SJDI – DA – Midterms

1NC Materials

1NC Shell – WarmingRepublicans could win 60 votes in the Senate, but their success is contingent on Trump's popularity– a filibuster-proof GOP majority would greenlight Trump's agendaBarabak 17 [Mark Barabak, "Here's why the 2018 Senate election will be crucial for President Trump and his Democratic foes," LA Times, 2/17/2017] AZIn the partisan battle zone that is Washington, there is one conquest that could turn the fight decisively in Republicans’ favor: winning 60 seats in the U.S . Senate. With control of the House, a filibuster-proof Senate majority could empower President Trump and his congressional allies to push through legislation and approve high-level appointees, such as Supreme Court nominees, with Democrats in the minority powerless to stop them. That is why the 2018 midterm election is shaping up as crucial for Trump and congressional Republicans, as well as Democrats fighting to protect President Obama’s legacy and hold the line on further GOP advances . After Democrats netted two seats in the Senate last year, Republicans hold a 52-48 majority, meaning the GOP would need a gain of eight seats to reach a filibuster-proof margin. (That assumes party lawmakers stick together and vote as a bloc, which is never a certainty, as demonstrated by the withdrawal Wednesday of Trump’s nominee to head the Labor Department, Andrew Puzder, in the face of Republican opposition.) So what are the odds? If the 2016 election proved anything, it is the foolhardiness of making political predictions, especially this far out. That said, Republicans start in a strong position — though an eight-seat gain still seems like a considerable reach. The Democrats regaining control of the Senate, which they lost in 2014, is almost impossible to fathom. When is the midterm election? Nov. 6, 2018. How many Senate seats will be contested? Thirty-four, or just more than a third of the Senate. Why are Republicans strongly positioned starting out? Because Democrats will have to defend 25 seats to just nine for the GOP. Gee willikers! Why are those numbers so lopsided? Senate terms last six years; the seats that are coming up in 2018 are ones that were last on the ballot in 2012, when Obama was seeking reelection and Democrats, riding his coattails, gained two seats. That simply means more Democratic-held seats will be contested in 2018. The reverse took place in 2016. After making significant gains in the tea party election of 2010, Republicans had to defend 24 Senate seats compared to Democrats’ 10. Any other reason Republicans are strongly positioned heading into 2018? Indeed. Ten of the 25

seats that Democrats are defending are in states that Trump carried — in some instances by huge margins. He won West Virginia, where Joe Manchin is seeking reelection, by 42 percentage points, and North Dakota, where Heidi Heitkamp is seeking a second term, by 36 percentage points. He also carried Montana, Indiana and Missouri — where Democratic incumbents are facing reelection — by double-digits. What do historical trends suggest? Many of those didn’t hold up so well in 2016, when Trump pulled off one of the biggest political upsets of modern times. So it may be best not to go there. Ah, c’mon! OK, fine. Historically, the party holding the White House loses congressional seats in the first set of midterm elections after a president takes office. That offers Democrats hope. But the pattern is repeated more often in House races than Senate elections. According to the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, the party in power lost House seats in nine of the last 10 elections held at the midpoint of a president’s first term, but gave up Senate seats in only six of those 10 elections. (In a rarity, the GOP actually gained House and Senate seats in 2002, even as Republican George W. Bush sat in the White House, owing to a surge of support following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.) Would an eight-seat pickup be a lot? A little? Gaining eight seats would be on the upper end of achievement , based on election results going back the last 60 years. Republicans picked up nine Senate seats in 2014, but that was in Obama’s second midterm election, a time of particular political weakness. It would be pretty remarkable for the GOP to post that sort of gain with a member of their own party sitting in the White House. Why is that? Because supporters of the “out” party, that is the one not in control of the White House, tend to be more motivated to turn out than supporters of the “in” party. Part of that may be because, by nature, people are more likely to act — in this case vote — out of anger or dissatisfaction than contentment. Typically in non-presidential elections, there is a significant falloff in turnout among voters who lean Democratic, in particular minorities and young people. That was certainly the case when Obama was in office. Right you are. So what’s the question? Aren’t many of those same groups now highly animated and involved in protests directed at Trump? Very much so. The big question is whether they’ll still be be animated enough to vote in large numbers in November 2018. If so, that would make the Republican reach for 60 seats even tougher. Say, didn’t President Obama once have a 60-seat Democratic majority? Why wasn’t he able to get more done? Democrats did hit the magic 60-seat mark early in Obama’s first term. (Or, to be precise, Democrats held 58 seats and were joined by two independents who voted with the party.) But a delay in seating Minnesota's Al Franken — due to an election recount — the absence of an ailing Robert Byrd of West Virginia and the death of

Massachusetts’ Edward M. Kennedy meant Democrats enjoyed that 60-seat high mark for only a relatively brief time. They lost their filibuster-proof majority in February 2010 upon the swearing-in of Republican Scott Brown, who won a special election to finish Kennedy’s term.

American approval of unions is high – the plan would bolster Trump's approval rating. Saad 15 Saad, Lydia. "Americans' Support for Labor Unions Continues to Recover." Gallup.com. N.p., 17 Aug. 2015. Web. 26 July 2017. <http://www.gallup.com/poll/184622/americans-support-labor-unions-continues-recover.aspx?utm_source=Economy&utm_medium=newsfeed&utm_campaign=tiles>. Lydia Saad is a Senior Editor at Gallup. She writes extensively about U.S. public opinion for Gallup.com, authoring more than 1,500 news articles since 1992. In her role as Advanced Consultant, she leads the Wells Fargo/Gallup Investor Optimism and Retirement Optimism Index, designing this quarterly public release study and analyzing its results. //nhs-VAPRINCETON, N.J. -- Americans' approval of labor unions has jumped five percentage points to 58% over the past year, and is now at its highest point since 2008, when 59% approved. In the interim, the image of organized labor had suffered, sinking to an all-time low of 48% in 2009. Gallup first asked Americans about organized labor in 1936, a year after Congress legalized private-sector unions and collective bargaining. At that time, 72% of Americans approved of unions. Support remained high into the 1960s, but then dipped through the 1970s until it reached 55% in 1979. It has since varied, reaching as high as 66% in 1999 and as low as the 48% in 2009. The latest results are from the 2015 installment of Gallup's annual Work and Education survey, conducted Aug. 5-9. Consistent with the recent increase in approval of unions, the percentage of Americans saying they would like labor unions to have more influence in the country has also been rising, and now stands at 37%, up from 25% in 2009. Meanwhile, the percentage wanting unions to have less influence has declined from 42% to 35%, although it remains higher than it was from 1999 through 2008. Instead, fewer today say they want unions' influence to stay the same. There are a few interesting demographic differences. For example, on both questions, support for unions is higher among women than men. Specifically, 63% of women compared with 52% of men approve of labor unions. Also 41% of women vs. 33% of men want unions to have more influence. Favorable views of unions are significantly higher in the East, Midwest and West than in the South. In fact, the South is the only region where less than half of residents approve of unions. Perhaps most positive for the

future of unions is the finding that young adults, those aged 18 to 34, are the most supportive of all age groups. In terms of politics, Democrats are the most supportive of unions, with 79% approving and 55% wanting unions to have more influence. While close to half of Republicans approve of unions, just 18% want them to have more influence -- 53% want them to have less. The views of independents fall a little closer to Republicans' than Democrats' on both questions. Americans Perceive Union Power Is Waning Although Americans have become more pro-union, their perceptions of the outlook for union power haven't changed in the past few years. Fifty-three percent believe unions will be weaker in the future, similar to the result each year since 2011. In most years prior to that, between 41% and 48% thought union power would dwindle, while a higher percentage than today thought it would stay the same. Who Belongs? Approximately one in eight working adults in the U.S. (12%) belong to a labor union, equivalent to 8% of all Americans. More broadly, 17% of Americans live in a household where at least one person belongs to a union. But, notably, this varies markedly by region, with just 6% of adults in the South living in a union household, compared with 18% in the West and roughly a quarter in the East (24%) and Midwest (23%). Membership is also higher among nonwhites (24%) than whites (13%), and among Democrats (24%) than Republicans and independents (13% each). There are smaller differences by gender, and almost none by age. Bottom Line With the economy continuing to do better than it did during the recession and the 2008 government bailout of two of the Big Three American auto companies -- for which unions' image may have suffered -- fading further into history, Americans' views of unions are largely restored to what they were six years ago. The solid majority approve of unions, and most would like to see unions' power strengthened , or at least maintained. Survey Methods - Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Aug. 5-9, 2015, with a random sample of 1,011 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All reported margins of sampling error include computed design effects for weighting. Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 50% cellphone respondents and 50% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. Landline and cellular telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods.

Trump’s agenda will strip coal regulations and speed up climate change and warming. His past actions prove.Flusher and Bieseker 17

Biesecker John Flesher, Associated Press, Michael, and John Flesher. "Trump Wages Battle against Regulations, Not Climate Change." PBS. Public Broadcasting Service, 07 July 2017. Web. 29 July 2017. <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trump-wages-battle-regulations-climate-change/>.

Trump’s recent decision to pull out of the Paris climate deal was just his latest rapid-fire move to weaken or dismantle federal initiatives to reduce carbon emissions, which scientists say are heating the planet to levels that

could have disastrous consequences. Trump is waging war against efforts to curb U.S. dependence on fossil fuels. He’s done that through executive orders targeting climate change programs and regulations, massive proposed spending cuts and key appointments such as Scott Pruitt as chief of the Environmental Protection Agency. To what degree Trump will succeed remains to be seen. Despite the fanfare of his Paris announcement, including a pledge that his administration will halt all work on it, formally removing the U.S. from the accord could take more than three years. Rescinding the Clean Power Plan, President Barack Obama’s signature measure to curb emissions

from coal-fired power plants, likely would require three years. Trump’s budget, which would slash funding for climate research and assistance to cities preparing for weather-related calamities, needs approval from Congress, where resistance is strong. Still, the sharp change in course is being felt in ways large and small, down to the scrubbing of climate change information from federal agency websites.

Environmentalists are predictably outraged. Even some Republicans are taken aback. “This is a repudiation of 45 years of steady improvement in the enforcement and rigor of laws to protect the environment in the U.S .,” said William K. Reilly, who led the EPA under President George H.W. Bush and is chairman emeritus of the World Wildlife Fund. Trump’s administration reversed Obama’s moratorium on leasing federal lands for coal mining, joined with Congress to kill protections of streams from coal mining waste, stopped tracking the federal government’s carbon emissions and withdrew a requirement for more emissions data from oil and gas facilities. A

rollback of automobile fuel-economy standards is under consideration. His proposed 2018 budget would cut climate and energy research spending in numerous agencies , including a two-thirds reduction at EPA . Trump is hardly the first president accused of favoring businesses over the environment. His belief in easing the regulatory burden on them is firmly in the

Republican mainstream. What sets him apart is his zealousness and public dismissiveness of the scientific evidence showing the Earth is warming and man-made carbon emissions are largely to blame. “This is more extreme than any previous Republican president – this is their old set of sentiments on steroids,” said David Doniger, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “There’s no orderly, reasonable inquiry into whether something makes sense and

should be left in place.” At one point, Trump labeled global warming a “hoax” concocted by the Chinese to gain an economic edge over the U.S. Aides recently have sidestepped questions about whether he accepts the widely held scientific view about climate change. A White House statement issued this past week in response to questions from The Associated Press did not specify whether Trump believes the planet has been steadily warming, or say to what extent human activity such as burning of fossil fuels is responsible. “The president believes that the climate is always changing – sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. Pollutants are part of that equation,” the statement said. “The Trump administration is laser focused on clean water and clean air but also on better jobs for more and more Americans …,” it added. “America cannot stand by and have the rest of the world take our wealth and tax dollars to clean up their own environment while American businesses and American families suffer the consequences in the form of lost jobs and a diminished quality of life.” Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who led the administration’s EPA transition team, said Trump and key advisers don’t necessarily reject climate science but don’t believe the threat “should be placed in the list of the top 50 things we should be worried

about.” Frustrated climate researchers say the opposite is true. They point to record-setting high temperatures, melting glaciers, rising sea levels and increasingly violent storms – trends that models suggest will only worsen. But attacks on such findings from climate change doubters have taken their

toll. Public trust in mainstream science and other institutions has eroded, and lines between fact and ideology have blurred, said David Victor, a Brookings Institution specialist on energy security and climate. Trump could encounter trouble if his retreat from the climate

fight doesn’t restore lost jobs in coal mining and energy production, Victor said. The president has made reversing the decades-long decline in coal mining the central tenet of his environmental policy, blaming federal regulations for job losses. Federal statistics show coal mining accounted for only 51,000 jobs nationally at the end of May, up just 400 jobs from the prior month. Many economists say technology and cheap natural gas are the biggest causes of the coal industry’s slump. But

Trump’s focus on regulations remains popular in coal country. “We support the direction the administration is going,” said Betsy Monseau, CEO of the American Coal Council. “It’s very important to us over the longer term to preserve a path for coal and coal utilization in this country.”

Warming is real, anthropogenic, and causes extinction – default to risk management – costs are inevitable, it’s only a question of magnitude – reducing emissions now is key Nuccitelli 14 [Dana, MS in Physics from UC Davis and Environmental Scientist at a Private Environmental Consulting Firm in California, March 30, “IPCC Report Warns Of Future Climate Change Risks, But Is Spun By Contrarians,” http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/31/ipcc-warns-climate-change-risks]The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has just published its latest Working Group II report detailing impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability associated with climate change. The picture it paints with respect to the consequences of continued climate change is rather bleak. For example, the report discusses the risk associated with food insecurity due to more intense droughts, floods, and heat waves in a warmer world, especially for poorer countries. This contradicts the claims of climate contrarians like Matt Ridley, who have tried to claim that rising carbon dioxide levels are good for crops. While rising carbon dioxide levels have led to 'global greening' in past decades and improved agricultural technology has increased crop yields, research has indicated that both of these trends are already beginning to reverse. While plants like carbon dioxide, they don't like heat waves, droughts, and floods. Likewise, economist Richard Tol has argued that farmers can adapt to climate change, but adaptation has its costs and its limits . In fact, the IPCC summary report notes that most studies project a decline in crop yields starting in 2030, even as global food demand continues to rise. The report also discusses risks associated with water insecurity , due for example to shrinking of glaciers that act as key water resources for various regions around the world, and through changing precipitation patterns . As a result of these types of changes, the IPCC also anticipates that violent conflicts like civil wars will

become more common. The number of people exposed to river floods is projected to increase with the level of warming over the remainder of the century. Sea-level rise will also cause submergence, flooding, and erosion of coastal regions and low- lying areas. And ocean acidification poses significant risk for marine ecosystems ; coral reefs in particular. The general risk of species extinctions rises as the planet warms. More climate change means that suitable climates for species shift. The faster these climate zones shift, the more species will be unable to track and adapt to those changes. "Many species will be unable to track suitable climates under mid- and high-range rates of climate change (i.e., RCP4.5, 6.0, and 8.5) during the 21st century (medium confidence). Lower rates of change (i.e., RCP2.6) will pose fewer problems." The report also estimates that global surface warming of approximately 2°C above current temperatures may lead to global income losses of 0.2 to 2.0 percent. However, "Losses are more likely than not to be greater , rather than smaller, than this range ... few quantitative estimates have been completed for additional warming around 3°C or above." Even in the IPCC's most aggressive greenhouse gas emissions reductions scenario, we only limit global warming to around 1°C above current temperatures. In a business-as-usual scenario, temperatures warm about another 4°C – yet we have difficultly estimating the costs of warming exceeding another 2°C. In other words, failing to curb human-caused global warming poses major risks to the global economy. Nevertheless, there will be a certain amount of climate change that we won't be able to avoid, and the IPCC report notes that adaptation to those changes is also critically important. However, we first need to accept the scientific reality of human-caused climate change in order to plan for what's to come. As a notable counter-example, the state of North Carolina recently introduced a bill that would require state coastal planning to ignore all new scientific research with regards to sea-level rise. Obviously we can't adapt to threats if we deny their existence. However, the IPCC report notes that many governments are already beginning to take steps to adapt to climate change impacts in their regions. The good news is that the IPCC reports that many of these climate risks can be reduced by cutting greenhouse gas emissions and thus avoiding the worst climate change scenarios. The IPCC states with high confidence that risks associated with reduced agricultural yields, water scarcity, inundation of coastal infrastructure from sea-level rise, and adverse impacts from heat waves, floods, and droughts can be reduced by cutting human greenhouse gas emissions. In the end it all boils down to risk

management. The stronger our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the lower the risk of extreme climate impacts. The higher our emissions, the larger climate changes we'll face, which also means more expensive adaptation, more species extinctions, more food and water insecurities, more income losses, more conflicts, and so forth. Contrarians have tried to spin the conclusions of the report to incorrectly argue that it would be cheaper to try and adapt to climate change and pay the costs of climate damages. In reality the report says no such thing. The IPCC simply tells us that even if we manage to prevent the highest risk scenarios, climate change costs will still be high, and we can't even grasp how high climate damage costs will be in the highest risk scenarios. As Chris Field, Co-Chair of Working Group II noted, "With high levels of warming that result from continued growth in greenhouse gas emissions , risks will be challenging to manage, and even serious, sustained investments in adaptation will face limits " We're committed to a certain amount of climate change, and as glaciologist Lonnie Thompson famously put it, "The only question is how much we will mitigate, adapt, and suffer". The latest IPCC report confirms that minimizing adaptation and suffering through risk management by reducing human greenhouse gas emissions is a no-brainer.

Turns Structural ViolenceTurns the case - Trump’s health care bill will be passed which negatively affects the poor, the old, and those located in rural areas where labor is more prominent.BBC 17BBC. "Trump Health Bill: Winners and Losers." BBC News. BBC, 04 May 2017. Web. 25 July 2017. <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39233010>.//nhs-KKOld: Older adults, specifically Americans in their 50s and 60s, are likely to pay more under the new system, even though they would receive larger tax credits.

That's because the Republican proposal allows older adults to be charged as much as five times more than younger policy holders. Under the ACA, older adults were only allowed to be charged up to three times as much as younger enrolees. AARP sent a

letter to Congress warning that under the new proposal, an estimated 3.2 million adults aged 55 to 64 who buy coverage on the marketplace could see premium and cost-sharing increases of $3,600 more per year. Poor: The new plan would roll back much of the provisions put in place to protect low-wage earners under Obamacare. It would mean significantly higher premiums and reduced tax credits for middle and low-income earners. It would end the expansion of Medicaid, which covers low-income people, and overhaul the entire programme. States

would be sent a fixed amount of money per Medicaid enrolee, also called a "per-capita cap". The additional federal funding that covered expanding Medicaid would be eliminated by 2020, leaving states to bear the responsibility of making up the difference in money. States could then

reduce eligibility or cut provider payments. Enrolees making around $20,000 a year at any age would be hit the hardest, according to Kaiser. Rural: Another group that would lose under AHCA is people living in rural areas, where the cost of coverage tends to be higher due to fewer hospitals and insurers. Research shows that

health insurance premiums are typically more costly in rural counties and states. Rural residents also rely more heavily on public insurance than those living in cities. While Obamacare took local healthcare costs into consideration, tax credits under the Republican plan are the same as in states like Alaska and

New York. If premiums grow faster than inflation over time, the proposed tax credits will grow more slowly than those under Obamacare, according to

Kaiser. Medicaid cuts could also be harmful to rural hospitals, which are already struggling to keep their doors open. Loser - maybe Chronically sick: The new

Republican bill maintains Obamacare's ban on insurers denying coverage to sick people, but an amendment to it

allows the companies to charge as much as they want for such policies. Some Republicans opposed their own party in the vote because they agreed with Democrats that people with so-called pre-existing conditions could face higher costs. We await to hear what the Congressional Budget Office says about the effect on people with chronic illness.

UQ

2NR – UQGOP will pick up seats now but won’t achieve a filibuster proof majority – increasing Trump’s approval rating flips itTrende and Byler 5/15 2017 Sean Trende is senior elections analyst for RealClearPolitics. He is a co-author of the 2014 Almanac of American Politics and author of The Lost Majority. He can be reached at strende@realclearpolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter @SeanTrende. David Byler is an elections analyst for RealClearPolitics. He can be reached at dbyler@realclearpolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter @davidbylerRCP. Preview 2018 Senate Results With RCP's Interactive Tool https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/05/15/preview_2018_senate_results_with_rcps_interactive_tool.htmlBut rather than just giving you the outcomes of various 2016 scenarios – which we may do in a future piece – we thought an interactive might be fun. This allows you to set what you think will happen in 2018, then see what the likely results are.So, as of today, President Trump’s job approval is 41.5 percent, which rounds up to 42 percent. Because the theory behind the approach is that elections are largely referenda on the party in power, we ignore undecideds and just look at presidential approval. So you would input 42 percent for Trump’s job approval. The model then estimates state job approvals off of the results of the previous election (again, Sean did this in 2014 and 2016, and it worked well).You can then exclude seats that you think are unsafe – we’ve given what we think are reasonable defaults here – if you think there will be surprise retirements, and if you think a party will nominate an ineffective/problematic candidate. Hit “simulate,” and we’ll run 10,000 simulations under the information you’ve provided. If you use the outcomes above, you’ll end up with Republicans picking up one or two seats – Dean Heller usually loses in Nevada, but Democrats usually lose in West Virginia, North Dakota, and one other state, which varies. We note that there is a reasonable chance that Joe Manchin is actually like Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins – capable of running well ahead of expectations for the party in a state. Because of this, we might suggest marking him as safe, or at least marking the state “problematic Republican,” not because the Republican will be problematic, but because the Democrat is likely to be strong.We note that as Trump’s job approval rises, things shift rapidly for the GOP: At 45 percent, Republicans are expected to win 54 or 55 seats. At 50 percent approval, Republicans are expected to win around 57 seats, and at 55 percent approval, a filibuster-proof majority is within reach. On the other hand, we see just

how difficult it is for Democrats to take control of the Senate; even at 35 percent job approval, Republicans only lose control of the chamber one time in five. Again, this should not be taken literally; this is simply a useful tool for understanding how things might work in the future.

AT: Dems Win HouseGerrymandering guarantees a Republican victory in the HouseMcGann 16 [Anthony McGann (Professor of Government and Public Policy, Strathclyde University), "Why the Democrats won’t win the House in 2018," The Conversation, 11/23/2016]The result of the presidential election may have taken some people by surprise, but the fact that Republicans retained control of the House of Representatives was completely predictable . Republicans would have retained the House almost regardless of who voters supported for president, barring an improbable landslide. As we argue in our book “Gerrymandering in America,” the Republicans will win the House again in 2018 and 2020. Gerrymandering is the partisan manipulation of the boundaries of state congressional districts. It’s possible because state governments control the process that shapes congressional districts – essentially determining whose vote is counted with whose. Even given the same vote count, moving district lines can change who wins an election. States get to reconfigure the districts every 10 years following the census. A few states, such as California, allow an independent commission to do this, but most leave the task to the state legislature. When one party controls both houses of the state legislature and the governorship, it is easier to draw the congressional districts in such a way that their party keeps winning congressional elections – and holds onto power. In 2004, the Supreme Court signaled in Vieth v. Jubelirer that it would not intervene in partisan gerrymandering cases. As a result, state governments do not have to fear judicial reprimand, and are free to push partisan gerrymandering to the limit. However, on Nov. 21, 2016, a federal district court ruled in Whitford v. Gill that the districts for the Wisconsin State Assembly had been created by unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering. This ruling effectively challenges the Supreme Court’s position in Vieth v. Jublirer. It is likely the case will be appealed to the Supreme Court. Some skeptics argue that gerrymandering isn’t as powerful as some would suggest. Others accept that the district boundaries benefit the Republicans, but argue that this is not because of intentional gerrymandering, but because Democratic support is concentrated in urban areas. Let’s consider the evidence for these claims. Does gerrymandering matter? We took the results from the 2012 elections and projected how many seats the Democrats would get in the House at different levels of national vote share. The vote share for each Democratic House candidate tends to rise and fall with the national vote share, but this is certainly not the

whole story. For this reason we ran thousands of simulations to take account of district-level factors like candidate quality and local issues. We determined that Democrats would need to win between 54 and 55 percent of the popular vote nationally to have a chance of retaking the House. That is to say, they would need a landslide greater than 2008, when Barack Obama was first elected. We also calculated the degree of partisan bias in the post-2010 House districts for all 50 states. Our analysis shows that in 32 states, there is no significant bias in favor of either party. However, in the 18 states where there is a partisan bias, this is often extreme. For example, Democrats received more votes than the Republicans in Pennsylvania in 2012, but Republicans won 13 of that state’s seats while the Democrats won just five. In 15 of the 18 states where there is significant partisan bias, one party controlled the entire districting process. Only one of these states, Maryland, is controlled by Democrats – the rest are controlled by Republicans. It’s politics, not geography Many people have argued that even if the congressional districts favor the Republicans, it’s not because of intentional gerrymandering. For example, Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight argues “much or most of the Republican advantage in the House results from geography rather than deliberate attempts to gerrymander districts.” Skeptics say it is the inevitable consequence of Democrats being concentrated in urban areas. However, our research shows this explanation does not add up. There are elements of truth in the “urban concentration” theory. Democratic concentration in urban areas does make it easier to draw districting plans that disadvantage the Democrats. This usually involves Republicans drawing districts where Democrats win by overwhelming margins and use up all their support in the state. This allows Republicans to win the remaining districts by smaller, but still comfortable margins. However, disadvantaging Democrats is not inevitable, even where there are large urban populations. Our analysis shows that states with the largest democratic urban concentrations – California, New York, Illinois and New Jersey – are precisely where the districting plans are not biased against Democrats. Thanks to publicly available computer districting software, we can see that it is possible to draw unbiased, or only modestly biased districts in every state. Political scientists Micah Altman and Michael P. MacDonald have demonstrated that members of the public can draw roughly unbiased districts in Ohio, Virginia and Florida. Stephen Wolf has drawn districts for all states using publicly available software. He also found that it is generally possible to draw unbiased districts. Some analysts argue that the increase in partisan bias is a result of majority-minority districts. Our analysis shows that while the number of majority-minority districts have increased, most are in states such as California where the districts are not biased against Democrats. In fact, the alternative,

unbiased districting plans provided by Altman and MacDonald and Wolf maintain the current number of majority-minority districts. If a state government could have drawn unbiased districts, but chose to draw to biased districts instead, then it has engaged in deliberate gerrymandering. It cannot claim that it did not realize what it was doing – modern districting software has allowed enough people to see the partisan consequences. Partisan gerrymandering means that the Republicans will almost certainly control the House until 2022 , the first election after the post-2020 redistricting. As a result, it is likely that we will have unified government until 2020, led by a president that did not win the popular vote. Normally we would expect the House to provide a check on the power of the president, or at least provide the voters with the opportunity to apply the brakes in 2018. As a result of gerrymandering, however, this likely won’t happen.

AT: Reps can't win 60The GOP has a chance of winning 60 seats – but Trump's approval rating is keyRothenberg 16 [Stuart Rothenberg (Senior Editor at Inside Elections), "Can Republican senators get to 60 seats in 2018?," Washington Post, 12/20/2016] AZThe GOP’s strong 2016 election showing raises a crucial question: Do Republicans have any chance of netting eight Senate seats — and a filibuster-proof majority — in 2018? The upcoming Senate class is unusually unbalanced. Only eight Republican Senate seats are up for election in 2018, compared with 25 Democratic seats (including two independents who caucus with the Democrats). Ten of those Democratic seats are in states carried by Donald Trump. By any measure, Democrats are on the defensive in the next fight for Senate control. A three-seat Democratic midterm gain, which would give the party a majority, looks virtually impossible given the seats up this cycle. A net change of eight seats would be large by historical standards but not unprecedented. Swings of at least eight Senate seats have occurred in four of the last 17 midterm elections — 1958, 1986, 1994 and 2014 — and in six of the last 34 elections (going back to 1950). The problem for Republicans is that these big Senate swings have always happened against the sitting president’s party. The sole exception, since the direct election of senators, occurred in 1934, when President Franklin Roosevelt’s party gained 10 Senate seats. Two years earlier, when Roosevelt won a landslide presidential victory, his party gained a dozen Senate seats. The sitting president’s party has gained Senate seats in only four of the past 17 midterms, and each time the gain has been minuscule — one seat in 1970, 1982 and 2002, and two seats in 1962. History, then, is not on the GOP’s side. But since 2016 was something of a “black swan” election and Donald J. Trump remains a wild card, it’s probably premature to dismiss the possibility that 2018 could produce another unusual outcome. The only Republican Senate seat at risk as the cycle begins is in Nevada. GOP freshman Dean Heller was elected in 2012 when he squeezed by Democrat Shelley Berkley in a photo finish, 46 percent to 45 percent. This year, Democrat Hillary Clinton carried Nevada narrowly in the presidential race, so you can bet Democrats will go after Heller with everything they have. A number of Republican senators could find themselves facing primary challenges, including Jeff Flake of Arizona and Ted Cruz of Texas. Utah’s Orrin Hatch may retire. But at this very early point, there is no

reason to believe that any GOP-held seat other than Heller’s will be at risk, even if there are Republican retirements or messy primaries. On the other hand, five Democratic senators in the class represent states normally classified as anywhere from leaning Republican to strongly Republican: Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia. Two other states are pure swing states: Florida and Ohio. And three states often lean Democratic but were carried by Trump last month: Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. (Both Pennsylvania and Wisconsin currently have one Republican senator.) Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) was a surprising winner in 2012 after popular veteran incumbent Richard Lugar (R) was upset in the GOP primary and the eventual Republican nominee, Richard Mourdock, stumbled through an underwhelming campaign. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) looked headed for defeat four years ago until her GOP challenger, Todd Akin, started talking about rape in a way that offended many in the Show Me State. She won reelection easily against the inept Republican. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) proved to be strong campaigners who localized their races, while Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) emphasized his conservative views on issues from guns to coal in a state that has become very Republican in federal elections. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who won by 21 points in 2012, seems like a difficult target, but Robert Casey Jr., who won by nine points, and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), who beat a former GOP governor by only five points, appear to be softer incumbents. As always, the crucial question in any election is turnout — and the makeup of the electorate. That will be doubly so in 2018, since overall turnout drops during midterm elections. Midterm electorates usually look more Republican, with whites and older voters constituting a larger percentage of voters. Since Trump won the electoral vote while losing the popular vote by more than two percentage points and 2.8 million votes, his victory was all about the combination of states he won. If he can energize his supporters in normally swing states and even Democratic-leaning states he carried this year, he could have a huge impact on the Senate midterm elections. Since the president-elect is still weeks from being sworn in, it’s impossible to know how he will be viewed in 2018. If he is widely seen as successful, he could turn out to be a considerable asset for Republican Senate hopefuls in states with competitive contests. If he is seen as a disappointment, or worse, voters will use the midterm elections to send a message of dissatisfaction to him and his party. In that case, Trump would be an albatross around the neck of Republican nominees in states that he was not expected to carry in 2016, including Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, as well as in states where the Republican label is not a disadvantage.

AT: Reps already win 60Republicans won't win a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in 2018 – but they mightEnten 5/22 [Harry Enten (senior political analyst for 538), "Why The 2018 Senate Elections Are Looking Bad For Both Parties," FiveThirtyEight, 5/22/2017] AZThis is normally the part of the article where I push back on the conventional wisdom and argue something like, actually, the 2018 Senate map isn’t that bad for Democrats. But no, it’s pretty bad: Democrats are a long shot to take back the Senate. What I will argue, however, is that it’ll also be difficult for the GOP to pick up a bunch of seats. Republicans would need to oust incumbent Democrats, and it’s extremely difficult to beat an incumbent senator in a midterm when his or her party doesn’t control the White House. It may seem a little nuts to suggest that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer can keep losses to a minimum in 2018. Democrats hold 23 of the 33 seats up for a vote. There are 10 Democratic senators running in states that President Trump won, five of whom (Sens. Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Jon Tester of Montana) are from states that Trump won by about 20 percentage points or more. Meanwhile, there are only two Republican senators (Arizona’s Jeff Flake and Nevada’s Dean Heller) up for re-election in states Hillary Clinton came within 5 points of winning in 2016. But while a lot of Democrats are up for re-election in red states, there’s also a Republican in the White House, and incumbent senators1 in the opposition party — for simplicity, let’s call them “opposition senators” — tend to survive in those situations. There have been 114 opposition senators who have run in a midterm general election2 since 1982. Only four of the 114 (4 percent) lost. Most won by wide margins, with the average opposition senator beating the candidate of the president’s party3 by 28 percentage points. Even in the worst year for opposition senators (1998), 86 percent were re-elected. If 86 percent of incumbent Democrats win in 2018, the party would lose three seats.4 That would leave Republicans with 55 seats, a more comfortable majority but far short of filibuster-proof. In contrast, senators in the same party as the president running in midterm years — this will be Republicans in 2018 — lose fairly often. Of the 128 senators who fit this description, 25 (20 percent) lost re-election. In every midterm since 1982, at least one incumbent of the president’s party was defeated. If that trend held this year, it would probably mean that either Flake or Heller would go down. In some years, a third or more of incumbents of the president’s party lost in the general election. Overall, these senators’ average margin of

victory has been 17 percentage points, 11 points worse than opposition senators. Of course, these numbers don’t take into account how blue or red each seat is. Here are the re-election rates for the 42 opposition senators since 1982 who were up for re-election in states that leaned toward the other party.5 (A Democrat running in a red state, for example.) Of those 42, 39 (93 percent) won re-election. Most of the time, the race wasn’t even close; the average senator won by 22 percentage points. Now, look at the re-election rate for the senators in the same party as the president running for re-election in states that lean toward their party. (That is, the situation facing all Republican incumbents except for Dean Heller in 2018.) Their re-election rate (85 percent) in general elections is actually worse than opposition senators running in hostile territory. Their average margin of re-election was also slightly smaller. So all that should cheer red-state Democrats contemplating their re-election bids in 2018. If you’re a Republican senator running for re-election in 2018, you’re hoping that it resembles 1998 or 2002, the only midterms since 1982 when a higher share of presidential party incumbents won seats than opposition senators did in states that leaned toward the president’s party. Or, maybe 1990, when those two groups broke even. Of course, at the moment, it seems unlikely that 2018 will look like those elections. In all those years, the president had an approval rating of 58 percent or better on Election Day, according to Gallup. In fact, three of the four opposition senators to lose since 1982 (Al D’Amato in 1998, Lauch Faircloth in 1998 and Max Cleland in 2002) ran in years when the president’s approval rating was at 63 percent or above.6 The current political environment looks nothing like 1990, 1998 or 2002. In fact, it’s terrible for Republicans right now. According to the FiveThirtyEight Trump approval tracker, the president’s approval rating right now is just 39 percent. So does this mean that all the vulnerable Democratic incumbents are going to win? Not really. There are a few reasons to be cautious when looking at the past midterm success of opposition senators in states that lean in favor of the president’s party. First, the lean of a state at the presidential level has become increasingly predictive of Senate results. That’s especially the case for 2010 and 2014. Yet in those two elections, we only have had two opposition senators (Susan Collins in Maine in 2014 and Chuck Grassley in Iowa in 2010) who ran for re-election in hostile territory.7. In both cases, the states leaned less toward the president’s party than Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia do now. Although both Collins and Grassley easily won re-election, it could make the case that in our current political atmosphere the strong Republican lean in any of the five aforementioned states may be too much for one or more of these incumbents to overcome. Second, we’re in even more uncharted territory when it comes to Heitkamp in North Dakota and Manchin in West Virginia. Dating back to 1982,

there isn’t a single example of an incumbent in the opposition party even running for re-election (let alone winning) in states that leaned as much toward the president’s party as North Dakota and West Virginia (34 and 40 percentage points, respectively, did in the weighted average of the previous two presidential elections). Both states have also trended away from the Democrats, as Trump took them by 15 percentage points more in 2016 than Mitt Romney in 2012.

Links

Link – Farm WorkersFarm unions are popularAPWU 15 [American Postal Workers Union, "Big Wins for Migrant Workers, Thanks to Public Support," Sept/Oct 2015] AZMigrant workers across the country have scored big wins, thanks to support from the public . After three months of strikes and protests, 30,000 berry pickers in Baja California, Mexico, negotiated with the Mexican government and won raises of up to $4 a day, access to government benefits, and overtime pay. The farm workers, mainly from Oaxaca and Guerrero, teamed up with U.S. activist groups, including the Farm Labor Organizing Committee, to whip up worldwide support. One effective tactic was an international boycott of Driscoll’s, whose strawberries, blackberries and blueberries flood U.S. supermarkets. But they aren’t the only ones pitted against Driscoll’s. Familias Unidas por la Justicia (Families United for Justice) is stepping up a boycott of the berry company, which began in 2013. Most of the FUJ workers are also originally from Oaxaca or Guerrero, but live in California as guest workers through a federal visa program. They have been migrating to work at Sakuma Brothers Farms, a Driscoll supplier, in Washington state every summer for a decade, but are still paid based on the amount of fruit they pick, rather than an hourly wage. The workers are calling for a minimum wage of $15 per hour and health benefits. So far, Sakuma has refused to negotiate. Workers hold frequent strikes and demonstrations with allies from labor, community and faith groups. Familias Unidas regularly sends solidarity messages to the Baja berry workers, and has been highlighting the connections between their common fight against Driscoll’s. Victory in Vermont In Vermont, dairy workers who are members of Migrant Justice launched a campaign to address low wages and labor violations. A national day of action was planned for June 20, to put pressure on the dairy suppliers for Ben and Jerry’s, to sign onto the Milk with Dignity program, which calls for a worker-authored code of conduct, a worker education program and third-party monitoring. Less than 24 hours before the day of action was scheduled to begin, Ben and Jerry’s signed a letter of intent agreeing to adopt the Milk with Dignity program in its Northeast dairy supply chain. The program requires suppliers to pay a premium to farmworkers and farmers. Farmworkers and their allies went ahead with their June 20 day of action outside Ben and Jerry’s stores in 17 cities, but with a celebratory tone.

Farm workers popular – recent events proveDanks 14 [Lois Danks (writer for the Freedom Socialist Party), "Northwest farm workers harvest labor victories," October 2014] AZFarm workers are exempt from regulation under the National Labor Relations Act. But in Washington state their right to organize without retaliation is protected under the Little Norris-LaGuardia Act (RCW 49.32.020). Farm worker union contracts are rare and Familias Unidas is the only such group currently in an organizing campaign. Winning a written contract at Sakuma Bros. would inspire other farm workers to organize and fight too. Currently, management continues to use every anti-union trick in the book, including personal attacks, redbaiting, and captive audience anti-union meetings. One union leader was recently fired for violating a bogus employee handbook that no one had ever seen. The union bravely confronts these fear tactics with every tool available — courts, strikes, marches, boycotts — to defend their jobs and families. At a recent Labor Day picnic, Familias President Ramón Torres said, “We are fighting for a contract because it’s the only way to protect ourselves. Families need a $15 minimum wage so our youth can enjoy being kids and be ready to study in school instead of doing field work to help pay living expenses.” In multiple ways, this mostly immigrant workforce is providing a model for organized labor. The union operates in full democracy with language interpreters and full membership meetings to discuss results after every negotiating session. As a member said in court, “this union is a form of workers self-defense.” Public support a lifeline . Several organizations rapidly recognized the importance of this struggle for the immigrant rights and union movements. Community to Community Development, a farm worker justice organization, provides material aid and administrative know-how. Organized Workers for Labor Solidarity (OWLS), a cross-union group of labor activists, mobilized to get support and money from several unions. One OWLS member played a crucial role in shepherding a supportive resolution through the Washington State Labor Council. Speaking tours on the West Coast by union leader Ramón Torres brought the San Francisco Labor Council on board too. Students and community groups provide another lifeline. Solidarity committees formed at colleges in Bellingham and Olympia are picketing stores to publicize a boycott of Sakuma berries. The Freedom Socialist Party and Radical Women provided material support early in the struggle and publicized the fight in the Puget Sound area, hosting public forums that featured Sakuma farm-worker speakers. Immigration activists from Stop the Checkpoints contributed financially, joined in marches, and provided photo coverage.

Approval Rating KeyMidterm success for Republicans is tied to Trump's approval ratingBunker 17 [Theodore Bunker, "FiveThirtyEight: Trump Approval Rating May Cause Problems for GOP in 2018," 2/13/2017] AZIf President Donald Trump's approval rating doesn't improve it could spell trouble for Republicans running in 2018, according to FiveThirtyEight. Polls from Rasmussen Reports and Politico/Morning Consult show most Americans are equally divided over Trump, but slightly more approve than disapprove, while Gallup shows a more negative view of his brief time in office. Usually, according to FiveThirtyEight, new presidents receive a grace period early in their terms, with every new commander in chief since Harry Truman holding a 66 percent approval rating and only a 10 percent disapproval rating, on average. Unpopular presidents tend to hurt their party's chances in midterm elections. Former Presidents Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama all held negative or neutral approval ratings during the midterms, and their respective parties all lost seats during those elections. Even though Trump has 21 months to improve his numbers, historically presidents have lost approval over their first term. Of the past presidents since Dwight Eisenhower, only George W. Bush entered the midterm elections with a higher net approval rating than he held in his first few weeks in office. "However, there are plenty of reasons to question whether the pattern will hold true for Trump," writes FiveThirtyEight's Nathaniel Rakich. "For starters, all preceding presidents' approval ratings started from precipitous heights; many had nowhere to go but down. "Trump, by contrast, is beginning his presidency relatively unpopular; he has plenty of room to improve. If newly elected presidents tend to revert to the mean, Trump is starting from a pretty average place."

Trump's approval rating could improveBush 7/18 [Daniel Bush, "Can Trump improve his record-low approval rating?," PBS Newshour, 7/18/2017] AZ“In the past, when public support dropped off or increased for a president, [every part of the electorate] changed in the same direction at roughly the same rate,” Shapiro said. As public support for the Korean War waned, President Truman’s approval rating dropped among both Democrats and Republicans, Shapiro said. “In recent years, you have less of that and you have partisan differences increasing,” he added. When Obama was in office, Democrats and

some independents stuck by his side, just as most Republicans rallied around President George W. Bush. Today, “Americans are not responding to information in the same way,” Shapiro added. “They have perceptual biases. People see what they want to see.” If Trump sticks with his narrative that Democrats are obstructionists and the Russia probes are a political witch hunt, his approval rating a year from now could remain in roughly the same place that it is today. And several historians and pollsters said that it could still go up. The most common example they gave was President Clinton, who won reelection two years after suffering a major setback in the 1994 midterm election, when Republicans gained control of the House for the first time in four decades. Clinton’s approval rating remained above 50 percent through his second term in office, even during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Danielle Vinson, a political science professor at Furman University, said Clinton benefited from his handling of the Oklahoma City bombing; the 1995 government shutdown, which many voters blamed on Republicans; and Kenneth Starr’s aggressive, years-long investigation into the White House. “I remember the news coverage at the time,” Vinson recalled. “After the 1994 midterms, there was a lot of speculation that Clinton was going to be a one-term president. He not only was able to turn it around, but he also survived his own self-inflicted controversy.” Two decades later, conventional wisdom holds that Democrats could make big gains in next year’s midterm election. Republicans pulled that feat off in 2010, using the Tea Party movement and the right’s opposition to Obama to win back the House . “But will that hold now,” Vinson said, “or are we in this polarized era where it doesn’t matter what people think of the president, Republicans will continue to vote for Republicans, and Democrats will continue to vote for Democrats?” Shapiro noted that Obama, like Clinton, managed to overcome a disastrous midterm election to win a second term in the White House. “By 2012, Obama’s popularity picked up, not enormously but enough for him to win reelection,” Shapiro said. “It’s possible” that Trump’s approval rating could go up, he added. If Trump’s [favorability rating] “rises into the 40s, a year from now we’ll be having different conversation.”

President’s popularity k2 passing more policies and party success in midterms. Pandya 15Pandya, George. "An Investigation into the Correlation between a President’s Approval Rating and the Performance of His Party in the Midterm Elections." (n.d.): n. pag.ArXiv.org. Cornell University Library, 5 Feb. 2015. Web. 26 July 2017. <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.07545.pdf>. George Pandya is part of the

University of Pennsylvania's Jerome Fisher Program in Management and Technology, where he pursues a dual degree with an engineering degree from Penn's School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and an economics/business degree from the Wharton School of Business. George want to use these skills to be an entrepreneur, helping design and market new and innovative ideas. He has research experience in predictive modeling, as well as in various fields of Aerospace, including telemetry, data filtering, radiation shielding, structural design, instrument design, and radiation imaging. George has been published in Cornell University Library, as well as launched research payloads into space on both high altitude balloons and sounding rockets through three different NASA Space Grant Consortium grants. //nhs-VAFrom this analysis a statistically useful model, from which inferences about future midterm elections can be made, was found. The data regarding a United States President’s approval rating and the number of Congressional seats won or lost by the President’s political party during midterm elections was fitted to the line y = -

107.423+1.594x. A test of utility proved with 99.8% certainty the usefulness of the above linear model. Said linear model was used to determine with 95% confidence that the Democratic Party during the 2014 Midterm Elections will lose between 48 and 27 seats based on President Obama’s approval rating of 44% as of May 16, 2014. Further investigations showed an approximately 20% more useful predictor model for the midterm performance by the President’s party when the President’s approval rating is greater than 50%. There was no useful predictor model found exclusively for approval ratings less than 50%; the only conclusion that can be drawn for approval ratings under 50% is that the President’s party will likely lose

seats during midterm elections. During the review process, the 2014 Midterm Elections occurred and comparisons could be made between predictions and actual results. The result of the 2014 Midterm Elections, in which the Democrats lost 28 seats, validated this model’s prediction. This model can be powerful for political advisors and analysts, as it gives a predictor for how the President’s approval rating influences how his party does in Midterm Elections. These findings also demonstrate a potential conundrum for a President’s administration. A President will have a much easier time passing legislature if he has a majority of his party in Congress. But if a President cannot pass legislature, his approval rating can potentially go down. And if the President’s approval rating goes down, his party will have a harder time winning seats in Congress. If the President’s party loses a majority in Congress, he will have trouble passing legislature, which will bring down his approval rating, further potentially limiting his party’s performance during midterm elections.

Using this model, political advisors can recognize this conundrum and a President’s administration can take steps to bolster the President’s approval rating.

Tied to TrumpTrump needs a win NOW – he’ll latch on to anything that’s popular. Dawsey and Burgess 6/2Dawsey, Josh, and Burgess Everett. "Trump Needs Quick Wins, but Congress Not Poised to Deliver." POLITICO. N.p., 02 June 2017. Web. 26 July 2017. <http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/02/donald-trump-russia-congress-239079>.//nhs-VABut 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." David McIntosh, president of Club for Growth, said most everyone could stand fewer distractions in Washington. But he said members should ignore Trump's controversies and focus on writing laws — and that much of the blame comes from "a lack of discipline on Capitol Hill and an

ineffective Congress the last few years.” "They just need to buckle down and do their job," McIntosh said. "If they don't pass Obamacare repeal and if they don't pass tax cuts, Republicans could lose the majority in 2018."

AT: Unions not popularTrump won more union votes than expected – the plan causes a total shift towards the Republican party. Bump 11/10Bump, Philip. "Donald Trump Got Reagan-like Support from Union Households." The Washington Post. WP Company, 10 Nov. 2016. Web. 26 July 2017. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/10/donald-trump-got-reagan-like-support-from-union-households/?utm_term=.73a5707e67fc>. //nhs-VAFrom Day One, Donald Trump's dream has been to be the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan. "Make America Great Again" is a retread of an old Reagan slogan and Trump has, in response to past interview

questions, said that the Reagan era was the "great" to which his slogan refers. It was the time that Donald Trump became Donald Trump™, down to "The Art of the Deal." His campaign strategy was to lure working-class Democrats to his cause, just the way Reagan did. That Reagan had already lured them was incidental; Trump insisted that he would engender the love of those blue-collar voters and win because of them. He sort of did . Trump's depiction of who those voters were centered on two broad archetypes: Veterans and displaced factory workers. There isn't good polling on the former, but it overlaps with the white, non-college-educated men who made up a significant part of Trump's base. In one formulation of the latter, union members, we have data from exit polling. In union households (that is, households in which someone

was a union member), Trump trailed Hillary Clinton by only 8 points, a substantial improvement from how Mitt Romney did in 2012. In fact, it was the best margin for a Republican since ... 1984 , the election that

gave Reagan his second term. Exit poll data can be iffy, but this matches polling from earlier this year . That's the good news that Trump will want to trumpet. But it's more complicated than that. It's not clear, generally, that "union household" voting is equivalent to "union member" voting. A 2003 study found that

about half of those who live in union households are actual union members. Anecdotally, non-union members living in union households tend to vote more like everyone else than like union members. What's interesting about these numbers, though, is that Trump probably did better than Reagan with that core group of white union members. Why? Because the demographics of union membership have shifted a lot over the last 30 years. According to the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, white men still make up a plurality of union members. In the year 2000, 7.9 million white men were union members of 16.3 million total. By 2015, the number of union members had fallen to 14.8 million, and the number of white men in unions to 6.2 million. That's a drop in density from 48.4 percent to 41.9 percent -- just over the last 16 years.

AT: Thumper – HealthcareTrump not tied to healthcare bill – McConnell gets stuck with the blame. Hartmann 7/19Hartmann, Margaret. "Who's to Blame for the GOP Health-Care Debacle, Trump or McConnell?" NYMAG.com. NYMAG, 19 July 2017. Web. 30 July 2017. <http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/is-mcconnell-or-trump-to-blame-for-gop-health-debacle.html>. //nhs-VANow that it appears the Republican Party’s seven-year crusade to repeal Obamacare and replace it with their own mysterious alternative is finally dead (for now, at least), the GOP is on the hunt for someone to scapegoat. As New York’s Jonathan Chait argued, the real reason for Trumpcare’s defeat is that “it was never possible to reconcile public standards for a humane health-care system with conservative ideology.” That’s not an explanation you can present to voters, so for months Republicans have been trying to shift the blame for their health-care struggles, pointing at times to House Speaker Paul Ryan , the Freedom Caucus, moderate House Republicans, the Congressional Budget Office , and, of course, Democrats . Though senators carefully avoided being labeled “the Republican who saved Obamacare,” conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt suggested true conservatives won’t soon forget the list of defectors. But ultimately, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was the one caught holding the hot potato (or in this case the widely hated bill that would have uninsured millions of Americans). McConnell’s reputation as a master tactician is a large part of the reason the bill got as far as it did. Speaker Ryan initially had to call off a vote on the American Health Care Act in the House, and when it passed in May several House members said they only voted for it on the assumption that the Senate would make it less horrible. McConnell decided complete secrecy was the best approach to this process. He spent May and June crafting his bill behind closed doors, then unveiled legislation that looked like AHCA with an even less catchy name (the Better Care Reconciliation Act, or BCRA). While the impossibility of resolving conservative and moderate Republicans’ goals for the health-care system was the biggest obstacle to passage, McConnell’s underhandedness helped seal its fate. Shortly before senators Mike Lee and Jerry Moran came out against the bill, Republicans learned McConnell had been making wildly different claims about what BCRA would do, depending on whom he was talking to. Senator Ron Johnson called this a “breach of trust,” and on Tuesday he wouldn’t say if he would continue to support McConnell as

speaker. “I don’t know what’s going to happen moving forward,” Johnson said, according toPolitico . “I didn’t develop the process, let’s put it that way.” The health bill’s failure has seriously damaged McConnell’s reputation and raised doubts about his ability to push through the rest of Trump’s agenda, but the vast majority of Republican senators remain supportive. And McConnell is not done maneuvering. Though it became even clearer on Tuesday that a “straight repeal” of Obamcare can’t make it out of the Senate, McConnell said he intends to hold a vote anyway. As New York’s Ed Kilgore explained, this is a way for McConnell to absolve himself from blame: Most likely he wants to preempt any future conservative argument that he never intended to repeal Obamacare fully, and didn’t even try it. And in particular, he wants to deflect any fire coming from the White House, which has been promoting the revived repeal-and-delay strategy in recent days. McConnell is also giving conservatives a shillelagh with which to beat Republican moderates who fail to go along with repeal, and perhaps even to mount primary challenges against them in 2018 or beyond. He understands that, like every GOP congressional leader, he holds his gavel at the sufferance of the right. And what of that other figure in all this, the person who the GOP health-care plan is named for, despite his objections? President Trump said on Tuesday that he’s disappointed, but made it very clear that he bears no responsibility for the failure of Trumpcare: He also said his plan was now “to let Obamacare fail, it will be a lot easier. And I think we’re probably in that position where we’ll let Obamacare fail. We’re not going to own it. I’m not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it. We’ll let Obamacare fail and then the Democrats are going to come to us.” The president appeared disengaged from the Senate health-care battle, which was McConnell’s doing. The majority leader reportedly said he could handle the job himself, and the White House trusted him because he’s the Bizarro World Olivia Pope.

AT: Thumper – GenericTrump’s approval ratings are down despite signing executive orders on sanctuary cities, Muslim ban, deregulation of USFG, ACA, Keystone, border wall, TPP, abortion, and Dakota pipeline. Only labor reform can revitalize the workers. Easley 2/8Easley, Cameron. "Trump's Approval Rating Slides Despite Support for Travel Ban." Morning Consult. N.p., 08 Feb. 2017. Web. 31 July 2017. <https://morningconsult.com/2017/02/08/trump-approval-rating-slides-despite-support-travel-ban/>. //nhs-VA

AT: Thumper – Trans BanTransgender rights no longer a controversy – Dems can play this right and it won’t make a big deal. Barro 7/26Barro, Josh. "Transgender Military Service Is a Winning Political Issue against Trump, Because He Just Made It All about Himself." Business Insider. Business Insider, 26 July 2017. Web. 26 July 2017. <http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-transgender-ban-military-politics-2017-7>. //nhs-VAAs I wrote last week, my broad read on American public opinion on "social issues" is that most people are in favor of inclusion, but that most people dislike being told that they ought to

change what they, personally, are doing. So naturally there have been efforts by social conservatives to frame transgender rights issues as being not about inclusion but about imposition on the broader public: That

people are trying to make you or your child share a bathroom with someone of a different sex. But I don't think this is winning over the public. Polling from the Public Religion Research Institute in March found 53% of respondents oppose laws requiring transgender people to use restrooms that correspond with their sex at birth. So, while President Donald Trump's choice to tweet plans of a ban on transgender military service may shore him up with social conservatives

upset about his badgering of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, I don't think it puts him on the majority side of a national wedge issue, either. As long as Democrats message this issue correctly, they do not have to worry about choosing between being right and being popular. The key is to keep the frame about inclusion and service: Allowing capable Americans who wish to serve their country in the military to so do.

AT: Thumper – CubaVoters in 2016 cared most about the economy – Cuba has no impact. Fingerhut 16Fingerhut, Hannah. "4. Top Voting Issues in 2016 Election." Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. N.p., 07 July 2016. Web. 30 July 2017. <http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/4-top-voting-issues-in-2016-election/>. //nhs-VA

The economy and terrorism are the top two issues for voters this fall. Overall, 84% of registered voters say that the issue of the economy will be very important to them in making their decision about who to vote for in the 2016 presidential election; slightly fewer (80%) say the issue of terrorism will be very important to their vote. In 2008, far more said the economy would be very important to their vote (87%) than the issue of terrorism (68%).

AT: Thumper – Employee Rights ActAmericans support both unions and right to work – both bills are necessary for Trump to gain popularity. Martelle 14Martelle, Scott. "Why Americans Support Both Unions and Right-to-work Laws." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 29 Aug. 2014. Web. 31 July 2017. <http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-labor-organizing-gallup-wages-benefits-20140829-story.html>. //nhs-VA

While a slight majority of Americans – 53% – say they support unions, a full 71% say they support right-to-work laws, which make it illegal to require employees to pay union dues. At first blush, those would seem to be contradictory beliefs. But a closer look offers some suggestions for ways the union movement might

recast itself. I’ve written before about the union movement’s problem with public perceptions. In a sense, they have lost the PR battle for the hearts and minds of the nation’s workers. Too many people distrust unions, buying into the perceptions of corruption – does anyone really think thievery among union officials is more pervasive than among Wall Street and corporate executives? – and loss of workplace flexibility. The Gallup poll, though, also found that many Americans just don’t like being forced to join an organization against their will, even if they support the organization itself. It comes down to perceptions of fairness. Given the statistical split between union supporters and right-to-work supporters, it’s clear that a significant number of people who believe in collective action also believe in the right to choose to be part of a collective that many of them would, in fact, support. That’s a reality the union movement needs to digest. The movement makes a persuasive argument that all who gain from the union’s work – salary levels, benefits, job protections – should have to share in the costs. It’s a fair point, but one that doesn’t resonate particularly well with the people they need to convince. Maybe it’s time for the labor movement to disengage a bit on that front. From organized labor’s standpoint, a shop without required fees should be viewed as better than no union

presence at all, though clearly not as good as a workplace in which all eligible employees are union members. Labor activists need to keep fighting right-to-work laws, for sure,

but in this sales-and-consumer culture, they also must refocus on the advantages that come with an organized workplace. In other words, they have to make the sale. And unions need to convince American workers that they aren't just a bureaucracy sucking dues dollars out of paychecks, which is how many anti-union folks view them. They can begin with wage and benefit levels. A federal Bureau of Labor Statistics studycovering 2001-2011 found a differential of more than $10 an hour in wages and benefits between unionized workers and non-union workers, more than $3 an hour, or nearly 20%, in wages alone (the benefits calculation is a bit murky because of the

inconsistent use of benefits by workers). But it’s unclear what portion of the workforce understands that difference. So how can unions make that message resonate ? And get workers to recognize those gains come through collective action – bargaining together through representatives, usually elected by the workers themselves? They also need to recognize worker frustrations with the unions themselves, which some complain are not responsive to their own members. I've yet to see hard data on how pervasive that might be, but the anecdotal

evidence suggests it's a problem both in fact and perception.

AT: Thumper – Muslim BanTrump’s approval rating slides despite support for travel ban. Easley 2/8Easley, Cameron. "Trump's Approval Rating Slides Despite Support for Travel Ban." Morning Consult. N.p., 08 Feb. 2017. Web. 31 July 2017. <https://morningconsult.com/2017/02/08/trump-approval-rating-slides-despite-support-travel-ban/>. //nhs-VA

While a majority of voters back President Donald Trump’s temporary travel ban on refugees and citizens from seven predominantly Muslim countries, they’re souring on his performance in the wake of its implementation, according to a new poll. Fifty-five percent of registered voters said they approve of the immigration order, while 38 percent disapprove, according to the national Morning Consult/POLITICO survey conducted Feb. 2 through Feb. 4. Thirty-five percent of voters strongly approve of the ban that was first implemented on Jan. 27. Still, Trump’s approval rating is sliding. After two weeks in office, 47 percent of voters approved of his job performance, down 2 points from the previous week. At the same time, his disapproval rating rose 5 points, to 46 percent from 41 percent. Compared to a number of other high-profile executive orders Trump has signed since taking office on Jan. 20, the travel ban is generally popular with voters, ranking behind his order to revoke funding for so-called “sanctuary cities” and another to freeze all federal regulations until his administration can review them.

Impacts

Empowers TrumpA filibuster-proof majority guarantees Trump's agendaBlake 17 [Blake (reporter), "Trump asks for more power. Here’s why the Senate GOP will resist," Washington Post, 5/30/2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/02/3-reasons-the-gop-wont-nuke-the-filibuster-and-give-trump-more-power/?utm_term=.4a628aca59cc]Republicans are playing nice with Trump because they have to; he's the president, and running afoul of him has proven to backfire. But that's different from giving him expanded, historically unprecedented powers to pass his agenda. That could open up a can of worms they don't want to see the inside of. One of the benefits of the 60-vote threshold for the majority party is that it's a good reason not to vote on something that you don't want to. If Trump proposes something extreme, it's a ready-made excuse not to bring it up. If a bill is going to be a really tough vote for certain Republicans,

same deal. Without the filibuster in place, Trump may be emboldened to pursue whatever extreme or big-government policies he wants, reasoning that he can at least cajole Republicans to go along with it. Maybe he suddenly wants Congress to vote on his travel ban. Maybe he'll push harder for a vote on the border wall. Or maybe he'll ask for extensive powers to use military force. Republicans didn't completely trust Trump during the campaign,

and they sure as hell still don't now — no matter what they say about him publicly. Giving this kind of license to a wild-card president who many of these Senate Republicans warned was dangerous and lacked the right temperament to be president seems a bridge too far.

Trump already intends to consolidate his power and the filibuster proof majority will enable him to do so and pass his policies.Blake 17Blake, Aaron. "Analysis | Trump Wants More Power and Fewer Checks and Balances — Again." The Washington Post. WP Company, 02 May 2017. Web. 31 July 2017. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/29/trump-is-now-talking-about-consolidating-his-own-power/?utm_term=.a31093da2e63>.President Trump has suggested that the judiciary doesn't have the authority to question him. He was a very early proponent of nuking the filibuster for Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch. And he recently raised eyebrows by congratulating Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on the expansion of his presidential powers —

echoing his previous admiration for strongman leaders. Now Trump is talking about consolidating his own power. In an interview with Fox News that aired Friday night,

Trump dismissed the “archaic” rules of the House and Senate — using that word four times — and suggested they needed to be streamlined for the good of the country. A sampling: “We don't have a lot of closers in politics, and I understand why: It's a very rough system. It's an archaic system.” “You look at the rules of the Senate, even the rules of the House — but the rules of the Senate and some of the things you have to go through — it's

really a bad thing for the country, in my opinion. They're archaic rules. And maybe at some point we're going to have to take those rules on, because, for the good of the nation, things are going to have to be different.” “You can't go through a process like this. It's not fair. It forces you to make bad decisions. I mean, you're really forced into doing things that you would normally not do except for these archaic rules.” And then

Trump came out and just said it: He doesn't like the filibuster. “I think, you know, the filibuster concept is not a good concept to start off with,” he said. So there you go. Trump is frustrated with the pace of legislation after 100 days, and his answer is that he wants to change the rules. Whether this is just him blowing off steam or signaling what lies ahead, it's significant. Because it suggests a president, yet again, who doesn't agree with his own powers being limited or even questioned. Remember when senior policy adviser Stephen Miller declared “the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned?” This is more of that kind of attitude.

Warming Turns WarGlobal warming will cause nuclear war with China, India, and the US that draws in Russia. Kiwanuka 07Bracketed for clarity [Ba, Energy Efficient Home Staff Writer, “Global Warming - How it could spark World War III,” http://www.energyefficienthomearticles.com/Article/global-warming----Global-Warming-How-It-Could-Spark-World-War-III-/5757]

The following figures illustrate the CO2 emissions from the various regions around the globe: USA: 30.3% Europe: 27.7% Russia: 13.7% South East Asia: 12.2% Japan: 3.7% South

America/Central America: 3.8% Middle East: 2.6% Africa: 2.5% Australia: 1.1% These figures amply illustrate how Western Europe and the United States are by far largely responsible for the effects of global warming we are seeing today. Contrastingly the regions least responsible are the ones that will bear the brunt of those effects (initially at any rate, until such time that the process

progresses to an ice age then the situation will reverse). However, with the two mega economies of China and India expanding rapidly (each boasting a population in excess of 1 billion) soon their greenhouse gas emissions may surpass those of the U.S . A series of meetings held in Washington in early 2007 had American legislators demanding that developing nations be held to the same greenhouse-gas-emission accountability as the developed nations ! Not unexpectedly there were worldwide outcries and

accusations of shameless hypocrisy leveled at the United States. With the not unreasonable contention that they have the right to develop and advance in the same manner that both Europe and America have enjoyed over the past forty years these two looming economical giants are not about to be cowed by Washington. Furthermore considering the suspicious manner with which the

U.S. justified its invasion of Iraq, few these days are inclined to believe a word that Washington says. Compounding this climate of distrust and suspicion are the many questionable prerogatives the U.S. claims. These include: 1. Not subscribing to the Kyoto Protocol (Treaty on Global Warming) 2. Seeking the right to pre-emptive strikes (Bush II) 3. Demanding to be exempted from The Geneva Convention (Bush II) 4. Not a participant of the World Court 5. Biggest contributor to global warming but doing the least to rectify the situation . In a world where America demands exclusive rights to pre-emptive strikes, perhaps then it is not too far fetched to understand if India and China harbor a degree of paranoia that the U.S. may one day set its targets on them. After all for a country that so conveniently and magically connected two totally unrelated events to

one another as an excuse to pursue its ultimate goal (U.S. invasion of Iraq after 911), it is not unconceivable that the U.S. could one day claim that the greenhouse gas emissions from the Asian giants are threatening the very existence of its coastal cities and hence amount to an act of war ! For their part the Asian

giants [are] already suspiciously view Washington's demands concerning greenhouse gases as a thinly veiled attempt to restrict their economical development. That said, China and India are hardly Iraq! These are two countries which both boast formidable nuclear arsenals that are quite capable of reaching the U.S. Besides if the U.S. were to take any drastic action it is unlikely that the slumbering Russian bear would continue dozing for much longer. World wars have erupted over much less and in the heated climate of today it only takes one more little spark to set everything off!

Trump Bad – Health Care Turns the case. Trump’s health care bill will be passed which negatively affects the poor, the old, and those located in rural areas where labor is more prominent.BBC 17BBC. "Trump Health Bill: Winners and Losers." BBC News. BBC, 04 May 2017. Web. 25 July 2017. <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39233010>.//nhs-KKOld: Older adults, specifically Americans in their 50s and 60s, are likely to pay more under the new system, even though they would receive larger tax credits. That's

because the Republican proposal allows older adults to be charged as much as five times more than younger policy holders. Under the ACA, older adults were only allowed to be charged up to three times as much as younger enrolees. AARP sent a letter to Congress warning

that under the new proposal, an estimated 3.2 million adults aged 55 to 64 who buy coverage on the marketplace could see premium and cost-sharing increases of $3,600 more per year. Poor: The new plan would roll back much of the provisions put in place to protect low-wage earners under

Obamacare. It would mean significantly higher premiums and reduced tax credits for middle and low-income earners. It would end the expansion of Medicaid, which covers low-income people, and overhaul the entire programme. States would be sent a fixed amount of money per

Medicaid enrolee, also called a "per-capita cap". The additional federal funding that covered expanding Medicaid would be eliminated by 2020, leaving states to bear the responsibility of making up the difference in money. States could then reduce eligibility or cut provider

payments. Enrolees making around $20,000 a year at any age would be hit the hardest, according to Kaiser. Rural: Another group that would lose under AHCA is people living in rural areas, where the cost of coverage tends to be higher due to fewer hospitals and insurers. Research shows that health

insurance premiums are typically more costly in rural counties and states. Rural residents also rely more heavily on public insurance than those living in cities. While Obamacare took local healthcare costs into consideration, tax credits under the Republican plan are the same as in states like

Alaska and New York. If premiums grow faster than inflation over time, the proposed tax credits will grow more slowly than those under Obamacare, according to

Kaiser. Medicaid cuts could also be harmful to rural hospitals, which are already struggling to keep their doors open. Loser - maybe Chronically sick: The new Republican bill

maintains Obamacare's ban on insurers denying coverage to sick people, but an amendment to it allows the companies to charge as much as they want for such policies. Some

Republicans opposed their own party in the vote because they agreed with Democrats that people with so-called pre-existing conditions could face higher costs. We await to hear what the Congressional Budget Office says about the effect on people with chronic illness.

The bill undermines unions. It eliminates employer mandates and makes insurance companies richer through federal funding, creating an over-reliance on benefits from an employer.Lunby, Tami. "Who Gets Hurt and Who Gets Helped by the Senate Health Care Bill."CNNMoney. Cable News Network, 23 June 2017.

Web. 25 July 2017. <http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/23/news/economy/senate-health-care-hurt-helped/index.html>.//nhs-KK

Though senators promised to write their own repeal bill, their proposals largely mirror the House

legislation. Both would radically overhaul Medicaid, effectively ending Medicaid expansion and greatly reducing federal support for the overall program. Both would get rid of the individual and employer mandates, as well as eliminate taxes on the wealthy, insurers and others. But the Senate bill also differs in significant ways. It would provide subsidies based on income, cost of coverage and age, jettisoning the House plan to base assistance mainly on age. It would maintain Obamacare's ban on allowing insurers to charge higher premiums to those with pre-existing conditions. And it would shore up the individual market for the next two years by allocating money for Obamacare cost-sharing subsidies and by creating a fund to help insurers cover high-cost enrollees. Related: Senate finally unveils secret health care bill Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the legislation would make health insurance more affordable, strengthen Medicaid and stabilize the

insurance market. But a wide array of critics slam the bill, saying it would send premiums and deductibles skyrocketing for many, eviscerate Medicaid and leave millions uninsured. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is expected to issue its analysis of the bill early next week. Until then, CNNMoney lays out how the plan would affect Americans. Who gets helped Younger Americans could pay less for coverage. Like its counterpart in the House, the Senate plan would lower premiums for younger Americans by allowing insurers to charge older enrollees more. Policyholders age 20 to 29 would save between $700 and $4,000 a year, on average, according to a study by the Milliman actuarial firm on behalf of the AARP Public Policy Institute. Would the Senate bill to repeal Obamacare help you or hurt you? Tell us about it at healthcarestories@cnn.com and you could be featured in an upcoming story. Also, unlike Obamacare, the Senate bill would provide more generous subsidies to enrollees in their 20s and 30s who qualify for aid. They would pay no more than 6.4% and 8.9% of their household income, respectively, towards premiums. That compares to 16.2% for an enrollee in his early 60s. The healthy could buy less expensive plans that cover fewer services. Obamacare requires insurers to offer plans with comprehensive coverage that pick up a certain share of the average costs. But those mandates also

made policies more costly, prompting complaints from those who don't want such a rich benefits package. The Senate bill would allow states to opt out of those provisions, which would permit insurers to sell slimmer, but less expensive plans. That would likely be fine for healthy consumers who don't go to the doctor much. Related: What's inside the Senate Republican

health care bill The wealthy would pay less in taxes. Just as in the House bill, the Senate legislation would eliminate two taxes that Obamacare levied on the wealthy to help pay for the law. Under the Affordable Care Act, single taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000 annually have to pay an additional 0.9% Medicare payroll tax on the amount they earn above these thresholds. These taxpayers may also be hit with a tax surcharge of 3.8% on investment income above those thresholds. These levies would disappear in 2023 and 2017, respectively. And the bill would allow folks to contribute more to Health Savings Accounts, which are primarily used by Americans who are better off and can afford to sock money away for health care expenses.

Insurers would receive more federal funds. Aiming to stabilize the individual market in the near term, the Senate would allocate funds for the cost sharing subsidies until 2019. These payments reduce the

deductibles and co-pays for more than half of policyholders on the Obamacare exchanges. Insurers have been pressuring President Trump and congressional Republicans to guarantee the funding of the subsidies for months. The uncertainty surrounding the

payments is prompting some carriers to hike rates for 2018 or drop out of the exchanges. The bill also provides $50 billion over four years, starting in 2018, to help stabilize the insurance market. This reinsurance fund would give federal injections to insurers to help them cover higher-cost enrollees. Who gets

hurt Many Obamacare enrollees will pay more out-of-pocket for health care services. There are several measures in the Senate bill that would increase deductibles and co-pays for many Obamacare policyholders. The primary one ties the premiums subsidies to the cost of bronze plans instead of silver ones, upon which Obamacare payments are based. In 2017, the average deductible for a silver plan is just under $3,600, according to Health Pocket, an insurance shopping site. But bronze plans have an average deductible

of nearly $6,100. This means consumers will likely have to pay more out of pocket to see the doctor and get treatment. Also, insurers will be able to cover less of the cost of care and offer skimpier policies in states that waive

certain Obamacare insurance regulations. They would also be able to sell plans with

very high deductibles if states opt out of the Obamacare provision that caps consumers' out-of-pocket costs. In 2017, policyholders only have to pay up to $7,150 a year for services covered under the essential health benefits provision. The Senate bill does provide $62 billion in state grants to lower premiums and out-of-pocket costs for

Obamacare enrollees, particularly those who are sick. But experts say the money wouldn't go very far. Lower-income Americans could be left uninsured. About 11 million Americans gained coverage under Obamacare's Medicaid expansion provision. The Senate bill would eliminate the enhanced federal funding for the program by 2024. While that extends Medicaid expansion's life for a few years longer than the House bill, the end result

is the same: Low-income adults would likely be kicked off the rolls. Related:

Senate GOP health plan may not protect millions on Medicaid expansion Lawmakers would also limit federal support for the overall Medicaid program, which covers more than 70 million low-income children, parents, elderly and disabled Americans. States don't have the resources to make up the difference, so they would likely reduce eligibility, curtail benefits or cut provider payments. All this would likely leave poor Americans either without coverage or with plans that cover fewer services. It may also make it harder to see a doctor since fewer physicians may be willing to take a pay cut to see Medicaid patients.

Turns Case- Health Care Bill fails to hurt the economy and only increases burden on local state governments LA Times. "GOP's Secret Trumpcare Bill Will Impact a Sixth of the U.S. Economy. What Could Possibly Go Wrong?" Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 21 June 2017. Web. 25 July 2017. <http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-senate-secret-healthcare-bill-20170621-story.html>.//nhs-KK

This time around, the process has not only been maddeningly partisan, but it’s also been willfully blind to the real problems in the U.S. healthcare system, as well as the steps insurers and providers have been taking to address those problems.

As a consequence, Senate Republicans are on the verge of moving the country backward, and significantly so, when it comes to reducing healthcare costs, improving quality and broadening availability. McConnell said Tuesday that a

“discussion draft” of the bill would be released this week, first to Republican senators, then to the public. Still, we already know that the bill won’t simply repeal Obamacare or magically restore the healthcare market to what it had been before — a market plagued by rapidly rising costs, double-digit increases in insurance premiums and a large and growing population of Americans without coverage. That’s largely because the legislative shortcut the Republicans are taking to prevent a lethal Democratic filibuster also prevents them from changing any provision of the Affordable Care Act that doesn’t directly affect the federal budget. But it’s also true because Republicans want to cut the taxes the ACA imposed — on high-income Americans and an assortment of health industry groups — while offering their own version of subsidies to help consumers pay for insurance. In order to do that, they have to cut something else. And that would be Medicaid, the health insurance program for impoverished Americans. Like their House counterparts, Senate Republicans are reportedly seeking to end the federal government’s promise to cover at least half the cost of Medicaid enrollees’ healthcare expenses, shifting instead to block grants tied to population and

state healthcare spending. It’s a huge change in policy that’s fraught with risk for the poor and state governments, especially ones like California’s that have already pushed through reforms to cut spending per enrollee. And rather than give the industry more incentive to improve the quality of care, it would simply give states an incentive to offer fewer services to fewer people — including optional services such as in-

home care that actually save money over the long term. The Senate GOP also appears wedded to the House’s approach to lowering insurance premiums for those not covered by a health plan at work. Rather than trying to lower the cost of care, the focus is on letting insurers offer less coverage and cheaper plans

that attract only healthy customers. Doing so would reverse efforts within the industry to spread risks and control costs, which is exactly the opposite of what Republicans say they’re trying to accomplish. These sorts of fundamental flaws are exactly why this bill needs maximum public exposure and scrutiny, not the see-no-evil treatment it’s getting from the Senate GOP.

Trump Bad – EconomyTurns Econ- Multiple comprehensive analyses show that Trump is a disaster for the US and global economyTimiraos, 6/20 (Nick Timiraos, national economics correspondent for the WSJ who covers major economic news such as the 2008 recession, 6-20-16, “U.S. Economy Would Be ‘Diminished’ Under Trump’s Economic Plan, New Analysis Says” The Wall Street Journal, “http://blogs.wsj.com/eco nomics/2016/06/20/u-s-economy-would-be-diminished-under-trumps-economic-plan-new-analysis-says/”accessed 7-13-16, AG)A new analysis concludes Donald Trump’s economic proposals, taken at face value,

could produce a prolonged recession and heavy job losses that would fall hardest on low- and middle-income workers. The Moody’s Analytics report, which a person close to the Trump

campaign strongly disputed, is the first that attempts to quantify the cumulative economic benefits and costs of Mr. Trump’s proposals on taxes, trade, immigration and spending. It determines that full adoption of those policies would sharply reduce economic output during his first term and reduce employment by 3.5 million jobs. Under almost any scenario, the report says, “the U.S. economy will be more isolated and diminished.”…. Trump’s tax plan would lower tax rates across the board and limit some deductions. The Tax Policy Center, a project of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, said the plan would cut federal revenues by $9.5 trillion, while the Tax Foundation, a think tank that favors lower taxes, said the plan would cost $10 trillion over a decade, even after assuming higher economic growth. The report singles out trade and immigration policies as the most detrimental to the economy in the short run because they could sharply boost labor and goods prices at a time when there’s less slack in the labor market. “It is a massive supply shock to the economy that’s very pernicious, and the Fed doesn’t know how to respond to that,” said Mr. Zandi. Moody’s concludes that those price pressures would force the central bank to raise interest rates at a faster-than-desired pace, contributing to a recession in 2018 that could produce a 25% drop in the S&P 500. The adviser close to the Trump campaign said any analysis oversold the costs of Mr. Trump’s trade and immigration policies by failing to account for how substandard enforcement of trade rules and border controls have depressed wages for U.S. workers. On trade, Mr. Trump has said he would use the threat of a 45% tariffs on goods from China and 35% on non-oil imports from Mexico as a negotiating tool in seeking better trade and currency terms. Moody’s calculates that tariffs on imports from Mexico and China could increase goods import prices by 15%, raising overall consumer prices by 3%—all before factoring in the costs of retaliation against U.S. exporters. The Moody’s economists warn that those tariffs would raise uncertainty for businesses, reducing American exports while corroding growth. While higher tariffs would quickly lead importers to move production to other countries,

this would take time and also raise costs for businesses. Separate projections made earlier this year by Peter Petri of Brandeis University found that Mr. Trump’s proposed tariffs would widen the U.S. trade deficit for goods by around $275 billion, or an 37% increase above last year’s level. On immigration, Moody’s estimates that a crackdown on illegal immigration through forced deportations would reduce slack in the labor force but also leave more positions unfilled, particularly in industries such as

agriculture where native-born workers have been reluctant to seek work even at modestly higher wages. Labor shortages in those industries could prompt job losses in upstream and downstream industries and also boost inflation as labor costs run higher, the report said.

Turns inequality- Tax Plan – Cutting taxes on the rich would result in increases in income inequalityThe candidate declared that his plan would offer the poor and middle class relief while it went after the “hedge fund guys” by changing the capital gains tax rate on investment income. But the details didn’t bear out his big promises. According to the Tax Policy Center, under Trump’s scheme, the poorest fifth of the country would get less than 1 percent of the benefits of his plan over a decade while the top fifth would get more than two-thirds. Yet it would cost $9.5 trillion in revenue—a far larger bite than under Reagan or even George W. Bush. The conservative-leaning Tax Foundation found that Trump’s claim that the plan will be revenue-neutral not to be true “under any scenario.” There’s little reason to think that big tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy will lead to a supercharged economy . There’s certainly no evidence that higher rates have a negative impact on economic growth, and in fact, growth has historically been faster under higher top marginal rates. What massive tax cuts for the wealthy do accomplish, on the other hand, is faster growth in income inequality, which hurts economic growth.

3. Immigration Policy – Trump’s costly immigration plan would have adverse short-term and long-term effects on the US economyWe turn to Trump’s brand of immigration reform, which wouldn’t help the economy either. Economists have found little negative effect on Americans’ wages from

immigration. On the other hand, mass deportation and a blockade against immigrants trying to come into the country could have serious negative consequences, knocking $1.6 trillion off of our gross domestic product. Immigrants are projected to provide nearly all growth in the labor force for the next 40 years, but deporting them would shrink it by 6.4 percent over 20 years. Of course, it would also cost a lot of money to deport so many people—about $400 billion to $600 billion. Overall, Trump’s prescriptions are pretty pricy: Added altogether, the conservative Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found that his policies would add between $11.7 trillion and $15.1 trillion to the national debt , including interest payments. Deficits in and of themselves don’t necessarily harm growth, and can in fact simulate it, particularly when the country is climbing out of a recession. The outcomes depend on how the money is spent; Trump’s plans aren’t likely to involve productive expenditures. And if Trump wants to deliver on his promise to make his plans revenue-neutral, he’ll have to find huge cost savings elsewhere, cutting spending by trillions . Given that he’s said he won’t touch Medicare and Social Security, he would have to slash current spending by more than three-quarters. Those cuts would all but decimate most government programs , including those that spur the economy such as infrastructure projects, job training, and a safety net that boosts economic productivity and mobility, to name only a few.

Trump Bad – WarTrump is a disaster for the US and global economyTimiraos, 6/20 (Nick Timiraos, national economics correspondent for the WSJ who covers major economic news such as the 2008 recession, 6-20-16, “U.S. Economy Would Be ‘Diminished’ Under Trump’s Economic Plan, New Analysis Says” The Wall Street Journal, “http://blogs.wsj.com/eco nomics/2016/06/20/u-s-economy-would-be-diminished-under-trumps-economic-plan-new-analysis-says/”accessed 7-13-16, AG)A new analysis concludes Donald Trump’s economic proposals, taken at face value, could produce a prolonged recession and heavy job losses that would fall hardest on low- and middle-income workers. The Moody’s Analytics report, which a person close to the Trump campaign strongly disputed, is the first that attempts to quantify the cumulative economic benefits and costs of Mr. Trump’s proposals on taxes, trade, immigration and spending. It determines that full adoption of those policies would sharply reduce economic output during his first term and reduce employment by 3.5 million jobs. Under almost any scenario, the report says, “the U.S. economy will be more isolated and diminished.”…. Trump’s tax plan would lower tax rates across the board and limit some deductions. The Tax Policy Center, a project of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, said the plan would cut federal revenues by $9.5 trillion, while the Tax Foundation, a think tank that favors lower taxes, said the plan would cost $10 trillion over a decade, even after assuming higher economic growth. The report singles out trade and immigration policies as the most detrimental to the economy in the short run because they could sharply boost labor and goods prices at a time when there’s less slack in the labor market. “It is a massive supply shock to the economy that’s very pernicious, and the Fed doesn’t know how to respond to that,” said Mr. Zandi. Moody’s concludes that those price pressures would force the central bank to raise interest rates at a faster-than-desired pace, contributing to a recession in 2018 that could produce a 25% drop in the S&P 500. The adviser close to the Trump campaign said any analysis oversold the costs of Mr. Trump’s trade and immigration policies by failing to account for how substandard enforcement of trade rules and border controls have depressed wages for U.S. workers. On trade, Mr. Trump has said he would use the threat of a 45% tariffs on goods from China and 35% on non-oil imports from Mexico as a negotiating tool in seeking better trade and currency terms. Moody’s calculates that tariffs on imports from Mexico and China could increase goods import prices by 15%, raising overall consumer prices by 3%—all before

factoring in the costs of retaliation against U.S. exporters. The Moody’s economists warn that those tariffs would raise uncertainty for businesses, reducing American exports while corroding growth. While higher tariffs would quickly lead importers to move production to other countries, this would take time and also raise costs for businesses. Separate projections made earlier this year by Peter Petri of Brandeis University found that Mr. Trump’s proposed tariffs would widen the U.S. trade deficit for goods by around $275 billion, or an 37% increase above last year’s level . On immigration, Moody’s estimates that a crackdown on illegal immigration through forced deportations would reduce slack in the labor force but also leave more positions unfilled, particularly in industries such as agriculture where native-born workers have been reluctant to seek work even at modestly higher wages. Labor shortages in those industries could prompt job losses in upstream and downstream industries and also boost inflation as labor costs run higher, the report said.

Economic Decline prompts US-China warAllison 17Allison, Graham. "Perspective | How Trump and China’s Xi Could Stumble into War." The Washington Post. WP Company, 31 Mar. 2017. Web. 26 July 2017. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/03/31/how-trump-and-chinas-xi-could-stumble-into-war/?utm_term=.c23eae5ec3a0>.It may not be apparent when President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping meet beneath the towering palms and crystal chandeliers at Mar-a-Lago this coming week, but the nations they lead are on a collision course for war. An irresistibly rising China is challenging the United States’ accustomed dominance. Consider that the U.S. share of global economic output fell from 22 percent in 1980 to 16 percent today, while China’s grew from 2 percent to 18 percent over the same period. Historians know that when a rising power threatens to displace a ruling power, alarms should sound: extreme danger ahead. As Thucydides explained about the war that destroyed the two great city states of ancient Greece, “It was the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta that made war inevitable.” Likewise, a century ago, it was the rise of Germany and the fear it created in Britain that allowed an archduke’s assassination to ignite a conflagration so devastating that it required an entirely new category: world war

US-China war will go nuclear and destroy the planet Straits Times 00 [“Regional Fallout: No one gains in war over Taiwan,” Jun 25, LN] THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war

becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -- horror of horrors -- raise the possibility of a

nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases

and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order . With the US distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -- truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass, we

would see the destruction of civilisation. There would be no victors in such a war. While the prospect of a nuclear Armaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty above everything else.

Trump Bad-WarmingTrump’s agenda will strip coal regulations and speed up climate change and warming. His past actions prove.Flusher and Bieseker 17Biesecker John Flesher, Associated Press, Michael, and John Flesher. "Trump Wages Battle against Regulations, Not Climate Change." PBS. Public Broadcasting Service, 07 July 2017. Web. 29 July 2017. <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trump-wages-battle-regulations-climate-change/>.

Trump’s recent decision to pull out of the Paris climate deal was just his latest rapid-fire move to weaken or dismantle federal initiatives to reduce carbon emissions, which scientists say are heating the planet to levels that

could have disastrous consequences. Trump is waging war against efforts to curb U.S. dependence on fossil fuels. He’s done that through executive orders targeting climate change programs and regulations, massive proposed spending cuts and key appointments such as Scott Pruitt as chief of the Environmental Protection Agency. To what degree Trump will succeed remains to be seen. Despite the fanfare of his Paris announcement, including a pledge that his administration will halt all work on it, formally removing the U.S. from the accord could take more than three years. Rescinding the Clean Power Plan, President Barack Obama’s signature measure to curb emissions

from coal-fired power plants, likely would require three years. Trump’s budget, which would slash funding for climate research and assistance to cities preparing for weather-related calamities, needs approval from Congress, where resistance is strong. Still, the sharp change in course is being felt in ways large and small, down to the scrubbing of climate change information from federal agency websites.

Environmentalists are predictably outraged. Even some Republicans are taken aback. “This is a repudiation of 45 years of steady improvement in the enforcement and rigor of laws to protect the environment in the U.S.,” said William K. Reilly, who led the EPA under President George H.W. Bush and is chairman emeritus of the World Wildlife Fund. Trump’s administration reversed Obama’s moratorium on leasing federal lands for coal mining, joined with Congress to kill protections of streams from coal mining waste, stopped tracking the federal government’s carbon emissions and withdrew a requirement for more emissions data from oil and gas facilities. A

rollback of automobile fuel-economy standards is under consideration. His proposed 2018 budget would cut climate and energy research spending in numerous agencies, including a two-thirds reduction at EPA. Trump is hardly the first president accused of favoring businesses over the environment. His belief in easing the regulatory burden on them is firmly in the

Republican mainstream. What sets him apart is his zealousness and public dismissiveness of the scientific evidence showing the Earth is warming and man-made carbon emissions are largely to blame. “This is more extreme than any previous Republican president – this is their old set of sentiments on steroids,” said David Doniger, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “There’s no orderly, reasonable inquiry into whether something makes sense and

should be left in place.” At one point, Trump labeled global warming a “hoax” concocted by the Chinese to gain an economic edge over the U.S. Aides recently have sidestepped questions about whether he accepts the widely held scientific view about climate change. A White House statement issued this past week in response to questions from The Associated Press did not specify whether Trump believes the planet has been steadily warming, or say to what extent human activity such as burning of fossil fuels is responsible. “The president believes that the climate is always changing – sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. Pollutants are part of that equation,” the statement said. “The Trump administration is laser focused on clean water and clean air but also on better jobs for more and more Americans …,” it added. “America cannot stand by and have the rest of the world take our wealth and tax dollars to clean up their own environment while American businesses and American families suffer the consequences in the form of lost jobs and a diminished quality of life.” Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who led the administration’s EPA transition team, said Trump and key advisers

don’t necessarily reject climate science but don’t believe the threat “should be placed in the list of the top 50 things we should be worried

about.” Frustrated climate researchers say the opposite is true. They point to record-setting high temperatures, melting glaciers, rising sea levels and increasingly violent storms – trends that models suggest will only worsen. But attacks on such findings from climate change doubters have taken their toll. Public trust in mainstream science and other institutions has eroded, and lines between fact and ideology have blurred, said David Victor, a Brookings Institution specialist on energy security and climate. Trump could encounter trouble if his retreat from the climate

fight doesn’t restore lost jobs in coal mining and energy production, Victor said. The president has made reversing the decades-long decline in coal mining the central tenet of his environmental policy, blaming federal regulations for job losses. Federal statistics show coal mining accounted for only 51,000 jobs nationally at the end of May, up just 400 jobs from the prior month. Many economists say technology and cheap natural gas are the biggest causes of the coal industry’s slump. But

Trump’s focus on regulations remains popular in coal country. “We support the direction the administration is going,” said Betsy Monseau, CEO of the American Coal Council. “It’s very important to us over the longer term to preserve a path for coal and coal utilization in this country.”

Warming causes extinction. Adams 16Adams 16 --- has a degree in agriculture and cites studies done by NASA and the IPCC (Andrew, Prince George Citizen, 4/16/16, “There is no debating scientific facts,” http://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/opinion/columnists/there-is-no-debating-scientific-facts-1.2229437)

Last week I wrote about the signs of early spring and put a few jabs at climate change deniers. This column did exactly what I had hoped. It sparked conversation on the topic. Those who commented on the article were in fact climate change deniers, stating random outliers of data in the overall trend, which is akin to the Republican senator of Oklahoma who brought a snowball to the senate floor as evidence that global warming was a hoax. I am so glad this type of outlandish behavior has not manifested itself in Canadian politics as of yet. Weather is what you get and climate is what you expect. This week I hope to explain climate change to those who don't fully understand the science behind it. I write this column with a mere bachelor of science and only a handful of classes in a human and environmental interaction masters program before I left school to tackle other adventures that I felt academia would only prevent me from doing all the while furthering my student debt. So while I am not an expert on this topic I do however have an understanding of the scientific process and natural processes that allow us to understand climate

change. Glancing into my personal library one could reasonably make the statement that I may have a better understanding than your average Joe. It's true the climate has always been changing. While observed records of our climate indeed are not extreme in age, pollen in lake sediment, trapped air bubbles and neutrons in glaciers can give us a reasonable degree of accuracy (of the past 800,00 years according to NASA) when looking to the past climate

fluctuations. In our last century of climatic observations we have observed an overall increase of approximately .74 degrees Celsius increase in global temperatures according to NASA and the IPCC. While this number does not seem significant, it is when you live in an extreme environment such as the arctic. Think back to your history book's description of the Franklin expedition, now remember last week's stories from CBC on the cruise ships traveling the Northwest Passage with thousands of people aboard the

ships. 97 percent of climate scientist agree that this warming (which is happening) is not caused by orbital variation nor sun spots or solar flares. These experts agree this climate change is anthropogenic. While I believe Prince George has no doubt its share of scientific geniuses, I don't believe that there is a scientific genius in P.G. that is more informed on climate change than the leading 97 percent of top climate scientists. It is true that the climate has been warm before and this is not the

problem. The problem is the rate at which the change is occurring. According to NASA, "As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of four to seven degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming." We are now in the sixth great extinction on Earth. I n fact geologists are now calling our current Epoch the Anthropocene as our industrial existence has now left its mark geologically on Earth forever. In 1750, there was 250 PPM of carbon dioxide (the most important greenhouse gas) in our atmosphere now there

is 400 PPM. If you were to drive a car somehow up through our atmosphere for 100 kilometres you would then be in outer space. This is how small our atmosphere is.

It is ludicrous to think that all of our industrial emissions have not been able to change the composition of our thin veil of an atmosphere It saddens me that some still deny these dire facts because we have work to do and no time to waste. There is no one to blame but ourselves. To those who think this is a nefarious plot against the common man from the government and scientists, I think you must first assume our government is intelligent enough to push such a plot as this onto the public and ask yourself, why would they do such a thing, what would be the benefit, and also, "Have I been spending too much time on YouTube watching conspiracy theories?" P.s. The Earth is not flat.

Global warming will cause nuclear war with China, India, and the US that draws in Russia. Kiwanuka 07Bracketed for clarity [Ba, Energy Efficient Home Staff Writer, “Global Warming - How it could spark World War III,” http://www.energyefficienthomearticles.com/Article/global-warming----Global-Warming-How-It-Could-Spark-World-War-III-/5757]

The following figures illustrate the CO2 emissions from the various regions around the globe: USA: 30.3% Europe: 27.7% Russia: 13.7% South East Asia: 12.2% Japan: 3.7% South

America/Central America: 3.8% Middle East: 2.6% Africa: 2.5% Australia: 1.1% These figures amply illustrate how Western Europe and the United States are by far largely responsible for the effects of global warming we are seeing today. Contrastingly the regions least responsible are the ones that will bear the brunt of those effects (initially at any rate, until such time that the process

progresses to an ice age then the situation will reverse). However, with the two mega economies of China and India expanding rapidly (each boasting a population in excess of 1 billion) soon their greenhouse gas emissions may surpass those of the U.S . A series of meetings held in Washington in early 2007 had American legislators demanding that developing nations be held to the same greenhouse-gas-emission accountability as the developed nations ! Not unexpectedly there were worldwide outcries and

accusations of shameless hypocrisy leveled at the United States. With the not unreasonable contention that they have the right to develop and advance in the same manner that both Europe and America have enjoyed over the past forty years these two looming economical giants are not about to be cowed by Washington. Furthermore considering the suspicious manner with which the

U.S. justified its invasion of Iraq, few these days are inclined to believe a word that Washington says. Compounding this climate of distrust and suspicion are the many questionable prerogatives the U.S. claims. These include: 1. Not subscribing to the Kyoto Protocol (Treaty on Global Warming) 2. Seeking the right to pre-emptive strikes (Bush II) 3. Demanding to be exempted from The Geneva Convention (Bush II) 4. Not a participant of the World Court 5. Biggest contributor to global warming but doing the least to rectify the situation . In a world where America demands exclusive rights to pre-emptive strikes, perhaps then it is not too far fetched to understand if India and China harbor a degree of paranoia that the U.S. may one day set its targets on them. After all for a country that so conveniently and magically connected two totally unrelated events to

one another as an excuse to pursue its ultimate goal (U.S. invasion of Iraq after 911), it is not unconceivable that the U.S. could one day

claim that the greenhouse gas emissions from the Asian giants are threatening the very existence of its coastal cities and hence amount to an act of war ! For their part the Asian giants [are] already suspiciously view Washington's demands concerning greenhouse gases as a thinly veiled attempt to restrict their economical development. That said, China and India are hardly Iraq! These are two countries which both boast formidable nuclear arsenals that are quite capable of reaching the U.S. Besides if the U.S. were to take any drastic action it is unlikely that the slumbering Russian bear would continue dozing for much longer. World wars have erupted over much less and in the heated climate of today it only takes one more little spark to set everything off!

Aff Answers

Predictions FailTheorizing about the midterms based on Trump's current approval rating is bad science – 2018 is too far away to make good predictionsEnten 17 [Harry Enten (senior reporter), "A Very Early Look At The Battle For The House In 2018," FiveThirtyEight, 2/15/2017] LADI//AZOf course, we’ve been using Trump’s current approval rating this whole time just to illustrate how much uncertainty there is. But Trump’s approval rating could improve — or fall even further — by the time people vote in November 2018. The average first-term president has seen his approval change by 9 percentage points from this point through his first midterm election. If Trump’s approval rating were 49 percent, Democrats would be slated to pick up 27 seats with the same +/- 33 seats margin of error. If, however, Trump’s approval falls to 31 percent, Democrats would be projected to gain 53 seats (with the same +/-). Put simply, there’s a wide range of possible outcomes.

Polls don’t mean anything with Trump – theirs is the same logic that predicted Hillary would win. Zito 3/25Zito, Salena. "Why Trump’s Approval Ratings Don’t Matter." New York Post. New York Post, 25 Mar. 2017. Web. 26 July 2017. <http://nypost.com/2017/03/25/dont-believe-trumps-approval-ratings/>. //nhs-VAIf you’re looking toward the midterms in 2018 and hoping Trump will be a drag on a House congressional seat, it’s more important to know how folks see the president in northeast Ohio or Scranton, Pa., than in

Boston or Baltimore or Philadelphia. Why? Because here in Ohio’s Mahoning Valley, there was a 21-point shift in support from Barack Obama toward Trump in the 13th Congressional District held by Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan. Ryan didn’t lose, but a once-solid Democratic seat is now vulnerable in the 2018 midterms. And, in Pennsylvania’s 17th Congressional District, where Scranton sits, Trump turned Mitt Romney’s 12-point shortfall in 2012 into a 10-point victory over Hillary Clinton. That’s a net 22-point change in support away from Democrats. While Democratic Rep. Matt Cartwright managed to hold his seat in that district, his win was tepid, even though his opponent was a completely unfunded,

untested, unknown Republican. And those seats in Baltimore, Boston and Philadelphia, where Trump has bottomed out in the polls? Well, he was never going to do well in those heavily progressive areas anyway. Democrats won’t expand their universe by winning seats they already have. Simply put, it’s misguided to focus on the big national numbers that don’t capture the voters’ anti-establishment sentiment where it counts — in working-class America, much of which is historically part of the Democratic base. It is a base so soured on its own party, for not listening to its concerns for nearly an entire generation, despite voting for the party time and time again,

that it made a clean break and threw its weight behind Trump. And despite all of the damage Trump is

suffering in Washington — some of it self-inflicted — these voters have yet to give up on him. Given all his troubles of the past 60 days, pundits may shake their heads at this notion. They only see Trump collapsing. But they need to take a drive out of their own regions and listen to what other kinds of voters are saying. So far, their support for Trump has not changed since Election Day — and that could bode poorly for Democrats next year.

UQ o/w link – GOP Won't WinUQ swamps the link - Trump’s too unpopular – he’s at 38.4% and it’s on the decline. Silver 7/26 – this ev accounts for every other poll. Even if his popularity slightly increases, it’ll never be enough to pick up 8 seats.Silver, Nate. "How Popular Is Donald Trump?" FiveThirtyEight. N.p., 26 July 2017. Web. 26 July 2017. <https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/>. //nhs-VA

Trump will continue on his downward spiral – the Democrats win the House. Lemieux 6/28Lemieux, Peter. "Trump’s Job Approval Rating Key to Democratic Victory in 2018." Politics by the Numbers. N.p., 28 June 2017. Web. 26 July 2017. <http://www.politicsbythenumbers.org/2017/06/28/trumps-job-approval-key-to-democratic-victory-2018/>. My name is

Peter H. Lemieux, and I hold a Ph.D. in Political Science from MIT. I taught both there and at the University of Rochester. Most of my courses and research focused on political behavior, particularly voting, in the US and other advanced democracies. I also taught introductory and advanced courses in statistics for political science. I worked for the Boston Globe as a polling consultant between 1986 and 1988. //nhs-VA

If the President’s job approval rating falls below 32 percent, the model predicts the Democrats would win the 53.2 percent of the national House vote that we saw in the last article is required to obtain a majority of the seats in the chamber. The last three Gallup polls reported Trump’s job approval at 38 or 39 percent. An approval rating below thirty is historically very unlikely. Richard Nixon

in 1974 and George W. Bush in 2008 had ratings in the mid-twenties. Jimmy Carter in 1978, George H. W. Bush in 1992, and his son in 2006 received job approval scores in the mid-thirties. Of course, all of these incumbents had much higher ratings when they took office than did Donald Trump.

Healthcare failure kills all possibilities – GOP won’t even win a majority, let alone filibuster proof. Drucker 7/28 Drucker, David M. "Republicans Worry Obamacare Repeal Fail Risks Their Majorities in 2018." Washington Examiner. N.p., 28 July 2017. Web. 29 July 2017. <http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/republicans-worry-obamacare-repeal-fail-risks-their-majorities-in-2018/article/2629979>. //nhs-VA

Republican leaders have driven their rank and file to replace Obamacare with demonstrably unpopular new policies because failure to act risks congressional majorities in 2018. Not President Trump's tweets, low approval ratings, White House chaos or the federal investigation into Russian meddling that could implicate Trump are thought as perilous in the midterm as the Republicans' failure to deliver on their promises while in control all levers of government. That's why all but three Senate Republicans voted early Friday morning for healthcare reform legislation that was so inadequate they demanded assurances from House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., that it would never become law. Senate Republicans needed more time to reach consensus on repealing the Affordable Care Act, and open negotiations with House Republicans and hopefully get there, they backed legislation projected to raise premiums 20 percent, knowing full well the campaign ads write themselves.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., eulogizing the party's effort to repeal and replace Obamacare immediately following the failed vote, conceded the political danger his party faces, and sought to save face, even as Republicans presumably turn their attention to overhauling the tax code. "I and many of my colleagues did as we promised and voted to repeal this failed law," said McConnell, a keen electoral tactician. "We told our constituents we would vote that way, and when the moment came — when the moment came — most of us did. We kept our commitments." The Republican bill failed in a middle-of-the-night vote 51-49, when three Republicans joined all Democrats in opposition, capped by Arizona Sen. John McCain's dramatic, unexpected "no" vote." Polling on the "skinny repeal" package, as it was referred to, wasn't available. It was developed in the past few days after Senate Republicans failed to agree on a robust plan to replace Obamacare, and was only introduced three and a half hours before Friday morning's vote. But there is plenty of public feedback on the House Republicans' American Health Care Act, in the

spring, and the Senate GOP's Better Care Reconciliation Act — both partial repeals of Obamacare — and the numbers were all uniformly bad. Approvals ranged from 12 percent to 27 percent, depending on the survey.

Meanwhile, the Affordable Care Act, despite being in more trouble than ever since its implementation, is more popular than unpopular for the first time in history . Republicans commitment to sending either the AHCA or BCRA to

Trump's desk nonetheless is revealing of how much political value they place on fulfilling their seven-year-old promise to repeal former President Barack Obama's signature achievement. "We can't stop until it's done," said veteran Republican consultant Brad Todd, who is advising Republicans on the 2018 ballot . The Democrats held a lead of 9 percentage point over the Republicans in polling averages showing which party voters would prefer control the Congress, an ominous sign for the GOP 15 months before Election Day. Republicans arguably won their House and Senate majorities, and the White House over

three elections based on their promise to repeal Obamacare. Trump, more liberal on healthcare policy than conventional Republicans, adopted the repeal argument late in his presidential campaign when he realized how potent it was with the GOP, especially those voters skeptical of his candidacy. McConnell said on the floor after the vote that it's time to move on. He expressed disappointment in the outcome, and suggested that maybe it's time to let the Democrats

propose solutions to a healthcare system that both sides of the aisle believe needs fixing (though they disagree on who's to blame.) But not all Senate Republicans are ready to let go, however, concerned that taking repeal off the table and strengthening the Affordable Care Act could cause an irreparable rift with the conservative base .

"Senators are going to go home in the next few weeks, they're going to go home to their states and they're going to face their constituents, they're going to have hard questions of people who look them in the eyes and say: ‘Why did you lie to me? '" Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said. "I believe we'll come back and honor our promise."

Not UQ – GOP WinsThe Republicans are definitely going to take over the Congressional seats-history proves.Scalzo 3/9, Jim Lo. "For Democrats, 2018 Won’t Be Easy - The Boston Globe."BostonGlobe.com. N.p., 09 Mar. 2017. Web. 26 July 2017. https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/03/09/for-democrats-won-easy/UwXqnHIC3uqrhkaSbSsouN/story.html Boston Globe author who is widely used for many congressional polls.Donald Trump won the White House and Republicans hold majorities in the US House and Senate, but Democrats have held out hope that there is light at the end of the tunnel. History suggests that by the time the midterm elections come along, the party not holding the White House will make significant gains. Just as Republicans took over Congress in 1994 and 2010 two years into a new president’s term, so too would Democrats take over Congress in 2018 and push back on Trump’s agenda. That isn’t likely to happen. Democrats need a tremendous amount to go right politically next year for them to even have a shot at a majority in either house of Congress.

Thumper – Trans BanTransgender ban is the thumper – it’s an olive branch to the base and media outlets whose lack of support is what has caused the drop in the polls. McAfee 7/26McAfee, Tierney. "President Trump’s Transgender Military Ban Is a ‘Political Tool’ to Stir Fears of His Base, Experts Say." PEOPLE.com. Time Inc, 26 July 2017. Web. 26 July 2017. <http://people.com/politics/president-trump-transgender-military-ban-political-tool-experts/>. //nhs-VANow, political and media experts say the president’s latest Twitter bombshell — that the government will no longer allow transgender people to serve in the U.S. military — is more about politics than policy, and quite possibly an effort to distract from other issues like the Russia investigation, the Republican health care “fiasco” and Trump’s controversial attacks on his own attorney general, Jeff Sessions. Steven Livingston, a professor at the George Washington University School of Media and Public Affairs, tells PEOPLE: “I think it is a distraction. Whether it’s purposeful or not is hard to judge with Donald Trump because he’s quite obviously a rather impulsive person who changes his positions from one day to the next and usually via Twitter … But its effect will certainly be felt in terms of being a distraction. And I think it’s important for us to see why in the context of his recent poll numbers.” Gallup Daily’s tracking of Trump’s approval rating shows that 58 percent of Americans disapprove of the job he’s doing as president, up 13 percent from his inauguration. Livingston also points to a July 13 Gallup survey that shows support for Trump slipping among four key groups in his base: evangelicals, members of the white working class, rural Americans, and the LDS (Mormon) community. While Trump maintains the advantage in those community types identified by George Washington University’s American Communities Project, his margin of support has shrunk in all four since the start of his administration — by 12 points among evangelicals, 20 points in working class areas, and eight points in both rural America and Mormon enclaves. “So when you look at that, he is metaphorically bleeding in his support in all of these core constituencies of his,” Livingston says. “[This ban] is a perfect sort of issue for him to offer these core supporters a bit of a distraction, something to think about other than his Russia woes. It’s perfectly made for his core constituents and it certainly will grab their attention for a while.” Livingston says the announcement could also placate another group whose support for Trump has waned in recent

days due to the president’s attacks on Sessions: his news outlets of choice, including Breitbart and Fox News. “Breitbart and some parts of Fox have actually been critical of Trump over his attacks on his own attorney general. So this [ban] is tailor-made for him to sort of get back into the camp of his amplifier news sources,” Livingston says. “Fox, Breitbart, InfoWars, these kinds of right-wing or conspiracy theory websites will pick up on this and show support for him.” University of Denver political scientist Seth Masket says Trump’s announcement is a “political tool” intended to rally the support of the base that got him elected in the first place. “He may be at a point where he’s decided he can’t really become a whole lot more popular. Despite a strong economy, despite other relatively favorable political conditions, a fair number of people simply disapprove of him,” Masket tells PEOPLE. “Facing that situation, a leader has two main choices: One is to do things to try to appeal more broadly, and the other is to just stir up the passions of the people who are already with him and to rely on their enthusiasm and their energy to protect him.” Masket says Trump’s use of Twitter to announce his decision to ban transgender troops, as well as the fact that it seemed to catch officials at the Pentagon and in the armed services committees on Capitol Hill off-guard suggest that “this is a political motivation, this is a political tool.” Asked about the Twitter announcement, a Trump administration official suggested the ban might be an attempt to win Rust Belt states in 2018, telling an Axios reporter: “This forces Democrats in Rust Belt states like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin, to take complete ownership of this issue. How will the blue collar voters in these states respond when senators up for re-election in 2018 like Debbie Stabenow are forced to make their opposition to this a key plank of their campaigns?” “It’s interesting that when the White House was asked to defend this policy, they simply went to what they perceived as its political impact,” says Masket. “Which was fairly striking, but again telling that this was much more about pursuing a favorable political outcome than actually changing policy.” Livingston says the ban will effectively divide parts of Trump’s political opponents. “This is going to force some of Trump’s Democratic Party opponents who are doing their very best to pay attention to the Russia investigation, or the Republican repeal and replace fiasco with the Affordable Care Act, to focus on something else. And it’s going to put them potentially on the defensive. So that’s a way that this could be seen as a strategic move rather than simply Trump spouting off on Twitter.” Masket acknowledges that Trump’s announcement could be an attempt to shift focus away from health care reform or the Russia investigation and onto “safer political ground” for him. But the political scientist says Trump’s military ban on transgender

people “is not a distraction” from but rather “an extension” of what Masket sees as the president’s recently increased targeting of minority groups — including his remarks at a rally in Ohio on Tuesday branding undocumented immigrants as “animals” who “slice and dice” young girls.

Thumper – CubaCuba policy is the thumper – reinvigorates the base and Cuban-Americans are a key portion of the electorate for GOP. Caputo 6/16Caputo, Marc. "In Announcing Cuba Crackdown, Trump Returns to GOP Base." Politico PRO. N.p., 16 June 2017. Web. 29 July 2017. <http://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2017/06/16/trump-in-miami-says-free-cuba-is-what-we-will-soon-achieve-112839>. //nhs-VAMIAMI — In an old theater named after a Bay of Pigs invasion veteran, President Donald Trump returned Friday to the heart of his Republican base in Miami’s Little Havana community and pledged to return U.S. policy to a hardline on the Castro government. Trump’s six-point, eight-page presidential policy directive, which POLITICO obtained an early version of on Thursday, would tighten restrictions on tourist travel to Cuba — technically illegal already — and reinforces the 56-year-old trade embargo with the island, primarily by instituting a broad prohibition on financial transactions with companies significantly controlled by the Communist government’s military holding company . “This is an amazing community. The Cuban-American community has so much love … What you built here, a vibrant culture, a thriving neighborhood. The spirit of adventure is a testament to what a free Cuba could be. And with God’s help, a free Cuba is what we will soon achieve,” Trump said to applause at the Manuel Artime Theater during a speech in which he name-dropped exile leaders in Miami and democracy activists in Cuba. The theater bears the name of a famous leader of the failed 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion intended to overthrow Cuba’s Fidel Castro. But in pulling back from Obama’s deal with Cuba, Trump’s policies are bound to be unpopular. Nearly every public opinion poll taken of Floridians, Americans at-large or Cuban-Americans specifically show that the former president’s normalization efforts were popular. There is one

group, however, that’s an outlier: Cuban-American Republicans who favor a harder line on Cuba. And for a Republican politician running statewide, as Trump is expected to do in 2020, that’s where the votes are, said U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, a Republican Cuban-American from West Miami and exile community leader. “We keep hearing about all the polling

numbers on engagement, so why don’t we get more pro-engagement candidates elected in the Cuban American community? I’ll tell you the answer: all the intensity in the Cuban-American community over the issue is on the side of those who know that the way to deal with a tyranny is to realize it’s a tyranny ,” Rubio told POLITICO. Rubio significantly shaped President Obama’s Cuba policy with another Republican Miami Cuban-American, U.S. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, and says that in all the conversations with Trump about Cuba and Castro, the president “never asked about the politics of it.” Both accompanied Trump on Air Force One

for Friday's flight to Miami. Instead, Rubio and others say, Trump repeatedly talked about his need to keep his promise to a group of Miami Bay of Pigs veterans, Brigade 2506, who survived the disastrous 1961 invasion of Cuba where the U.S. government refused to honor its commitment to help them topple Castro. Last fall, for the first time in the group’s 50-plus year history, it endorsed a presidential candidate, an act of support that Trump was grateful for in the final week of the campaign when it looked as if he’d lose the race and Florida. Trump scored a surprise victory in must-win Florida, which he carried by just 1.2 percentage points, a margin of 112,911 votes. In Miami-Dade, the most-populous county,

Trump was crushed by Hillary Clinton by nearly 30 points, or more than 290,000 votes. Still, he received almost 334,000 votes in the county, nearly all from Cuban-American Republicans, who

account for 72 percent of the GOP rolls in Miami-Dade . “Without the Cubans, Trump would have lost Florida ,” said Modesto Castener, a 75-year-old Bay of Pigs veteran who attended Friday’s announcement by Trump.

Thumper – Employee Rights ActEmployee Rights Act is the thumper - the people who care most about labor reform are against unions; the bill appeases conservative organizations and cements base support. Chougule 7/31.Chougule, Akash. "Senate and House Republicans, Please Set American Workers Free."National Review. N.p., 31 July 2017. Web. 31 July 2017. <http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449967/congressional-gop-labor-reform>. //nhs-VAWith the Republicans’ seven-year-long promise to repeal Obamacare looking precarious at best, Congress is again headed home for an August recess mired in gridlock. Despite some notable accomplishments — confirmation of Supreme Court justice Neil Gorsuch and a series of regulatory reforms foremost among them — betting the house on health care remains risky for a party that needs to turn out its base in 2018. Republicans need to pursue multiple avenues, and outside of taxes, none is more promising or important than labor reform. Since the tea-party wave of 2010 that swept in massive GOP statehouse majorities, no issue has created more fervor-turned-success than labor reform. First came Governor Scott Walker’s collective-bargaining reforms in Wisconsin, followed by six states in six years enacting right-to-work laws —

more than had done so in the previous 50 years combined. Now, Congress has the opportunity to reignite that energy and score a massive win for American workers with the Employee Rights Act, which could be the first major update to federal labor law in 70 years. It would return power from union leadership to individual workers — many of whom surprised the media elite by voting Republican last year, catapulting Donald Trump to the White House. Trump has made no secret of his desire to deliver wins for those who got him to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and

the Employee Rights Act would be a big one. Exit polls show that 43 percent of union workers voted for Trump, after unions sent more than $500 million of their dues to left-wing organizations over the last four years. Instead of being spent on collective bargaining, they paid to advance agendas that many workers oppose, including progressive social-issue crusades and anti-fossil-fuel causes. The Employee Rights Act would require unions to receive opt-in permission from workers to spend their dues on anything other than collective bargaining, instead of making workers endure a lengthy and tiresome process to opt out of being forced to

subsidize unwanted political speech. The bill would also ensure that every worker has a voice by requiring unions to stand for

reelection every time the workforce has turned over by at least 50 percent at the end of a collective-bargaining agreement. To be certified or recertified, a union would have to receive support from a majority of all workers in the bargaining unit, rather than just a majority of those who vote in a low-turnout election . Recertification elections are

crucial because 94 percent of workers represented by a union today have never actually voted for the union that represents them. They either voted against

the union or simply inherited one that was voted in years — often decades — earlier. For example, the United Auto Workers unionized the Ford plant in Detroit in 1941. Not a single worker who voted for the UAW is still on the assembly line at Ford, and yet those currently working for the company have no choice but to accept UAW representation. Importantly, the bill would require that union elections take place by secret ballot. Unions could no longer organize workers by publicly intimidating them in “card check” campaigns. Health and Human Services Secretary Tom

Price’s version of the bill in the last Congress drew 137 House co-sponsors — well over half the Republican caucus — and Orrin Hatch’s Senate version had

32 co-sponsors, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell .

Representative Phil Roe’s identical reintroduction this year garnered support from nearly 50 conservative organizations from across the country on a coalition letter circulated by Americans for Prosperity, and Heritage Action is key-voting co-sponsorship of the bill, H.R. 2723, on its congressional scorecard. The Employee Rights Act would excite a hungry conservative base and demonstrate real progress for working-class voters who pulled the lever for Trump. The ten Senate Democrats up for reelection in states Trump won — almost all of them right-to-work states with low rates of unionization — will be in a tight spot trying to appease the unions that fund their campaigns while appealing for votes from constituents who are clearly not fond of organized labor. That’s the kind of no-lose proposition that Trump, McConnell, and House speaker Paul Ryan need now more than ever.

Thumper – Muslim BanMuslim ban is the thumper – increases base support. Shepard 7/5Shepard, Steven. "Poll: Majority of Voters Back Trump Travel Ban." POLITICO. N.p., 05 July 2017. Web. 31 July 2017. <http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/05/trump-travel-ban-poll-voters-240215>. //nhs-VA

A clear majority of voters support President Donald Trump’s travel ban on visitors from six predominantly Muslim countries, according to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll. Polling on the travel restrictions has varied wildly since the Trump administration unveiled the first

executive order on travel in late January. But after months of litigation and controversy, 6-in-10 voters back the ban — and the survey suggests the

actual policy may be more popular when separated from the president. Asked whether they support or oppose the State Department’s “new guidelines which say visa applicants from six predominately Muslim countries must prove a close family relationship with a U.S. resident in order to enter the country,” 60 percent of respondents said they support the guidelines, and only 28 percent oppose them. The POLITICO/Morning Consult question doesn’t mention Trump, nor does it refer to the president’s executive orders on immigration. That contrasts with other polls, which mostly show greater opposition to the policy. An Associated Press-NORC Center poll last month showed a 57 percent majority of Americans thought courts were acting rightly in blocking the travel ban. That was conducted before the Supreme Court’s per curiam decision last week to let some elements of the ban go into effect while the high court waits to hear the case in the fall.

Republicans overwhelmingly back the restrictions, the poll shows. Eighty-four percent of GOP respondents support the ban, while 9 percent oppose it. But the policy is also popular among independent respondents: 56 percent support it, compared with 30 percent who oppose it. Democrats tilt slightly against the ban, with 41 percent supporting it, and 46 percent in opposition. The wording of the poll question in the new survey differs from that in a March poll, after Trump signed a revised executive order in an effort to comply with lower-court rulings against the initial ban. In March, respondents were asked whether they "approve or disapprove of a revised executive order that prohibits persons from six predominantly Muslim countries without visas from entering the United States for 90 days and halting the processing of refugees for 120 days." Then, 56

percent of voters approved of the order, and 33 percent disapproved. "Since we last asked about Trump's travel ban, we've seen a drop in those who oppose the executive order," said Kyle Dropp, Morning Consult chief research officer and co-founder. "Though, we've also seen an uptick in those who do not have any opinion on the matter or have yet to settle on one." Though the poll shows solid support for the ban, it also suggests voters are open to broader exemptions for visitors from those countries who have family living in the United States than the ones outlined by the State Department. Eighty percent of respondents think travelers from those six countries should be admitted to the U.S. if they have a parent living in America, and 78 percent think they should be admitted to join a spouse or child in the country; all three are permitted under the directive. Nearly three-quarters, 73 percent, said they think travelers with a sibling in the U.S. should be admitted, which the policy allows. Sixty-seven percent said they think travelers with a grandparent in the country should be admitted, though the policy allows neither grandparents nor grandchildren from claiming those relationships to obtain a visa.

Terrorism is more important to voters than labor reform. Millman 7/14Millman, Jason. "POLITICO-Harvard Poll: Voters Don't like Obamacare Repeal, but Other Issues May Sway Midterms." POLITICO. N.p., 14 July 2017. Web. 31 July 2017. <http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/14/politico-harvard-poll-obamacare-240530>.//nhs-VA

Still, other issues right now hold more weight with voters. Trump’s efforts to protect the country from terrorism (39 percent), his Obamacare

replacement effort (37 percent) and his proposed budget (34 percent) will rank among the most important issues when considering which congressional candidate to vote for in 2018, said registered voters surveyed in the poll. Ranking

closely behind are allegations about the White House’s involvement with the Russian government, Trump’s crackdown on undocumented immigrants and his ban on travel from some Middle Eastern countries. The top issue for registered voters who said they plan to vote for a Republican candidate in 2018 is terrorism (47 percent) — well ahead of illegal immigration (32 percent) and Obamacare replacement (31 percent). For registered voters planning to support a Democrat, Obamacare replacement (46 percent) ranks as a top issue just behind allegations of White House ties to Russia and Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate change pact.

Plan not popularUnions are politically toxic to the conservative voter base. Edsall 14Edsall, Thomas B. "Opinion | Republicans Sure Love to Hate Unions." The New York Times. The New York Times, 18 Nov. 2014. Web. 26 July 2017. <https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/opinion/republicans-sure-love-to-hate-unions.html>. Tom Edsall has been teaching political journalism at Columbia University since 2006. His column on strategic and demographic trends in American politics appears every Thursday. He has been a weekly contributor to The Times online Opinion Pages since 2011. He covered politics for The Washington Post from 1981 to 2006, and before that for The Baltimore Sun and The Providence Journal. He has written five books: “The Age of Austerity”, “Building Red America,” “Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Rights, and Taxes on American Politics,” “Power and Money: Writing About Politics” and “The New Politics of Inequality.” He lives in Washington, D.C. //nhs-VAThe 2014 election was “a major political defeat for the unions, particularly state-wide public sector unions, because it shows how much the voting public sees unions as part of the problem of persistent unemployment and underemployment, rather than being part of the solution,” Gary Chaison, a professor of industrial relations at Clark University, replied in response to my email. Chaison’s assessment: The election of Republicans is indicative of the degree to which the voters have turned on the unions. There was once a time, two decades ago, when candidates to the governor’s officer sought the endorsement of major unions in his or her state; now they run on being anti-union crusaders. Quite a reversal of fortunes. The public sector was, for fifty years, the engine of union growth in America. This will happen no more. The brake on union decline is gone. The victory of Republican governors shows how much unions have lost their political power – now they are vulnerable to attempts to strip them of their power at the state level. Every new governor seems to be a Chris Christie, ready for a fight. By 2013, 11.3 percent of wage and salary workers were covered by unions, down from 23.4 percent in 1983. Republicans have good reason to target public sector unions. Without them, the share of the work force represented by unions would be even smaller than it is now. By last year, union coverage of private sector workers had fallen to 7.5 percent, from a high of roughly 35 percent in the mid-1950s. Government workers today make up 15.8 percent of the total work force, but union representation of this sliver has grown from less than 10 percent in the 1950s to 35.3 percent. Norquist told

the C.P.A.C. conference that conservatives hadn’t taken on public employee unions in the mistaken belief that “you can’t do anything about the public sector. The rules are set, and they elect the guys who set the rules.” But Walker’s success in winning a recall election, and in getting re-elected, has permanently changed thinking on the right, Norquist declared. By this reasoning, Walker’s survival and ultimate triumph demonstrates that changing the rules to make it more difficult to organize public workers, to collect dues and to bargain over wages and fringe benefits is politically viable, even in a Northern state. In 2011, when Walker first took office, 37 percent of the nation’s 21-plus million public sector employees were union members; by 2012, this dropped to 35.9 percent; and last year, it fell to 35.3 percent. If Republicans and conservatives place a top priority on eviscerating labor unions, what is the Democratic Party doing to protect this core constituency? Not much. In fact, the Obama administration has undermined the bargaining leverage of the most successful unions by imposing a 40 percent excise tax, which takes effect in 2018, on health insurance premiums in excess of $10,200 annually for individuals, and $27,500 for families, in order to finance Obamacare. The provision, which covers what many of labor’s enemies call “Cadillac plans,” has provoked an angry response from labor leaders. They see the tax as threatening the continued survival of key health insurance benefits that unions have won as part of total employee compensation packages. In an email to me, Joel Parker, national vice president of the merged Transportation Communications International Union and International Association of Machinists, wrote about the consequences of the new excise tax: The result is a nightmare for union workers at large companies, and even worse for non-union workers. For the latter, companies will simply unilaterally cut benefits and/or shift to high-deductible plans. Institutionally, the bill weakens unions, one of the remaining core groups in the Democratic coalition. Private sector unions’ main selling point to non-union workers was superior health and pension plans. The health insurance advantage, if the excise tax is allowed to survive, will gradually disappear. Democrats neglect the union movement at their peril. Not only does organized labor provide millions of dollars – the Center for Responsive Politics reports that unions spent $116.5 million on politics in 2013-14 – but union members are a loyal Democratic constituency. On Nov. 4, the 17 percent of voters who come from union households supported Democratic House candidates by a margin of 22 points, 60-38 , while the remaining 83 percent from non-union households supported Republicans 54-44.

The party has a strong dislike for unions and the campaign to weaken them has been working. Drum 11Drum, Kevin. "What the Union Fight Is Really About: Defunding the Left." Mother Jones. N.p., 25 March 2011. Web. 26 July 2017. <http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/scott-walker-defunding-democratic-donors/>. Kevin is a political blogger for Mother Jones. //nhs-VAWhen Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker took on his state’s public-sector unions last January, it seemed to require no explanation. Republicans are sympathetic to corporate interests and opposed to organized labor, and challenging public-sector workers’ pay and benefits appeared to be just one more skirmish in a longstanding ideological battle. But Walker went one crucial step further. He deliberately sparked a dangerous, months-long war by proposing to end the public-sector unions’ collective bargaining rights entirely. Why take that risk? Here’s why: Politics in the United States is a game played on multiple levels, and ideology is only the first. Walker was playing on a second, deeper level, where the issues are secondary. Here, the goal is not so much to advance one party’s agenda, but to actively undermine the infrastructure that allows the opposing party to exist at all. And on this level, one of America’s two political parties routinely outplays the other: Defunding the left is a longtime goal of the smartest and savviest Republican strategists, and they’ve pursued it for decades. The old-school version of this tactic began in the ’70s and ’80s with the right’s campaign to undermine private-sector unions, traditionally one of the Democratic Party’s biggest sources of funding and campaign support. In the early ’70s, a newly aggressive and politicized Chamber of Commerce, joined by newcomers like the Business Roundtable and a new breed of “union avoidance” consultants (PDF), took advantage of divisions on the left and the decline of manufacturing industries to block labor reforms and gut rules against union-busting. All this made it nearly impossible to organize new workplaces in the growing service sector, which led to unions’ long, steady decline: Since 1970, private-sector union membership has dropped from 29 percent of the workforce to less than 7 percent . And with that decline, the Democratic Party has lost a major source of its funding. Organized labor wasn’t the right’s only target. In the late ’80s and early ’90s, Republican strategists approached the NAACP with offers of free mapping software to help them create majority-minority congressional districts that would be more likely to elect black and Hispanic members of Congress. But this tactic, dubbed “Project Ratfuck” by one of its chief architects, had nothing to do with

increasing minority representation. Rather, it was designed to pack lots of liberal-leaning minority voters into a single district, leaving the surrounding districts as easy pickings for Republican challengers. A similar dynamic fueled the tort-reform push of the mid-’90s. This one was a twofer: Tort-lawyer bashing had always been a reliable applause line for Republican politicians, but in 1994 conservative ur-strategist Grover Norquist pointed out that the big losers in tort reform are trial lawyers, and trial lawyers contribute huge amounts of money to the Democratic Party. “The political implications of defunding the trial lawyers would be staggering,” he wrote. After that, the tort-reform movement exploded. You can think of this triumvirate—unions, minority redistricting, and tort reform—as Defunding 1.0. And most of it hasn’t stopped: Republicans are still battling private-sector unions and pressing for tort reform. But private-sector unions have mostly been beaten, and tort reform has turned out to be a tough nut to crack. So the GOP has moved on to Defunding 2.0, with a brand new trio of pet projects. One of the prime obsessions of the conservative movement over the past decade has been passage of voter-ID laws at the state level (PDF). This is not because Republicans think citizens should have to identify themselves to government authorities and Democrats don’t. Nor is it because the United States has seen a wave of voter fraud recently. The Brennan Center for Justice has been tracking cases of electoral fraud diligently for years, and its conclusion is clear: Actual voter fraud is virtually nonexistent. In case after case where fraud has been alleged, the number of verified episodes amounts to no more than a tiny handful, typically less than one-thousandth of 1 percent of the votes cast. This makes perfect sense. Retail voter fraud, in which someone tries to vote under a fake name, is hard to pull off and invites serious penalties. It’s almost inconceivable that anyone would try to do it on a large enough scale to swing an election. So why has voter fraud become a cause célèbre among conservatives? Here’s a clue: In 2007, a University of Washington study found that among whites, the middle-aged, and the middle income, about 90 percent of registered voters had access to a picture ID as required by a new voter law in Indiana (PDF). Among blacks, the young, and low-income residents, the number was just 80 percent. These are among the most loyal Democratic Party demographics in the country. A law that makes it harder for them to vote makes it harder for Democrats to win elections. Yet the Supreme Court—even though it acknowledged that actual voter fraud is vanishingly rare (PDF)—upheld Indiana’s law in 2008. By 2009, a dozen states had introduced (PDF) new voter-ID laws, and conservatives had a second target in their crosshairs: ACORN, much of whose work involved running voter-registration drives targeting poor and minority citizens. ACORN had long been a bête noire of the right, and so when conservative activist Andrew Breitbart released

James O’Keefe’s video sting purporting to show ACORN staffers advising a flamboyantly dressed pimp on how to run a child prostitution ring, the right-wing noise machine went ballistic. The videos turned out to have been deceptively edited (among other things, O’Keefe never wore his pimp costume when talking to ACORN), but the damage was done: A few ACORN staffers had indeed acted badly, Congress passed a law defunding the group, and ACORN disbanded. (O’Keefe has since moved on to attacking NPR; see “Pimps, Lies, and Videotape.”) Most recently, of course, a third target has appeared front and center in the battle to defund the left: public-sector unions, the only sector of organized labor still thriving. New Jersey governor and presidential almost-hopeful Chris Christie was one of the first to gain notoriety for taking them on, but by February, the spotlight had turned to Wisconsin. That fight, despite Walker’s protestations, had almost nothing to do with the state’s budget deficit and everything to do with decimating a pillar of Democratic Party support. Longtime DC reporter Howard Fineman explained the raw math: Republicans had hoped to take away as many as 20 governorships from the Democrats in the 2010 elections, but in the end they only won 12. Why? “Well,” reports Fineman, “according to postgame analysis by GOP strategists, the power and money of public-employee unions was the reason. ‘We are never going to win most of these states until we can do something about those unions,’ one key operative said at a Washington dinner in November.” In a similar vein, New York Times statistician Nate Silver analyzed recent election polls and concluded that even in their current emaciated state, union households overall voted Democratic in big enough numbers to add about two percentage points to Democratic vote totals in the 2008 election. And in terms of raw dollars, three public-sector unions ( AFSCME and the two main teachers’ unions, the NEA and the AFT ) were among the top five donors to Democratic candidates in the 2010 election cycle—and that doesn’t include individual union members. Put it all together—the funds public-sector unions provide to Democrats, the votes they bring, and the doorbell-ringing and phone-banking they do—and it becomes obvious why Republicans want to cripple them. The Wisconsin Senate’s Republican majority leader made it crystal clear. “If we win this battle, and the money is not there under the auspices of the unions,” he said, “certainly what you’re going to find is President Obama is going to have a…much more difficult time getting elected and winning the state of Wisconsin.”

A2 Warming ImpactNo impact – warming will take centuries and adaptation solvesMendelsohn 9 – Robert O. Mendelsohn 9, the Edwin Weyerhaeuser Davis Professor, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, June 2009, “Climate Change and Economic Growth,” online: http://www.growthcommission.org/storage/cgdev/documents/gcwp060web.pdfThese statements are largely alarmist and misleading . Although climate change is a serious problem that deserves attention, society’s immediate behavior has an extremely low probability of leading to catastrophic consequences. The science and economics of climate change is quite clear that emissions over the next few decades will lead to only mild consequences. The severe impacts predicted by alarmists require a century (or two in the case of Stern 2006) of no mitigation. Many of the predicted impacts assume there will be no or little adaptation. The net economic impacts from climate change over the next 50 years will be small regardless. Most of the more severe impacts will take more than a century or even a millennium to unfold and many of these “potential ” impacts will never occur because people will adapt. It is not at all apparent that immediate and dramatic policies need to be developed to thwart long ‐ range climate risks . What is needed are long‐run balanced responses.

A2 US-China War ImpactNo US-China war — our ev assumes rising tensions.Timothy Heath 4/30, a senior international defense research analyst at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation and member of the Pardee RAND Graduate School faculty, AND William R. Thompson, Distinguished and Rogers Professor at Indiana University and an adjunct researcher at RAND, “U.S.-China Tensions Are Unlikely to Lead to War ,” April 30, The National Interest, retrieved at: http://nationalinterest.org/feature/us-china-tensions-are-unlikely-lead-war-20411?page=2However, Allison ultimately fails to persuade because he fails to specify the political and strategic conditions that make war plausible in the first place . Allison’s analysis implies that the United States and China are in a situation analogous to that of the Soviet Union and the United States in the early 1960s. In the Cold War example, the two countries faced each other on a near-war footing and engaged in a bitter geostrategic and ideological struggle for supremacy. The two countries

experienced a series of militarized crises and fought each other repeatedly through proxy wars. It was this broader context that made issues of misjudgment so dangerous in a crisis. By contrast, the U.S.-China relationship today operates at a much lower level of hostility and threat .

China and the United States may be experiencing an increase in tensions, but the two countries remain far from the bitter, acrimonious rivalry that defined the U.S.-Soviet relationship in the early 1960s. Neither Washington nor Beijing regards the other as its principal enemy . Today’s rivals may view each other warily as competitors and

threats on some issues, but they also view each other as important trade partners and partners on some shared concerns , such as North Korea, as the recent summit between President Donald Trump and Chinese

president Xi Jinping illustrated. The behavior of their respective militaries underscores the relatively restrained rivalry . The military competition between China and the United States may be growing, but it operates at a far lower level of intensity than the relentless arms racing that typified the U.S.-Soviet standoff. And unlike their Cold War counterparts, U.S. and Chinese militaries are not postured to fight each other in major wars . Moreover, polls show that the people of the two countries regard each other with mixed views —a considerable contrast from the hostile sentiment expressed by the U.S. and Soviet publics for each other. Lacking both preparations for major war and a constituency for conflict, leaders and

bureaucracies in both countries have less incentive to misjudge crisis situations in favor of unwarranted escalation . To

the contrary, political leaders and bureaucracies currently face a strong incentive to find ways of defusing crises in a manner that avoids unwanted escalation . This inclination manifested itself in the EP-3 airplane collision off Hainan Island in 2001,

and in subsequent incidents involving U.S. and Chinese ships and aircraft, such as the harassment of the USNS Impeccable in 2009. This does not mean that there is no risk, however. Indeed, the potential for a dangerous militarized crisis may be growing. Moreover, key political and geostrategic developments could shift the incentives for leaders in favor of more escalatory options in a crisis and thereby make Allison’s scenarios more plausible. Past precedents offer some insight into the types of developments that would most likely propel the U.S.-China relationship into a hostile,

competitive one featuring an elevated risk of conflict. The most important driver, as Allison recognizes, would be a growing parity between China and the United

States as economic, technological and geostrategic leaders of the international system. The United States and China feature an increasing parity in the size of their

economies, but the United States retains a considerable lead in virtually every other dimension of national power . The current U.S.-China rivalry is a regional one centered on the Asia-Pacific region, but it retains the considerable potential of escalating into a global, systemic competition down the road. A second important driver would be the mobilization of public opinion behind the view that the other country is a primary source of threat, thereby providing a stronger constituency for escalatory policies. A related development would be the formal designation by leaders in both capitals of the other country as a primary hostile threat and likely foe. These developments would most likely be fueled by a growing array of intractable disputes, and further accelerated by a serious militarized crisis. The cumulative effect would be the exacerbation of an antagonistic competitive rivalry, repeated and volatile militarized crisis, and heightened risk that any flashpoint could

escalate rapidly to war—a relationship that would resemble the U.S.-Soviet relationship in the early 1960s. Yet even if the relationship evolved towards a more hostile form of rivalry, unique features of the contemporary world suggest lessons drawn from the past may have limited applicability .

Economic interdependence in the twenty-first century is much different and far more complex than in it was in the past. So is the lethality of weaponry available to the major powers . In the sixteenth century, armies fought with pikes, swords and primitive guns. In the twenty-first century, it is possible to

eliminate all life on the planet in a full-bore nuclear exchange. These features likely affect the willingness of leaders to escalate in a crisis in a manner far differently than in past rivalries. More broadly, Allison’s analysis about the “Thucydides Trap” may be criticized for exaggerating the risks of war . In his claims to identify a high propensity for war between “rising” and “ruling” countries, he fails to clarify those terms, and does not distinguish the more dangerous from the less volatile types of rivalries . Contests for supremacy over land regions, for example, have historically proven the most conflict-prone, while competition for supremacy over

maritime regions has, by contrast, tended to be less lethal. Rivalries also wax and wane over time, with varying levels of risks of war. A more careful review of

rivalries and their variety, duration and patterns of interaction suggests that although most wars involve rivalries, many rivals avoid going to war .

Impact TurnsTrump helps the economy by stimulating American competitiveness and increasing job growth. Long 17Long, Heather. "There's One Thing Going Right for Trump: The Economy." CNNMoney. Cable News Network, 17 Feb. 2017. Web. 26 July 2017. <http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/17/news/economy/donald-trump-economy/index.html>.Headlines claim the White House is in "chaos" after an extremely turbulent week. But there's one big thing going right for Trump right now: The U.S. economy. A slew of economic data came out this week.

Almost all of it was positive. Americans are still going to stores and spending big (retail

sales came in better than expected for January). They're also buying houses. And cars . And using their credit cards . On top of that, small and medium-sized business owners are giddy. The NFIB Small Business Optimism Index is at its highest level since 2004 . Heck, even manufacturing has made a pretty big turnaround and looks

almost healthy again. The Philly Fed Index, a survey on how well manufacturers are doing, just hit its highest level since 1984 . And anyone with money in the market likely noticed the U.S. stock market set even more records this week. In fact, American stocks are on their best winning streak in 25 years . There's still a belief on Wall Street -- and many parts of Main Street that CNNMoney has recently

visited -- that Trump is going to get the economy surging again. Yes, there are some red flags

-- household debt is back at 2008 levels and prices are rising. But overall, things look good. "The economy is better than you think," says Chris Rupkey, chief financial economist at MUFG Union Bank in New York. "President Trump inherited the best economy since President Bush, so let's hope things continue to run smoothly." Related: Trump rally is best for new POTUS since LBJ and JFK

The bullish scenario: Trump gets back on track But the reason consumers and CEOs are so excited is because they expect Trump to get going on his "pro-growth agenda." Business leaders -- big and small -- want tax cuts, not lengthy press conferences hammering the press and his former rival Hillary Clinton. As a Trump supporter in Kentucky told CNNMoney recently, "He already won the election. Just shut up about the votes." Business CEOs have been clear: They want lower taxes, infrastructure spending and some regulations scaled back (or just not as strictly enforced). Trump voters have also been clear: They want jobs, jobs, jobs that pay more than minimum wage. The question is whether Trump can get back on track to focus on these issues with Congress. If he does that, a lot of the "chaos" of his first weeks in office will likely fade. "The bullish scenario is that Trump comes to realize quickly that he must use most of his political capital to fast-track tax cuts, tax reform, repatriated earnings, and deregulation," wrote economist Ed Yardeni of Yardeni Research in a note this week. Yardeni went on to say, "If that path lifts economic growth, as it should, the strength of the economy should boost Trump's political capital and strength -- both at home and abroad." Even one of Trump's biggest critics -- billionaire mogul Mark Cuban -- tweeted some praise Friday of the president's economic

plans: "Trump is trying to do some things right. Taxes, lobbyists, bureaucracy, FCC, SEC. If he can get the changes passed, they are positives."

Trump prevents US Russia war and improves foreign relations by limiting Syrian interventionGhitis 17Ghitis, Frida. "Trump Just Gave Russia a 'beautiful' Gift." CNN. Cable News Network, 21 July 2017. Web. 26 July 2017. <http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/21/opinions/trump-gives-syria-to-putin-opinion-ghitis/index.html>.President Donald Trump has just given Russia what he might call a " beautiful " gift . According to the Washington Post, Trump has decided to

dismantle a US program that was arming and training some of the rebels fighting the Syrian dictator, President Bashar al-Assad. When asked about

the report, the White House and the CIA declined to comment. Frida Ghitis The decision grants Vladimir Putin one of his long-sought changes to US policy in the Middle East, and it does it in exchange -- as far as we can tell -- for nothing at all. The end of the US-backed push against Assad is not only a gift to Russia and to the Syrian president -- it is also a point on the scoreboard for his ambitious allies, the Iranian regime and its Lebanese catspaw, Hezbollah. The change is not transformative on the battlefield -- the rebels were not about to overthrow the Russia- and Iran-backed Assad -- but it is loaded with important symbolism and geopolitical implications.

To be sure, the program, a small operation run by the CIA, was far from a resounding success. It suffered since its earliest days in 2013 from the wavering in Washington, the turbulence of the Syrian civil war and, quite possibly, from President Barack Obama's reluctance to antagonize Tehran when his priority was to negotiate a nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic. With his confusing Syria policy, Trump has created an awkward parallel to his predecessor's: Obama may have refrained from taking more

forceful action in Syria partly in an effort to improve relations with Iran and now Trump may be stepping back from Syria to improve relations with Russia. Syrian war is everybody's problem. Iran aside, Obama was never convinced that the United States should play much of a role in Syria. He waited far too long to take a stand. By then, the moderate rebels started to fade, extremists grew stronger, and it became increasingly difficult to find trustworthy partners among the rebels. Obama's hesitation is one of the reasons why a pro-democracy uprising in Syria degenerated into a brutal civil war. Moderate Syrians struggling for democracy were left to twist in the wind while extremists on both sides received muscular backing, funding and weaponry from abroad. By the time the US acted, it was too late. Consequently, Assad (and Iran) wanted the world to see only two choices in Syria, ignoring that democratic reform could be an option. The way he described it, it was him or the terrorists. Ironically, it was the Iran-funded terrorist group Hezbollah that came to his rescue, and then Russia

jumped in with both feet as Obama watched. Now Trump is ceding political ground to Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. The Trump administration's policy is thoroughly nebulous, particularly regarding

Assad. It's unclear whether Washington is prepared to let Assad stay. But the latest decision appears to bring an end to American support for those seeking to topple him.