ensures Trump can’t win on itReville 16 (Paul Reville, Professor of Practice of Educational Policy and Administration at the Harvard Grad School of Education, 11/9, “What the Trump presidency will mean for schools”, https://www.tes.com/us/news/breaking-news/what-trump-presidency-will-mean-schools)

It’s unclear where he’ll take us on education, how much of a priority education is on his agenda and what kind of leaders he’ll appoint. After all,

Trump has no track record on education and during the campaign evinced little interest in the subject of schooling. He sometimes even seemed confused about the federal role in education. While he is clearly committed to leading with a powerful choice initiative coupled with

heavy doses of policy and rhetoric about returning education to “local control”, he will find it more complicated than he might have anticipated to lead on education at the federal level. For example, President Trump will find he does not have the power to tell states to “get rid of the Common Core” because the federal government is explicitly prohibited

from telling states which standards they can or can’t adopt. While choice advocates are thrilled with his adoption of their “silver bullet,” the President will undoubtedly have problems maneuvering his agenda through a Congress which has recently adopted the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). ESSA was animated by a clear message to the Federal government that it should retreat from the activist role played by the Obama Administration in implementing an aggressive interpretation of the No Child Left Behind Act and assuming even more prerogatives with the Race to the Top

initiative. Congress clearly prefers a less muscular federal role in state and local education decisions. At the same

time, Congress is deeply divided not only between the political parties but within each party over education matters. The ideological differences are huge and views are passionately held. For example, shifting

Elementary and Secondary Education Act money from Title I to school choice will be a battle royale as would a policy shift to

allow public monies to go to private schools. President Trump will have much work to do in unifying his own party around his education agenda to say nothing of attracting Democrats who, themselves, are deeply divided on many of these issues. The President will not have a blank check. Policy advocates and practitioners will likely be confused for some time as to the Trump Administrations intentions for K-12 schooling. Obviously, there are other topics on the domestic and international scenes which will consume his immediate attention. In education, his leadership choices will begin to tell the story. Then, there’s a question of how much of his campaign rhetoric he really intends to pursue, especially as he is someone who has never governed and, at the same time, was a candidate who frequently seemed willing to say anything, whether he believed it or not, to get elected. His intentions are unknown. Eventually, we hope to find out what he really believes. But in the meantime, we can expect him to select unconventional leaders like Ben Carson, whose education views Trump has publicly lauded, and choice champions who see his presidency as their opportunity to break the education “monopoly” and transform education in America. It’s a “new day” in America. For some, the Trump presidency looks like the end of business as usual and a transition to a brave, new world whose features are unclear. For others, this is a time of great promise. President-elect Trump certainly has everyone’s attention, however it’s important to remember that change has always, throughout our history, come slowly in the field of education. This is why our 21st century schools and classrooms still look disturbingly similar to schools of 150 years ago. We need change and transformation in education but we have violent disagreements over the strategies we should employ to serve our children better, more equitably. The new president has some ideas and has earned the right to see where he can go with them, but I wouldn’t expect any miracles.

The status quo is amazingly resilient and change comes hard, especially when children are involved and lots of adult interests are at stake. One day at a time. We shall see and hope for the best.

Impact

AT: Trump Diversionary WarsTrump won’t start wars --- he can use other media stunts to divert the focusBershidsky 17 (Leonid Bershidsky, “Commentary: Trump is a master of diversionary tactics,” 1/26/17 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-trump-diversion-tactics-media-20170126-story.html)

President Donald Trump’s executive activity has been frantic in the first days of his term. He has moved to keep a number of the scary promises that were easier to dismiss as unfeasible during the campaign than to accept as actual policies in the real world. But the big stories he has generated have had nothing to do with these actions. According to data collected by

BuzzSumo.com, the most widely shared CNN news story about Donald Trump since Jan. 21 was one about his press

secretary, Sean Spicer, attacking the media for its reporting on inauguration attendance. It was shared 169,700 times on Facebook. A story on Trump’s executive order to start rolling back Obamacare clocked just 71,100 shares. On The New York Times’ website, the most widely shared story debunked Spicer’s “alternative facts.” It showed up on Facebook 170,900 times. The New York Times piece about

Trump’s executive order abandoning the Trans-Pacific Partnership got 44,600 shares. This is the result of a manipulation strategy described long ago by historian and cognitive scientist Noam Chomsky: “Keep the adult public attention diverted away from the real social issues , and captivated by matters of no real importance.” Leftists such as Chomsky argue that this is what capitalist elites do, but I know it as a common tactic of kleptocratic regimes such as Vladimir Putin’s in Russia.

There’s even a term for the tactic: “diversionary conflict.” Faced with economic difficulties or other problems potentially threatening to its survival, the regime starts a war somewhere or sharpens domestic ethnic divisions. Since the oil price plummeted in late 2014, the Putin regime has kept Russians on a steady diet of war news from eastern Ukraine and Syria (Russia and its allies have been winning). With the Syrian operation, Putin sharply raised his international standing, but a big reduction in protests against worsening economic conditions has probably been more important to him. In neighboring Ukraine, every time a government finds itself in trouble and particularly unpopular, the matter of the country’s linguistic division surfaces, with various groups trying to promote or ban the Russian language. Former Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych used the language matter as cover for passing other unpopular legislation. Now, with President Petro Poroshenko’s popularity at a nadir, reforms stalled and the cost of living rising sharply, Ukrainians are distracted by the discussion of a new

language law that would make Ukrainian obligatory in public life, under threat of fines. Trump doesn’t need to start wars: He and his team know how emotional many Americans are about him. He can choose what he wants to be hated for — preferably for something silly and unrelated to his actual priorities at the moment. He used this to his advantage during the campaign: His alleged sexual misconduct took up so much media time and public attention than issues like his business history, his tax returns and his proposals. As the inauguration attendance argument played, Trump has been busy. Apart from starting the Obamacare rollback and withdrawing from the TPP, he has frozen a reduction of mortgage insurance premiums, allowed the Keystone pipeline

to go ahead and is prepared to sign an executive order to begin construction of a border wall. Well aware that some of these important

actions might cause indignation and targeted protest, Trump has tossed out another meaningless football for the media and the public to fixate on. “I will be asking for a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states, those who are illegal and even those registered to vote who are dead,” he tweeted. Sure enough, at the time of this writing, the CNN story about this was the most shared in the last 24 hours, with news about the border wall order coming a distant second. Just as it was unimportant how many people attended the inauguration, it doesn’t matter at all at this point whether undocumented immigrants actually voted last November and whether any votes were cast for dead people. No one is challenging the

results of the election. The wall and the Keystone pipeline matter, yet are much smaller stories in terms of readership. Trump and his team are already showing a flair for diversion. Is it enough to discourage the kinds of mass protests that such aggressive moves on lightning-rod issues might spark? We’ll know in the coming days and weeks, though protesters’ energy was certainly sapped by the

massive women’s march, which took place before Trump actually did anything damaging to women’s rights. Trump’s and his team’s communications look awkward, inept, gallingly primitive. It’s time to wise up: These people know what they’re doing. They want their political opponents to be confused, to flail at windmills, to expend emotions on meaningless scandals to distract them from any targeted, coordinated action against specific threats. There are going to be many of these: Trump appears intent on keeping his promises. Calm concentration is needed to counteract dangerous policies.

Trump can’t launch a warBrooks 17 (Rosa Brooks, law professor at Georgetown University and a senior fellow with the New America/Arizona State University Future of War Project “3 Ways to Get Rid of President Trump Before 2020; Why you need to read the 25th Amendment now,” 1/30/17, http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/3-ways-to-get-rid-of-president-trump-before-2020-impeach-25th-amendment-coup/)

The fourth possibility is one that until recently I would have said was unthinkable in the United States of America: a military coup, or at least a refusal by military leaders to obey certain orders. The principle of civilian control of the military has been deeply internalized by the U.S. military, which prides itself on its nonpartisan professionalism. What’s more, we know that a high-ranking lawbreaker with even a little subtlety can run rings around the uniformed military. During the first years of the George W. Bush administration, for instance, formal protests from the nation’s senior-most military lawyers didn’t stop the use of torture. When military leaders objected to tactics such as waterboarding, the Bush

administration simply bypassed the military, getting the CIA and private contractors to do their dirty work. But Trump isn’t subtle or sophisticated: He sets policy through rants and late-night tweets, not through quiet hints to aides and lawyers. He’s thin-skinned, erratic, and unconstrained — and his unexpected, self-indulgent pronouncements are reportedly sending shivers through even his closest aides. What would top U.S. military leaders do if given an order that struck them as not merely ill-advised, but dangerously unhinged? An order that wasn’t along the lines of “Prepare a plan to invade Iraq if Congress authorizes it based on questionable intelligence,” but “Prepare to invade Mexico tomorrow!” or “Start rounding up Muslim Americans and sending them to Guantánamo!” or “I’m going to teach China a lesson — with nukes!” It’s impossible to say, of

course. The prospect of American military leaders responding to a presidential order with open defiance is frightening — but so, too, is the prospect of military obedience to an insane order. After all, military officers swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the president. For the first time in my life, I can imagine plausible scenarios in which senior military officials might simply tell the president: “No, sir. We’re not doing that,” to thunderous applause from the New York Times editorial board. Brace yourselves. One way or another, it’s going to be a wild few years.

AT: Econ Decline ImpactNo impact to economic declineDrezner ’14 (Daniel Drezner, IR prof at Tufts, The System Worked: Global Economic Governance during the Great Recession, World Politics, Volume 66. Number 1, January 2014, pp. 123-164)

The final significant outcome addresses a dog that hasn't barked: the effect of the Great Recession on cross-border conflict and violence.

During the initial stages of the crisis, multiple analysts asserted that the financial crisis would lead states to increase their use of force as a tool for staying in power.42 They voiced genuine concern that the global economic downturn

would lead to an increase in conflict—whether through greater internal repression, diversionary wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up of great power conflict. Violence in the Middle East, border disputes in the South China Sea, and even the

disruptions of the Occupy movement fueled impressions of a surge in global public disorder. The aggregate data suggest otherwise , however . The Institute for Economics and Peace has concluded that "the average level of peacefulness in 2012 is approximately the same as it was in 2007."43 Interstate violence in particular has declined since the start of the financial crisis, as have military expenditures in most sampled countries. Other studies confirm that

the Great Recession has not triggered any increase in violent conflict , as Lotta Themner and Peter Wallensteen

conclude: "[T]he pattern is one of relative stability when we consider the trend for the past five years."44 The secular decline in violence that started with the end of the Cold War has not been reversed . Rogers Brubaker observes that "the crisis has not to date generated the surge in protectionist nationalism or ethnic exclusion that might have been expected."43

AT: Disease ImpactDiseases won’t cause extinction – burnout or variationYork 2014 (Ian, head of the Influenza Molecular Virology and Vaccines team in the Immunology and Pathogenesis Branch, Influenza Division at the CDC, former assistant professor in immunology/virology/molecular biology (MSU), former RA Professor in antiviral and antitumor immunity (UMass Medical School), Research Fellow (Harvard), Ph.D., Virology (McMaster), M.Sc., Immunology (Guelph), “Why Don't Diseases Completely Wipe Out Species?” 6/4, http://www.quora.com/Why-dont-diseases-completely-wipe-out-species#THUR)

But mostly diseases don't drive species extinct . There are several reasons for that. For one, the most dangerous diseases are those that spread from one individual to another. If the disease is highly lethal, then the population drops, and it becomes less likely that individuals will contact each other during the infectious phase. Highly contagious diseases tend to burn themselves out that way. Probably the main reason is variation. Within the host and the pathogen population there will be a wide range of variants. Some hosts may be naturally resistant. Some pathogens will be less virulent. And either alone or in combination, you end up with infected individuals who survive. We see this in HIV, for example. There is a small fraction of humans who are naturally resistant or altogether immune to HIV, either because of their CCR5 allele or their MHC Class I type. And there are a handful of people who were infected with defective versions of HIV that didn't progress to disease . We can see indications of this sort of thing happening in the past, because our genomes contain many instances of pathogen resistance genes that have spread through the whole population. Those all started off as rare mutations that conferred a strong selection advantage to the carriers, meaning that the specific infectious diseases were serious threats to the species.

Status quo solves antibiotic resistanceRogers, 10/11/15 (Kaleigh Rogers, staff writer at MotherBoard 10/11/15, “California Passes Strict New Law to Fight Superbugs,” http://motherboard.vice.com/read/california-passes-strict-new-law-to-fight-superbugs)

California has passed the strictest farm antibiotics law in the country, in an effort to curb the risk of antibiotic resistant superbugs. The new law was approved by Governor Jerry Brown Saturday. Brown had originally pushed for the changes this summer, to make it illegal to use medically-important antibiotics on farm animals in California unless the animal is already sick, is

at serious risk of an infection, or needs antibiotics ahead of a surgery or medical procedure. The law won’t come into effect until January

2018, but it marks the most comprehensive changes to antibiotics regulation in the country. "The science is clear that the overuse of antibiotics in livestock has contributed to the spread of antibiotic resistance and the undermining of decades of life-saving advancements in medicine," Brown said in a signing message. Currently, antibiotics are used in raising livestock both to prevent disease and as growth promoters (to help the animals get nice and fat). But under the new California law, antibiotics won’t be used in either of these ways. Instead they’ll be used only on sick animals or when an animal is likely to get sick (like if the rest of the herd or flock has come down with a bug). The overuse of antibiotics, both in animals and humans, has led to an increased risk of antibiotic resistant superbugs. The risk has grown so severe that the World Health Organization has warned we’re heading towards a “post-antibiotic era" if we don’t start to cut down on our overuse of the drugs. The Food and Drug Administration has set out voluntary guidelines to end the use of medically-important antibiotics as

growth promoters nation-wide, but California's new law goes further to prohibit growth promoters and drastically cut down on antibiotics for disease prevention. "Recently, American poultry producers have shown leadership by voluntarily committing to better husbandry practices and eliminating subtherapeutic use of antibiotics," Brown said, referring to the recent trend of poultry producers opting to phase out medically-important antibiotics. "This is an example that the rest of the livestock industry should follow."