Highway Bill

AdviceFor the negative- this politics disad says that there is bipartisan consensus on a new highway bill, but that there are different proposals for funding infrastructure over the next couple of years. You have to win that only Obama’s bill provides sufficient funding and pc is key to that being the chosen bill. Winning a framing question of pc determining long-term momentum of the bill chosen is necessary spin. The 2NC Impact Overview cards are amazing internal links into economic collapse, way better than I imagined would exist.

For the affirmative- really question how Obama can get it done. The 2AC “PC not key card” is a slayer and should be read every round. Also, don’t forget to provide ways your affirmative could solve for the internals of this disad.

Negative

1NC

Short term highway bill just passed and there is bipartisanship momentum- but funding is still up in the airLowy 5/15 (Joan Lowy, Associated Press, “Senate panel approves 6-year highway bill”, http://news.yahoo.com/senate-panel-approves-6-highway-bill-143941146.html, May 15, 2014)

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Senate panel on Thursday approved a bill to keep federal highway programs going for the next six years, but it remained unclear whether Congress would act in time to prevent a

disruption in transportation aid to states this summer. The Environment and Public Works Committee unanimously approved a bill that would keep transportation spending at current levels, plus inflation, in a rare burst of bipartisan bonhomie, with Democrats and Republicans lavishing

praise on each other. But the bill didn't address the biggest transportation question facing Congress : how to find an extra $ 100 billion to close the gap between what lawmakers want to spend on transportation programs and how much revenue federal gas and diesel taxes and other user fees bring into the federal Highway Trust Fund. Finding the money is the responsibility of the Senate Finance Committee, but its chairman, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., hasn't signaled how he plans to do that. The White House and Congress have been unwilling thus far to raise the 18.4-cents-a-gallon gasoline tax and the 24.4-cents-a-gallon diesel tax, which haven't been increased since 1993. The Department of Transportation estimates the federal Highway Trust Fund will go broke on Aug . 29, but disruptions in payments to states could happen as early as July , when the balance in that account is expected to drop below $4 billion. Without that cushion, it becomes difficult to ensure incoming revenues keep up with outgoing aid to states.

*Insert Link*

Obama PC is key to get funding from corporate tax reform- key to prevent economic collapseSuperville 5/10 (Darlene Superville, Capitol Hill Blue, “New White House focus: Road, bridge repair”, http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/52875/comment-page-1, May 10, 2014)

With time running out , the White House was preparing to press Congress next week to keep money

flowing into a federal fund for road and bridge repairs, warning of economic harm , lost aid to states and idled construction workers unless lawmakers act. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx has said the federal Highway Trust Fund is expected run dry by late August. Without congressional action, transportation aid to states will be delayed and workers will be laid off at construction sites nationwide, Foxx said. To that end, the White House will spend next week highlighting the issue and

pressing for action . In contrast to President Barack Obama’s 2014 goal to act without Congress wherever he can, the highway funding issue is not one he can solve on his own. On Wednesday, Obama is scheduled to speak in front of the crumbling Tappan Zee Bridge, a major Hudson River crossing north of New York City, to press for action. A replacement is currently being built for the nearly 60-year-old, 3-mile span at a cost of $3.9 billion, largely financed by bonds that will be paid for through higher bridge tolls. In New York, Obama will also highlight steps the administration has taken to cut red tape, modernize the federal permitting process and reduce the timelines for approving projects, assistant White House press secretary Matt Lehrich said Saturday. On Friday, the president plans to discuss infrastructure with workers in the Washington area. Vice President Joe Biden will also be involved. On Tuesday, he is to tour a project in St. Louis where a pedestrian bridge is being built over Interstate 70 to make it easier and safer for people to

get to the Gateway Arch. Then on Wednesday he heads to Cleveland, where an obsolete transit station is being replaced with a new, more energy efficient building. Both projects are federally funded. The White House plans to open the week by releasing an analysis on Monday on the need to pay for these types of repairs and upgrades. Senior administration officials will also be sent out to help sound the alarm. Last month, the Obama administration sent Congress a four-year, $302 billion transportation plan. A highlight includes pumping about $150 billion into transportation programs beyond the money raised through fuel taxes. The additional spending would be paid for by changes to business taxes , including

closing corporate loopholes. The White House push also comes as a bipartisan group of senators , led by California Democrat Barbara Boxer, prepares to unveil a surface transportation proposal .

Diversionary theory means nations will go to warRoyal 10 – Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, 2010, “Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises,” in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215

Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Feaver, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline , particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases , as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write: The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. “Diversionary theory" suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force . In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels .5 This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention. This observation is not contradictory to other perspectives that link economic interdependence with a decrease in the likelihood of external conflict, such as those mentioned in the first paragraph of this chapter. Those studies tend to focus on dyadic interdependence instead of global interdependence and do not specifically consider the occurrence of and conditions created by economic crises. As such, the view presented here should be considered ancillary to those views.

2NC Blocks

Impact Overview

Quickest access to economic collapse by August- short circuits recovery- turns caseLahood and Rendell 5/14 (Ray LaHood, former Secretary of the Department of Transportation, and Ed Rendell, former governor of Pennsylvania, are co-chairs of Building America’s Future, “Congress must increase gas tax before highway fund runs dry”, http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/05/14/3861604/congress-must-increase-gas-tax.html?sp=/99/108/, May 14, 2014)

If you drive in the Raleigh-Durham metro area, you already know how bad traffic congestion can be. On average, drivers spend 23 hours a year sitting in traffic jams – time that could be better spent attending a child’s soccer game or making that killer presentation at the office. Unfortunately, the frustration drivers are already experiencing is about to get worse. The source of federal funding for the nation’s roads and bridges is the Highway Trust Fund. Funded through an 18.4-cent-per-gallon gas tax that has not budged one penny since 1993, the fund is not collecting enough revenue to keep pace with the nation’s population and transportation needs. Over the past 21 years, cars have become much more fuel-efficient, and hybrids and electric vehicles that use little or no gas are on the rise. Between more fuel-efficient cars and a gas tax that is limping along, the Highway Trust Fund is running on empty. This means that in North Carolina, road maintenance and new construction projects could face immediate delays or cancellations, which would only further complicate traffic congestion. Nearly half of North Carolina’s multibillion-dollar capital transportation program depends on federal money from the Highway Trust Fund to keep highways and bridges functioning safely and efficiently. If these federal funds were to dry up, it would have a direct effect on your wallet. In fact, driving on roads in need of repair is already costing drivers in the Raleigh-Durham area $1,000 each year due to higher vehicle operating costs, traffic crashes and congestion-related delays. With 11 percent of the state’s major roads in poor or mediocre condition and 30 percent of its bridges structurally deficient or no longer able to accommodate the traffic flow, North Carolina can ill afford to lose $1.1 billion in federal funding if the trust fund runs dry. The law that authorizes and funds national transportation policy will expire Sept. 30. But the Highway Trust Fund is projected to run dry sometime in August. It sounds crazy that our Highway Trust Fund could go bankrupt , and we won’t be able to pay to repair our roads and bridges, but unless Congress acts this is exactly what will happen. To prevent insolvency, Congress must inject new

revenue i nto the fund. Failure to do so would curtail critical construction projects and kill tens of thousands of middle class construction jobs across the country, potentially during the peak summer construction season. That would be terrible for our economy, which is just getting back on its feet . And

it would have direct consequences in North Carolina as it would affect the state’s ability to deliver 644 needed highway and transit improvement projects and put over 20,000 jobs at risk. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the Highway Trust Fund needs an additional $15 billion in revenue to stay afloat just for another year. Congress could stave off this crisis by increasing revenue to the fund through a modest 10-cent increase in the gasoline tax. Such an increase would generate the $15 billion needed to sustain the fund for

another year. During that time, Congress could move forward with reforming the corporate tax code, which

has been proposed by President Obama and Rep. Dave Camp, the Republican chairman of the House

Ways and Means Committee. Both recommended that a portion of the revenue derived from corporate tax reform be directed to the trust fund, which would keep it flush for another 10 years. As former elected officials, we fully understand the difficult politics of raising revenue. Yet we have watched our colleagues in state governments make the tough decisions while Congress seems to wait for a crisis before it acts. If lawmakers wait much longer, they run the risk that the Highway Trust Fund will go bankrupt. Americans don’t need more government gridlock. We need Congress to work together for the sake of our economy and the jobs that transportation funding provides. Congress should act immediately to keep the Highway Trust Fund from going bankrupt. The years

of kicking the can down the pothole-filled road must end. Congress needs to make a real and sustainable long-term fix for funding America’s transportation system. The economic prosperity of North Carolina – and our nation –

depends upon it.

Turns economic leadershipRunningen 5/14 (Roger Runningen, Bloomberg News, “Obama to Press for Highway Funds, Expedite Permit Process”, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-14/obama-to-press-for-highway-funds-expedite-permit-process.html, May 14, 2014)

With New York’s aging and overburdened Tappan Zee Bridge in the background, President Barack Obama said the U.S. risks its

economic supremacy by neglecting to repair and upgrade its transportation system. Obama said his administration is streamlining the permit process for transportation projects to speed up construction even as the White House and Congress wrangle over how to replenish the Highway Trust Fund. A

modern, efficient transportation system is “one of the reasons that American became an economic

superpower in the first place,” Obama said today in Tarrytown, New York. While the U.S. has cut resources for

infrastructure, he said, economic competitors such as European nations and China have been

investing heavily. The fast-track approach that Obama announced today would expand the process used for the Tappan Zee. Federal agencies approved

plans to replace the three-mile-long span in 1.5 years, a process that typically takes three to five years, according to a White House statement. The Highway Trust Fund, which is fed by fuel taxes, will be unable to keep up with all its bills as soon as July and will be down to $1 billion by the end of September. While Congress is working on a short-term plan to keep it solvent at least through the end of the year, an interruption in funding would affect more than 112,000 construction projects and the jobs of almost 700,000 workers over a year, according to a White House analysis. Economic Preeminence While Obama was in New York, Vice

President Joe Biden was delivering a similar message at a rail center in Cleveland. He said the U.S. transportation system is crumbling and the nation is falling far behind. If the U.S. can’t provide infrastructure to companies , “we will lose

our economic preeminence in the world,” Biden said. He criticized members of Congress who opposed more spending on

infrastructure, saying they “lack vision” and asking “how can we afford not to make these investments.” With both the White House and many lawmakers rejecting raising gasoline and diesel taxes, Obama has proposed a four-year, $302 billion plan. About half the funding would come from the federal excise tax on motor fuels with the rest from revenue obtained by closing tax breaks for corporations, including taxing overseas earnings. Senate Bill The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee filed a bipartisan bill that would renew highway and transit programs for six years, while leaving decisions on funding for the measure to the House and Senate’s tax committees. The Senate panel was set to begin crafting a bill tomorrow. Companies, including Caterpillar Inc. (CAT), United Parcel Service Inc. and Honeywell International Inc. (HON), are pushing for a long-term solution to infrastructure funding. Business groups and labor unions are stepping up their own efforts starting this week. Most of those organizations favor a boost in the gasoline tax to finance a long-term highway bill, even though lawmakers in both chambers say that can’t clear Congress in an election year.

Economy Impact XT

Both recent and historical analysis prove thisGreen and Schrage ‘9 – Senior Advisor and Japan Chair @ CSIS and Associate Professor @ Georgetown University AND CSIS School Chair in International Business and Former Senior Official with the US Trade Representative’s Office (Michael J. and Steven P., “It’s not just the economy,” State Department and Ways & Means Committee, Asia Times, 3/26, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/asian_economy/kc26dk01.html)

Facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, analysts at the World Bank and the US Central Intelligence Agency are just beginning to contemplate the ramifications for international stability if there is not a recovery in the next year. For the most part, the focus has been on fragile states such as some in Eastern Europe. However, the Great Depression taught us that a downward global economic spiral can even have jarring impacts on great powers. It is no mere coincidence that the last great global economic downturn was followed by the most destructive war in human history . In the 1930s, economic desperation helped fuel autocratic regimes and protectionism in a downward economic-security death spiral that engulfed the world in conflict. This spiral was aided by the preoccupation of the United States and other leading nations with economic troubles at home and insufficient attention to working with other powers to maintain stability abroad. Today's challenges are different, yet 1933's London Economic Conference, which failed to stop the drift toward deeper depression and world war, should be a cautionary tale for leaders heading to next month's London Group of 20 (G-20) meeting.

Economic decline guarantees multiple scenarios for nuclear war and turns every other impactHarris and Burrows ‘9 - PhD in European History @ Cambridge and Counselor of the US National Intelligence Council AND Member of the National Intelligence Council’s Long Range Analysis Unit (Mathew J. and Jennifer, “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis,” April, Washington Quarterly, http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_Burrows.pdf)

Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample Revisiting the Future opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorism ’s appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups_inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great

powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises . 36 Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will

drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.

Asia Impact

Economic collapse causes Asian instability and war - outweighs on probability and magnitudeAuslin ‘9 – resident scholar at AEI (Michael “Averting Disaster”, The Daily Standard, 2/6, http://www.aei.org/article/100044

As they deal with a collapsing world economy, policymakers in Washington and around the globe must not forget that when a depression strikes, war can follow. Nowhere is this truer than in Asia, the most heavily armed region on earth and riven with ancient hatreds and territorial rivalries. Collapsing trade flows can lead to political tension, nationalist outbursts, growing distrust, and ultimately, military miscalculation . The result would be disaster on top of an already dire situation. No one should think that Asia is on the verge of conflict. But it is also important to remember what has helped keep the peace in this region for so long. Phenomenal growth rates in Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, China and elsewhere since the 1960s have naturally turned national attention inward, to development and stability . This has gradually led to increased political confidence, diplomatic initiatives, and in many nations the move toward more democratic systems. America has directly benefited as well, and not merely from years of lower consumer prices, but also from the general conditions of peace in Asia. Yet policymakers need to remember that even during these decades of growth, moments of economic shock , such as the 1973 Oil Crisis, led to instability and bursts of terrorist activity in Japan, while the uneven pace of growth in China has led to tens of thousands of armed clashes in the poor interior of the country. Now imagine such instability multiplied region-wide. The economic collapse Japan is facing, and China's potential slowdown, dwarfs any previous economic troubles, including the 1998 Asian Currency Crisis. Newly urbanized workers rioting for jobs or living wages, conflict over natural resources, further saber-rattling from North Korea, all can take on lives of their own. This is the nightmare of governments in the region, and particularly of democracies from newer ones like Thailand and Mongolia to established states like Japan and South Korea. How will overburdened political leaders react to internal unrest? What happens if Chinese shopkeepers in Indonesia are attacked, or a Japanese naval ship collides with a Korean fishing vessel? Quite simply, Asia's political infrastructure may not be strong enough to resist the slide towards confrontation and conflict. This would be a political and humanitarian disaster turning the clock back decades in Asia. It would almost certainly drag America in at some point, as well. First of all, we have alliance responsibilities to Japan, South Korea, Australia, and the Philippines should any of them come under armed attack. Failure on our part to live up to those responsibilities could mean the end of America's credibility in Asia. Secondly, peace in Asia has been kept in good measure by the continued U.S. military presence since World War II. There have been terrible localized conflicts, of course, but nothing approaching a systemic conflagration like the 1940s. Today, such a conflict would be far more bloody, and it is unclear if the American military, already stretched too thin by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, could contain the crisis. Nor is it clear that the American people, worn out from war and economic distress, would be willing to shed even more blood and treasure for lands across the ocean. The result could be a historic changing of the geopolitical map in the world's most populous region. Perhaps China would emerge as the undisputed hegemon. Possibly democracies like Japan and South Korea would link up to oppose any aggressor. India might decide it could move into the vacuum. All of this is guess-work, of course, but it has happened repeatedly throughout history. There is no reason to believe we are immune from the same types of miscalculation and greed that have destroyed international systems in the past .

Global nuclear warLanday 2k (Jonathon, National Security and Intelligence Correspondent with 15 Years of Experience for Night Ridder, “Top administration officials warn stakes for US are high in Asian conflicts,” March 11th, Lexis)

Few if any experts think China and Taiwan, North Korea and South Korea, or India and Pakistan are spoiling to fight. But even a minor miscalculation by any of them could destabilize Asia , jolt the global economy and even start a nuclear war. India, Pakistan and China all have nuclear weapons, and North Korea may have a few, too. Asia lacks the kinds of organizations , negotiations and diplomatic relationships that helped keep an uneasy peace for five decades in Cold War Europe. "Nowhere else on Earth are the stakes as high and relationships so

fragile," said Bates Gill, director of northeast Asian policy studies at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. " We see the convergence of great power interest overlaid with lingering confrontations with no institutionalized security mechanism in place. There are elements for potential disaster."

US Key to Global Economy

Financial crises in the US spills over - all markets are reliant on the USHarris and Burrows ‘9 - PhD in European History @ Cambridge and Counselor of the US National Intelligence Council AND Member of the National Intelligence Council’s Long Range Analysis Unit (Mathew J. and Jennifer, “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis,” April, Washington Quarterly, http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_Burrows.pdf)

Such was the world the NIC foresaw as the crisis unfolded. Now, emerging markets the world over have lost more than half of their value since September 2008 alone . Banks that have never reported a net loss earnings quarter were dissolved in a matter of days. Even with the one year anniversary of the Bear Stearns collapse approaching in March, markets may have yet to find a floor. The proportions of the current crisis hardly need familiarizing. As the panic has not yet given way to a lucid picture of the impacts, most economists and political forecasters are smart enough to shy away from sweeping predictions amid the fog of crisis. Yet, in the post-crisis world , it seems conceivable that global growth will most likely be muted, deflation will remain a risk while any decoupling of the industrialized from developing countries is unlikely, the state will be the relative winner while authoritarianism may not, and U.S. consumption as the engine for global growth will slowly fade. Whether U.S. political and market clout will follow, and whether U.S. political leadership will come equipped with knowledge of the strategic forces affecting the United States remains to be seen. How Much of a Geopolitical ‘‘Game Changer’’ is the Financial Crisis? Mapping the NIC’s predictions against early facts, one of the most interesting observations is less about any particular shock generated by the financial crisis and more about its global reach . If anything, the crisis has underscored the importance of globalization as the overriding force or ‘‘mega-driver’’ as it was characterized in both the NIC’s 2020 and 2025 Global Trends works. Developing countries have been hurt as decoupling theories, assertions that the emerging markets have appreciably weaned themselves from the U.S. economy, have been dispelled. This second epicenter of the crisis in emerging markets could also continue to exacerbate and prolong the crisis. Alongside foreseeable exposures, such as Pakistan with its large current account deficit, are less predictable panics like Dubai, whose debt was financed on suddenly expensive dollars. Even those with cash reserves, such as Russia and South Korea, have been severely buffeted.

The US is key to the global economyCaploe ‘9 - CEO of the American Centre for Applied Liberal Arts and Humanities in Asia, PhD in International Political Economy @ Princeton (David, “Focus still on America to lead global recovery”, April 7, The Strait Times)

IN THE aftermath of the G-20 summit, most observers seem to have missed perhaps the most crucial statement of the entire event, made by United States President Barack Obama at his pre-conference meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown: ' The world has become accustomed to the US being a voracious consumer market, the engine that drives a lot of economic growth worldwide ,' he said. 'If there is going to be renewed growth, it just can't be the US as the engine.' While superficially sensible, this view is deeply problematic. To begin with, it ignores the fact that the global economy has in fact been 'America-centred' for more than 60 years. Countries - China, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Korea, Mexico and so on - either sell to the US or they sell to countries that sell to the US. To put it simply, Mr Obama doesn't seem to understand that there is no other engine for the world economy - and hasn't been for the last six decades. If the US does not drive global economic growth, growth is not going to happen. Thus, US policies to deal with the current crisis are critical not just domestically, but also to the entire world. This system has generally been advantageous for all concerned. America gained certain historically unprecedented benefits, but the system also enabled participating countries - first in Western Europe and Japan, and later, many in the Third World - to achieve undreamt-of prosperity. At the same time, this deep inter-connection between the US and the rest of the world also explains how the collapse of a relatively small sector of the US economy - 'sub-prime' housing, logarithmically exponentialised by Wall Street's ingenious chicanery - has cascaded into the worst global economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Empirics proveSesit ‘8 (Michael, Bloomberg News Columnist, “The four myths of economic decoupling,” The Korea Herald, February 16, 2008, http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/returnTo.do?returnToKey=20_T6876616661, AD: 6-30-9)

Myth No. 2: The rest of the world can escape the clutches of a U.S. slowdown. Not according to history . The United States has had five recessions since 1970. Each time, other economies' GDP growth also declined. The U.S. economy fell an average of 3.8 percent during the recessions of 1974-75, 1980, 1982, 1991 and 2001, with other industrial countries slowing an average of 2 percent, Latin America falling 1.7 percent and emerging Asia declining 1.3 percent, according to the International Monetary Fund. "Despite all the chatter about one region or another being immune from problems in the United States, the reality is that in a globalized economy characterized by rising cross-border flows of goods, services and capital, only hermit economies like North Korea are truly de-linked from planet Earth," says Joseph Quinlan, New York-based chief market strategist at Bank of America Capital Management. "Every one, more or less, sinks or swims in the global village." Myth No. 3: Rising demand in the developing world will compensate for the expected drop in U.S. consumer spending.Emerging-market countries are consuming more, yet growth in many of them is still mostly driven by exports, not domestic demand. Moreover, 2.55 billion people -- almost half the population of the developing world -- lived on less than $2 a day in 2004, the latest year of available data, according to the World Bank and Bank of America. U.S. consumers spent $9.27 trillion in 2006, or 3.5 times the aggregate $2.62 trillion personal-consumption expenditure of the so-called BRIC countries : Brazil, Russia, India and China. Myth No. 4: Growing intra-Asian trade -- especially that between China and other countries in the region -- will make up for lost exports caused by a steep U.S. slowdown. No doubt, intra-regional trade is growing rapidly, but much of it reflects shipments of intermediate goods. Still, 61 percent of emerging Asia's exports are ultimately consumed in the U.S., European Union and Japan, according to the Asian Development Bank, while Asian developing countries account for just 21 percent of final demand. "The U.S. is still more important to each Asian country's total output than demand from other ex-Japan Asian economies combined," the bank said in a recent report.Myth No. 5: Europe is becoming less dependent on the United States. True, America accounts for only 12 percent of EU exports to countries outside the 25-nation bloc, down from 18 percent in 2000. But exports aren't the whole story. Sales by U.S. affiliates of German companies totaled $352 billion in 2005, the last year of available data -- four times the $86 billion of German exports to America. Meanwhile, Dutch U.S. affiliate sales were 16 times exports, U.K.-affiliate sales 7.6 times British exports and French-affiliate sales 5.9 times. "If the U.S. economy heads south, so too will the earnings of many European firms," Quinlan says. What's more, Wall Street's pull on the world's financial markets is unrivaled. "U.S. equity returns remain the single biggest driver of global equity returns," says David Woo, London-based head of global currency strategy at Barclays Capital. "A sizable U.S. equity correction , by precipitating a global equity correction, will likely lead to a synchronized global economic slowdown."

2NC UQ Wall

Group uniqueness- momentum is the framing issue- the vote is not now but in the next month- means intensive lobbying by Obama frames uniqueness- bipartisan atmosphere ensures no gridlock- that’s 1NC Lowy and Superville

Will pass- only a question of funding paymentLitvan 5/6 (Laura Litvan, Bloomberg News, “Lawmakers Begin to Explore Short-Term Highway Fund Boost”, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-06/lawmakers-begin-to-explore-short-term-highway-fund-boost.html, May 6, 2014)

The Senate Finance Committee’s two top lawmakers said they want to fashion a short-term cash infusion for the U.S. Highway Trust Fund that will keep road and bridge projects going while Congress works on longer-term legislation . Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, said avoiding the prospect of stalled highway projects and laid-off construction workers may depend on adding $10 billion to keep the trust fund solvent through the end of this year. The panel’s top Republican, Orrin Hatch of Utah, said the two agree short-term action is needed . “We do face a near-term problem in that reimbursements to states will likely be impacted if the trust fund is not shored up in the very near future,” Hatch said at a hearing today in Washington. “Neither the chairman nor I wants to see a slow-down in payments.” Transportation leaders in both the Senate and House are drafting bills that would fund highway programs and mass transit for as many as six years once the current two-year, $105 billion law expires in

September. The main division in Congress is over how to boost funding as the current methods for paying into the

trust rely on gasoline and diesel-fuel taxes that haven’t kept up with the pace of new projects. U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said last week a short-term infusion o f general funds will probably be needed to buy more time for a long-term solution. “I would say that we have a tough, a tough challenge ahead of us that hasn’t been solved for a long time,” Foxx said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt.” Investor Interest The Highway Trust Fund may not be able to meet its financial obligations as early as July,

according to the Transportation Department. The Obama administration on April 29 sent legislation to Congress proposing $302 billion for road and mass transit projects over four years, with part of the money coming from new taxes on company earnings overseas. As much as $200 billion a year in additional infrastructure funding could be obtained through private investors, according to Jayan Dhru, the senior managing director for corporate and infrastructure ratings at Standard & Poor’s. He told the committee that investors are interested in public-private partnerships to fund transportation projects. “Our analysis has found that institutional investors such as insurance companies, pension funds and non-bank lenders are well-positioned to help fill that void,” Dhru said at the hearing.

Political capital determines the question of funding- only Obama’s funding mechanism solves a long-term billLitvan 5/13 (Laura Litvan, Bloomberg News, “Company-Tax Boost May Be Best U.S. Highway Funding Option”, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-13/senators-unveil-six-year-u-s-highway-legislation.html, May 13, 2014)

A one-time tax change related to U.S. companies’ overseas earnings is the most feasible way to

provide the additional funding needed to rebuild aging highways and mass transit systems,

Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said. Other ideas being considered are falling flat and time is

running out to replenish the Highway Trust Fund this year, Foxx said at a Bloomberg Government event in Washington today. Proposals to increase the 18.4-cent-per-gallon gas tax or other fees on

drivers can’t clear Congress anytime soon, Foxx said. President Barack Obama proposed a four-year, $302 billion bill that would raise $150 billion through taxes on overseas earnings and by closing loopholes that would normally let companies defer those obligations. Gasoline and diesel-fuel taxes haven’t kept pace with new projects and the Highway Trust Fund may not be able to meet its financial obligations as early as July, according to the Transportation Department. “ Right now our proposal is

the best way to thread the needle and get something done,” Foxx said. Seeking to accelerate the debate, Obama is scheduled to travel tomorrow to New York to discuss U.S. infrastructure needs near the 58-year-old Tappan Zee Bridge, which was designed to last just 50 years and is scheduled for a $3.9 billion replacement. A Senate panel yesterday unveiled bipartisan legislation that would authorize six years of U.S. highway programs, acting with construction projects at risk of slowing months before the November congressional elections. Long-Term Bill The bill drafted by Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer and other members would provide the same amount of money each year as in the current two-year, $105 billion legislation expiring in September, plus inflation. It is silent on the central issue of how to fund projects, a matter

being left until later for congressional tax-writers and that threatens the proposal’s chances of

making it into law.

And corporate tax reform is bipartisan but Obama arm-twisting key to keep Republicans on boardSnyder 2/26 (Tanya Snyder has been the editor of Streetsblog USA (and before that, Streetsblog Capitol Hill) since September 2010. Prior to working at Streetsblog, she covered Congress for Pacifica Radio and NPR stations, and covered local news for WTOP 103.5 FM, http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/02/26/will-obama-and-the-gop-align-on-plan-to-fund-transpo-with-tax-reform/, “Will Obama and the GOP Align on Plan to Fund Transpo With Tax Reform?”, February 26, 2014)

Today, both President Obama and Republican House Ways and Means Chair Dave Camp unveiled plans to pay for transportation with corporate tax reform. Few details have emerged about exactly how Camp plans to do this, but Politico has heard from Capitol Hill staffers that it would push $100 billion to $125 billion to transportation over an unspecified time frame. While the revenue stream is still a mystery and appears to be extremely gimmicky, Obama’s spending plan looks good. It would raise the federal investment in transit by 70 percent annually, and also beef up intercity rail and the TIGER program. The Obama plan also calls for an increase in funding for state DOTs, but an outline released by the White House said “fix-it first” protections would be attached to make sure that this goes primarily toward road maintenance, not highway expansion. The main talking point of Camp’s plan, meanwhile, is that it cuts the top corporate tax rate from 36 percent to 25 percent. The details of how that is going to shake down into a windfall for transportation are still hazy. While it would seem to be a good sign that both the Democratic president and Republican Ways and Means chair agree on a mechanism to fund a long- term transportation bill, it’s far from a done deal . Sen. Max Baucus, who was gung-ho about tax reform, has left the

Finance Committee and the Senate to become ambassador to China. His replacement, Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, is very progressive on transportation but not so keen on tackling tax reform just yet. Insiders say that even House Republicans may be hesitant to embrace Camp’s tax reform plan when it has so little chance of going anywhere in the Senate. Meanwhile, Obama just announced his plan at an event at St. Paul’s Union Depot, where DOT Secretary Anthony Foxx also announced the sixth round of TIGER funding, for $600 million. Obama’s proposal is progressive and thoughtful — as are all of the transportation proposals he’s put forward in the past five years, all of which have gone nowhere. This plan tacitly acknowledges some of those failures: It renamed the High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Program (which has been belittled for not being high-speed enough) “high performance and passenger rail programs.” Instead of more ambitious Obama priorities such as a National Infrastructure Bank, it leaves funding for the TIFIA loan program at $1 billion a year, where Congress set it in MAP-21. The president says corporate tax reform would yield $150 billion for a one-time infusion into the Highway Trust Fund — twice what’s needed to ward off insolvency — to help fund his four-year, $302 billion plan. Though the size of the infusion is good

news, it gives advocates pause. It’s still a one-time fix and not a real solution to the mismatch between transportation revenues and transportation needs. It totally severs the relationship between the revenue source for transportation investment and what the revenue is spent on. And it’s all because practically no one on Capitol Hill is willing to call for anything that could possibly sound like a tax increase, even as the economy rebounds. Still, there’s a lot to like. While road funding (which can actually be spent on any type of surface transportation) would grow 22 percent under Obama’s proposal, transit funding would grow 70 percent. Fix-it-first and climate-resilient projects would be prioritized. The budget includes $19 billion for rail (including $5 billion for the “high performance” inter-city rail programs). And though it’s not spelled out in the White House fact sheet, Obama is setting the stage for a unified Transportation Trust Fund , which would include funding for rail along with highways and transit. Bus rapid transit gets $2.2 billion of its own. Freight gets $10 billion — and Obama’s plan emphasizes that it’s for multimodal freight programs. TIGER funding would double to $5 billion over four years, and a new $4 billion competitive grant program aimed at stoking innovative local policies would be born. Obama says his plan would “strengthen local decision making in allocating Federal funding so that local communities can better realize their vision for improved mobility.” When power is put in the hands of cities and towns instead of states, that’s a recipe for multi-modal investment in transit, biking and walking. Biking and walking, as it were, are not specifically discussed in the president’s plan. Sen. Barbara Boxer, chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee that largely writes the Senate transportation bill, says she expects this next bill to be mostly about funding while keeping MAP-21 s policy reforms more or less intact. But ′Obama’s vision is broader than that and looks to be a big improvement over the disappointing MAP- 21. The four-year time frame will satisfy — though not thrill — those who have grown frustrated with extensions and short-term bills that don’t give states and cities the certainty they need to make big investments. Most people have been hoping for a five- or six-year bill this time around. The prospects for Dave Camp’s tax reform and President Obama’s corporate tax idea will become clearer over the next few days. For now, the similarity between the two proposals is keeping partisans on either side

from attacking the other’s plan. But that doesn’t mean they’ll go forward. Stay tuned.

All options are still on the table- debates still keyHasley 5/13 (Ashley Halsey III, Washington Post, “Bipartisan Senate plan for transportation funding would keep current spending levels”, http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/bipartisan-senate-plan-for-transportation-funding-would-keep-current-spending-levels/2014/05/13/c60cdf48-da09-11e3-8009-71de85b9c527_story.html, May 13, 2014)

The next step in addressing a national transportation funding crisis came Monday night in a U.S. Senate proposal that would continue current spending levels for six years and give state and local governments more autonomy in how they spend federal dollars. The long-awaited bipartisan bill, which was released without comment by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and David Vitter (R-La.), would be pegged at around the current level of $52 billion a year, with an allowance for inflation. “It’s not earth

shattering, it’s pragmatic,” said Robert Puentes, a transportation and infrastructure expert at the Brookings Institution. Taken as a sign of

movement in an election year that has slowed Congress to a snail’s pace, the bill was reassuring to state and local transportation officials who feared their federal funds might be delayed or reduced by mid-summer. The Senate bill brings to three the number of transportation spending plans under discussion. But based on Boxer’s track record of success, it became the front-runner against bills from the House and the Obama administration. Boxer was seen as the force behind the current plan that won approval in

2012. After weeks of toil by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, the Boxer bill landed in the middle of what advocacy groups have dubbed “infrastructure week,” a concerted effort to draw public and Capitol

Hill attention to declining national systems said to need $3.6 trillion in restoration by 2020. President

Obama is scheduled to visit New York’s Tappan Zee Bridge on Wednesday, his latest foray to underscore the infrastructure issue. The 58-year-old bridge, crossed by

about 140,000 vehicles each day, has outlived its natural life span and is set for a $3.9 billion replacement. The Senate bill, which lays out a plan for spending but doesn’t specify where the money will come from, was being digested in advance of a committee hearing set for Thursday. “While we begin the process of reviewing the specifics of the bill, we look forward to working with Senators Boxer and Vitter and the rest of the committee,” said Bud Wright, with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. “The

nature of the projects and programs that state departments of transportation oversee require a long-term view in order to ensure the best investment of federal, state and local tax dollars.” “Manufacturers can’t afford more delays,” said Jay Timmons, president of the National Association of Manufacturers. “Congress must bring the federal Highway Trust Fund to an improved condition of solvency.” “Although we are still analyzing the bill, we hope the senate’s proposal will be another step forward in the race to reauthorize the critical funding needed to support the nation’s transportation system,” said Clarence E. Anthony, executive director of the National League of Cities. The traditional source of funding for roads and transit projects, the Highway Trust Fund, relies on the 18.4-cent federal gas tax, which was last raised in 1993. The tax has not been adjusted for inflation, and the fund has eroded steadily as vehicles have become more energy efficient. The Senate bill would provide federal support for state and local governments by continuing a popular loan guarantee program, allowing greater flexibility to streamline project delivery and create a new program to reward them for expediting projects completed under budget. There are three key dates in the transportation funding crisis. One will fall in early August, when the federal Highway Trust Fund is expected to run short of cash. The second is Sept. 30, when the current highway spending bill expires. The third is Nov. 4, when voters decide who will fill 33 seats in the U.S. Senate and all 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. If those dates were reversed, experts say the chance would improve that Congress might find the backbone to raise taxes in some form to fund transportation. “I don’t think there’s any chance of it getting done this year,” Puentes said. “We’re going to figure out how to patch the trust fund from August to November. After the election, it’s

anybody’s guess.” The what-to-do and how-to-do-it questions invite complex and diverse answers. House Republicans this month rolled out a bill that cuts about $1.8 billion from current spending. The $302 billion Obama administration plan would permit $150 billion more in spending than the gas tax will bring into the trust fund. No one facing reelection in less than six months wants to be blasted for raising the federal gas tax, but Puentes and other experts see no short-term alternative to revive trust fund revenues. A quartet of influential advocates agreed Monday that a gas tax hike was the most feasible quick-fix option to avoid a scenario where states are forced to suspend summer-season construction projects for lack of federal dollars. “Over a dozen states in recent weeks have publicly stated that the uncertainty with the Highway Trust Fund has caused them to delay, stall or reconsider major projects,” said Pete Ruane, president of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, in endorsing a higher gas tax. “Over the next several weeks, we’ll be turning up the heat on Congress.” Terry O’Sullivan, president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, said his union would spend $1 million on billboards, radio and electronic media to raise voter awareness in three states — Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio. “I would raise the gas tax,” O’Sullivan said. “If not that, can we cobble together an all-of-the-above strategy? We’re not opposed to any of the other alternatives that have been proposed.” AAA lobbyist Jill Ingrassia also saw the gas tax as the best immediate option. “Asking Americans to pay more isn’t easy, but on this issue in particular, it’s the right thing to do,” she said. “Voters understand roads aren’t free, and they are willing to support increased investment when they know that the revenue is going to be spent in ways that improve their travel experience.” It has been estimated that the federal gas tax would have to be raised to 31 cents per gallon to revive the flagging trust fund. Most

polls have shown that a majority of Americans oppose a gas tax increase. A variety of other options have kicked around Congress for years, but few have gained much traction. The White House has proposed an expansion of transportation spending using money gained through corporate tax reform , a notion that rarely comes up unless an administration advocate is present. The administration spending plan included allowing states to impose tolls on interstate highways. Another short-term solution that has won bipartisan support would allow U.S. companies

that have stashed trillions of dollars offshore to bring that money home at a reduced tax rate, with that revenue going to meet transportation needs. The mantra to date — used by the Obama administration, senators and conservative House Republicans — has been that all funding options must be considered. “It is now up to the Senate Finance Committee to consider how Congress will fund this bill,” said AAA President Bob Darbelnet. “ We are encouraged to see leaders in Washington addressing the transportation crisis with detailed proposals rather than general fund bailouts.” Despite his organization’s support for a gas tax increase, Darbelnet said the finance committee should “keep all options on the table.”

Obama’s bill has the best chances of passage- our evidence is comparative but PC keyPatton 4/30 (Oliver Patton, TruckingInfo, “Obama Administration Weighs In with Highway Bill”, http://www.truckinginfo.com/channel/fleet-management/news/story/2014/04/obama-administration-weighs-in-with-highway-bill.aspx, August 30, 2014)

The Obama administration put down its marker for the next highway program with the GROW America Act, a $302 billion, four-year bill funded by a one-time infusion from a change in the corporate tax code. The House and Senate are working on their versions with no word yet on how they will pay for them, although the Senate Finance Committee will hold a hearing May 6: New Routes for Funding and Financing Highways and Transit. The administration’s bill continues the work of the current law by proposing measures to speed up project delivery, improve the governance of the program and expand financing methods. And it contains no earmarks. But it departs from past practice with a provision that would allow tolling on existing Interstates, a move that is drawing fire from trucking and other highway interests. The bill also proposes a fundamental change in the trucking industry’s business model. Over-the-road drivers typically are paid by the mile, but the bill would require carriers to pay drivers at least the federal minimum wage for time spent waiting to be loaded or unloaded. “The (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration) believes that safety could be significantly increased if drivers were compensated for these waiting periods,” the administration says in its analysis of the bill. In another important provision, the bill proposes $10 billion for investment in freight transportation and gives “shippers, transportation providers and freight workers a real seat at the table for making investment decisions.” Specifically, the bill would create incentives for states to prepare strategic multimodal freight plans and coordinate with neighboring states. It also has numerous truck safety provisions that mostly refine current programs, although there are at least two new initiatives. One would eliminate carriers’ ability to submit proof of qualification as a self-insurer in lieu of other security such as bonding. FMCSA said it has determined that the self-insurance program, which benefits fewer than 50 carriers, does not improve safety. Another provision would let FMCSA recall electronic logging devices that do not meet certification standards.

This is in anticipation of the electronic logging mandate that is pending at the agency. Funding The heart of the bill is a one- time adjustment to the corporate tax code that would yield $150 billion for the Highway Trust Fund. It is a sign of the times that this idea, a long shot at best, may be the most likely route to success for

funding the next highway bill . The Fund, the principal source of money for the federal highway program, is on track to run into the red by late August. This is forcing state transportation departments to suspend future projects, which in turn is raising the pressure on Congress to do something about funding. Any reform to the tax code has a high degree of political difficulty but this

one at least offers the hope of partisan compromise . Rep. Dave Camp , R-Mich., chairman of the

House Ways and Means Committee, also has proposed corporate tax reform as a way to pay for the

next highway bill . The two proposals differ in detail but both arise from the same impetus to improve the corporate tax code and promote growth, as well as to replenish the Fund. Neither party wants to pay for the highway program the old-fashioned way, by raising the federal fuel tax. Some on Capitol Hill are advocating that approach, but they are too few to have an impact. Since Congress is not likely to come to terms on this before the Fund runs into the red, it will have to extend the current program with funds from the general treasury, as it has done in the past. Close followers on the Hill foresee an extension of the current program that gets members past the November elections and into

early next year. Another possibility: uncertainty about the outcome of the election – there’s at least the possibility

that control of the Senate could flip to the Republicans – could generate support for yearlong extension. The

administration said it is offering this approach but is open to all ideas. “(We) will work closely with

Members of Congress of both parties on a solution that will invest in more job creating transportation projects,” the administration said. Reaction Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said the bill is a step in the right direction. He chairs the Senate Commerce Committee, which has responsibility for the safety provisions of the bill and which will hold its first hearing May 7. He said he’s pleased that the administration proposed significant new funding and will consider their approach, but added that it will not be easy to settle on a solution.

PC Key

Obama focusing on passing the bill- making Republicans bendHoye 5/14 (Matthew Hoye, CNN White House Producer, CNN Politics, “Obama to GOP: Tear down this bridge, and pay for a new one”, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/14/obama-to-gop-tear-down-this-bridge-and-pay-for-a-new-one/, May 14, 2014)

Tarrytown, New York (CNN) - Saying that rebuilding America "shouldn't be a partisan issue," President Obama tackled the dense issue of federal infrastructure spending Wednesday. He called on Republicans in Congress to "not fight on something we all know makes sense." Obama took Republicans to task

several times for not approving funds that would replenish the nation's Highway Trust Fund, which could run out of money late this summer. He said states are already cutting back on projects because of the uncertainty, and that thousands of good-paying construction jobs are in jeopardy as a result. If Congress does not, "act by the end of the summer, federal funding for transportation projects will run out," Obama said. "There will be no money, the cupboard will be bare." Obama told Republicans that if they didn't want to listen to him, maybe they should listen to some past GOP leaders . "My favorite president happens to have been a Republican - a guy named Abraham Lincoln in my home state of Illinois." He added "it was Lincoln who committed to a railroad connecting East to West, even while he was struggling mightily to hold together North and South. It was a Republican, Dwight Eisenhower, who built the Interstate Highway System. It was Ronald Reagan who said that rebuilding our infrastructure is 'an investment in tomorrow that we must make today'.”

Obama’s funding package key- others insufficientReuters 5/12 (Reuters, “White House urges highway bill passage, says jobs at stake”, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/12/us-usa-obama-highway-idUSBREA4B0UK20140512, May 12, 2014)

(Reuters) - The Obama administration on Monday warned 700,000 jobs could be lost if Congress misses a deadline to replenish a highway spending fund and said Senate legislation could fall short of a long- term solution to maintain U.S. infrastructure. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx called for passage of the administration's proposed $302 billion, four-year transportation bill that would end some business tax breaks to boost funding for the Highway Trust Fund. The fund must be reauthorized by the end of September, but could run out of money as early as late summer , the White House said. "Unless Congress acts, up to 700,000 Americans will lose their jobs over the next year and road work, bridge building, transit maintenance - all of these types of projects - may be delayed or shut down completely," Foxx told a White House briefing. President Barack Obama is due to make a pitch for boosting spending for highway repair in New York on Wednesday. Foxx said the administration's proposal , which would raise $150 billion from corporate tax reform, would permit thousands of projects to go forward and create jobs for hundreds of thousands of workers. Lawmakers will have to resolve the dilemma of how to pour money back into the Highway Trust Fund, which is supported by taxes on motor fuels. With Americans driving less and using cars with greater fuel efficiency, the fund hasn't kept pace with spending. In response to a question about Senate Democrats focusing on a bill that would have significantly less spending than Obama's legislation, Foxx

questioned whether it would be enough. "I just spent the better part of a week going to eight states, 12 cities large and small,

and I have tell you that America has been waiting on a bigger solution," he said. Senator Barbara Boxer, a Democrat of California, has said her bill would keep transportation funding at its current level of about $55 billion, adjusted for inflation, over six years. She was due to make public the details of the legislation on Monday.

Top of the Docket/ AT: Gridlock

Top of the docketDills 5/3 (Todd Dills, Overdrive, Trucking News Website, “Reports say Senate version of a highway bill

next in line ”, http://www.overdriveonline.com/reports-say-senate-version-of-a-highway-bill-next-in-line/, May 3, 2014)

HiGHWAY BILL TOO? Senate EPW Chairwoman Barbara Boxer has said she hopes to put out a transportation bill “early next week. ” We’ve heard some ambitious timelines that didn’t exactly work out (like an April markup for the bill), so you’d be forgiven for doubting her timeframe. But you might not want to question

her this time around – several senators told MT the bill should be out next week , as planned. “I haven’t seen the final text but we’ve been working in a bipartisan way ,” said Barrasso, one of EPW’s “big four” working on the bill.

“We’re headed in the right direction .” Sen. Cardin said that “ there is a fairly good consensus on the framework to get started . I don’t think that will be the final bill, but it gets us started on the process.” A lobbyist who took part in a Thursday meeting with Boxer and staff said a release is definitely imminent: “I could see it getting kicked a few days as they finish working out the details, but they are definitely going to release a bill soon ,” the source told MT.

No gridlock- action only on highway billHouse 5/13 (Billy House, National Journal, “Highway-Fund Rescue Effort Gets Started in Senate”, http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/highway-fund-rescue-effort-gets-started-in-senate-20140513, May 13, 2014)

With President Obama set to visit New York’s Tappan Zee Bridge on Wednesday to draw attention to the nation’s pressing infrastructure needs, a Senate panel is planning to finalize legislation Thursday to authorize more spending for transportation projects. But where the funding will come from remains a six-year, $100 billion question still to be addressed. Federal payments to states for as many as 6,000 road and transit projects could grind to a halt this summer to keep the Highway Trust Fund’s balance above zero, as required by law. There are estimates that as many as 700,000 jobs would be lost over a year. “The moment is dire,” Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said Tuesday at a Bloomberg Government event in Washington, as recounted by Bloomberg Businessweek. The trust fund, Foxx said, “is quickly running toward insolvency.” Share This Story While Congress in this midterm election year so far has done little to address the shortfall and inability of the highway fund to keep pace with costs, in recent days there has finally been some legislative

movement. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Monday night unveiled what it called bipartisan legislation to authorize another six years of highway projects. The bill is to be marked up Thursday by Sen. Barbara Boxer’s panel; it calls for funding improvements to the nation’s federal-aid highway programs at current levels plus inflation.

K2 Economy

Key to prevent economic collapseLawder 5/7 (David Lawder, Reuters, “U.S. Congress faces highway funding battle; gridlock looms”, http://news.yahoo.com/congress-faces-highway-funding-battle-gridlock-looms-051101896--business.html, May 7, 2014)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A slow-motion pile-up is coming into view on U.S. highways and Capitol Hill this summer: federal funding for road construction is running out and Congress faces a big fight over how to replenish it. The trucking industry, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and many state transportation directors say the simple solution to shore up the Highway Trust Fund and avoid construction layoffs is to raise federal fuel taxes, unchanged since 1993. But in a congressional election year in which both Democrats and Republicans are wary of voter backlash, the message is clear: Not going to happen. "We have never proposed or supported a gas tax," White House spokesman Jay Carney said on Monday. "I can rule out a gas tax increase," Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor told Reuters. "We're going to look for the kinds of creative solutions that can adequately fund our infrastructure needs without taxing working middle-class people." If Congress can't agree on an alternative way to increase transportation money by late summer - or take the easier path of a short-term fund transfer - the consequences could be huge , halting or slowing work on thousands of projects. This could idle

hundreds of thousands of workers at a time when the U.S. economy is finally gaining some traction. A funding crisis would affect the nearly 600 major projects under way in California at a cost of more than $11 billion, said Mark Dinger, spokesman for the state's Department of Transportation. " In surprisingly short order , the operations of the nation's largest transportation agency could grind to a halt ," he said. The situation parallels the numerous

"cliffs" that Congress has faced over the past year on divisive fiscal issues , with a looming deadline

and potentially dire economic consequences .

Links

1NC- Funding (Generic)

Ocean funding unpopular in CongressConathan ’13 (Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean Policy at the Center for American Progress. Judy Li, an intern at the Center for American Progress, “Space Exploration Dollars Dwarf Ocean Spending”, http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/06/20/space-exploration-dollars-dwarf-ocean-spending/, June 20, 2013)

“Star Trek” would have us believe that space is the final frontier, but with apologies to the armies of Trekkies, their oracle might be a tad off base. Though we know little about outer space , we still have plenty of frontiers to explore here on our home planet. And they’re losing the race of discovery. Hollywood giant James Cameron, director of mega-blockbusters such as “Titanic” and “Avatar,” brought this message to Capitol Hill last week, along with the single-seat submersible that he used to become the third human to journey to the deepest point of the world’s oceans—the Marianas Trench. By contrast, more than 500 people have journeyed into space—including Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), who sits on the committee before which Cameron testified—and 12 people have actually set foot on the surface of the moon. All it takes is a quick comparison of the budgets for NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA , to understand why space exploration is outpacing its ocean counterpart by such a wide

margin. In fiscal year 2013 NASA’s annual exploration budget was roughly $3.8 billion. That same year, total funding for everything NOAA does—fishery management, weather and climate forecasting, ocean research and management, among many other programs—was about $5 billion, and NOAA’s Office of Exploration and Research received just $23.7 million. Something is wrong with this picture. Space travel is certainly expensive. But as Cameron proved with his dive that cost approximately $8 million, deep-sea exploration is pricey as well. And that’s not the only similarity between space and ocean travel: Both are dark, cold, and completely inhospitable to human life. Yet space travel excites Americans’ imaginations in a way ocean exploration never has. To put this in terms Cameron may be familiar with, just think of how stories are told on screens both big and small: Space dominates, with “Star Trek,” “Star Wars,” “Battlestar Galactica,” “Buck Rogers in the 25th Century,” and “2001 A Space Odyssey.” Then there are B-movies such as “Plan Nine From Outer Space” and everything ever mocked on “Mystery Science Theater 2000.” There are even parodies: “Spaceballs,” “Galaxy Quest,” and “Mars Attacks!” And let’s not forget Cameron’s own contributions: “Aliens” and “Avatar.” When it comes to the ocean, we have “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea,” “Sponge Bob Square Pants,” and Cameron’s

somewhat lesser-known film “The Abyss.” And that’s about it. This imbalance in pop culture is illustrative of what plays

out in real life . We rejoiced along with the NASA mission-control room when the Mars rover landed on the red planet late last year. One

particularly exuberant scientist, known as “Mohawk Guy” for his audacious hairdo, became a minor celebrity and even fielded his share of spontaneous marriage proposals. But when Cameron bottomed out in the Challenger Deep more than 36,000 feet below the surface of the sea, it was met with resounding indifference from all but the dorkiest of ocean nerds such as myself. Part of this incongruity comes from access. No matter where we live, we can go outside on a clear night, look up into the sky, and wonder about what’s out there. We’re presented with a spectacular vista of stars, planets, meteorites, and even the occasional comet or aurora. We have all been wishing on stars since we were children. Only the lucky few can gaze out at the ocean from their doorstep, and even those who do cannot see all that lies beneath the waves. As a result, the facts about ocean exploration are pretty bleak. Humans have laid eyes on less than 5 percent of the ocean, and we have better maps of the surface of Mars than we do of America’s exclusive economic zone—the undersea territory reaching out 200 miles from our shores. Sure, space is sexy. But the oceans are too. To those intrigued by the quest for alien life, consider this: Scientists estimate that we still have not discovered 91 percent of the species that live in our oceans. And some of them look pretty outlandish. Go ahead and Google the deepsea

hatchetfish, frill shark, or Bathynomus giganteus. In a time of shrinking budgets and increased scrutiny on the return for

our investments, we should be taking a long, hard look at how we are prioritizing our exploration dollars . If the goal of government spending is to spur growth in the private sector, entrepreneurs are far more likely to find inspiration down in the depths of the ocean than up in the heavens. The ocean already provides us with about half the oxygen we breathe, our single largest source of protein, a wealth of mineral resources, key ingredients for pharmaceuticals, and marine biotechnology. Of course space exportation does have benefits beyond the “cool factor” of putting people on the moon and astronaut-bards playing David Bowie covers in space. Inventions created to facilitate space travel have become ubiquitous in our lives—cell-phone cameras, scratch-resistant lenses, and water-filtration systems, just to name a few—and research conducted in outer space has led to breakthroughs here on earth in the technological and medical fields. Yet despite far-fetched plans to mine asteroids for rare metals, the only tangible goods brought back from space to date remain a few piles of moon rocks. The deep seabed is a much more likely source of so-called rare-earth metals than distant asteroids. Earlier this year the United Nations published its first plan for management of mineral resources beneath the high seas that are outside the jurisdiction of any individual country. The United States has not been able to participate in negotiations around this policy because we are not among the 185 nations that have ratified the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, which governs such activity. With or without

the United States on board, the potential for economic development in the most remote places on the planet is vast and about to leap to the next level. Earlier this year Japan announced that it has discovered a massive supply of rare earth both within its exclusive economic zone and in international waters. This follows reports in 2011 that China sent at least one exploratory mission to the seabed beneath international waters in the Pacific Ocean. There is a real opportunity for our nation to lead in this area, but we must invest and join the rest of the world in creating the governance structure for these activities. Toward the end of last week’s hearing, Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK), who chairs the Subcommittee

on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, hypothetically asked where we would be today if we had spent half as

much money exploring the oceans as we have spent exploring space. Given the current financial climate in

Congress, we won’t find the answer to his question on Capitol Hill.

2NC- Funding (Generic)

And ocean budgets are politically untenableGagosian ’14 (Robert B. Gagosian, President and CEO, The Consortium for Ocean Leadership, “New Paradigm Needed For Federal Research Funding”, http://oceanleadership.org/new-paradigm-needed-federal-research-funding/, February 4, 2014)

What can you say about the nation’s capital when Congress has the lowest approval ratings recorded in Gallup polling history and the

president’s approval rating has sunk to the lowest of his presidency? – We appear to be in a perpetual stalemate with

fiscal brinksmanship becoming the new normal . The government recently shut down for the first time in 17 years, and you have to ask: what did we get for paying hundreds of thousands of federal workers to stay home? Only the promise of more fiscal showdowns on the horizon—first in January when another budget sequester is scheduled to go into effect and then in February when the debt limit needs to be extended again, putting in jeopardy the full faith and credit of the United States government. These kinds of activities are having a continuing deleterious effect on the budgets for scientific research as they continue to get tighter and tighter. Budget Crisis The Consortium for Ocean Leadership is a leading voice for the ocean science community with the

mission to advance research, education and sound ocean policy. While disasters named Sandy, Katrina, Haiyan, Deepwater Horizon and Fukushima have made the need for observing , understanding and forecasting ocean processes and conditions more imperative , the political morass in Washington is making our

job more difficult than ever. As an eternal optimist, I must admit that even I am beginning to have my doubts on whether our

nation can remain the world leader in innovation if we continue attempting to balance the budget on the back of discretionary programs, including science. The Department of Defense is scheduled to take the brunt of the next budget sequester in January, and I suspect that research and development programs will share the pain. We have partnered with the University Corp. for Atmospheric Research to reach out to the members of the Congressional budget conference, encouraging them to find a compromise to replace the sequester and restore funding for research programs and science agencies critical to the economy. If cooler minds do not prevail , then I suspect we will continue to see erosion in federal science programs , in critical infrastructure and eventually human capital. How can we expect to recruit and sustain the next generation of scientists if they have a less than one in 10 chance of having their grants funded? Why would the best minds that come to America to be trained want to stay here and contribute to our nation during such a dire fiscal environment? I am concerned that this could lead to our best and brightest looking for opportunities in other countries. Long-Term View for Research It was not only the budget crisis that was noteworthy in 2013. There were also the expanding expectations of politicians who demanded more scientific results with societal implications as quickly as possible, while calling for funding cuts to basic research . For instance, the Chairman of the House

Science Committee, Lamar Smith (R-Texas), began questioning the peer-review process that has been the foundation for the U.S. to be the world leader in innovation. While every scientist I know has had a “great” proposal declined by a federal agency and probably questioned how the panel could reject it, on the whole, I believe they would all state that the U.S. has the best research proposal review system in the world. And, although we should always strive for improvement, I fear questioning the peer-review process while cutting research funds is based on a fundamental misunderstanding. The desire to have a clear and definable return on investment for basic research is understandable for political purposes, but can be quite harmful for scientific ones. These issues are creeping into otherwise popular legislation such as the Sound Science Act, which was attached to the House Farm Bill as a section titled “Ensuring High Standards for Agency Use of Scientific Information,” and the FIRST Act, which deals with coordination and priorities for federal STEM programs, is an evolution of the previously floated High-Quality Research Act and is attached to the reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act. The result encourages, at minimum, an overpromising of the research conclusions from a grant, which hurts the integrity of the researcher and the system, or, more problematically, a fundamental shift away from understanding the central premise of basic research. I fear that in the long-term this shift may undermine our ability to have the basic knowledge needed to apply to the next generation’s challenges for the future success of our society. Fortunately, the gridlock in Congress means that efforts in the House to alter the merit-review system or undermine the peer-review process will likely not become law. But, if we do not educate our elected officials, including the proponents of these policies, on the harmful impacts

these could have on the scientific endeavor, then a future political shift in Washington could see these policies

become law. Taking Action So, while Congress may be accomplishing less than ever, that does not mean

we should stand by and do nothing. We need to be vigilant in reaching out to Congress and explaining why oceanography is important for the nation.

1NC- Exploration

Ocean exploration unpopular- funding issuesSpross ’14 (Jeff Spross, Climate Progress, “Republican Bill Cuts Funding For Climate, Social, Economic Research By $160 Million”, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/15/3426660/first-act-gop-science-cuts/, April 15, 2014)

The House Republicans’ latest bill to reauthorize science research funding makes an aggressive effort to pick and choose what science to fund, the Boston Globe reports. The GOP’s preferred version of the Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science, and Technology Act of 2014 (otherwise known as the FIRST Act) would move about $160 million out of the social, behavioral, and economic sciences, cutting those areas by roughly 40 percent. It would also shift money out of the geoscience areas that cover

oceanic and climate studies . Democrats have managed to amend the bill to lessen the cuts to 26 percent. But even that would leave spending levels well below their previous path. “It’s the role of Congress to make sure we’re using limited federal funds for the highest priority research,” Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee and the bill’s author, told the Globe. Specifically, the FIRST Act is a partial reauthorization of the COMPETES Act, which was first passed by Congress in 2007, and then again 2010, and has now expired. The COMPETES Act originally set funding for the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and two offices with the Department of Energy, but the targets were always something of a suggestion — thanks to sequestration and the general push for budget austerity over the last few years, the full funding called for by the COMPETES Act was never authorized by Congress. The FIRST Act would only cover funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, leaving the Department of Energy agencies to be tackled by separate legislation. According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the FIRST Act gets into the weeds of how the NSF apportions its funds — something Congress hasn’t done in years. The NSF is split into different directorates, each one covering a different area: Biological Sciences (BIO), Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE), Engineering (ENG), Geosciences (GEO), Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS), and Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences (SBE). The original version of the FIRST Act would’ve modestly cut GEO, which includes funding for ocean and atmospheric sciences. It would’ve cut SBE funding much more deeply. FIRST-NSF In mid-March, Democrats pushed through an amendment to scale back the SBE cut to half of what’s pictured above. The FIRST Act would also require the NSF to publicly justify how each grant it awards would serve the national interest. Just what that would mean has changed as the bill has been revised. And anticipating ahead of time whether any particular research project will serve the “national interest ,”

however defined, is an inherently difficult business. Finally, the FIRST Act’s overall level of spending is so low it would not keep up with inflation, making it a cut in real and not just nominal terms. The bill will be up for a vote in Smith’s committee soon. And even if it’s passed by the committee and the full Republican-controlled House, the FIRST Act would still have to survive the Democrat-controlled Senate. Nevertheless, it does offer a glimpse in Republicans’ thinking when it comes to where America’s scientific research should be going. “For a committee that is supposed to be advancing science, we seem to be doing an awfully good job of advancing selective science,” said Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy III (D-MA), who’s also on the committee. He called the GOP bill an “ opportunistic approach

to defunding or attacking certain areas of science that you either don’t agree with or that you don’t want to see what the results might actually be.”

1NC- Aquaculture

Aquaculture expansion is a hot-button issue- political firestormHedlund ’10 (Stephanie Hedlund, Seafood Source, Online Ocean Website, “Can open-ocean aquaculture reach its potential?”, http://www.seafoodsource.com/en/news/aquaculture/13719-can-open-ocean-aquaculture-reach-its-potential, March 3, 2010)

The challenges facing open-ocean aquaculture — and the industry’s potential for growth — was a

hot-button issue at the World Aquaculture Society’s Aquaculture 2010 conference in San Diego on

Wednesday. In U.S. waters, perhaps the two biggest obstacles are the lack of a regulatory

framework and opposition from environmental NGOs. Neil Sims, co-founder and president of Kona Blue Water Farms,

which raises Kona Kampachi®, a Hawaiian yellowtail, off Hawaii’s Big Island, called on conference participants to become not just advocates but also activists. “There are more than 20,000 marine species,” said Sims. “We have barely begun to scratch the surface. We should not be weighed down by the concerns of those who have focused exclusively on Atlantic salmon in the Pacific Northwest. We should be viewing these issues from a global perspective. We should be claiming the moral high ground.” “Aquaculture is not part of the problem,” he added. “We need to promote the wider debate about the future of seafood … and the future of the oceans. This is not a debate between fish farmers and environmentalists. Damn it, I am an environmentalist. That’s why I got involved in this industry. This is a debate between environmentalists and preservationist, who would prefer that we do nothing. We need to propagate the message that aquaculture, if done right, is part of the solution. We need to become activists.” The other major challenge the open-ocean aquaculture industry faces is the lack of a regulatory framework in U.S. waters.

2NC- Aquaculture

Causes environmental backlashBB ‘5 (Bend Bugle News Reports, “Boone pushes Congress to regulate aquaculture”, http://www.bendbugle.com/2005/06/boone-pushes-congress-to-regulate-aquaculture/, June 16, 2005)

Salem-State Representative Deborah Boone (D-North Coast) wants the legislature to vote on urging Congress to regulate the commercial production of aquacultural products in the open ocean, Boone’s office announced Wednesday. The North Coast legislator has introduced a “joint memorial,” which is a formal message to Congress, asking for passage of new federal legislation that requires the National Marine Fisheries Service to develop regional inventories of waters in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) that are suitable for aquaculture. The legislation, proposed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAH), would require the designation of such waters to be consistent with preserving the naturally occurring fish stocks and marine ecosystems that Oregon’s seafood industry relies on. “Aquaculture” is the business of cultivating fish or shellfish, such as oysters, clams, salmon, and trout, under controlled conditions. “ We must take steps now to make certain that aquaculture does not damage the natural fisheries that so many coastal families rely on for their livelihoods,” Boone said. “In other areas of the world, the naturally occurring marine environment has suffered damage from certain kinds of aquacultural practices. We cannot let that happen in Oregon or anywhere else.” Damage to natural ecosystems from open-ocean aquaculture has occurred in Maine, British Columbia, South Australia, Spain, Chile and other places, Boone said.

Past debates proveHomerNews ’13 (Homer News, “Young Introduces Aquaculture Bill”, http://donyoung.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=322513, February 26, 2013)

Alaska Congressman Don Young has introduced legislation that would prohibit the Secretary of Interior and the Secretary of Commerce from authorizing commercial finfish aquaculture operations in the federal Exclusive Economic Zone, from 3 to 200 miles from shore, unless specifically authorized by Congress. "If not properly managed, farmed fish can be a significant thre at to the health of Alaska's wild stocks and the health of our oceans," Young said. "Alaska's seafood industry is one of the largest employers in the state, and today's legislation will preserve Congress' prerogative to determine what type of aquaculture programs should and should not be conducted in our waters and those adjacent to our waters." Congress has never authorized open ocean aquaculture or provided a legislative framework

for managing finfish farms in the EEZ, in spite of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration drawing up a 10-year plan in

2007 that had stated goals such as "By the end of 2007, develop policies, guidelines and protocols for use in the review of proposed marine aquaculture facilities by NOAA regional and program offices under current NOAA mandates." The most recent activity on the NOAA aquaculture website involves funding opportunities for creating biofuels from algea: "As part of the Energy Department's efforts to develop transportation fuels that don't rely on petroleum, they announced on January 16 up to $10 million available this year to help unlock the potential of biofuels made from algae. The funding will support projects aimed at boosting the productivity of algae and increasing the efficiency of algae harvesting

technologies." NOAA drew fire from commercial fishermen when it began aggressively promoting aquaculture in federal waters, saying that spend ing taxpayer doll ars to create a system that would lower prices for wild-caught products was inherently unfair . However, the spotty nature of the project appears to have diminished the immediate threat. Three separate bills submitted to Congress in 2004, 2007 and 2009 failed to produce the regulatory framework, failing to even move out of committee . NOAA says that it has a commitment to developing sustainable aquaculture, although its definition of "sustainable" is not found in any of its literature.

No risk of link turn- aquaculture lobbies weak in DCStewart ’14 (Jeanine Stewart, Under Current News, “US aquaculture industry lacks Washington presence, needs lobbyist”, http://www.undercurrentnews.com/2014/02/12/us-aquaculture-industry-lacks-washington-presence-needs-lobbyist/, February 12, 2014)

The US aquaculture industry — despite being a source of innovation for aquaculture around the world — has no lobbyist in Washington D.C ., according to panelists and audience members at the Aquaculture America conference in Seattle who spoke out during Monday’s session on how to grow the aquaculture industry in the United States. This problem has many spokes , considering it means US

congress is nearly blind to the multifarious political problems aquaculture industry deals with , from taxation to permitting problems, sources said. “We need an aquaculture lobbyist,” George Lockwood, former World Aquaculture Society president told the audience. He suggested seeking funding from large aquaculture players such as Tyson, which supplies feed ingredients to the industry. Steve Hart, executive director of the Soy Aquaculture Alliance, agrees whole-heartedly. The SAA has full time lobbyists in Washington D.C., but they only deal with aquaculture issues related to soybeans, and he notes there is a huge dearth of knowledge on aquaculture issues among congressional

representatives . “We talk to the congressional reps, and we mention aquaculture issues, and they say, ‘that’s really interesting — we’ve never heard about this before’,” he told Undercurrent. “Almost everyone we talk to is incredibly interested in aquaculture; they’re just not hearing it enough.” He urges people to write their congresspeople to tell them what needs to happen to get aquaculture moving in the United States. Otherwise, he said, they do not know. The problem is broad-reaching, he suggested. The aquaculture industry deals with tough business hurdles, most significantly the difficult permitting

process, in addition to public perception challenges. Frank Asche, a well-known marine economist at the University of Stavanger in Norway, suggests the regulatory environment is preventing the industry from exploiting what would otherwise be a great business opportunity. “The regulatory maze basically ensures that state of the art technology is not used in the United States,” Asche told the audience. “Therefore you are lagging behind…You have the best conditions, both from the production point of view and from a market perspective.” Yet the regulators themselves aren’t in the position to make changes to the actual regulatory process — it is congress that must change that process, Hart said.

1NC- Floating SMR

Aff gets spun as floating Chernobyl- unpopularAP ‘6 (Associated Press, “Russian world-first: A floating nuclear plant”, http://www.nbcnews.com/id/13316942/ns/world_news-world_environment/t/russian-world-first-floating-nuclear-plant/#.U3O1Kfk7uSo, June 14, 2006)

Environmental groups have sharply criticized the proposed floating reactors. "Floating nuclear power

plants are absolutely unsafe , inherently so. There are risks of the unit itself sinking, there are risks in towing the units to where they need to be," said Charles Digges, editor of the Web site for the Norwegian-based environmental group Bellona. "They (Russians) are sitting on so much oil and have so many other avenues to alternative sources of energy for these particular regions where they would use floating nuclear power plants ... which are cheaper to build, cheaper to research," he said.

2NC- Floating SMR

Plan is attacked by powerful lobbies- causes backlashSzondy 12 (David, Gizmag, "Feature: Small modular nuclear reactors - the future of energy?," http://www.gizmag.com/small-modular-nuclear-reactors/20860/)Indeed, it is in government regulations that the modular reactors face their greatest challenges. Whatever the facts about nuclear accidents from Windscale to Fukushima, a large fraction of the public , especially in the West, is very nervous about nuclear energy in

any form. There are powerful lobbies opposed to any nuclear reactors operating and the regulations written up by governments reflect these circumstances. Much of the cost of building nuclear plants is due to meeting all regulations, providing safety and security systems, and just dealing with all the legal barriers and paperwork that can take years and millions of dollars to overcome. Modular reactors have the advantage of being built quickly and cheaply, which makes them less of a financial risk, and factory

manufacturing means that a reactor intended for a plant that missed approval can be sold to another customer elsewhere. And some SMRs are similar enough to conventional

reactors that they don't face the burden of being a "new" technology under skeptical scrutiny. However, red tape is still a very real thing.

And fear of accidents jack popularityBredimas and Nuttal 12 (Alexandre and William - Judge Business School, "A Comparison of International Regulatory Organizations and Licensing Procedures for New Nuclear Power Plants, ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/forum/opportunities/doc/legal_roadmap/2009_10_28/eprg-bredimas.pdf)

At the heart of the process, public acceptance is a prerequisite which is most important during the siting step. If one

accepts a site for a new nuclear plant, one must also accept wider national or regional need for a new nuclear plant. Western public anxiety towards nuclear power emerged strongly after the accidents of Three-Mile Island, PA, USA in 1979 and Chernobyl, Ukraine in 1986. Arguably, in addition, the modern public fundamentally mistrusts political elites and large companies. In the case of

nuclear power mistrust can run even deeper because of an historical association between nuclear innovation and the military. The military legacies of nuclear power result in a widespread perception, and arguably a reality, of top-

down nuclear strategy surrounded by a climate of secrecy. Publics and other stakeholders are therefore likely to be highly sensitised to the democratic features of siting policy and are likely to give great emphasis to safety issues during the licensing process of any new nuclear plant.

SMRs do not circumvent backlashTaso ‘11 (Firas Eugen Taso, “21st Century Civilian Nuclear Power and the Role of Small Modular Reactors”, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy; Tufts University, May 2011 http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/docview/877618836, 8-2-12)

Paolo Ferroni also mentions that SMRs would not solve the public concern over nuclear power . To the general public, they would still be nuclear facilities , something that they do not understand and fear . Unless they

were proven and demonstrated, opposition would exist even for the smaller demonstration projects . The NIMBY attitude would likely preclude SMRs from being a game changer for nuclear power, unless something changes dramatically , not only incrementally, in public perception .

2NC- DOE $ Unpopular

Nuclear power R&D unpopular- spendingYurman ’12 (Dan Yurman, The Energy Collective Thinktank, Marketing Communications Services for Energy Technologies, Member of the Advisory Board, the Energy Collective, a project of Social Media Today, Launched the official blog of the American Nuclear Society (ANS), In June 2011 I received a special recognition award from the American Nuclear Society for work on communication of nuclear energy science and engineering information to the news media and the public during the Fukushima crisis in Japan, “SMR developers are racing to the market”, http://theenergycollective.com/node/77332, February 22, 2012)

DOE's 2013 budget flatlines support for new nuclear tech Its' a dark time for expectations of new funding for nuclear reactor technolog y. The Obama administration's budget request to Congress for DOE's nuclear energy programs for fiscal year 2013 reflects it. Here are a few highlights of the Obama administration's financial plans for nuclear energy R&D. The 2012 figure is the amount appropriated by Congress for the current fiscal year that ends next October and the 2013 figure is the amount requested by the President. SMR licensing support is cut by $2 million from $67 million in 2012

to $65 million in 2013. Advanced reactor R&D and development is slashed by $41 million from $115 million in 2012

to $74 million in 2013. Fuel cycle R&D is nicked $9 million down from $186 million in 2012 to $175 million in 2013. Of this amount

$60 million is allocated to implement recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission. So what does it mean for SMRs? In a word, not much has changed from 2012. It will be an uphill battle for SMR developers of all types. A presidential budget request is just that - a request. It is not a decision. It is a presidential election year with the entire House and one-third of the Senate up for a vote. Also, many incumbents are mindful of the fact that public approval ratings for congress in general are in the single digits making a "throw the bums out" spirit stronger than usual. The turmoil surrounding decisions about federal funding will be more intense than usual and that means nothing should be taken for granted - especially the

numbers in the President's budget . Competition for nuclear R&D dollars is way down the priority list

for a deficit minded Congress that yet seeks to prove to voters they matter for something.

AT: Floating Different

Floating nuclear magnifies nuclear concerns- doesn’t solve themWellock ’13 (Thomas Wellock, NRC Historian, “Waves of Uncertainty: The Demise of the Floating Reactor Concept (Part II)”, http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov/2013/09/26/waves-of-uncertainty-the-demise-of-the-floating-reactor-concept-part-ii/, September 26, 2013)

Offshore Power Systems, apparently, did not appreciate that putting land-based reactors out to sea was bound to raise new safety, environmental and regulatory questions. Concerns about ship collisions, off-shore fishing grounds, barge sinking and the

challenge of creating a new regulatory process for floating reactors were just some of the unique issues facing

regulators. Even the trade press raised concerns. Nuclear News worried about the “ incredibly tangled mass of

overlapping jurisdictions, state, national, and international law, inter-agency authority ” that included new players such as the U.S. Coast Guard. Drawing from a 1978 GAO report. Drawing from a 1978 GAO report. Events conspired to worsen OPS’s prospects. The oil crisis that began in 1973 made construction financing expensive and slowed electricity consumption. Facing slack demand, PSEG postponed delivery of the first floating plant from 1981 to 1985 and later to 1988. Tenneco backed out of the OPS partnership in 1975. With the entire enterprise threatened, Westinghouse and the Florida Congressional delegation asked the federal government to purchase four

plants. But, the prospect of “bailing out” OPS did not appeal to officials in the Ford Administration. The purchase proposal died. Floating

reactors did not solve regulatory or political problems . The production facility in Jacksonville needed an NRC manufacturing license. There were so many technical and regulatory uncertainties that the licensing review ran three years behind schedule. A 1978 report from the U.S. General Accounting Office criticized the NRC for what it believed was an incomplete safety review, particularly for not accounting for impacts on the ocean ecosystem during an accident where a

melting reactor core broke through the bottom of the barge. Local and state opposition to the plant was intense . Nearby counties voted in non-binding referendums 2 to 1 against the Atlantic Generating Station, and the New Jersey legislature refused to introduce a bill to turn the offshore site over to PSEG. Westinghouse held out hope for a brighter future; PSEG didn’t. In late 1978, the utility announced it canceled its orders for all four of its floating plants. Slack demand, it noted, was “the only reason” for the cancellations. “We simply will not need these units” in the foreseeable future, a utility official admitted. Others blamed excessive regulation. In March 1979, John

O’Leary, a Department of Energy deputy secretary, provided to the White House a “ grim—even alarming report ,” as one

staffer said, that the NRC delays with the OPS license were symptomatic of a larger problem. “ It has

become impossible to build energy plants in America ” O’Leary said, due to excessive environmental

regulations and an indecisive bureaucracy. Environmental laws, O’Leary complained, had created “a chain of

hurdles which effectively kill energy projects ” and damage to the nation’s economy. He wanted presidential action. Drawing

from a 1978 GAO report. Drawing from a 1978 GAO report. Events rendered O’Leary’s plea for action moot. Two and a half weeks later the Three Mile Island accident occurred, ending any hope of an imminent industry rebound. The accident raised anew questions about a core melt accident and further delayed the manufacturing license. The NRC did not issue a license until 1982. In 1984, Westinghouse formally abandoned

the OPS enterprise, dismantled the Jacksonville facility, and sold its huge crane to China. Going to sea , OPS discovered, did not

allow it to escape the problems that beset nuclear power . A novel technological solution could not overcome public distrust and economic, technical and regulatory uncertainty. We shall see how Russia handles the challenges.

AT: Nuclear Lobby Powerful

The nuclear lobby has no influence – only a risk of a turnHopf ‘12 (Jim, senior nuclear engineer, 20 years of experience in shielding and criticality analysis, regular contributor to ANS nuclear café [“The Party Platforms on Energy – And Nuclear,” September 18th, http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2012/09/18/the-party-platforms-on-energy-and-nuclear/, September 18, 2012)

My general view is that the Republicans primarily support fossil fuels while the Democrats primarily support renewables. Both are now supporting gas, to some degree. Neither party supports nuclear to any significant degree. This is due to a profound lack of influence in Washington by the nuclear industry, compared to other energy industries. Recently, some have tried to suggest that the industry (Exelon Corp., specifically) has had significant influence with Obama , due to campaign contributions and its presence in Illinois. This view is absurd . Here’s a

question: What is the ONLY major energy source that was NOT mentioned at all in Obama’s Democratic

convention speech? He (the Democratic candidate) even made brief mention of “clean coal”, but didn’t mention nuclear at all. Due in

large part to this lack of influence, the current regulatory playing field is heavily slanted against nuclear, with nuclear’s requirements being orders of magnitude more strict than those applied to fossil fuels (as measured by dollars spent per unit of public health and safety benefit, etc.). Five years ago, it seemed like things were finally moving in a more fair, balanced direction, with the prospect of CO2 limits, etc., but now things seem set to get even worse. We have the NRC considering adding even more regulation, and arguing that current regulations are insufficient since the Fukushima event inflicted significant economic costs, even though the public health impacts have been very small—much smaller than what NRC had always assumed the consequences of a severe meltdown would be (i.e, current regulations were always based on the assumption that such an event would be vastly more harmful). Meanwhile, we hear calls from the right side of the political spectrum, to reign in or even eliminate the EPA, with no similar calls for the NRC. Humble proposals to merely reduce the ~20,000 annual deaths, in the United States alone, from fossil plant pollution are loudly decried, while nuclear requirements are being increased even further, in a quest to reduce even the chance of the release of pollution to even more negligible levels, without any fanfare or political resistance (even from the industry itself). Nuclear’s complete lack of political influence , and the overly powerful influence of other sources such as coal, is starting to be examined in some quarters—a recent article by William Tucker being one example.

1NC- Offshore Drilling

Forces political energy fights- saps capital Geman ‘10 (Ben, The Hill, 4/1/10, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/90137-drilling-push-shakes-up-climate-fight-)

While most of the drilling proposal can be undertaken using executive power, expanded drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico w ould require congressional approval. That will surely play a role in the fight over energy and climate legislation that Democrats hope to bring to the floor. Republicans called Obama’s plan too narrow, as it closes off or delays leasing or sales in other areas. The energy consulting firm ClearView Energy Partners, in a research note Wednesday, said the limits of the White House plan give architects of the Senate energy and climate bill an opening to woo new support. “One obvious implication of today’s announcement: delaying and canceling OCS [Outer Continental Shelf] sales gives lawmakers the opportunity to ‘sweeten’ a climate bill by restoring or accelerating sales,” ClearView states. But the White House and the architects of Senate legislation — Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) — risk losing support among liberal Democrats and environmentalists as they seek expanded drilling . For instance, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) attacked the plan Wednesday. “ Drilling off the Virginia coast would endanger many of New Jersey’s beaches and vibrant coastal economies ,” Lautenberg said in a prepared statement. Environmental groups that are on board with efforts to craft a compromise climate change and energy bill — such as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council — also slammed the proposal .

2NC- Offshore Drilling

Plan is a flip flopSexton ‘12 (John, 3/30/12, http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/30/Atlantic-Oil-And-Gas)

Yesterday the Obama administration announced a delaying tactic which will put off the possibility of new offshore oil drilling on the Atlantic coast for at least five years : The announcement by the Interior Department sets into motion what will be at least a five year environmental survey to determine whether and where oil production might occur.

Tanks capital Goddard ‘9 (Taegan, Creator – Political Wire, (One of the Most Widely-Read and Influential Political Web Sites on the Internet), "Does Obama Practice a Different Kind of Politics?", CQ Politics, 3-19, http://innovation.cq.com/ liveonline/51/landing)

Dan from Philadelphia: How quickly is Obama burning through his political capital? Will he have anything left to actually keep some of his promises? With potential shifts from his campaign stances on the question of Gitmo, Iraq troop withdrawals and taxing employer healthcare benefits, it seems he is in for tough fights on all fronts. # Taegan Goddard: That's a great question. I think Obama spends some of his political capital every time he makes an exception to his principles -- such as hiring a lobbyist to a key position or overlooking an appointee not paying their taxes. Policy reversals such as the ones you note burn through even more of this precious capital .

Environmental groups hate the plan - Hobson ‘12 (Margaret, “Offshore Drilling: Obama’s Development Plans Gain Little Political Traction in Years Since Gulf Spill”) http://www.eenews.net/public/energywire/2012/04/18/1, 4/18/12)

While opening more offshore lands to oil and gas development, the Obama administration has also taken steps to make offshore oil drilling safer, according to a report card issued yesterday by Oil Spill Commission Action, an oversight panel formed by seven members of President Obama's oil spill commission. That report criticized Congress for failing to adopt new oil spill safety laws but praised the Interior Department and industry for making progress in improving offshore oil development safety, environmental protection and oil spill preparation. An environmental group was less complimentary . A report yesterday by Oceana charged that the measures adopted by government and industry are "woefully inadequate." As the 2012 presidential campaign heats up and gasoline prices remain stuck near $4 per gallon, Obama's offshore oil development policies aren't winning him any political capital . The environmental community hates the drilling proposals . The Republicans and oil industry officials complain that the White House hasn't gone far enough . And independent voters are confused by the president's rhetoric.

Pisses off Obama’s base Maize ‘10 (Kennedy, “Copenhagen: The Case for Climate Adaptation”, Managing Power, March 1, http://www.managingpowermag.com/opinion_and_commentary/Copenhagen-The-Case-for-Climate-Adaptation_227.html)

Energy legislation is dead for 2010, except for possible subsidies for nuclear power, clean coal, and offshore drilling , designed to appeal to Republicans. But that reach across the partisan divide likely

will enrage Obama’s base among liberals and environmentalists. The predictable outcome: more gridlock and name-calling. No action.

That Tanks capital Campbell ‘11 (James E., Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Chair of the Department and the University of Buffalo, “Political Forces on the Obama Presidency: From Elections to Governing”, http://www.polsci.buffalo.edu/documents/ObamaPresidencyChapter4.pdf)

Since neither the ideological base of a party not its supporters in the center can be ignored-—and since both have different demands—presidents must arrive at some balance between them. In no small part, the success of presidents in governing depends on their success in striking the right balance between governing to please their party’s base and governing to please the political center. Like every presidency before his, this is the challenge for Obama’s presidency. Its success in governing the nation, as well as the possibility of a second term, may hinge on how well the president strikes the right balance between appealing to his liberal base and simultaneously to his supporters in the political center. The principal reason why a president’s success in office depends on his ability to maintain the support of the president’s electoral coalition ( the combined partisan base and centrist supporters) is that this is also his governing coalition. Since political views are generally stable, a president should expect to receive most of his support while in office from the same quarters that supported him in his election. As a consequence, the success of a president in office depends to a great extent on his ability to maintain both the support of his base and the center. Just as the president’s electoral success depended on maintaining his electoral coalition, his success in governing depends on maintaining the support of that same coalition. In effect, there is no bright line between the politics of governing and the politics of elections. In its most basic sense, the “permanent campaign” to maintain the president’s constituency of supporters from election to office and on to the next election is fundamental to presidential politics.

Bipartisan opposition Greenwire ‘6 (“Rough going seen for efforts to lift congressional moratoria,” 5-26-6, http://www.noia.org/website/download.asp?id=295)

With a growing number of Republican lawmakers facing stiff midterm races, efforts to open more offshore areas to oil and gas drilling will find tough going on Capitol Hill, environmentalists and others tracking the issue say. For now, industry groups say momentum is on their side. Though the House voted 217-203 on Thursday to reject removing congressional moratoria on most offshore natural gas drilling, industry lobbyists point out that Rep. John Peterson's (R-Pa.) plan got 46 more votes than it did last year. If there is an offshore drilling component to an upcoming House energy package, it is expected to be shaped largely by House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo (R-Calif.). Pombo's plan would allow states to "opt-out" of offshore oil and gas drilling bans. States that opt-out would receive a share of offshore production revenues. Environmentalists are hopeful the bipartisan coastal coalition that opposes wider leasing will not be swayed in sufficient numbers to endorse an opt-out plan or other efforts that are less aggressive than Peterson's but still relax current bans. Heather Taylor, deputy legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, called the argument that Thursday's vote puts industry within striking distance of winning changes to current restrictions a "stretch." "We still won. Period," Taylor said in an interview Friday. "The bottom line is that [the] vote proves that people care about our coasts, and any proposal that comes through that hurts our coasts will be rejected ." Also, a House floor vote last week that would also have lifted congressional coastal oil drilling bans lost by a large margin. That prompted an environmentalist to note that an opt-out covering both oil and gas would face hurdles that could be greater than Peterson's gas-only proposal. One lobbyist who works on environmental and energy issues does not believe the House is ready to adopt the opt-out idea, which was most recently floated through legislation offered by Rep. Bobby Jindal (R-La.) that largely mirrors an opt-out and state revenue-sharing plan Pombo floated last year. "I don't see how an opt-out passes," the lobbyist said. "We have never lost a vote on this on the floor," added an aide to a Democratic lawmaker. "To succeed, Pombo has to play the middle ground. I am not sure if he is there yet." Still, an industry lobbyist seeking wider drilling said Friday the vote on Peterson's plan "proves a nuanced approach to things ... has a lot of credibility on the Hill right now." Yet the fight could get tougher if it does not happen this year. Republicans are bracing for a tough midterm election, and while votes on offshore drilling are not quite partisan showdowns, more Democrats oppose wider offshore leasing .

Affirmative

2AC Block

No progress on Highway BillJackson 5/11 (Herb Jackson, North Jersey News, “Jackson: Congress lacks the will to solve transportation funding problem”, http://www.northjersey.com/news/jackson-congress-lacks-the-will-to-solve-transportation-funding-problem-1.1013955?page=all, May 11, 2014)

They know the truth, they just don’t know what to do about it . Officials in Trenton and Washington know that the way they have paid to

maintain and expand roads, bridges and mass transit for decades no longer works. For the federal government, the gas tax began generating less revenue than Congress wanted to spend in 2008, and creative financing or just adding to debt have been used to fill the gap since then. With the latest multiyear national

transportation law due to expire this fall, Republicans and Democrats on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works say they will release a bipartisan agreement this week that would keep financing flat, with only an increase for inflation. That’s the easy part . The Senate Committee on Finance has the hard job of finding as much as $100 billion in new revenue to pay for a six-year renewal. Even if that happens, spending on maintenance and repairs would eat up a bigger part of the program,. while major upgrades become rare. “Shortsightedness has left us with a broken and increasingly second-rate transportation system … mainly because of the high political costs associated with proposing any kind of revenue increase,” Jay Rockefeller, the West Virginia Democrat who heads the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, said at a hearing last week. While some conservatives are saying the time has come for transportation spending to be cut, there are

Republican senators joining Democrats in arguing that keeping the program is a national priority. There is just no agreement on how to

pay for it. The Obama administration’s plan uses corporate tax “reform ” that would require multinational companies to pay taxes on profits parked overseas. But any tax increase is not likely to advance. “We should have a robust discussion as to how our tax system should deal with overseas earnings,” Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the top Republican on the Finance Committee, said at a hearing last week. “That discussion should take place in the context of a broader debate about tax reform, not as part of an ad hoc

effort to pay for a highway bill.” Broader tax reform will not happen this year, everyone agrees. Yet the clock is ticking, and

sometime this summer the U.S. Department of Transportation says the Highway Trust Fund will be tapped out and payments to states, mostly reimbursements for projects already under way, will be reduced or suspended. “We’ve got to find a way to pay for it,” said Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr., a Democrat from Paterson and member of the Ways and Means Committee. “My feeling is that an increase in the gasoline tax should be on the table, as well as giving states the authority to provide an increase in tolls.” But with the interstate highway system now complete, states could be forced to play a bigger role. “A straightforward solution … would be to reduce spending to match current revenues,” Chris Edwards, tax policy director at the Cato Institute, said at a Senate Finance Committee hearing last week. “State governments would be free to fill the void as they choose.” In New Jersey, the state Transportation Trust Fund is under similar strain, and Governor Christie has used creative methods to finance work without raising taxes. The best example is the Pulaski Skyway, which was recently closed for an overhaul needed to keep the 80-year-old link between Newark and Jersey City safe. To pay for it, Christie got the Port Authority to divert money that had been earmarked for a new commuter rail tunnel to New York City that Christie canceled because of fears of cost overruns. Last week, the head of Amtrak said one of the two 100-year-old tunnels used now by its trains and NJ Transit’s would have to be closed within the next 20 years, causing lengthy delays. The Port Authority’s diversion of money to the Skyway required classifying the bridge, which ends at the Holland Tunnel, as an access road to the Lincoln Tunnel instead. That move is reportedly under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission. At least since 2009, Rep. Scott Garrett, a Republican from Wantage, has sponsored a bill that would let states opt out of the federal transportation system. The STATE act, for Surface Transportation and Tax Equity, would reduce the federal tax rate by the amount states raise their own taxes, effectively keeping the money paid at the pump in the state where it is collected. It currently has 14 co-sponsors, none of them from New Jersey. Knowing that federal payments could be halted or reduced when the trust fund runs dry, some states have started fewer projects this spring, members of Congress from both parties said last week. New Jersey transportation officials did not return a message asking what the state’s contingency plan is in the event of a suspension of federal financing. It could be that looming problems with the state’s financing system have kept anyone from looking at the issue. Next year, the state’s Transportation Trust Fund, which pays for local projects and the state’s share of federally financed work, will have to be renewed, and the costs of paying off bonds issued for past projects is crowding out what’s available for new work. Christie, who attacked his predecessors’ reliance on debt, originally said his capital plan for 2012 through 2016 would rely more on “pay as you go” projects financed with current revenues, like sales tax collections and tolls from the New Jersey Turnpike. But when the economic recovery Christie predicted never arrived, the extra sales tax revenue he was counting on never materialized. Christie also steered the turnpike tolls he had said would go into the trust fund to NJ Transit, according to an analysis by the Office of Legislative Services. But the state continued spending the same amount and filled the gap with an extra $1 billion in borrowing through 2015, the OLS analysis said. The pay-as-you-go portion, originally projected at $1.2 billion, ended up being just $66 million. The state now expects to have to renew the program six months earlier than expected because it will hit the statutory debt limit. In short, both the state and federal transportation programs are tapped out, or nearly there. At last week’s Senate Finance Committee hearing on options to

fill the gap, the Congressional Budget Office offered three suggestions: spend less, raise more revenue, or transfer money from the general treasury. With support still strong for at least the same level of spending, if not more, and taxes going nowhere , that would leave the general treasury, which already has a huge deficit. So this problem , like commuter traffic in North Jersey, is going to be around a while.

Not a Q of PCGrunwald 4/30 (Michael Grunwald is TIME’s senior national correspondent. Before coming to TIME, he spent nearly a decade at the Washington Post, where he served as a congressional correspondent, New York bureau chief, essayist and national investigative reporter. Grunwald has also written for the Boston Globe, The New Republic and Slate among many other publications, and is the recipient of the George Polk Award for national reporting, the Worth Bingham Prize for investigative reporting and the Society of Environmental Journalists award for in-depth reporting, “The Huge Obama Transportation Bill You Heard Nothing About”, http://time.com/83073/barack-obama-transportation-republicans/, April 30, 2014)

“Infrastructure spending is popular on both sides,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said. “Infrastructure investment is an area where we should work together,” House Majority Whip Eric Cantor once tweeted. And Republican-friendly business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Alliance for American Manufacturing are huge supporters of public works. Republicans have urged the Obama Administration to propose a major transportation bill, calling America’s crumbling infrastructure a natural issue for bipartisan cooperation. Well, on Tuesday, the Administration unveiled a four-year, $300-billion transportation bill. It included a 22% increase in highway funding, a 70% increase in transit funding, and a provision allowing states to put tolls on interstates. At a time when one in nine U.S. bridges are rated “structurally deficient,” and nearly half the public lacks access to public transit, it’s a pretty ambitious piece of legislation. And this is probably the first you’re hearing of it, because it got virtually no media attention. This is partly because Washington reporters are more interested in politics than the nitty-gritty details of policy . A hugely consequential Supreme Court decision upholding a key EPA air pollution rule didn’t get too much media attention Tuesday, either. But at least the policy mavens at The Washington Post’s Wonkblog made the EPA ruling their top story of the day; the transportation bill didn’t make their top five, or even their roundup of more than a dozen lesser policy stories. This collective yawn does not just reflect the unsexiness of transportation policy; the EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule is not exactly clickbait, either. It reflects the unspoken recognition that no matter how much Republicans say they care about infrastructure,

they’re not going to accept any infrastructure proposals that come from President Barack Obama . They

opposed his $50 billion “roads, rails and runways” proposal in 2010, and then again when it was expanded and incorporated into his American Jobs Act in 2011. They’ve blocked Obama’s plans for an infrastructure bank and a national high-speed rail network. They’ve also blocked Obama’s proposals for corporate tax reform , which is relevant, because the new GROW AMERICA Act depends on tax reform for much of its financing. Other than its hideous acronym—it stands for Generating Renewal, Opportunity, and Work with Accelerated Mobility, Efficiency and Rebuilding of Infrastructure and Communities throughout America—GROW AMERICA has a lot of attractive features. It extends Obama’s commitment to “Fix It First,” focusing on upgrades for neglected infrastructure that will reduce the nation’s maintenance backlog rather than new projects that increase the maintenance backlog. And while transportation bills are known on Capitol Hill as “highway bills,” GROW AMERICA continues the Administration’s subtle shift towards passenger rail, freight rail, dedicated bus lanes, and other programs that don’t necessarily involve asphalt. Obama did manage to squeeze one massive infrastructure bill through Congress—yes, you guessed it, his stimulus bill, which passed during his first month in office despite near-unanimous opposition from Republicans. GROW AMERICA would extend many of the innovations from the stimulus bill—including high-speed passenger rail, public-private partnerships to expand freight rail, and TIGER, a popular competitive grant program for innovative projects that don’t fit into a classic transportation silo. But there’s been some scaling back. For example, just three years after the President proposed a $53 billion investment in high-speed rail —and got nothing out of Congress—he is now requesting just $5 billion. But that’s just a bow to political reality. Republicans say nice things about infrastructure but haven’t shown any interest in paying for

it. As a result, the nation has failed to take advantage of historically low interest rates to invest more in our overcrowded airports, outdated railways and flimsy bridges. Through the stimulus and other programs, the Administration has helped promote a smart electric grid, a digitized health care system, and other investments that ought to be seen as infrastructure; spending billions of dollars on new concrete is not always the best approach to meeting the needs of a modern economy. Still, our national infrastructure—the traditional concrete kind as well as the new-fangled digital kind—clearly needs an upgrade. In 2013, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave it a D-plus. And that was an

improvement over the last report card. Infrastructure advocates often complain that Obama hasn’t used his

bully pulpit enough to push for an investment program . But he barnstormed the country for the

American Jobs Act. He has talked about rebuilding America in every State of the Union address. His

problem is not a lack of will or poor messaging. His problem is that he doesn’t have the votes . Republicans control the House, and they can block legislation in the Senate. If they were willing to pass an Obama infrastructure bill, then an Obama infrastructure bill might make news .

Not passing and stop gap measures by the Treasury check collapseHennessey and Memoli 5/14 (Kathleen Hennessey, Michael A. Memoli, LA Times, “Standoff on U.S. roadway repairs becoming 'highway cliff'”, http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-transportation-bill-20140515-story.html, May 14, 2014)

Some are referring to the federal transportation funding deadline as the 'highway cliff' Lawmakers are looking at projected $16-billion shortfall in the nation's roadway construction and repair fund Will lawmakers raise the federal 18.4-cent-per-gallon gas tax to fund road construction and repairs? Without quick action by Congress, the U.S. Transportation Department may begin scaling back or halting work on thousands of roads, bridges and other infrastructure projects at the height of the construction season this July, when the nation's Highway Trust Fund is expected to run dry. But as recent spending battles in Washington have shown, finding bipartisan cooperation to prevent the fund from becoming insolvent will be no easy task, particularly in an election year . The standoff is the latest example of partisan gridlock on Capitol Hill, reminiscent of similar battles over the budget. Some are already referring to the transportation funding deadline as the " highway cliff," a reference to the 2012 fight over expiring tax rates and the debt ceiling. On Wednesday, President Obama prodded Congress to move quickly, calling infrastructure investment essential to the nation's economic future. "First-class infrastructure attracts first-class jobs," Obama said, standing against the backdrop of one of the nation's most ambitious infrastructure projects, New York's aging Tappan Zee Bridge and its partially built $4-billion replacement. Failure to agree on new funding sources will put at risk more than 112,000 highway projects, 5,600 transit programs and nearly 700,000 jobs, the White House warned. In addition to keeping federal funds flowing, lawmakers must come up with a longer-term solution to close a projected $16-billion annual shortfall

in the trust. But key figures on Capitol Hill remain at odds over how to make up the gap. Washington finds itself in this jam because taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel, which provide 90% of the revenue for the Highway Trust Fund, no longer raise enough money to support the programs, in part because cars have become more fuel-efficient. Congress last passed a major transportation bill in 2012, authorizing spending on such areas as public transit and safety programs. Major business groups and labor unions are pushing lawmakers to pass a longer-term package. Some lawmakers are also eager to renew the bill because it would give them an opportunity to trumpet the role of the federal government. Lawmakers are only now taking their first steps. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, announced a bipartisan proposal this week that would keep highway spending at existing levels, indexed for inflation, for six years. But the plan was silent on the key question of how to replenish the trust fund, leaving that to the Senate Finance Committee. The previous two-year transportation bill tapped the Treasury to make up for a projected gap, but the highway fund ran dry faster than anticipated. One proposed solution would increase the current 18.4-cent-per-gallon gas tax. Federal fuel taxes have not been raised since 1993, but doing so this year seems unlikely when the entire House and more than a third of the Senate are up for election. Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), chairman of the House Transportation Committee, has yet to put forward a proposal. Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), the departing chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, called for dedicating $126.5 billion to the trust fund as part of a major overhaul of the nation's tax code, which would fully fund highway projects for eight years. The White House has also called for replenishing the trust fund through an overhaul of the corporate tax system. "This is an area where there is bipartisan interest," Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx told reporters this week. "It's just that we have to play this out and work hard every day to make progress on it." But prospects for a major deal on tax reform are dim, and time is running out. "The uncertainty is troubling," said David Parkhurst, staff director for the National Governors Assn.'s office of federal relations, noting that states are likely to bear the brunt of any funding lapse. "The states have spent the money. The states have paid the bill," Parkhurst said. "If the trust fund shortfall goes down to zero and the federal government is unable to make those cash reimbursement payments to the states for work already done, the states are on the hook." While waiting for Congress to act, Obama said his administration is speeding up infrastructure projects by streamlining permits and improving transparency. The result would increase job growth, repair crumbling infrastructure and keep the U.S. competitive with its rivals, he said. The president cast the issue as bipartisan, but blamed Republicans for cutting funds for building projects and refusing to work with him out of political spite. "Usually they show up at ribbon-cuttings for projects they refuse to fund," Obama said. "I guarantee you they will have more than enough to disagree with me about. But let's not fight on something we all know makes sense." While Obama spoke in New York, Vice President Joe Biden was in Cleveland holding his second event in as two days as part of the administration's infrastructure push. Also this week, the Laborers' International Union of North America announced a $1-million effort that will include radio ads pressing Congress to act. "Another short-term patch — simply duct-taping the roads and bridges we all rely on — must be off the table," union General President Terry O'Sullivan said. Short of a major breakthrough, the most likely scenario is for lawmakers to tap the Treasury again to avoid insolvency

in the fund this year. But even that may be a fight, particularly from Republicans who insist that new spending be offset by cuts.

1AR- Wont Pass

Specifically Obama’s bill doesn’t pass and doesn’t solve Jaillet 5/6 (James Jaillet, Overdrive Online, Trucking Magazine, “Sorting through highway funding plans: Several irons in the fire”, http://www.overdriveonline.com/sorting-through-highway-funding-plans-several-irons-in-the-fire/, March 6, 2014)

Reforming corporate taxes to fund highways: President Barack Obama unveiled last week his plan for upping highway

funding: Closing tax loopholes for corporations, among some other tax reform, and using the money for a $302 billion, four-year highway funding plan. This is the same plan included in his budget proposal released this week, and

it’s the plan he alluded to in his State of the Union address in January. However, the president’s plan may not be able to

gain much traction, especially in the Republican-controlled House. Sen. Barbara Boxer , Chairman of

the Senate’s transportation committee, likes the president’s plan, but said in a speech last week she

“[doesn't] hold out hope for it.” Also, given the partisan politics of the day, the president’s plan — and his budget — are more political documents than they are contenders for passage.

Congressional Disunity kills passageLitvan 5/13 (Laura Litvan, Bloomberg News, “Company-Tax Boost May Be Best U.S. Highway Funding Option”, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-13/senators-unveil-six-year-u-s-highway-legislation.html, May 13, 2014)

Congressional Disunity There is great disunity in Congress over how to pay for a long-term bill ,

something Foxx said is discouraging given the public’s frustration with aging roads and bridges. He experienced those first-hand during a recent bus tour to cities throughout the nation to sell the administration’s plan. “ This is a big problem for the country and we’ve got to deal with it,” he said. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, a Michigan Republican, joins Obama in

advocating overseas earnings as a source of revenue to fund infrastructure. Yet his counterpart in the Senate, Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, said he favors a gas-tax increase and also wants to examine ideas that include resurrecting the Build America Bonds program created under Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus measure. Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, the finance committee’s top Republican, said he wants to see a method of financing that retains the current user-pays approach and said he also wants to examine ways to cut some wasteful spending.

1AR- PC Fails

And PC failsSnyder 5/14 (Tanya Snyder, Tanya Snyder has been the editor of Streetsblog USA (and before that, Streetsblog Capitol Hill) since September 2010. Prior to working at Streetsblog, she covered Congress for Pacifica Radio and NPR stations, and covered local news for WTOP 103.5 FM. She lives car-free in a transit-oriented and bike-friendly neighborhood of Washington, DC with her partner and their daughter, “President Obama’s Hollow Push for Infrastructure Investment”, http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/05/14/president-obamas-hollow-push-for-infrastructure-investment/, May 14, 2014)

This afternoon, President Obama stood by New York’s Tappan Zee Bridge and made a speech pressing Congress to do something about infrastructure investment. It’s part of his Infrastructure Week push for Congress to pass a fully funded transportation reauthorization bill. Many other groups are spending this week sounding the same horn. “If they don’t act by end of summer, federal funding for transportation projects will run out. The cupboard will be bare,” Obama said today. “Nearly 700,000 jobs will be at risk.” “So far, at least, the Republicans who run this Congress seem to have a different priority,” he said. “ Not only have they prevented , so far, efforts to make sure funding is still in place for what we’ve already got, but their proposal would actually cut job-creating grant programs that funded high-priority transportation projects in all 50 states — they’d cut ‘em by about 80 percent.” Indeed, Obama has submitted a bill to Congress calling to increase federal transportation investment to $302 billion over the next four years. The problem is, his plan to pay for it — using what he calls “pro-growth” business tax reform and the repatriation of offshore profits — is falling on deaf ears in Congress. Advocates criticize the plan as a one-time

gimmick, not a long-term funding source. The most obvious and simple method of raising more revenue in the long run is to

increase the gas tax, which hasn’t been raised since 1993 and has lost an estimated 37 percent of its purchasing power. Experts say an increase of 10 to 15 cents per gallon is needed to fill the gap in the nation’s transportation funding. But the Obama administration has been adamant in its refusal to raise the gas tax. Though former Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood came out in favor of a 10 cent hike almost as soon as he left office, he toed the official line while at U.S. DOT, insisting that a hike was a non-starter. At a Commerce Committee hearing last week, LaHood’s successor, Anthony Foxx, disappointed senators by dodging a question about increasing the gas tax, saying only that he would “listen to Congress.”

2AC- Economy Defense

No impact to economyDrezner ’14 (Daniel Drezner, IR prof at Tufts, The System Worked: Global Economic Governance during the Great Recession, World Politics, Volume 66. Number 1, January 2014, pp. 123-164)

The final significant outcome addresses a dog that hasn't barked: the effect of the Great Recession on cross-border conflict and violence. During the initial stages of the crisis, multiple analysts asserted that the financial crisis would lead states to increase their use of force as a tool for staying in power.42 They voiced genuine concern that the global economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflict—whether through greater internal repression, diversionary wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up of great power conflict. Violence in the Middle East, border disputes in the South China Sea, and even the disruptions of the Occupy movement fueled impressions of a surge in global public disorder. The

aggregate data suggest otherwise , however . The Institute for Economics and Peace has concluded that "the average level of peacefulness in 2012 is approximately the same as it was in 2007 ."43 Interstate violence in particular has declined since the start of the financial crisis, as have military expenditures in most sampled countries. Other studies confirm that the Great Recession has not triggered any increase in violent conflict , as Lotta Themner and Peter Wallensteen conclude: "[T]he pattern is one of relative stability when we consider the trend for the past five years."44 The secular decline in violence that started with the end of the Cold War has not been reversed. Rogers Brubaker observes that "the crisis has not to date generated the surge in protectionist nationalism or ethnic exclusion that might have been expected."43

Impact empirically deniedBarnett ‘9 (Thomas P.M. Barnett, senior managing director of Enterra Solutions LLC, “The New Rules: Security Remains Stable Amid Financial Crisis,” 8/25/2009)

When the global financial crisis struck roughly a year ago, the blogosphere was ablaze with all sorts of scary predictions of, and commentary regarding, ensuing conflict and wars -- a rerun of the Great Depression leading to world war, as it were. Now, as global economic news brightens and recovery -- surprisingly led by China and emerging markets -- is the talk of the day, it's interesting to look back over the past year and realize how globalization's first truly worldwide recession has had virtually no impact whatsoever on the international security landscape. None of the more than three-dozen ongoing conflicts listed by GlobalSecurity.org

can be clearly attributed to the global recession . Indeed, the last new entry (civil conflict between Hamas and Fatah in the

Palestine) predates the economic crisis by a year, and three quarters of the chronic struggles began in the last century. Ditto for the 15 low-intensity conflicts listed by Wikipedia (where the latest entry is the Mexican "drug war" begun in 2006). Certainly, the Russia-Georgia conflict last August was specifically timed, but by most accounts the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics was the most important external trigger (followed by the U.S. presidential campaign) for that sudden spike in an almost two-decade long struggle between Georgia and its two breakaway regions. Looking over the various databases, then, we see a most familiar picture: the usual mix of civil conflicts, insurgencies, and liberation-themed terrorist movements. Besides the recent Russia-Georgia dust-up, the only two potential state-on-state wars (North v. South Korea, Israel v. Iran) are both tied to one side acquiring a nuclear weapon capacity -- a process wholly unrelated to global economic trends. And with the United States effectively tied down by its two ongoing major interventions (Iraq and Afghanistan-bleeding-into-Pakistan), our involvement elsewhere around the planet has been quite modest, both leading up to and following the onset of the economic crisis: e.g., the usual counter-drug efforts in Latin America, the usual military exercises with allies across Asia, mixing it up with pirates off Somalia's coast). Everywhere else we find serious instability we pretty much let it burn, occasionally pressing the Chinese -- unsuccessfully -- to do something. Our new Africa Command, for example, hasn't led us to anything beyond advising and training local forces. So, to sum up: * No significant uptick in mass violence or unrest (remember the smattering of urban riots last year in places like Greece, Moldova and Latvia?); * The usual frequency maintained in civil conflicts (in all the usual places); * Not a single state-on-state war directly caused (and no great-power-on-great-

power crises even triggered); * No great improvement or disruption in great-power cooperation regarding the emergence of new nuclear powers (despite all that diplomacy); * A modest scaling back of international policing efforts by the system's acknowledged

Leviathan power (inevitable given the strain); and * No serious efforts by any rising great power to challenge that Leviathan or supplant its role. (The worst things we can cite are Moscow's occasional deployments of strategic assets to the Western hemisphere and its weak efforts to outbid the United States on basing rights in Kyrgyzstan; but the best include China and India stepping up their aid and investments in Afghanistan and Iraq.) Sure, we've finally seen global defense spending surpass the previous world record set in the late 1980s, but even that is likely to wane given the stress on public budgets created by all this unprecedented "stimulus" spending. If anything, the friendly cooperation on such stimulus packaging was the most notable great-power dynamic caused by the crisis. Can we say that

the world has suffered a distinct shift to political radicalism as a result of the economic crisis? Indeed, no. The world's major economies remain governed by center -left or center-right political factions that remain decidedly friendly to both markets and trade . In the short run, there were attempts across the board to insulate economies from immediate damage (in effect, as much protectionism as allowed under current trade rules), but there was no great slide into "trade wars." Instead, the W orld T rade O rganization is functioning as it was designed to function, and regional efforts toward f ree- t rade a greement s have not slowed . Can we say Islamic radicalism was inflamed by the economic crisis? If it was, that shift was clearly overwhelmed by the Islamic world's growing disenchantment with the brutality displayed by violent extremist groups such as al-Qaida. And looking forward, austere economic times are just as likely to breed connecting evangelicalism as disconnecting fundamentalism. At the end of the day, the economic crisis did not prove to be sufficiently frightening to provoke major economies into establishing global regulatory schemes, even as it has sparked a spirited -- and much needed, as I argued last week -- discussion of the continuing viability of the U.S. dollar as the world's primary reserve currency. Naturally, plenty of experts and pundits have attached great significance to this debate, seeing in it the beginning of "economic warfare" and the like between "fading" America and "rising" China. And yet, in a world of globally integrated production chains and interconnected financial markets, such "diverging interests" hardly constitute signposts for wars up ahead. Frankly, I don't welcome a world in which America's fiscal profligacy goes undisciplined, so bring it on -- please! Add it all up and it's fair to say that this global financial crisis has proven the great resilience of America's post-World War II international liberal trade order.

1AR – Economy Defense

Economic turmoil doesn’t translate into security conflicts- the 2008 collapse disproves- cooperation and trade prevail- that’s Barnett

Its 2013- proves global economic resilient- Sandy and EU proveEberly ’13 (Jan Eberly, Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy for the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, “Statement by Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy Jan Eberly for the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association”, February 4, 2013)

WASHINGTON - Economic recovery in the U.S. continued at a moderate pace over the course of 2012, with real GDP expanding by 1.5 percent following a 2.6 percent increase during 2011. After thirteen straight quarters of growth, real GDP edged down slightly in the final quarter of last year, as sharply lower defense spending, slower inventory growth, and a widening of the trade deficit offset a solid increase in consumer spending and strong growth of both residential investment and business capital spending. Job creation has accelerated in recent months. The unemployment rate declined notably over the first nine months of 2012 and has been little changed since September. The economy

sustained a number of temporary shocks last year , such as a jump in energy prices early in 2012, a severe drought during the summer, and Hurricane Sandy in late October, and also contended with the ongoing sovereign debt crisis in Europe and a more general slowdown in global growth . Growth is

expected to pick up in the first quarter of 2013 , despite some fiscal drag . Other potential challenges this year include the risk of renewed setbacks in Europe, the impact of continued uncertainty about the U.S. fiscal situation , and the possibility of additional, sequester -related fiscal tightening . Even so, private forecasters anticipate a gradual acceleration in the pace of expansion as 2013 unfolds, as well as further progress in reducing unemployment. According to the advance report released last week, real GDP edged down 0.1 percent at an annual rate in the fourth quarter, compared with a 3.1 percent advance in the third quarter. The swing was due in part to a 6.6 decline in government spending. Federal outlays fell 15.0 percent – the largest quarterly decline in four decades – as federal defense purchases plummeted 22.2 percent. In the third quarter, federal spending rose sharply, boosted by a jump in defense outlays. The composition of the pronounced swing between Q3 and Q4 suggests that uncertainty about the impending sequester played a role. State and local government spending, which has been falling nearly continuously since late 2009, declined 0.7 percent in Q4. Altogether, the decline in government expenditures cut 1¼ percentage points from real GDP growth in Q4. GDP growth in late 2012 was also held back by a sharp slowdown in private inventory accumulation, which subtracted 1¼ percentage points from real GDP in the fourth quarter after adding 0.7 percentage point to growth in the third quarter. The drought-related drawdown in farm inventories, which reduced GDP growth in the prior two quarters, slowed. A wider trade deficit subtracted an additional ¼ percentage point from GDP growth in the fourth quarter. Notwithstanding the slight dip in headline GDP, the main components of underlying private demand strengthened in the fourth quarter. Consumer spending, which accounts for roughly two-thirds of GDP, grew by 2.2 percent at an annual rate, accelerating from the third quarter’s 1.6 percent rise, and adding 1.5 percentage points to real growth. Business fixed investment grew 8.4 percent in the fourth quarter, contributing 0.8 percentage point to growth. Equipment and

software investment rose at a 12.4 percent pace after falling by 2.6 percent in the prior quarter. Residential investment grew by 15.3 percent at an annual rate in the fourth quarter, up from 13.5 percent in the third quarter, and contributed 0.4 percentage point to GDP growth. Residential investment has increased in each of the past seven quarters -- the first such string of advances in this sector since 2005 – and has grown at an average annual rate of almost 11 percent per quarter over this period. Private domestic final purchases (the sum of consumption, business fixed investment, and residential investment) jumped by 3.3 percent at an annual rate in the fourth quarter, more than double the third’s quarter’s 1.5 percent pace. Over the past three years, this marker of a private-sector led,

self-sustaining recovery has grown at an average annual rate of just under 3 percent. Labor market conditions continue to improve at a steady but gradual pace, and the most recent data show that job creation at the end of 2012 was actually faster than initially reported. Private-sector job growth averaged 225,000 per month during the fourth quarter, up from 142,000 in the third quarter, and nearly double the 117,000 jobs per month created on average in the second quarter. More than 6.1 million new jobs have been created in the private sector since the employment trough in February 2010. Moreover, underlying labor demand appears to be improving. The average private-sector workweek stood at 34.4 hours in January, up from a low of 33.8 hours in 2009 and just 0.2 hour shorter than in December 2007. The unemployment rate stood at 7.9 percent in January, up slightly from a near four-year low of 7.8 percent in November and December. Measures of longer-term unemployment as well as marginal attachment to the labor force and part-time employment continue to trend lower. The median duration of unemployment fell by 4.8 weeks over the past year to 16.0 weeks in January and is down from a high of 24.8 weeks in mid-2010. It is worthwhile to look at progress across the country, too: in December, 25 states reported unemployment rates that were significantly below the national average. These are all positive signs that underlying labor market conditions continue to firm. With the progress made in the housing market in the past several months, we now appear to be approaching important milestones. For example, total housing starts rose in December to a 4½ year high and the number of residential building permits issued reached their highest level since mid-2008. As of December, total existing home sales had retraced to a level about two-thirds of their 2005 peak, and the decline in new single-family homes during that month was actually attributed to a lack of supply, rather than a dearth of demand – sales in this category were still up nearly 9 percent year-over-year. The inventory of unsold new homes is just above record lows for the series, which dates to the early 1960s, and the inventory of existing homes available for sale continues to move lower and is now two-thirds below its July 2010 peak level. During 2012, residential investment climbed 14.4 percent – the strongest yearly increase since 1983. The major house price indexes have been moving higher on a year-over-year basis for the past ten months, and are now being supported by tighter supply and stronger demand conditions. Record or near-record lows in mortgage rates, a relatively high level of housing affordability, and improving household wealth are also helping to boost demand and to support broader-based improvement in the housing sector. Looking ahead, downside risks to U.S. economic activity remain, including persistent concerns about instability in European sovereign debt markets. Here at home, consumer sentiment faltered at the turn of the year in the face of fiscal uncertainty and the expiration of tax cuts. Still, energy prices have eased in very recent months, and there are signs of reviving demand in Asia. While downside risks create vulnerabilities in any economy, recent progress within the U.S. has

improved the economy’s resilience in the face of potential challenges . The underlying and consistent

strength of private demand over the past three years constitutes an important foundation for that

resilience, and the level of real GDP is now 2.4 percent higher than in the fourth quarter of 2007, at the time of the previous expansion’s peak. After five years of decline, residential investment has added to growth in each of the past seven quarters. The workweek has lengthened to a duration close to that

last seen in December 2007, the peak month of the previous upturn, and the unemployment rate is at a four-year low. These are important milestones for consumers as well as the housing and labor markets, and are evidence of a moderate and steady forward movement.

Econ resilient, US isn’t key, and impact empirically deniedLamy ’11(Pascal Lamy is the Director-General of the World Trade Organization. Lamy is Honorary President of Paris-based think tank Notre Europe. Lamy graduated from the prestigious Sciences Po Paris, from HEC and ÉNA, graduating second in his year of those specializing in economics. “System Upgrade” BY PASCAL LAMY | APRIL 18, 2011)

The bigger test came with the 2008-2009 Great Recession, the first truly global recession since World War II. When the international economy went into free fall, trade went right along with it. Production and supply are today thoroughly global in nature, with most manufactured products made from parts and materials imported from many other countries. These global value chains have a multiplier effect on trade statistics, which explains why, as the global economy contracted by 2 percent in 2009, trade volume shrank by more than 12 percent. This multiplier effect works

the other way around as well: Growth returned to 4.6 percent and trade volume grew by a record 14.5 percent over the course of 2010.

Projections for trade in 2011 are also strong , with WTO economists predicting that trade volume will rise 6.5 percent during the current year. This sharp rebound in trade has proved two essential things: Markets stayed open despite ever-stronger pressures to close them, and trade is an indispensible tool for economic recovery, particularly for developing countries, which are more dependent on trade. Shortly after the crisis broke out, we in the WTO began to closely monitor the trade policy response of our member governments. Many were fearful that pressures to impose trade restrictions would prove too powerful for governments to resist. But this is not what happened. Instead, the system of rules and disciplines , agreed to over 60 years of negotiations , held firm . In a series of reports prepared for WTO members and the G-20, we found that governments acted with great restraint . At no time did the trade-

restrictive measures imposed cover more than 2 percent of world imports. Moreover, the measures used -- anti-dumping duties, safeguards, and

countervailing duties to offset export or production subsidies -- were those which, in the right circumstances, are permissible under WTO rules. I am not suggesting that every safeguard measure or countervailing duty imposed during those difficult days was in compliance with

WTO rules, but responses to trade pressures were generally undertaken within an internationally agreed-upon framework. Countries by and large

resisted overtly noncompliant measures, such as breaking legally binding tariff ceilings or imposing import bans or quotas. As markets stayed open , trade flows began to shift, and countries that shrugged off the impact of the crisis and continued to grow -- notably China, India, and Brazil -- became ever-more attractive markets for countries that were struggling, including those in Europe and North America. Trade has been a powerful engine for growth in the developing world, a fact reflected in the far greater trade-to-GDP ratios we see there. In 2010, developing countries' share of world trade expanded to a record 45 percent, and this trend looks set to continue. Decisions made in Brasilia, Beijing, and New Delhi to open their respective economies to trade have been instrumental in enabling these countries to lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.

Best studies proveBrandt and Ulfelder ‘11 (*Patrick T. Brandt, Ph.D. in Political Science from Indiana University, is an Assistant Professor of Political Science in the School of Social Science at the University of Texas at Dallas. **Jay Ulfelder, Ph.D. in political science from Stanford University, is an American political scientist whose research interests include democratization, civil unrest, and violent conflict, April, 2011, “Economic Growth and Political Instability,” Social Science Research Network)

These statements anticipating political fallout from the global economic crisis of 200 8– 20 10 reflect a widely held view that economic growth has rapid and profound effects on countries’ political stability. When economies grow at a healthy clip, citizens are presumed to be too busy and too content to engage in protest or rebellion, and governments are thought to be flush with revenues they can use to enhance their own stability by producing public goods or rewarding cronies, depending on the type of regime they inhabit. When growth slows, however, citizens and cronies alike are presumed to grow frustrated

with their governments, and the leaders at the receiving end of that frustration are thought to lack the financial resources to respond effectively. The expected result is an increase in the risks of social unrest, civil war, coup attempts, and regime breakdown. Although it is pervasive, the assumption that countries’ economic growth rates strongly affect their political stability has not been subjected to a great deal of

careful empirical analysis, and evidence from social science research to date does not unambiguously

support it . Theoretical models of civil wars, coups d’etat, and transitions to and from democracy often specify slow economic growth as an important cause or catalyst of those events, but empirical studies on the effects of economic growth on these phenomena have produced mixed results. Meanwhile, the effects of economic growth on the occurrence or incidence of social unrest seem to have hardly been

studied in recent years , as empirical analysis of contentious collective action has concentrated on political opportunity structures and dynamics of protest and repression. This paper helps fill that gap by rigorously re-examining the effects of short-term variations in economic growth on the occurrence of several forms of political instability in countries worldwide over the past few decades. In this paper, we do not seek to develop and test new theories of political instability. Instead, we aim to subject a hypothesis common to many prior theories of political instability to more careful empirical scrutiny. The goal is to provide a detailed empirical characterization of the relationship between economic growth and political instability in a broad sense. In effect, we describe the conventional wisdom as seen in the data. We do so with statistical models that use smoothing splines and multiple lags to allow for nonlinear and dynamic effects from economic growth on political stability. We also do so with an instrumented measure of growth that explicitly accounts for endogeneity in the relationship between political instability and economic growth. To our knowledge, ours is the first statistical study of this

relationship to simultaneously address the possibility of nonlinearity and problems of endogeneity . As

such, we believe this paper offers what is probably the most rigorous general evaluation of this

argument to date . As the results show, some of our findings are surprising. Consistent with conventional assumptions, we find that social unrest and civil violence are more likely to occur and democratic regimes are more susceptible to coup attempts around periods of slow economic growth. At the same time, our analysis shows no significant relationship between variation in growth and the risk of civil-war onset, and results from our analysis of regime changes contradict the widely accepted claim that economic crises cause transitions from autocracy to democracy. While we would hardly pretend to have the last word on any of these relationships, our findings do suggest that the relationship between economic growth and political stability is neither as uniform nor as strong as the conventional

wisdom (s) presume (s) . We think these findings also help explain why the global recession of

2008–2010 has failed thus far to produce the wave of coups and regime failures that some observers

had anticipated, in spite of the expected and apparent uptick in social unrest associated with the crisis.

No rational for warJervis ’11 (Robert Jervis, Professor in the Department of Political Science and School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, “Force in Our Times,” Survival, Vol. 25, No. 4, p. 403-425, December 2011)

Even if war is still seen as evil, the security community could be dissolved if severe conflicts of interest were to arise. Could the more peaceful world generate new interests that would bring the members of

the community into sharp disputes? 45 A zero-sum sense of status would be one example, perhaps linked to a steep rise in nationalism. More likely would be a worsening of the current economic difficulties , which could itself produce greater nationalism, undermine democracy and bring back old-fashioned beggar-my-neighbor economic policies. While these dangers are real, it is hard to believe that the conflicts could be great enough to lead the members of the community to contemplate fighting each other . It is not so much that economic interdependence has proceeded to the point where it could not be reversed – states that were more internally interdependent than anything seen internationally have fought bloody civil wars. Rather it is that even if the more extreme versions of free trade and economic liberalism become discredited , it is hard to see how without building on a preexisting high level of political conflict leaders and mass opinion would come to believe that the ir countries could prosper by impoverishing or even attacking others . Is it possible that problems will not only become severe, but that people will entertain the thought that they have to be solved by war? While a pessimist could note that this argument does not appear as outlandish as it did before the financial crisis, an optimist could reply (correctly, in my view) that the very fact that we have seen such a sharp economic down-turn without anyone suggesting that force of arms is the solution shows that even if bad times bring about greater economic conflict, it will not make war thinkable.

Trade still happens- wars don’t escalateLamy ’11 (Pascal Lamy, Director-General of the World Trade Organization. Lamy is Honorary President of Paris-based think tank Notre Europe. Lamy graduated from the prestigious Sciences Po Paris, from HEC and ÉNA, graduating second in his year of those specializing in economics. “System Upgrade” BY PASCAL LAMY | APRIL 18, 2011)

The bigger test came with the 2008-2009 Great Recession , the first truly global recession since World War II . When the international economy went into free fall, trade went right along with it. Production and supply are today thoroughly global in nature, with most manufactured products made from parts and materials imported from many other countries. These global value chains have a multiplier effect on trade statistics, which explains why, as the global economy contracted by 2 percent in 2009, trade volume shrank by more than 12 percent. This multiplier effect works the other way around as well: Growth returned to 4.6 percent and trade volume grew by a record 14.5 percent over the course of 2010. Projections for trade in 2011 are also strong , with WTO economists predicting that trade volume will rise 6.5 percent during the current year. This sharp rebound in trade has proved two essential things : Markets stayed open despite ever-stronger pressures to close them , and trade is an indispensible tool for economic recovery, particularly for developing countries, which are more dependent on trade. Shortly after the crisis broke out, we in the WTO began to closely monitor the trade policy response of our member governments. Many were fearful that pressures to impose trade restrictions would prove too powerful for governments to resist. But this is not what happened . Instead, the system of rules and disciplines, agreed to over 60 years of negotiations, held firm. In a series of reports prepared for WTO members and the G-20, we found that governments acted with great restraint. At no time did the trade-restrictive measures imposed cover more than 2 percent of world imports. Moreover, the measures used -- anti-dumping duties, safeguards, and countervailing duties to offset export or production subsidies -- were those which, in the right circumstances, are permissible under WTO rules. I am not suggesting that every safeguard measure or countervailing duty imposed during those difficult days was in compliance with WTO rules, but responses to trade pressures were generally undertaken within an internationally agreed-upon framework. Countries by and large resisted overtly noncompliant measures, such as breaking legally binding tariff ceilings or imposing import bans

or quotas. As markets stayed open, trade flows began to shift, and countries that shrugged off the

impact of the crisis and continued to grow -- notably China, India, and Brazil -- became ever-more attractive markets for countries that were struggling, including those in Europe and North America. Trade has been a powerful engine for growth in the developing world, a fact reflected in the far greater trade-to-GDP ratios we see there. In 2010, developing countries' share of world trade expanded to a record 45 percent, and this trend looks set to continue. Decisions made in Brasilia, Beijing, and New Delhi to open their respective economies to trade have been instrumental in enabling these countries to lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.

Collapse doesn’t cause war- the upswing doesFerguson ‘6 (Niall, Professor of History – Harvard University, Foreign Affairs, 85(5), September / October, Lexis)

Nor can economic crises explain the bloodshed . What may be the most familiar causal chain in modern historiography links the Great Depression to the rise of fascism and the outbreak of World War II. But that simple story leaves too much out. Nazi Germany started the war in Europe only after its economy

had recovered . Not all the countries affected by the Great Depression were taken over by fascist

regimes, nor did all such regimes start wars of aggression . In fact, no general relationship between

economics and conflict is discernible for the century as a whole. Some wars came after periods of growth, others were the causes rather than the consequences of economic catastrophe, and some severe economic crises were not followed by wars.

Other countries check US growthThe Economist ‘7 (November 23, “America’s Vulnerable Economy”, pg. 13)

The best hope that global growth can stay strong lies instead with emerging economies . A decade ago, the thought that so much depended on these crisis-prone places would have been terrifying. Yet thanks largely to economic reforms, their annual growth rate has surged to around 7%. This year they will contribute half of the globe's GDP growth, measured at market exchange rates, over three times as

much as America . In the past, emerging economies have often needed bailing out by the rich world.

This time they could be the rescuers . Of course, a recession in America would reduce emerging economies' exports, but they are less vulnerable than they used to be. America's importance as an engine of global growth has been exaggerated. Since 2000 its share of world imports has dropped from 19% to 14%. Its vast current-account deficit has started to shrink, meaning that America is no longer pulling along the rest of the world. Yet growth in emerging economies has quickened, partly thanks to demand at home. In the first half of this year the increase in consumer spending (in actual dollar terms) in China and India added more to global GDP growth than that in America. Most emerging economies are in healthier shape than ever (see article). They are no longer financially dependent on the rest of the world, but have large foreign-exchange reserves—no less than three-quarters of the global total. Though there are some notable exceptions, most of them have small budget deficits (another change from the past), so they can boost spending to offset weaker exports if need be.

(no econ collapse) economy’s resilient – can survive shocksBloomberg 12 (“Fed’s Plosser Says U.S. Economy Proving Resilient to Shocks,” 5-9, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-09/fed-s-plosser-says-u-s-economy-proving-resilient-to-shocks.html)Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank President Charles Plosser said the U.S. economy has proven “remarkably resilient” to shocks that can damage growth , including surging oil prices and natural

disasters. “The economy has now grown for 11 consecutive quarters ,” Plosser said today according to remarks

prepared for a speech at the Philadelphia Fed. “Growth is not robust. But growth in the past year has continued despite significant risks and external and internal headwinds .” Plosser, who did not discuss his economic outlook

or the future for monetary policy, cited shocks to the economy last year, including the tsunami in Japan that disrupted global supply chains, Europe ’s credit crisis that has damaged the continent’s banking system and political unrest in the Middle East and North Africa . “The U.S. economy has a history of being remarkably resilient ,” said Plosser, who doesn’t have a vote on policy this year. “These shocks held GDP growth to less than 1 percent

in the first half of 2011, and many analysts were concerned that the economy was heading toward a double dip. Yet, the economy proved resilient and growth picked up in the second half of the year.” Plosser spoke at a conference at the Philadelphia Fed titled, “Reinventing Older Communities: Building Resilient Cities.” Urban Resilience His regional bank’s research department is working on a project to measure the resilience of different cities, to learn more about the reasons that some urban areas suffer more than others in downturns, Plosser said. He mentioned one early finding of the study: Industrial diversity increases a city’s resilience. “I do want to caution you that resilient and vibrant communities are not just about government programs or directed industrial planning by community leaders,” Plosser said. “The economic strength of our country is deeply rooted in our market - based economy and the dynamism and resilience of its citizenry .”

(no econ war) empirics disprove warPickering 7 – Assistant Professor of Political Science at Kansas State University (Jeffrey, Emizet F. Kisangani, “Diverting with Benevolent Military Force: Reducing Risks and Rising above Strategic Behavior,” International Studies Quarterly 51, 277–299, JSTOR)

Our results underscore the utility of broadening the conception of diversionary force and using the agenda setting framework to understand leaders’ decisions to

divert. As the agenda setting approach anticipates, we find that leaders in democracies and mixed regimes tend to prefer a comparatively

low-risk, low-profile type of military force when they attempt diversion. They use what we term SEI in their attempt to

clear the domestic policy agenda. They presumably hope that the use of such seemingly controllable, low-scale force will provide a brief reprieve from the public and the media’s focus on issues that have damaged their political reputations and threatened their terms in office. If low politics force succeeds in providing leaders with the window they seek, they can be expected to do all they can to reshape the policy agenda in the

hope of saving their political careers. Autocratic leaders, in contrast, do not appear to use any form of external armed force

to bolster their domestic standing when they encounter domestic unrest or economic difficulty. Our results also highlight the need for further theoretical development of the SCA framework. In our cross-national sample of democracies, SCA does not seem to constrain democratic leaders to the extent that is implied in the literature. For example, we find no evidence that SCA prevents democratic leaders from using PSI, and democratic leaders often used SEI even when SCA was present (see especially Table 5). The only time SCA seems to obstruct democratic leaders is when they attempt SEI in the face of rising levels of inflation or mass unrest. We did not expect target states to be able to employ SCA to inhibit SEI, but this result at least provides some evidence for the theoretically compelling and logical influence of SCA on democracies. This outcome and the unanticipated influence of SCA on autocracies suggest that the SCA framework requires greater precision. As noted previously, adding measures that capture extant relations or affinity levels among potential actors and targets may enhance the explanatory power of SCA. Another possibility is that we are trying to generalize a phenomenon that has limited scope. It may be that target states only worry about diversion from extremely powerful states and perhaps some unstable, unpredictable autocracies, which might explain why David Clark (2003) and Benjamin Fordham’s (2005) results diverge from those found in this paper and by Christopher Sprecher and Karl DeRouen (2005). Careful empirical study will have to determine if this is the case, and if it is not why SCA appears to constrain certain types of actors experiencing certain types of domestic troubles but not others. Different methods will have to be used to pinpoint the prevalence and the impact of SCA. While powerful and suggestive, the ZIP method is based on a theoretical assumption: that SCA is the exogenous influence that prevents leaders from using military force. Although this is plausible and the evidence presented by David Clark (2003) and Benjamin Fordham (2005) is extremely compelling for the United States case, there could be other exogenous influences that have similar effects

on leaders in other countries. Powerful opposition parties (Schultz 1998) or increasing tensions or instability within the government itself could, for example, tie leaders’ hands in a way that prevents the use of military force. Given the significant institutional variation that characterizes democracies and mixed regimes across the globe, both detailed qualitative and country-specific quantitative analyses will

be necessary to trace the empirical boundaries of SCA and to refine the theory. In sum, this paper adds to the growing body of literature that suggests that

leaders in democracies and mixed regimes use armed forces overseas for diversionary purposes. It just may not be the

type of high profile, confrontational military force we typically envision. It is often armed force deployed over low politics issues

like humanitarian suffering. Making this simple distinction between the types of armed force states use abroad may go some way toward uniting extant empirical research on diversion and perhaps even producing more cumulative research in the future.

(no econ war) target states will strategically avoid conflict – solves the impactFordham 5 – Professor of Political Science at Binghamton University (Benjamin O., February, “Strategic Conflict Avoidance and the Diversionary Use of Force,” The Journal of Politics, Vol. 67, No. 1, pp. 132-153, JSTOR)

A realistic model of strategic conflict avoidance entails several considerations. Not all states are likely to exhibit this behavior. Given the many other factors shaping

states' conflict behavior, only states that expect to be targeted by a powerful state likely to use force for diversionary purposes should be expected to strategically avoid conflict. For states pursuing this strategy, simply not targeting the potential diverter for a militarized challenge is not enough. Incidents that fall short of the militarized conflicts catalogued in the militarized interstate disputes data must also be avoided, since these could escalate. States seeking to avoid conflict must also tempert heirr esponse to the likely diverter's hostile actions, as well as avoiding conflict with third states because these could provide the diverter with an opportunity to intervene. The approach adopted in this article is intended to

capture these nuances, providing a more realistic and comprehensive test of the strategic conflict avoidance argument. The empirical evidence

presented here suggests that strategic conflict avoidance indeed takes place under these circumstances. The evidence was strongest in models of rival state behavior toward the whole world, rather than those covering only relations with the United States. This suggests that efforts to avoid conflict

with the U.S. influence rival state relations with third states as well. High U.S. unemployment was associated with strategic conflict avoidance both in bilateral relations with the United States and in broader rival behavior. Growth and inflation were also associated with strategic conflict, although not as consistently. Overall, nine of the 12 models estimated here produced at least some evidence of strategic conflict avoidance. Given the noisiness of events data, these results constitute solid, if qualified, evidence that states sometimes strategically avoid conflict. These findings about strategic conflict avoidance have several implications for the debate over whether national leaders-especially American presidents-use force for diversionary

reasons. First, strategic conflict avoidance needs to be considered in empirical tests of the diversionary use of force. Because likely targets appear to avoid conflict with the United States when the American economy is performing poorly, opportunities for military action are not

independent of these domestic conditions. The selection process through which the actions of other states come (or do not come) to the attention of American decision makers could influence estimates of those decision makers' propensity to use force. Clark (2003) offers one promising approach to this problem. Selection models developed to deal with related issues might also prove useful (e.g., Signorino 1999, 2001; Smith 1999). While strategic conflict avoidance should be included in models of the diversionary use of force, it does not rule out the possibility of finding evidence of diversionary behavior. On the contrary, the fact that conditions favoring a diversionary use of force diminish the conflict behavior of rival states suggests that existing models probably understate the propensity of American leaders to use force when domestic

conditions are poor. By removing opportunities for the use of force, strategic conflict avoidance makes empirical support of diversionary military action less likely .