Debt Ceiling Politics

NOTES

I was in the middle of cutting a focus scenario but I decided that it would be easier to win the link
debate using a PC scenario so keep in mind, the focus scenario is not developed enough to be a
credible block option
On the flipside, note that there are advantages and disadvantages to reading focus
- Winners win is not responsive and most likely their link turns will not be either
- Hard to win as a NB to non-intl CPs

This is a very strategic DA to run in that it probably turns at least a huge chunk of the case
i.e. debt ceiling is key to funding economic engagement/aid in our foreign policy ergo TURNS CASE
ARGS MUST BE A LARGE PART OF THE BLOC

This file must constantly be updated at least until mid-October politics updates will be assigned
systematically

SOPHS: When I assign you Politics Updates, it means look at this fucking list and cut the relevant cards,
dont just add more useless and unnecessary camp cards into the files (that also applies to case negs)
When you have properly done so, just put the necessary text in green instead of red (shown)

This file could use some more:
- Turns case (of course)
o Country Spec/LA Relations
o Agriculture
o Democracy
o Soft Power
o Economy
o Plan spec
- Country Spec Focus links
o Cuba
o Mexico
o Venezuela
Top Level
1NC PC Scenario
Debt will narrowly passObamas leverage is key
Kapur, 9/9 --- TPMs senior congressional reporter and Supreme Court correspondent
(9/9/2013, Sahil, Is House GOP Backing Down In Debt Limit Fight? http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/09/house-gop-cantor-memo-debt-ceiling-cr-sequester-immigration.php)

House Republicans are taming members expectations ahead of the debt limit showdown, signaling that
they may not be able to extract significant concessions from Democrats . A Friday memo to GOP
members by Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) says the House will act to prevent a default on our obligations
before the mid-October deadline the Obama administration has established. House Republicans, he says, will demand
fiscal reforms and pro-growth policies which put us on a path to balance in ten years in exchange for another increase in the debt limit. The language is vague intentionally so, in order to
maintain wiggle room for Republicans to avert a disastrous debt default. President Barack Obama has vowed not to pay a ransom to ensure the
U.S. can meet its obligations. If and when they do cave, Republicans will be hard-pressed to show
their base they got something in return for raising the debt ceiling. In January, they got Senate Democrats to agree to pass a non-
binding budget resolution. This time around, the possibilities for symbolic concessions range from a doomed Senate vote to delay or defund Obamacare or instructions to initiate the process of
tax reform. There are a number of demands rank-and-file Republicans have urged leaders to make which
could genuinely complicate the battle , such as dollar-for-dollar spending cuts or unwinding Obamacare. Cantors memo mentioned neither. GOP members
have also called on leadership not to bring up any debt limit bill that lacks the support of half the conference. Boehner hasnt committed to this and Cantor didnt mention it in his memo.
There are several reasons Republicans will have a hard time extracting concessions. Back in January, when
Obama held firm and refused to negotiate on the debt limit, Republicans folded and agreed to
suspend the debt ceiling without substantial concessions but rather symbolic ones. And due to deep divisions within the conference, House
Republicans will face enormous challenges in rounding up 218 votes to pass any conceivable debt limit hike. The partys top priority is to cut safety-net programs like Social Security and
Medicare. But theres no internal consensus on what to cut. And Republicans, whose constituents are disproportionately older, have generally refused to vote on entitlement cuts without
bipartisan cover from Democrats. In this case Democrats are highly unlikely to give it to them, which complicates their task of passing a debt limit bill. The Cantor memo
makes it all but official that Republicans wont seek to defund Obamacare in the fiscal battles. The strategy,
pushed by conservative activists, to withhold support for keeping the government running after Sept. 30 unless Democrats agree to defund Obamacare. Instead it vows to hold a series of
strategic votes throughout the fall to dismantle, defund, and delay Obamacare. The memo says Republicans will continue to pursue the strategy of systematically derailing this train wreck
and replacing it with a patient-centered system. The GOPs big stand in the fiscal battles will be to force Obama to accept the lower spending levels ordered by sequestration automatic
spending cuts enacted in 2011 in a measure to keep the government funded. Here Republicans will refuse to cede and the White House has not suggested itll veto a bill that maintains
sequester spending levels, although Obama wants to cut a deal to replace the sequester. In signing a CR at sequester levels, Cantor writes, the President would be endorsing a level of
spending that wipes away all the increases he and Congressional Democrats made while they were in charge and returns us to a pre-2008 level of discretionary spending.

Calling in a favor on the plan burns up Obamas limited leverage with House
RepublicansPC is finite and winners dont win
Moore, 9/10 --- Guardian's US finance and economics editor
(Heidi, 9/10/2013, Syria: the great distraction; Obama is focused on a conflict abroad, but the fight he should be gearing up for is with Congress on America's economic security,
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/10/obama-syria-what-about-sequester))

Before President Obama speaks to the nation about Syria tonight, take a look at what this fall will look like inside America. There are 49 million people in the country who suffered inadequate
access to food in 2012, leaving the percentage of "food-insecure" Americans at about one-sixth of the US population. At the same time, Congress refused to pass food-stamp legislation this
summer, pushing it off again and threatening draconian cuts. The country will crash into the debt ceiling in mid-October, which
would be an economic disaster , especially with a government shutdown looming at the same time.
These are deadlines that Congress already learned two years ago not to toy with , but memories
appear to be preciously short. The Federal Reserve needs a new chief in three months, someone who will help the country confront its raging unemployment crisis
that has left 12 million people without jobs. The president has promised to choose a warm body within the next three weeks, despite the fact that his top pick, Larry Summers, would likely
spark an ugly confirmation battle the "fight of the century," according to some with a Congress already unwilling to do the President's bidding. Congress was supposed to pass a farm bill
this summer, but declined to do so even though the task is already two years late. As a result, the country has no farm bill, leaving agricultural subsidies up in the air, farmers uncertain about
what their financial picture looks like, and a potential food crisis on the horizon. The two main housing agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, have been in limbo for four years and are
desperately in need of reform that should start this fall, but there is scant attention to the problem. These are the problems going unattended by the Obama administration while his aides
and cabinet members have been wasting the nation's time making the rounds on television and Capitol Hill stumping for a profoundly unpopular war. The fact that all this chest-beating was
for naught, and an easy solution seems on the horizon, belies the single-minded intensity that the Obama White House brought to its insistence on bombing Syria. More than one wag has
suggested, with the utmost reason, that if Obama had brought this kind of passion to domestic initiatives, the country would be in better condition right now. As it is, public policy is
embarrassingly in shambles at home while the administration throws all of its resources and political capital behind a widely hated plan to get involved in a civil war overseas. The upshot for
the president may be that it's easier to wage war with a foreign power than go head-to-head with the US Congress, even as America suffers from neglect. This is the paradox that President
Obama is facing this fall, as he appears to turn his back on a number of crucial and urgent domestic initiatives in order to spend all of his meager political capital on striking Syria. Syria does
present a significant humanitarian crisis, which has been true for the past two years that the Obama administration has completely ignored the atrocities of Bashar al-Assad. Two years is also
roughly the same amount of time that key domestic initiatives have also gone ignored as Obama and Congress engage in petty battles for dominance and leave the country to run itself on a
starvation diet imposed by sequestration cuts. Leon Panetta tells the story of how he tried to lobby against sequestration only to be told: Leon, you don't understand. The Congress is
resigned to failure. Similarly, those on Wall Street, the Federal Reserve, those working at government agencies, and voters themselves have become all too practiced at ignoring the
determined incompetence of those in Washington. Political capital the ability to horse-trade and win political favors from a
receptive audience is a finite resource in Washington. Pursuing misguided policies takes up time ,
but it also eats up credibility in asking for the next favor . It's fair to say that congressional Republicans, particularly in
the House, have no love for Obama and are likely to oppose anything he supports. That's exactly the reason
the White House should stop proposing policies as if it is scattering buckshot and focus with intensity
on the domestic tasks it wants to accomplish, one at a time . The president is scheduled to speak six times this week, mostly about
Syria. That includes evening news interviews, an address to the nation, and numerous other speeches. Behind the scenes, he is calling members of Congress to get them to fall into line.
Secretary of State John Kerry is omnipresent, so ubiquitous on TV that it may be easier just to get him his own talk show called Syria Today. It would be a treat to see White House aides
lobbying as aggressively and on as many talk shows for a better food stamp bill, an end to the debt-ceiling drama, or a solution to the senseless sequestration cuts, as it is on what is clearly
a useless boondoggle in Syria. There's no reason to believe that Congress can have an all-consuming debate about
Syria and then, somehow refreshed, return to a domestic agenda that has been as chaotic and urgent as any in recent memory. The
President should have judged his options better. As it is, he should now judge his actions better.

Entertaining GOP negotiating demands will drag the process out and trigger economic
collapse
Lobello, 8/27 --- business editor at TheWeek.com (Carmel, 8/27/2013, How the looming debt ceiling fight could screw up the U.S. economy; Yup, this is happening again,
http://theweek.com/article/index/248775/how-the-looming-debt-ceiling-fight-could-screw-up-the-us-economy))

Ready for more debt-ceiling drama? The Treasury Department said Monday it would hit its borrowing limit in mid-October, which means that Congress will need to raise its $16.7 trillion debt
ceiling to pay the nation's bills. The sooner-than-expected deadline comes at an inconvenient moment, because Congress is already facing a budget deadline for the stopgap "continuing
resolution" that finances the federal government, which is set to run out September 30. Failure to come to an agreement would trigger a government shutdown. Having two big deadlines fall
two weeks apart could be a recipe for disaster. Republicans, led by Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), have been musing about the possibility of
using the debt ceiling, instead of a government shutdown, as leverage to delay the implementation of
ObamaCare. But as Ezra Klein put it in The Washington Post, "Trading a government shutdown for a debt-ceiling breach is like trading the flu for septic shock": Anything
Republicans might fear about a government shutdown is far more terrifying amidst a debt-ceiling
breach. The former is an inconvenience. The latter is a global financial crisis . Its the difference between what happened in
1995, when the government did shutdown, and what happened in 2008, when global markets realized a bedrock investment they thought was safe (housing in that case, U.S. treasuries in this
one) was full of risk. [The Washington Post] Indeed, a debt ceiling debate in 2011 that went on to the last possible minute
had real economic consequences , leading Standard & Poor's to downgrade the U nited S tates'
credit rating. The move "left a clear and deep dent in US economic and market data," said Matt Phillips
at Quartz. Investors pulled huge amounts of cash from the stock market, and consumer confidence was hurt as well. When the same problem cropped up again in May 2012, because
Congress failed to reach a long-term deal, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers in Bloomberg explained how confidence plummeted the first time around: [Confidence] went into freefall as
the political stalemate worsened through July. Over the entire episode, confidence declined more than it did following the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. in 2008. After July 31,
when the deal to break the impasse was announced, consumer confidence stabilized and began a long, slow climb that brought it back to its starting point almost a year later. [Bloomberg]
This morning, Wolfers had this to say: Treasury Secretary Jack Lew visited CNBC Tuesday morning to reiterate President Obama's promise not to go down he same road. "The
president has made it clear: We're not going to negotiate over the debt limit," Lew said. He also explained why in a letter
to Boehner Monday morning. "Protecting the full faith and credit of the United States is the responsibility of Congress, because only Congress can extend the nation's borrowing authority," he
wrote. "Failure to meet that responsibility would cause irreparable harm to the American economy."

Economic collapse causes nuclear war economic collapse causes military drawdown,
leads to nuclear weapons use.
Harris, Cambridge Ph.D, and Burrows, NICs Long Range Analysis Unit, 9
(Mathew, PhD European History at Cambridge, counselor in the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and
Jennifer, member of the NICs Long Range Analysis Unit Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the
Financial Crisis http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf, Date
Accessed:7/20)

Increased Potential for Global Conflict
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. Terrorisms 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 worlds
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 Irans 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 Chinas and Indias 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.

1NC Focus Scenario
Congress will successfully avert a government shutdown now, but time is super tight
Fox News, 9-11-2013, House pulls spending bill amid backlash as government shutdown looms,
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/11/house-leaders-pull-temporary-spending-bill-after-
conservative-backlash/
House Republican leaders pulled their plan Wednesday to temporarily fund the federal government after rank-
and-file party members said it sidestepped defunding ObamaCare. The action further narrowed
Congress time to strike a budget deal before an Oct. 1 government shutdown. House Speaker John Boehner and his team
pulled the plan, which could have gotten a full chamber vote as early as Thursday, after a conservative backlash led by the Tea Party movement
and Heritage Action for America. The plan essentially called for the House to vote on defunding ObamaCare and the temporary spending bill,
then send the package to the Democrat-controlled Senate, which almost certainly would have jettisoned the defund part and allowed the
chambers to negotiate on a clean funding bill. The Ruling Elite is up to it again, the Tea Party Patriots group said Wednesday. They want
you to think they have voted for defunding ObamaCare. But its another shell game. Meanwhile, Congress must also work on several other
pressing issues, especially agreeing to increase the debt ceiling, which the government could hit as soon as mid-October, according to a recent
Treasury Department assessment. Boehner defended his defund-spending plan Tuesday, saying his chamber has already voted 40 times to
defund, repeal and change ObamaCare, so the Senate must now take up the fight. Although Boehner pulled the bill because he
didnt have the votes, sources tell Fox News the speaker has no intention of changing the plan and might
revisit it next week -- after members realize its strengths. Meanwhile members from both parties appear
optimistic about avoiding a partial government shutdown, despite the looming deadline and the
potential for another internal House struggle. We've got some time left, Kentucky Republican Rep. Hal Rogers,
chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, told Fox News. It's not time to panic. The postponement of a Capitol Hill
vote on a military strike on Syria will indeed eliminate the related hearings and classified briefings that slowed work on
other pending issues, including immigration reform, the Farm Bill and whether to limit the extent to which the National Security Agency
can collect data on Americans in its efforts to thwart terrorism.

The plan would trade off with Congresss ability to avert the shutdown - GOP has
momentum and will, but they need literally every hour to get it done
Frank James, 9-13-2013, Congress Searches For A Shutdown-Free Future, NPR,
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/09/13/221809062/congress-searches-for-a-shutdown-
free-future
The only thing found Thursday seemed to be more time for negotiations and vote-wrangling. Republican
leaders recall how their party was blamed for the shutdowns of the mid-1990s and earnestly want to avoid
a repeat, especially heading into a midterm election year. Cantor alerted members Thursday that during the last week of
September, when they are supposed to be on recess, they will now most likely find themselves in
Washington voting on a continuing resolution to fund the government into October. It looks like lawmakers will need every
hour of that additional time. While talking to reporters Thursday, Boehner strongly suggested that House Republicans
weren't exactly coalescing around any one legislative strategy. "There are a lot of discussions going on about how
about how to deal with the [continuing resolution] and the issue of 'Obamacare,' and so we're continuing to work with our
members," Boehner said. "There are a million options that are being discussed by a lot of people. When we have something to report, we'll
let you know."

Shutdown wrecks the economy
Yi Wu, 8-27-2013, Government Shutdown 2013: Still a Terrible Idea, PolicyMic,
http://www.policymic.com/articles/60837/government-shutdown-2013-still-a-terrible-idea
Around a third of House Republicans, many Tea Party-backed, sent a letter last week calling on Speaker John Boehner to reject any spending
bills that include implementation of the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. Some Senate Republicans echo their House
colleagues in pondering this extreme tactic, which is nothing other than a threat of government shutdown as neither congressional
Democrats nor President Obama would ever agree on a budget that abolishes the new health care law. Unleashing this threat would amount to
holding a large number of of the federal government's functions, including processing Social Security checks and running the Centers for
Disease Control, hostage in order to score partisan points. It would be an irresponsible move inflicting enormous
damage to the U.S. economy while providing no benefit whatsoever for the country, and Boehner is rightly disinclined
to pursue it. Government shutdowns are deleterious to the economy. Two years ago in February 2011, a similar
government shutdown was looming due to a budget impasse, and a research firm estimated that quater's GDP growth would be reduced by 0.2
percentage points if the shutdown lasted a week. After the budget is restored from the hypothetical shutdown, growth would only be
"partially recouped," and a longer shutdown would result in deeper slowdowns. Further, the
uncertainties resulting from a shutdown would also discourage business. A shutdown was avoided last-minute that year,
unlike in 1995 during the Clinton administration where it actually took place for four weeks and resulted in a 0.5 percentage-point dent in GDP
growth. Billions of dollars were cut from the budget, but neither Boehner nor the Republicans at the time were reckless enough to demand
cancellation of the entire health care reform enacted a year before.

Global nuclear war
Harris & Burrows 9 Mathew, PhD European History @ Cambridge, counselor of the U.S. National
Intelligence Council (NIC) and Jennifer, member of the NICs Long Range Analysis Unit Revisiting the
Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis
http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.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. Terrorisms 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 worlds 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 Irans 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 Chinas and Indias 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.
2NC Overview
DA outweighs and turns case
a) the plan causes an immediate economic collapse leading to a drawdown of US
military presence which is key to preventing Middle Eastern pre-emptive
nuclear wars and conflict escalation in hotspots in the South China Sea and
Taiwan Strait thats 1NC Harris and Burrows
b) we control the internal link to their impacts only maintaining the US economy
accesses US primacy and successful foreign policy including all forms of
economic engagement its the only way to fund your plan means only a
strong domestic economy maintains all vital aspects of international relations
the economic system, security alliances, free trade, democracy promotion, all
are maintained only by an economy that sustains the funding economic
collapse acts as a filter to all impacts
<insert more turns case analysis>
Default kills credibility, international relations, foreign investment and US leadership
Whitney 11 (Mike, Staff at Information Clearing House, May 9, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28060.htm)

It matters because the bond market supports the dollar, and the dollar is the foundation upon
which the empire is built. When UST's lose their special role as the benchmark for pricing financial assets, the whole unipolar
system will begin to teeter. In other words, attracting foreign capital to UST's is a lot more important to the
maintenance of the US imperium, than winning wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. A flight from UST's will
accelerate America's decline and constrain its ability to project power around the world. So, we shouldn't underestimate the significance
of the debt ceiling drama. The stakes couldn't be higher. If congress botches the budget deal, we're likely
to see major dislocations in the world's largest and most liquid market, USTs. Here's an excerpt
from an article by Kevin Warsh, a former member of the Board of Governors at the Fed, who
explains what will happen if confidence in USTs begins to wane: "The Fed's increased presence in the market for
long-term Treasury securities also poses nontrivial risks. The Treasury market is special. It plays a unique role in the global financial system.
It is a corollary to the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency. The prices assigned to Treasury securities--the risk-
free rate--are the foundation from which the price of virtually every asset in the world is
calculated. As the Fed's balance sheet expands, it becomes more of a price maker than a price taker in the Treasury market. And if
market participants come to doubt these prices--or their reliance on these prices proves fleeting--risk premiums across asset classes and
geographies could move unexpectedly. The shock that hit the financial markets in 2008 upon the imminent failures of Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac gives some indication of the harm that can be done when assets perceived to be relatively riskless turn out not to be." ("The
New Malaise", Kevin Warsh, Wall Street Journal) Warsh has every reason to be concerned, Congress is unwisely putting the
very credibility of the United States on the line. Remember, the US does not keep underground
bunkers loaded with gold bullion to meet its obligations. It depends on the confidence of foreign
central banks and investors to maintain the illusion of solvency. Once that confidence runs out,
then... POOF... the game is over. The US will be unable to maintain its preeminent role in the
global order. The empire will wither.
2NC UQ Wall
The shutdown will be narrowly avoided now as the GOP is willing but time matters
thats 1NC Kapur - their ev only cites Syria which was resolved and conservatives with
political incentives
Congress will successfully avert a government shutdown now, but time is super tight
Fox News, 9-11-2013, House pulls spending bill amid backlash as government shutdown looms,
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/11/house-leaders-pull-temporary-spending-bill-after-
conservative-backlash/
House Republican leaders pulled their plan Wednesday to temporarily fund the federal government after rank-
and-file party members said it sidestepped defunding ObamaCare. The action further narrowed
Congress time to strike a budget deal before an Oct. 1 government shutdown. House Speaker John Boehner and his team
pulled the plan, which could have gotten a full chamber vote as early as Thursday, after a conservative backlash led by the Tea Party movement
and Heritage Action for America. The plan essentially called for the House to vote on defunding ObamaCare and the temporary spending bill,
then send the package to the Democrat-controlled Senate, which almost certainly would have jettisoned the defund part and allowed the
chambers to negotiate on a clean funding bill. The Ruling Elite is up to it again, the Tea Party Patriots group said Wednesday. They want
you to think they have voted for defunding ObamaCare. But its another shell game. Meanwhile, Congress must also work on several other
pressing issues, especially agreeing to increase the debt ceiling, which the government could hit as soon as mid-October, according to a recent
Treasury Department assessment. Boehner defended his defund-spending plan Tuesday, saying his chamber has already voted 40 times to
defund, repeal and change ObamaCare, so the Senate must now take up the fight. Although Boehner pulled the bill because he
didnt have the votes, sources tell Fox News the speaker has no intention of changing the plan and might
revisit it next week -- after members realize its strengths. Meanwhile members from both parties appear
optimistic about avoiding a partial government shutdown, despite the looming deadline and the
potential for another internal House struggle. We've got some time left, Kentucky Republican Rep. Hal Rogers,
chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, told Fox News. It's not time to panic. The postponement of a Capitol Hill
vote on a military strike on Syria will indeed eliminate the related hearings and classified briefings that slowed work on
other pending issues, including immigration reform, the Farm Bill and whether to limit the extent to which the National Security Agency
can collect data on Americans in its efforts to thwart terrorism.

Shutdown will be averted now despite Obamacare backlash
Jonathan Strong, 9-11-2013, "House Leaders to Delay CR Vote," NRO,
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/358243/house-leaders-delay-cr-vote-jonathan-strong
House leadership has decided to delay the vote on a bill funding the government to next week amid a
small rebellion from conservatives who want to use the measure for a do-or-die fight on repealing Obamacare.
While the bill has faced criticism from conservatives, leadership aides are downplaying the significance of the delay,
noting that Majority Leader Eric Cantor only yesterday unveiled his plan for the continuing resolution bill to the full GOP
conference. Getting anything this big accomplished in 72 hours is always tough and we just need a
couple extra days to dot the is and cross the ts, a House GOP leadership aide says. Conversations are ongoing.
Were making progress, a second Republican says.

House will avert shutdown now theyll punt Obamacare fight to the Debt Ceiling
David M. Drucker, 9-11-2013, "Conservatives float new plan to delay Obamacare by one year,"
Washington Examiner, http://washingtonexaminer.com/conservatives-float-new-plan-to-delay-
obamacare-by-one-year/article/2535609?custom_click=rss
House conservatives are coalescing around an alternative plan that would delay implementation of
Obamacare by one year and use the money saved to restore the sequester-mandated spending cuts, in exchange for approving either a
must-pass budget bill or legislation to raise the debt ceiling. The concept was hatched by conservative House Republicans
disappointed with a GOP leadership proposal that would send to the Senate a budget bill that funds the government beyond Sept. 30 but
allows the Democratic chamber to approve that spending while simultaneously voting down an attached amendment stripping all funding for
the Affordable Care Act. Conservative activists are pushing House Republicans to leverage a government shutdown as a means to defund
Obamacare. House conservatives are sympathetic to this strategy, which involves passing a budget that defunds Obamacare and attempts to
pin the blame for the inevitable government shutdown on President Obama. But even these Republicans recognize the political
risk of a government shutdown, and they are now trying to devise an alternative to the leadership proposal
that would still cut Obamacare. My take is, a consensus is all beginning to build, Rep. John Fleming, R-La., said
Wednesday as he exited a closed-door meeting of the Republican Study Committee, a group of conservative House Republicans. House
Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., attended the meeting, but did not address RSC members, those present said. Republican leaders cancelled a
vote on their Obamacare proposal this week, acknowledging that they didn't have the votes needed to clear the House. RSC meetings can be
raucous and emotive, with caucus members occasionally venting their unhappiness with leadership and its various plans. But members exiting
Wednesdays conclave described the discussion as constructive, an attempt to thread the needle between GOP leaders desire to avoid a
politically risky government shutdown and conservative demands that the upcoming fiscal negotiations be used to block implementation of
Obamacare, which will accelerate in October. The conservative alternative to delay Obamacare by a year and restore the sequester-
related spending cuts could be part of the government funding bill or the debt ceiling legislation. But House Budget
Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., made a compelling case for using the debt ceiling legislation to negotiate the
Obamacare delay, rather than the budget bill favored by Tea Party activists, according to one Republican who attended the RSC
meeting. That is better ground for us to fight on, said this GOP member. Meanwhile, the GOP would likely jumpstart negotiations to raise the
federal government's $16 trillion borrowing limit, which the Obama administration said will be reached between Oct. 18 to Nov. 5. Republicans
might also choose to immediately pass a bill that was based on the conservative alternative in attempt to put the pressure to avoid breaching
the debt ceiling on Obama and Senate Democrats. Were trying to find the sweet spot and do whats right for America, Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-
S.C., said. "Republicans want to keep the government open; were not advocating for a shutdown."

Congress will agree to a short-term budget extension to avoid default now
Oman Tribune, 9-2, 13,
http://www.omantribune.com/index.php?page=news&id=150996&heading=Americas

WASHINGTON A vote in Congress over whether to launch US attacks against Syria is expected to wreak collateral damage - leaving too little
time on Capitol Hill to deal with fast-approaching fall deadlines to fund government agencies and raise the debt limit. That increases the
likelihood that US lawmakers will agree to a short-term government funding measure to get them through
the fall, postponing for another day any broader deal or big showdowns. The House of Representatives had previously
scheduled only nine legislative days in September after they return from summer recess on September 9, prompting analysts to view this as
barely enough to pass government funding legislation in time to avoid a federal shutdown as the new fiscal year starts October 1. But now
much of that time is likely to be eaten up with a contentious debate over authorising the use of military force to punish Syria, analysts
say. With Republicans and Democrats still deeply divided on how to shrink US debt and federal deficits, the odds for a comprehensive
agreement that replaces sequester spending cuts and lifts the debt ceiling have fallen dramatically. Syria has really scrambled an incredibly
crowded calendar, said Chris Krueger, a political analyst with Guggenheim Securities in Washington. I think you have to say that the
chance of a short-term extension has increased.
Link Uniqueness (General)
Obama is ignoring Latin America trade and engagement are declining
Oppenheimer 5-8 (Andres Oppenheimer is a Miami Herald syndicated columnist and a member of
The Miami Herald team that won the 1987 Pulitzer Prize. He is the author of Castro's Final Hour;
Bordering on Chaos, Cronicas de heroes y bandidos, Ojos vendados, Cuentos Chinos and most recently,
Saving the Americas. Andres Oppenheimer: What Obama didnt say about Latin America. Miami
Herald. http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/08/3387818/andres-oppenheimer-obama-should.html)
Ive read with great attention President Barack Obamas article in The Miami Herald earlier this week on how to improve U.S. relations with
Latin America. It was pretty disappointing. The article, headlined Improving our Partnership and published after Obamas return from a trip to
Mexico and Costa Rica, says that this is a moment of great promise for our hemisphere and is full of feel-good talk about the future of the
Americas. But, sadly, it showed the absence of any U.S. plans to drastically expand trade ties with Latin
America like the Obama administration has done with Asia and Europe or any sign that, in his
second term, Obama will pay greater attention to this hemisphere. Before we get into what Obama should do, lets
take a quick look at the facts. In his article, Obama stated that about 40 percent of U.S. exports are currently going to Latin America, and that
these exports are growing at a faster pace than U.S. shipments to the rest of the world. Also, Obama celebrated that the U.S. Congress is finally
close to approving comprehensive immigration reform. While thats a U.S. domestic issue, it would have a positive economic impact on Mexico
and Central America, since millions of newly legalized immigrants would be able to visit their native countries, and would most likely be sending
more money to their families back home. But here are some of the facts that Obama failed to mention in his article: U.S. total trade
with Latin America has actually fallen as a percentage of total U.S. trade over the past decade. While 39
percent of overall U.S. trade was with the Western Hemisphere in 2000, that percentage fell to 38 percent in 2012, according to U.S.
Department of Commerce data. Despite Obamas May 23, 2008, campaign promise to launch a new alliance of the Americas, he has
not started any major hemispheric free trade initiative. By comparison, every recent U.S. president had started or at
least tried to start a hemisphere-wide trade deal. Obama has launched the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade
talks with mostly Asian countries, and a similar Trans-Atlantic Partnership free trade negotiation with
the 27-member European Union, but has not announced any plans for a Trans-American Partnership.
Granted, he has helped ratify free trade deals with Colombia and Panama, which had been signed by his predecessor. And, sure, the Trans-
Pacific Partnership plan includes a few Latin American countries, such as Mexico, Peru and Chile, but they are a minority within the proposed
new bloc. In his May 2 trip to Mexico, Obama failed to meet Mexicos request to be included in the U.S.-proposed Trans-Atlantic partnership
free trade talks with the European Union. The Mexican governments had asked that Mexico and Canada be included in the Trans-Atlantic
Partnership plan, so that the proposed deal could become a North American-European Union deal. But the White House response was, not yet.
Despite Obamas 2011 announcement of a plan to increase to 100,000 the number of Latin American students in U.S. colleges, and to 100,000
the number of U.S. students in Latin American universities his most ambitious initiative for the region progress on the project has been
slow. The plan calls for significant private sector funding, but Obama has invested little time, or political capital, in it. Fund-raising has been left
in charge of the State Department, whose boss Secretary of State John Kerry has shown scant interest in Latin
America.
Obama will not increase US economic relations to Latin America
Mike Allison 5/2/13 associate professor in the political science department at the University of
Scranton in Pennsylvania US President Barack Obama Returns to Latin America
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/04/2013430105115612555.html
As a result of these issues, the leaders and people of Central America as well as Mexico are highly
interested in what the President has to say about comprehensive immigration reform.
Guatemala will also be interested in learning whether there has been any progress on its request for Temporary Protected Status (TPS). El
Salvador, on the other hand, awaits word on whether TPS for its citizens will be extended past its expiry in September. How the US treats
people, whether documented or not, within its borders is a test of democracy and human rights. However, as in Mexico, Obama needs to
somehow make the strengthening of democracy and the promotion of human rights priorities in the US' relations with Central America.
Honduras has been unable to recover from the June 2009 coup that removed President Manuel Zelaya from office; with the highest homicide
rate in the world, police officers, lawyers, teachers, journalists, taxi drivers, gays and lesbians, and democracy and human rights activists are
now being killed at alarming rates. The executive, legislative and judicial branches are all at loggerheads with one another and are perhaps
more the problem than the solution. While popular, President Daniel Ortega continues to erode democratic structures in Nicaragua following
his questionably legal re-election in 2011. It is unlikely that Obama is going to announce a significant
increase in US economic assistance to the region and the US already has free trade agreements with Mexico
(NAFTA) and Central America (DR-CAFTA). The US is unlikely to agree to significant drug policy reforms,
such as decriminalisation and regulation, desired by so many. Nor is the US likely to cut security assistance to
Honduras and Mexico even as their forces continue to be involved in wide-scale abuses, including extrajudicial executions. Obama could
make a difference, however, returning democracy and human rights to the top of the agenda. In a 1989 conference of the Council of the
Americas, President George HW Bush said that a commitment to democracy and market economies would help define relations between the
US and Latin America. At the first Summit of the Americas to take place in Miami, Florida, in 1994, President Bill Clinton and the heads of state
of every Latin American country, except Cuba, agreed on an ambitious plan to deepen democracy and human rights, to achieve economic
growth and improve income redistribution within market economies, eliminate poverty and discrimination, and secure environmentally
sustainable development. Progress on each of those issues was uneven, at best, during the Clinton and George W Bush administrations.
President Obama's trip to Mexico and Costa Rica provides an opportunity for the US and the region to recommit themselves to strengthening
democratic institutions and respecting human rights.
Obama isnt involved in Latin America policy now
Roett 2012 (Riordan, director of the Latin American Studies program at the Johns Hopkins School of
Advanced International Studies. What Will Obama's Second Term Mean for Latin America? Inter-
American Dialogue. http://www.thedialogue.org/page.cfm?pageID=32&pubID=3135)
"While the president's re-election is welcome in general terms , it is difficult to imagine Latin America will
receive greater attention in the next four years. Congress remains deeply divided. The
administration's foreign policy priorities will continue to focus on China, the Middle East and the
ongoing fiscal challenges. Given the strong turnout by the Latino community, one area that should receive
priority is continued immigration reform, but it is the third rail for the Republican majority in the House. In general,
the democratic governments of the region will welcome the president's election without great expectation for
major policy initiatives. The populist regimes will continue to denounce any democratically elected administration.
The deadlock over Cuba will continue unless there is a dramatic leadership shift to a new generation.
The major policy initiative that would be welcome in the region is on drug policy, but that issue will remain taboo."
Obamas not spending PC on L.A. now
Isacson 2011 (Adam, senior associate at WOLA. President Obamas Upcoming Trip to Latin America
Washington Office on Latin America.
http://www.wola.org/commentary/president_obama_s_upcoming_trip_to_latin_america)
Though Latin Americans perceptions of the United States have improved since a low point during the Bush administration, our country
is no longer the central player in the economic lives of most Latin American countries, either through
trade or aid. As a result, it carries much less political weight. Though it is not his intention, President Obamas trip will underscore that
the era of unquestioned U.S. leadership has ended , as the President himself acknowledged at the 2009 Summit of the
Americas, when he emphasized building an equal partnership with the regions states. Not all of the messages will be positive, however. In a
time of reduced power and deep budget cuts, President Obama will be arriving largely empty-handed. There is relatively little new
economic aid to offer ; much of what the Administration can propose is re-programming to meet priority needs, improved
coordination, and technical assistance. These are important, but not a substitute for new assistance and new initiatives . Not only can
we expect few offers of new economic aid, we can expect few commitments to spend substantial
political capital. The administration, though supportive, is unlikely to make a major political commitment to help Latin America address
what, according to opinion polls throughout the region, are its main concerns: public security, unemployment, weak institutions, and migration.

U.S. not increasing engagement now
Isacson, Adam 3/10/11 Senior Associate at the Washington office on Latin America
(http://www.wola.org/commentary/president_obama_s_upcoming_trip_to_latin_america)
Not all of the messages will be positive, however. In a time of reduced power and deep budget cuts, President Obama will be
arriving largely empty-handed. There is relatively little new economic aid to offer; much of what the
Administration can propose is re-programming to meet priority needs, improved coordination, and
technical assistance. These are important, but not a substitute for new assistance and new initiatives. Not only can we expect
few offers of new economic aid, we can expect few commitments to spend substantial political
capital. The administration, though supportive, is unlikely to make a major political commitment to help
Latin America address what, according to opinion polls throughout the region, are its main concerns: public security, unemployment,
weak institutions, and migration. While crime and violence will be mentioned in Brazil and El Salvador, the most President Obama is likely to
offer is a commitment to maintain modest existing levels of assistance for police and judicial institution-building. On the economy and jobs, the
President will visit Chile and Brazil, whose growth rates dwarf our own. In his visit to El Salvador, whose economy is only beginning to recover
from the financial crisis that hit the United States, the President is likely to support targeted anti-poverty efforts, but no major new initiatives.
Strengthening institutions requires supporting reformers both in government and civil society, including human rights defenders and leaders of
unions and social movements something on which the U.S. record is mixed. On migration a third-rail political issue in todays Washington
we can expect little. (El Salvador seeks a long-term resolution of the status of the two hundred thousand Salvadorans still here on a
temporary protected basis, but no immediate solution is at hand.) We will hear words like partnership and engagement used quite
heavily and repeatedly in the course of this trip. This is certainly the right tone to take. But those words have little meaning, though, if they
dont come with a commitment to expend resources both political and financial to help our partners address their own concerns, even if
it occasionally displeases a domestic political constituency. True partners are also willing to admit when their policies are not working, rather
than forge blindly ahead as we have done in Cuba, the drug war, our trade policy and elsewhere. Latin America no longer revolves
around the U.S. sun, and our policy toward the region can no longer act as though it does. Lets hope
that the tone and content of the Presidents visit reflect that.

U.S. isnt increasing engagement in aid or trade now
Isacson, Adam 3/10/11 Senior Associate at the Washington office on Latin America
(http://www.wola.org/commentary/president_obama_s_upcoming_trip_to_latin_america)
When President Obama travels to Brazil, Chile, and El Salvador from March 19th to 23rd, he will encounter a
vastly different region than the one his predecessors visited. A generation ago, the region was a bit like
a solar system, its countries revolving tightly around the sun of U.S. political, economic and military
power. Today, that power is diminished. The planets are now determining their own independent
orbits, some are becoming suns in their own right, and other stars (China, India, Europe) are
exerting more gravitational pull. Though Latin Americans perceptions of the United States have improved since a low point
during the Bush administration, our country is no longer the central player in the economic lives of most Latin
American countries, either through trade or aid. As a result, it carries much less political weight. Though
it is not his intention, President Obamas trip will underscore that the era of unquestioned U.S. leadership has ended, as the President himself
acknowledged at the 2009 Summit of the Americas, when he emphasized building an equal partnership with the regions states.
Obamas reducing aid to Latin America
Meyer, Peter J and Sullivan, Mark P. Analyst and Specialist in Latin American Affairs
6/26/12 (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42582.pdf)

The Obama Administrations FY2013 foreign aid budget request would continue the recent downward
trend in assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean. The Administration has requested some $1.7 billion for the
region to be provided through the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). If Congress appropriates
funding at the requested levels, Latin America and the Caribbean would receive nearly 9% less assistance than the
region received in FY2012, and about 11% less than in FY2011. The proposed cuts are widespread, affecting nearly every
foreign aid account. Colombia, Haiti, and Mexico would see some of the largest absolute dollar
declines, but would remain the top three regional recipients, collectively accounting for some 55% of the aid to the region. Beyond the
assistance provided through the State Department and USAID, many Latin American and Caribbean nations will continue to receive additional
aid from agencies such as the Department of Defense, the Inter- American Foundation, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and the Peace
Corps.

AT: Fiat Solves the Link
Voting issue for fairness and education
a. They would remove all access to politics disads which are key to neg ground
especially against unpredictable affs
b. Learning about the legislative process and policymaking is a huge part of policy
education their interpretation would limit out this education
AT: Disad Is Not Intrinsic
Links and uniqueness prove that the disad is intrinsic
Our interpretation is that the judge can pass the plan, but not the disad
a. Ground We would lose access to all politics disads, and we need them as offense
against the affirmative.
b. Politics disads provide us with important education on current events.
AT: Vote No
A rational policymaker wouldnt just vote against CIR without evaluating the
consequences of his/her actions at worst, vote yes

PC Key
Obamas pol cap is key to
Capital key to a debt deal
Lillis 9/7 (Mike, Fears of wounding Obama weigh heavily on Democrats ahead of vote, 09/07/2013,
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/320829-fears-of-wounding-obama-weigh-heavily-on-democrats

The prospect of wounding President Obama is weighing heavily on Democratic lawmakers as they decide their votes on Syria. Obama
needs all the political capital he can muster heading into bruising battles with the GOP over fiscal
spending and the debt ceiling. Democrats want Obama to use his popularity to reverse automatic
spending cuts already in effect and pay for new economic stimulus measures through higher taxes on
the wealthy and on multinational companies.

Obama has to overcome deep party divisions pol cap is key
West 13, head of United States practice at Eurasia Group, a global political risk advisory firm, (Sean, Debt Ceiling Fight Could Be Train
Wreck, Bloomberg, January 3, 2013, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-03/debt-ceiling-fight-could-be-train-wreck.html, nw)
As I suggested likely in these pages, Congress and President Barack Obama managed to find a way to avert the
dreaded fiscal cliff with a good enough deal to raise some new tax revenue but avoid a massive tax rate increase as well as automatic
spending cuts. What they didnt do was create a new form of bipartisan political interaction that gives
reason to be optimistic about how they will address the debt limit and government spending decisions that loom in
just a few weeks. While lawmakers can be proud that they exceeded the expectations of many by not allowing a massive growth shock, the
real story of the fiscal cliff is one of opportunity cost. President Obama and Speaker John Boehner had a
chance to set in motion a new form of bipartisan cooperation. Even if they failed to agree to the larger framework deal
that keeps escaping them, it would have been a far better sign for the future if the cliff deal had been
brokered directly by the two people in Washington with real power. Instead, it was left to their respective
surrogate and colleague -- Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell -- to broker a last-minute
deal. Trouble is, the Biden-McConnell troupe is likely a one-hit wonder. House Republicans feel they
were fleeced by their Senate counterparts; its hard to see the House abdicating responsibility to the
Senate again in the near future. And Obama -- by letting Biden broker a deal many congressional
Democrats dislike while the president stoked public support for the administrations position --
increased bad blood both within his own party and also with House Republicans, with whom he will
have to deal in the weeks ahead. In the process, however, Obama did manage to secure a major tactical victory; the deal satisfied
many of his policy goals. Its too early to say that the debt limit negotiations will necessarily be a train wreck , but the
last few weeks provide little reason to be too optimistic that politics will soon change for the better.
Obama could upend political dynamics by taking a different approach to his second term. He could set
a new, more bipartisan tone in his inaugural and State of the Union addresses, perhaps shaking the dynamic of brinkmanship and
last minute-ism that has taken hold. House Republicans -- with a reduced caucus due to the loss of eight seats in November's election -- may
well find themselves approaching budgetary battles differently than they have in the past. But theres no evidence either side
intends to follow a new script. So were left looking forward to a debt ceiling, sequestration, and
continuing resolution fight that may be nastier than the fiscal cliff imbroglio. At least in the case of the cliff, both
sides had aligned incentives in that neither actually wanted across-the-board tax increases or spending cuts to take hold. But the
incentives are now much different. Obama wants to break the Republican desire to extract dollar-for-
dollar spending cuts for debt ceiling increases by refusing to negotiate on the issue. And unless Obama
gives House Republicans significant spending cuts -- or at least a credible illusion of them -- they are
going to hold out until the bitter end on increasing the debt limit.

AT: Hirsh
Hirshs arg is just that PC cant set the agenda not that Obamas pol cap is not key to
reform passage our UQ ev also proves that debt ceiling is top of the docket
Wins dont spill over- bruising effort doesnt generate capital- their author
Michael Hirsch, Daily Beast, 1-19-2010 http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/01/19/the-
politics-of-hubris.html

There was nothing new about this, of course. It falls into the age-old annals of hubris, the same excess of pride that got Achilles and Agamemnon in trouble with the
gods. Obama apparently did buy into the idea that he was a Man of Destiny and, being one, possessed bottomless supplies of
political capital. But he really had no more political capital than any first-year president, and he was straining his reserves just
dealing with the stimulus and financial reform, much less fixing Afghanistan. I first became worried about this bridge-too-far problem
last year while covering financial reform on the Hill, when various congressional staffers told me their bosses didn't really have the time to understand how the Wall
Street lobby was riddling the legislation with loopholes. Health care was sucking all the oxygen out of the roomand from their
brains, the aides said. Obama and his team seemed barely focused on transforming the financial systemexcept now, belatedlyand left a lot of the infighting to
regulators like Gary Gensler, the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Obama had spoken admiringly of Ronald Reagan as a transformational
president. And yet at what would seem to be a similar historical inflection pointwhat should have been the end of Reaganite free-market fundamentalism and a
laserlike scourging of Wall StreetObama seemed to put this once-in-a-lifetime task on a back burner. It is only now, a year later, when he has a terrific
fight on his hands over health care, that Obama is talking about seriously breaking up the structure of Wall Street. The big-bank lobby will dig in
big time of course, and seek to buy everyone it can on Capitol Hill, which means that the president will need even more political capital that he no longer has. Just
as bad, when the president did do h ealth c arewhatever version of it squeaks through nowhe seemed to be getting
such a meager result for so bruising an effort that it will be a long time before anyone has the stomach to
set it right legislatively.
AT: Winners Win
Ridiculous the GOP will hate Obama even more if he passes super controversial
legislation 1NC Moore proves political capital is a finite resource and winners dont
win - passing legislation doesnt mean his pol cap regenerates
Even if a confrontational strategy is key, that doesnt mean the plans singular win
spills-overits more likely to undermine Obamas careful strategy on that issue
Ryan Lizza, 1/7/13, Will Hagel Spike the G.O.P.s Fever?,
www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/01/how-much-will-the-nomination-of-chuck-hagel-
hurt-obamas-second-term-agenda.html

But Obamas victory has made almost no difference in changing the psychology or incentives of the
members of the G.O.P. who matter most: the House Republicans. The idea that a bloc of conservative, mostly Southern,
Republicans would start to coperate with the President on issues like tax policy and immigration may have rested on a faulty assumption. The
past few weeks of fiscal-cliff drama have taught us that breaking the fever was the wrong metaphor . There is no
one event even the election of a Presidentthat can change a political party overnight. Congress is a co-equal branch
of government, and House Republicans feel that they have as much of a mandate for their policies as Obama does for his. Shouldnt House
Republicans care that their views on Obamas priorities, like tax cuts for the rich and immigration, helped cost Romney the White House and
will make it difficult for their partys nominee to win in 2016? In the abstract, many do, but thats not enough to change the voting behavior of
the average House Republican, who represents a gerrymandered and very conservative district. A better metaphor for the coming
battles with Congress may be what Woody Hayes, the college-football coach, famously called three yards and a cloud
of dust : a series of grinding plays where small victories are earned only after lots of intense combat.
While the fiscal-cliff showdown demonstrated that theres potential for bipartisan deal-making in the
Senate, passing any Obama priority through the House of Representatives is nearly impossible unless
the political pressure is extremely intense . The fiscal-cliff bill passed the House only when Speaker John Boehners
members realized that their only alternative was blowing up the settlement negotiated by Joe Biden and Mitch McConnelland accepting all
the blame and consequences. That episode offers the White House a general template for the coming fights over
spending, immigration, and gun controlthree issues where there is very little consensus between Obama and
most House Republicans. Deals will have to be negotiated in the Senate and gain the imprimatur of
some high-profile Republicans. Then a pressure campaign will have to be mounted to convince
Boehner to move the legislation to the floor of the House under rules that allow it to pass with mostly
Democratic votes. Its easier to see how this could happen with the coming budgetary issues, which have
deadlines that force action, than for the rest of Obamas agenda, which is more likely than not to simply die in the House.

Uniqueness
2NC Negotiations Now
Debt ceiling negotiations have begun
Calmes, 9/10 (Jackie, GOP Eyes Hard Line Against Health Care Law, New York Times, 09/10/2013,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/us/politics/gop-eyes-hard-line-against-health-care-
law.html?_r=0, AC)
The Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate have agreed to meet on Thursday, for the
first time since Congress returned from its five-week summer recess, to begin discussions on the coming fiscal fights over
the continuing resolution and the debt limit. In the House, the Republicans private caucus on Mr. Cantors strategy came as
Congress was roiled by the debate over Syria. While several lawmakers lodged objections, the reception was not so hostile initially to dissuade
the leadership from following through.

Bargaining now over the debt ceiling
Pianin, 9/10, Eric 13, Fiscal Times, Debt-Ceiling Danger Zones Threatens the US, 09/10/2013,
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/09/10/Debt-Ceiling-Danger-Zone-Threatens-US, AC)
Once that threshold is crossed, the government could default on payments to major creditors, begin shuttering federal agencies, furloughing
workers or miss making Social Security payments to retirees. Obama has repeatedly said there will be no political
bargaining over the debt ceiling, as there was two years ago. However, the top four Democratic and
Republican leaders will meet privately on Thursday to discuss the debt ceiling and how to avoid a
government shutdown before Oct 1, according to Politico.

AT: GOP Wont Compromise
GOP will give in now
Alexander Bolton, 9-12-2013, "Reid 'really frightened' over potential for government shutdown ," The
Hill, http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/321923-reid-really-frightened-of-possible-government-
shutdown-after-meeting-with-boehner
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he is scared of a possible government shutdown after meeting with
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) Thursday morning. Im really frightened, he told reporters after a press conference to discuss the
morning meeting he had with Boehner, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-
Calif.). I think theyre looking like the House is having trouble controlling themselves, he said. Earlier in the day, Reid
declared that the lower chamber had been taken over by anarchists after an energy efficiency bill stalled on the Senate floor. Were diverted
totally from what this bill is about. Why? Because the anarchists have taken over, he said. Theyve taken over the House and now theyve
taken over the Senate. Reid on Thursday delivered a blunt message to Boehner that he will not delay the 2010 Affordable Care Act in exchange
for keeping the government open past the end of the month. Reid also made clear he will not grant Republicans any concessions in order to
pass legislation to raise the debt limit. Reid told reporters that he will strip out any language defunding or delaying the
new healthcare law included in House-passed legislation funding government beyond Sept. 30. Go to something else, get away from
ObamaCare. Send us something else, he said. He plans to pass a clean stopgap spending measure to keep the
government open through years end. Reid characterized Thursday mornings bicameral leadership meeting as cordial and said he
offered to help Boehner circumvent Tea Party-affiliated conservatives who are threatening a government shutdown. I said to him, What can I
do to help?, Reid said. It was not a yelling-at-each-other meeting. It was a very nice meeting we had. Hey listen, I like John Boehner. Sen.
Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the third-ranking Senate Democratic leader, predicted House Republican leaders will fold before
allowing the government to shut down. I still think at the last minute theyll have to blink, Schumer said.
The fact that Boehner came up with his sort-of concoction shows that he knows that a government
shutdown plays badly for him, he added, referring to the stopgap spending measure House GOP leaders presented to their
colleagues on Tuesday. Should he go forward and let the Tea Party win on the government shutdown, then everyone will come down on him
and say, Whyd you allow them to do it?.
AT: Obamacare Delay
House will avert shutdown but wont delay Obamacare
Rubin 9/17 (Jennifer, Do Defunding Obamacare Efforts Have GOP Support, 09/17/2013,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/09/17/do-defunding-obamacare-efforts-
have-gop-support/, AC)
It is hard to gauge the degree to which the shutdown fever has gripped the House GOP. The shutdown forces are loud and enjoy
the talk show echo chamber, but do they have support among their colleagues? We know that those advocating a government
shutdown to defund Obamacare havent convinced even a majority of their Senate colleagues. In the
House, a senior House aide offered that most of the conference was supportive of the speakers approach. Another suggested the tide was
in the direction, but that it wouldnt be hard for hardliners to drive the House off course once again. There are some signs, however, that the
prospect of a shutdown has alarmed Republicans, who think that while the aim of getting rid of Obamacare is
admirable, the strategy is suicidal. The argument that the shutdown crowd is actually electorally helping the Democratic Congressional
Campaign Committee (by infighting with their own colleagues and egging them on toward an unpopular strategy) has some resonance among
GOP members. (The Wall Street Journal editorial board warns, The kamikazes could end up ensuring the return of all-Democratic rule.) In the
House, GOP staffers have taken to calling out a major instigator of the shutdown hooey, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) (anger at Cruz carries a
fairly broad base among House Republicans, many of whom view his Obamacare push as self-
destructive to the party). Conservatives opposed to a shutdown strategy seem to be making progress
in debunking the hard rights nonsense claim that unless a Republican votes for a shutdown hes an
Obamacare supporter

Defund Obamacare already pulled back risks wasting time
ABC News 9/12 (Congress Braces for Looming Fiscal Fight, 09/12/2013,
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/09/congress-braces-for-looming-fiscal-fight/, AC)
House Republicans floated a proposal earlier this week that would have funded the government through mid-December, but their most
conservative members opposed a plan leadership had devised that aimed to force the Senate to hold a vote to defund the Affordable Care Act.
Instead, those Republicans demand that the House Republican leadership put forward legislation that completely
defunds Obamacare within the underlying legislation, separate from any gimmicks or parliamentary tricks. Without the votes
to pass the leaderships gambit, House Speaker John Boehner pulled the legislation from the House
floor Wednesday. He said today he might still work to find the votes for that scheme, but he conceded that there are a million options
that are being discussed for a continuing resolution. Theres all this speculation about these deadlines that are
coming up. Im well aware of the deadlines. So are my colleagues, Boehner, R-Ohio, said. Were working with our colleagues
to work our way through these issues. I think there is a way to get there. Im going to be continuing to work with my fellow leaders and our
members to address those concerns. About an hour earlier, Boehner had hosted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Republican
Leader Mitch McConnell and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi for a 45-minute meeting in the Speakers office at the Capitol. Afterwards,
Democrats claimed they were candid with Republicans, telling Boehner and McConnell to forget red-meat proposals that are unlikely to draw
much Democratic support. They know that what theyre proposing is not going to pass the Senate or be signed
by the president, so why dont we just save time, be constructive? Pelosi, D-Calif., said during a news conference this
afternoon. Just because youre an anti-government ideologue who has landed in Congress doesnt mean that you should be shutting down
government. Reid said he was also direct with Boehner, urging him to focus on crafting an agreeable continuing resolution instead of caving
to demands by conservatives to defund Obamacare. As we all know, the Speaker has a problem: how to get the government funded, Reid, D-
Nev., said. I told him very directly that all these things theyre trying to do on the Obamacare is just a waste of
their time. Reid also contended that a faction of House Republicans is intent on shutting down the government if their effort to defund
the presidents health care plan fails to gain traction.
AT: Thumper - Generic
Debt ceiling must be resolved by October 18
Lori Montgomery, 9-10, 13, House Republicans battle over leaders new budget bill, Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/us-treasury-to-run-out-of-borrowing-authority-as-
soon-as-oct-18-report-says/2013/09/10/d4060220-1a18-11e3-82ef-a059e54c49d0_story.html
In the Senate, however, Democrats are likely to accept the House bill and move on to the next big fight over the federal debt limit, a senior
Democratic aide said. Congressional leaders are scheduled to meet Thursday to discuss that battle. According to an independent analysis of
projected cash flow released Tuesday, the Treasury will run short of cash to pay the nations bills as soon as Oct.
18 unless Congress agrees to raise the debt limit. While the Treasury may be able to stretch available
funds into early November, lawmakers would risk causing chaos in world financial markets if they
waited that long to act, the report by the Bipartisan Policy Center found. Whats being suggested here is that you better be
acting by Oct. 18, or youre going to have problems, said G. William Hoagland, the centers senior vice president and a
former budget adviser to a long line of Senate Republican leaders. Were playing with matches. The nation hit the debt ceiling on May 19.
Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has been employing a variety of emergency borrowing measures since then, but by the end of August had only
about $108 billion at his disposal, the report said. When that money is gone, the Treasury will be forced to rely entirely upon incoming revenues
and will slowly run short of funds to pay all its bills. The danger zone extends from Oct. 18 to Nov. 5, with big payments due on Oct. 23 and
especially Nov. 1, when Treasury must make $58 billion in payments to Social Security recipients, Medicare providers and active-duty military.

AT: Thumper Syria
Congress is focused on averting shutdown now Syria doesnt thump
Condon 9/13 (Stephanie, Yet Again, Congress Searches For a Short Term Budget Fix, CBS News,
09/13/2013, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57602745/yet-again-congress-searches-for-a-
short-term-budget-fix/, AC)
With little time left to sign a spending bill and avert a government shutdown, President Obama on Thursday attempted
to put the crisis of chemical weapons in Syria on hold and refocus Washington's attention on domestic issues. Yet
with partisan relations as fractured as ever -- not to mention relations between Republican leaders and tea partiers -- the White House and
Congress are setting their sights on short-term economic fixes, which has become standard operating procedure for
lawmakers in recent years. "Even as we have been spending a lot of time on the Syria issue and making sure that international attention is
focused on the horrible tragedy that occurred there, it is still important to recognize that we've got a lot more stuff to do here in this
government," Mr. Obama said ahead of a White House meeting with members of his Cabinet. The meeting, the president said, was assembled
to talk about streamlining government operations and "managing some of the budget debates that are going to be taking place over the next
several weeks." "The American people are still interested in making sure that our kids are getting the kind of education they deserve, that
we're putting people back to work," he said, "that we are dealing properly with a federal budget, that bills are
getting paid on time, that the full faith and credit of the United States is preserved." If Congress
doesn't send Mr. Obama a spending bill by Sept. 30, the federal government would partially shut down.
AT: UQ > L
UQ doesnt overwhelm the link 1NC Kapur proves pol cap is key
Individual members can decide to vote against raising the debt ceiling, making default
possible
Joseph White, 11 is Director of the Center for Policy Studies at Case Western Reserve University. - See more at:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Blogs/Capital-Exchange/2011/06/13/Capital-Exchange-Three-Reasons-Default-Is-
Possible#sthash.IwjM8Cf8.dpuf, The Fiscal Times, http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Blogs/Capital-
Exchange/2011/06/13/Capital-Exchange-Three-Reasons-Default-Is-Possible
Members of Congress know they have to raise the ceiling. They also know it is very unpopular. So most of them
want other members to vote for it. They know CONGRESS should raise the ceiling, but that does not mean THEY should vote to raise it. This is nothing new. It is the reason why the House made a
practice for many years of including debt-ceiling increases in budget resolutions, where they might not be as noticeable. The House Republicans would not do that this year, because they see the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip.
The Budget Resolution method still requires majorities in the House and Senate to vote for the increase. In our
system, the majority party in each chamber has responsibility to push through must-pass legislation. Yet that
will be especially hard this time because the House Majority wants to keep its bargaining chip. Meanwhile the Senate Majority
actually isnt, really, a majority. Senate Democrats cannot even imagine passing a budget resolution. Too many senators want someone else to cast the vote. It is
too easy for conservative or vulnerable Democrats to figure some other Democrats or even a few more
moderate or responsible Republicans will provide the necessary votes. Many House Democrats will surely want the Republicans to pass the increase when it
finally passes, while Republicans will figure its the Democrats who want big government so they should pay the political price. Most legislators may know that failing to increase
the ceiling is a very bad idea but that just means someone else should give in. - See more at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Blogs/Capital-
Exchange/2011/06/13/Capital-Exchange-Three-Reasons-Default-Is-Possible#sthash.IwjM8Cf8.dpuf

Political crisis could mean that the debt ceiling is not raised
Joseph White, 11 is Director of the Center for Policy Studies at Case Western Reserve University. - See more at:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Blogs/Capital-Exchange/2011/06/13/Capital-Exchange-Three-Reasons-Default-Is-
Possible#sthash.IwjM8Cf8.dpuf, The Fiscal Times, http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Blogs/Capital-
Exchange/2011/06/13/Capital-Exchange-Three-Reasons-Default-Is-Possible

Then there are the centrist budget hawks. Call this the Maya McGuineas test: Maya, are you willing to see a clean debt ceiling increase? Of course not: taking the debt ceiling
hostage is one of their ideas. They think a clean debt ceiling increase is not responsible. In other words, playing games with the full faith and credit of the federal government is the responsible thing to do. Usually, when
some sort of policy disaster happens, it is the centrists who are supposed to call for moderation. Yet
budget hawks are not moderates, even if they are centrists. Usually when war threatens the neutrals try to prevent it. In this case, the relative neutrals want
to RAISE the tension between left and right; to RAISE the stakes of disagreement, based on a misguided idea that only a crisis will bring agreement. Since the real economy keeps refusing to provide evidence that the deficit is an
economic problem,they have to promote a political crisis. The political crisis is the chance that the debt ceiling increase will not pass.
The unelected budget hawks dream that left and right will compromise to avoid default is highly unlikely to happen, because there is no substantive middle ground. Meanwhile the elected
budget hawks have made much of their political careers being budget hawks; it is hard for them to
back down and vote for a clean increase. They tell themselves it would be so easy if everyone else would just be reasonable. This means the legislators who should be the voice for
moderation and avoiding disaster, and the elitecommentators who should be urging them to do so, keep focusing instead on the need for big policy changes.

Generic Links
Foreign Policy Changes Drain PC
Foreign policy changes drain PC
Helen V. Milner (B. C. Forbes Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University and
the director of the Niehaus Center for Globalization and Governance at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson
School) and Dustin H. Tingley (Assistant Professor of Government at Harvard University) Who
Supports Global Economic Engagement? The Sources of Preferences in American Foreign Economic
Policy International Organization 65, Winter 2011, pp. 3768
In democracies, governments have to build domestic support for the use of foreign policy tools. In the United
States, which we focus on in this article, presidents must build legislative coalitions because of the separation of
powers system. Presidents are not free to simply design the optimal policy for foreign engagement;
instead they must obtain domestic approval. Legislators may have their own preferences about
foreign policy, given the impact policy has on their local constituencies and therefore their reelection
prospects. Legislators may nd it politically costly to yield to the presidents foreign policy concerns.
Foreign policy, then, results from some combination of these domestic and international pressures.

Presidents must expend PC to achieve foreign policy goals
Helen V. Milner (B. C. Forbes Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University and
the director of the Niehaus Center for Globalization and Governance at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson
School) and Dustin H. Tingley (Assistant Professor of Government at Harvard University) Who
Supports Global Economic Engagement? The Sources of Preferences in American Foreign Economic
Policy International Organization 65, Winter 2011, pp. 3768

Presidential Power and Foreign Policy Concerns Studies of foreign policy often claim that the president is the dominant actor. 30 Legislators
follow the presidents lead because presidents have more intense preferences and better knowledge
about foreign policy. In this theory, presidents have strong preferences over policies such as aid and trade because these are important
foreign policy tools, and presidents are responsible for responding to foreign policy challenges. However, as Krasner has noted, Congress
provides an important check on the ability of the president to implement his foreign policy goals: The
political needs and constituencies of Congressmen are different from those of the President.... Because Congressmen represent geographically
specic areas, they are bound to have different concerns from the presidents. While the President can be held accountable for the broad effect
of policy, rarely can members of the legislature. To get reelected, members of Congress must serve relatively narrow constituencies. 31 By this
account, presidents need to convince legislators to vote for their foreign policy choices often against the
legislators preferences. Such presidential inuence is likely to arise from several sources, including
the linking of national security concerns to trade or aid ~that is, playing the security card! and the
offer of side payments to legislators. 32 As we discuss later, the African Growth and Opportunity Act ~AGOA! provides an
interesting case where President Bill Clinton had to use both strategies to craft a winning legislative coalition to advance a foreign policy
priority. Following other scholars, we argue that legislators often listen to or are persuaded by the presidents foreign policy concerns and,
following party loyalty vote in accord with the president. Presidents propose foreign policy to meet external pressures, and legislators vote in
favor if they come from the presidents party and against if they are from the opposition party. 33 The ability of presidents to get their
preferences realized in Congress, despite other inuences, has been examined. 34 Fleisher, Krutz, and Hanna show that presidents rate
of success in getting their legislation in foreign policy passed is extremely high, and higher than in domestic
policy. 35 These data suggest that presidents foreign policy concerns can often override the local
constituency interests of legislators.

Foreign Aid Unpop
Congress wants to cut foreign aid to L.A. now
Meyer and Sullivan 2012 (Peter and Mark, Analyst in Latin American Affairs; Specialist in Latin American
Affairs. U.S. Foreign Assistance to Latin America and
the Caribbean: Recent Trends and FY2013
Appropriations Congressional Research Service. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42582.pdf)
Foreign assistance is one of the tools the United States has employed to advance U.S. interests in
Latin America and the Caribbean , with the focus and funding levels of aid programs changing along with broader U.S. policy
goals. Current aid programs reflect the diversity of the countries in the region. Some countries receive the full range of U.S. assistance as they
continue to struggle with political, socio-economic, and security challenges. Others, which have made major strides in democratic
governance and economic and social development, have largely outgrown U.S. assistance but continue to receive some support for new
security challenges, such as strengthening citizen security and combating transnational organized crime . Although U.S. relations
with the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean have increasingly become less defined by the
provision of U.S. assistance as a result of this progress , foreign aid continues to play an important role in advancing
U.S. policy in the region. Congress authorizes and appropriates foreign assistance to the region, and
conducts oversight of aid programs and the executive branch agencies charged with managing them. Current efforts to reduce budget
deficits in the aftermath of the recent global financial crisis and U.S. recession have triggered closer examination of competing budget
priorities. Congress has identified foreign assistance as a potential area for spending cuts, placing greater
scrutiny on the efficiency and effectiveness of U.S. aid programs. Spending caps enacted as part of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-
25)1 could place downward pressure on the aid budget for the foreseeable future.

Renewable Energy Unpop
Pushing renewables decimates Obamas pc
Friedman 6/26 (DAN FRIEDMAN DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER; June 26, 2013; Cool hand Bam Prez: I'll
take on climate control measures by myself; Daily News New York; lexis)//KDUB
Obama said he would tell the Environmental Protection Agency to impose the first limits on carbon pollution from power plants by
2015, one of a series of steps to tackle global warming without approval from a mostly opposed Congress.
Wearing no jacket, the President rolled up his sleeves in 91-degree heat and stifling humidity at the start of his outdoor speech at Georgetown
University. Noting 2012 was the warmest year in U.S. history, he dismissed skeptics who question whether human activity causes rising
temperatures. "I don't have much patience for anyone who denies that this challenge is real," Obama said. "We don't have time for a meeting
of the Flat Earth Society. Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it's not going to protect you from the coming storm." The
plan drew cheers from environmentalists and attacks from lawmakers of both parties representing energy-producing states. "It's clear
now that the President has declared a war on coal," said Sen. Joe Manchin, (D-W.Va.), whose state relies
on the coal industry. "It's simply unacceptable that one of the key elements of his climate change proposal places regulations on
coal that are completely impossible to meet with existing technology." Also Tuesday, Obama raised the prospect of rejecting
plans for the Keystone XL pipeline to carry oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. He said his administration will
block it unless it does "not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution." The President said
he directed the EPA to work with states and industries to set local pollution standards and new goals
for carbon reduction. He outlined plans to raise federal investment in renewable energy. Obama promised tougher fuel economy
standards for trucks and called for an "end of public financing for new coal plants overseas." Despite the steps, Obama said a carbon buildup
means the Earth will keep warming. "The fact that sea levels in New York, in New York Harbor, are now a foot higher than a century ago - that
didn't cause Hurricane Sandy, but it certainly contributed to the destruction that left large parts of our mightiest city dark and under water," he
said.
OAS Unpopular
House Conservatives dont support OAS
The Economist 11 (Partnership, and its obstacles: Barack Obamas fitful attempts to strike a new
tone in relations with Latin America face new obstacles from Republicans in Congress, The Economist
Print edition publication, 9-3-11, http://www.economist.com/node/21528271)//TQ
SHORTLY after he took office in 2009, Barack Obama attended a 34-country Summit of the Americas in Trinidad where he pledged a new era of
partnership between the two halves of the region, in place of stale debates and old ideologies. Honouring this promise has not been easy:
Mr Obama has had other priorities, both abroad and at home, and events in the region, such as a coup in Honduras just two months after the
Trinidad summit, revived some of those old debates. Nevertheless, the administration has taken some modest initiatives
in Latin America. But now the new partnership risks falling victim to partisan infighting in Washington.
In July the Republican majority on a committee of the House of Representatives deleted funding for the
Organisation of American States (OAS) from next year's budget. Conservatives dislike the OAS's secretary-
general, Jos Miguel Insulza, a Chilean social democrat, whom they accuse of complicity with threats to democracy and media
freedom from leftist autocrats, such as Venezuela's Hugo Chvez. The Republicans have similarly used their powers to hold up the appointment
of administration nominees for diplomatic jobs whom they consider too conciliatory towards Mr Chvez and his friends. At the same
time, American ambassadors have been expelled from, or not accepted in, Venezuela, Ecuador and (in 2008)
Bolivia.
Latin America Economic Engagement Popular
Congress supports engagement with Latin America
Palmer 12 (Reuters. Boehner urges deeper US engagement in Latin America
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/08/usa-trade-boehner-idUSL1E8G81HM20120508)
WASHINGTON, May 8 (Reuters) - The U.S. Congress' top Republican on Tuesday called for deeper U.S economic
engagement with Latin America, but also expressed concern over Iranian influence in the region and the "alarming willingness" of
some governments to abandon international norms. "In both Colombia and Mexico, and the entire hemisphere, the U.S. must be
clear that we will not disengage in the fight for free markets and free, secure people," U.S. House of
Representatives Speaker John Boehner said in remarks prepared for delivery at the U.S. State Department. "We must be clear that we will
be there, with our friends and partners in the region, committed to fighting and winning the war for a free, stable, and prosperous
hemisphere," Boehner said, speaking to the Council of Americas, an organization representing companies that do business in the region.
Boehner is due on Tuesday to receive an award from the group for his work last year on winning congressional approval of free trade
agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea.

Cuba Links
Cuba Policy Unpopular (General)
Changing policy toward Cuba requires lots of PC
Williams 13 (A foreign correspondent for 25 years, Carol J. Williams traveled to and reported from
more than 80 countries in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. A foreign correspondent for
25 years, Carol J. Williams traveled to and reported from more than 80 countries in Europe, Asia, the
Middle East and Latin America. May 03, 2013 http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/03/world/la-fg-
wn-cuba-us-terror-list-20130502)
Politicians who have pushed for a continued hard line against Cuba cheered their victory in getting the
Obama administration to keep Cuba on the list. U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a South Florida Republican whose efforts to
isolate and punish the Castro regime have been a central plank of her election strategy throughout her 24 years in Congress, hailed the State
Department decision as reaffirming the threat that the Castro regime represents. Arash Aramesh, a national security analyst at Stanford
Law School, blamed the continued branding of Cuba as a terrorism sponsor on politicians pandering for a
certain political base. He also said President Obama and Secretary of State John F. Kerry have failed to make a
priority of removing the impediment to better relations with Cuba. As much as Id like to see the Castro regime
gone and an open and free Cuba, it takes away from the State Departments credibility when they include countries on the list that arent even
close to threatening Americans, Aramesh said. Political considerations also factor into excluding countries from the state sponsor list, he
said, pointing to Pakistan as a prime example. Although Islamabad very clearly supports terrorist and insurgent organizations, he said, the
U.S. government has long refused to provoke its ally in the region with the official censure. The decision to retain Cuba on the list surprised
some observers of the long-contentious relationship between Havana and Washington. Since Fidel Castro retired five years ago and handed the
reins of power to his younger brother, Raul, modest economic reforms have been tackled and the government has revoked the practice of
requiring Cubans to get exit visas before they could leave their country for foreign travel. There was talk early in Obamas first term of easing
the 51-year-old embargo, and Kerry, though still in the Senate then, wrote a commentary for the Tampa Bay Tribune in 2009 in which he
deemed the security threat from Cuba a faint shadow. He called then for freer travel between the two countries and an end to the U.S. policy
of isolating Cuba that has manifestly failed for nearly 50 years. The political clout of the Cuban American community in
South Florida and more recently Havanas refusal to release Gross have kept any warming between
the Cold War adversaries at bay. Its a matter of political priorities and trade-offs, Aramesh said. He noted that
former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton last year exercised her discretion to get the Iranian opposition group Mujahedeen Khalq, or
MEK, removed from the governments list of designated terrorist organizations. That move was motivated by the hopes of some in Congress
that the group could be aided and encouraged to eventually challenge the Tehran regime. Its a question of how much political
cost you want to incur or how much political capital you want to spend, Aramesh said. President Obama
has decided not to reach out to Cuba, that he has more important foreign policy battles elsewhere.

Changing Cuba policy requires disproportionately large amounts of PC
Aho 13 (Matthew Aho, Inter-American Dialogue's Latin America Advisor. What Does Obama's Second
Term Hold for U.S.-Cuba Relations? January 23, 2013. Cuba Study Group.
http://www.cubastudygroup.org/index.cfm/our-opinions?ContentRecord_id=c20ad778-24cd-46df-9fb2-
3ebc664ed58d&ContentType_id=15d70174-0c41-47c6-9bd5-cc875718b6c3&Group_id=4c543850-0014-
4d3c-8f87-0cbbda2e1dc7)
While John Kerry's views on U.S.Cuba relations have favored engagement over isolation, ultimate authority rests with a White
House that has proceeded cautiously on Cuba during President Obama's first term. Aside from easing some travel
restrictions, there have been only two emergent themes on Cuba policy: support for private-sector efforts to increase the flow of information
to the Cuban people; and support for private economic activity on the island. Cuba policy changes still require expenditures
of political capital disproportionate to the island's strategic and economic importance. Barring game-
changing developmentssuch as release of USAID subcontractor Alan Grossexecutive action during
Obama's second term will likely focus on furthering goals laid out during his first. Here, however, John Kerry's
leadership could prove vital and create new opportunities for U.S. business.

Cuban policy changes require a large investment of political capital
Miroff 13 (Nick Miroff covers Cuba for GlobalPost. He is also a contributor to National Public Radio,
and has written for the Washington Post, Mother Jones, Sporting News, the San Francisco Chronicle, and
other publications. Can Kerry make friends with Cuba? January 2, 2013. Global Post.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/cuba/121231/kerry-cuba-secretary-of-
state-obama)
Kerry has also favored lifting curbs on US travel to the island, and opening up American tourism to the only country in
the world the US government restricts its own citizens from visiting. For the rest of Latin America, where leaders say they're eager for
Washington to modernize its view of the region and engage in new ways, Cuba remains a litmus test for the Obama
presidency, according to Julia Sweig, director of Latin American Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. The strategic benefits of
getting Cuba right would reverberate throughout the Americas, said Sweig, calling Kerry ideally suited to the task. Kerry's instincts and
experience in Latin America are to see past lingering and often toxic ideology in the US Congress and bureaucracy in favor of pragmatism and
problem solving, she said. Regardless of Kerrys record on Cuba policy in the Senate, analysts say he will face
several obstacles to major change, not least of which will be the man likely to replace him as chairman of the
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey), a Cuban American. If Menendez becomes
chairman, then the committee responsible for shaping US foreign policy in the upper house will be led by a
hardliner who wants to ratchet up not dial back the US squeeze on Havana. So while Kerry may have
some latitude to adjust Cuba policy from inside the White House, Latin America experts dont expect sweeping change like an end to the
Cuba Embargo which requires Congressional action. On Latin America, in general, I think Kerry has a longer and broader vision, said Robert
Pastor, professor of international relations at American University. But when it comes to Cuba, he cautioned, Kerry is also a political
realist. Changing US policy is not a high priority for him, but not changing US policy is the only
priority for Bob Menendez, Pastor said. In 2011, Kerry delayed the release of nearly $20 million in federal funds for pro-democracy
Cuba projects run by the US Agency for International Development (USAID), questioning their effectiveness and insisting on greater oversight.
There is no evidence that the democracy promotion programs, which have cost the US taxpayer more than $150 million so far, are helping
the Cuban people, Kerry said at the time. Nor have they achieved much more than provoking the Cuban government to arrest a US
government contractor. The US government contractor is Alan Gross, jailed on the island since December 2009. Cuban authorities arrested
Gross while he worked on a USAID project to set up satellite communications gear that would allow members of Cubas Jewish community to
connect to the internet without going through government servers. Cuba sentenced him to 15 years in prison, but now says its willing to work
out a prisoner swap for the Cuban Five, a group of intelligence agents who have been serving time in a US federal prison. The Obama
administration has refused to negotiate, calling on Havana to release Gross unconditionally, and even US lawmakers who advocate greater
engagement with Cuba say no change will be possible as long as hes in jail. The Castro government insists its not willing to give up Gross for
nothing. Carlos Alzugaray, a former Cuban diplomat and scholar of US-Cuba relations at the University of Havana, said a resolution to
the Gross case and other significant changes in US policy would require a big investment of political
capital by Kerry and Obama.
Many barriers to new legislation hurt PC Alan Gross, other issues, and bipartisan
opposition
LeoGrande 12 *William LeoGrande, School of Public Affairs at American University, writing in a presentation titled Fresh Start for a Stale
Policy: Can Obama Break the Stalemate in U.S.-Cuban Relations? for the conference "Proyecciones, tendencias y perspectivas de las relaciones
Cuba - Estados Unidos en el contexto del mandato Presidencial 2013 -2017," which took place on December 17 and 18 2012]
But the Obama administration made very little headway in expanding government-togovernment ties
with Cuba. It resumed the semi-annual immigration consultations Bush had suspended, but then suspended them again in January 2011.
Initial talks on counter-narcotics cooperation, joint medical assistance to Haiti, and Coast Guard search and rescue seemed to offer some
promise of progress, but they stalled before reaching any new agreements. Only talks on cooperation to
mitigate oil spills in the Caribbean made any real progress, and even then Washington insisted on
conducting them multilaterally rather than bilaterally. The proximate cause of the failure to move
bilateral relations ahead was the arrest of USAID subcontractor Alan Gross in December 2009. But
there were deeper causes for the loss of momentum in Obama's new Cuba policy. One was the low
priority given to it in the face of the2 multiple foreign policy problems facing the president wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan, nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea, revolutions sweeping North
Africa. Even in Latin America, the administration faced more pressing problems the coup in
Honduras, drug war in Mexico, and earthquake in Haiti. Another reason for the lose of momentum
was the political resistance the president faced in Congress, not just from Florida Republicans like
Ileana RosLehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart, but from powerful Democrats like Senator Robert
Menendez (NJ) and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.). Nor was Obama willing to make the
dramatic change in policy direction that his campaign promises seemed to portend. He continued funding the "democracy promotion"
programs Bush had funded lavishly, including one to create an independent, satellite-based digital network in Cuba, outside the government's
control the project that got Alan Gross arrested. More fundamentally, Obama adopted the basic outlook of every U.S.
president since George H. W. Bush that Cuba would have to change its political and economic system
before the United States would change its policy in any fundamental way. Consequently, for the last
three years, U.S. policy has been essentially frozen as regards state-to-state relations. Has anything
changed that would lead us to expect that U.S. policy will be any different in the next four years?

The Alan Gross controversy is a barrier to passing any policies
LeoGrande 12 *William LeoGrande, School of Public Affairs at American University, writing in a presentation titled Fresh Start for a Stale
Policy: Can Obama Break the Stalemate in U.S.-Cuban Relations? for the conference "Proyecciones, tendencias y perspectivas de las relaciones
Cuba - Estados Unidos en el contexto del mandato Presidencial 2013 -2017," which took place on December 17 and 18 2012]
Even if the president decided that improving relations with Latin America demanded a new U.S.
initiative on Cuba, there remains the problem of Alan Gross. The Obama administration has declared
that no progress can be made on state-to-state relations so long as Gross remains imprisoned , and
has refused to discuss deeper cooperation even on issues of mutual interest such as counter-narcotics
cooperation and immigration. It would be a stark and 53 unlikely reversal of policy for the White
House to launch any major new initiative on Cuba until Gross is released. From the time Gross was arrested, the
U.S. government's position has been that he did nothing wrong, was imprisoned unjustly, and therefore should be released unconditionally.
The19 Cuban position has been that by setting up wireless digital networks for select groups of Cubans to connect to the internet by satellite,
independently of Cuba's national internet connections Gross engaged in an illegal effort to bring about regime change in Cuba the stated
policy goal of the Helms-Burton legislation authorizing USAID's "democracy promotion" program. In initial discussions, facilitated by
congressional intermediaries, Havana indicated that it might free Gross if the USAID program was downsized
and revamped to promote authentic people-to-people projects rather than regime change. The
Obama administration was unresponsive, however, maintaining the program's funding levels and
objectives unchanged from the Bush administration. When it became clear that the USAID program
would not be revised, the Cubans began to suggest that Gross be exchanged for the Cuban Five
intelligence agents imprisoned in the United States on various charges since the late 1990s. Cuban officials
have been careful not to equate the two cases, simply saying that if the United States wanted Gross to be released on humanitarian grounds, it
would have to recognize Cuba's humanitarian concerns regarding the Five, and there would need to be some reciprocity. Cuba has repeatedly
offered to 54 open a dialogue with the United States about the two cases, but the State Department has remained adamant that there is
nothing to discuss; Gross must be released unconditionally. The administration has rejected any equivalency between Gross and the Cuban
Five, and hence any exchange.

Republicans rally against appeasement of Cuba
Boothroyd 12 *Rachel, Republicans Vow to Halt Policy of Appeasement in Venezuela,
<http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/7283>]
Caracas, September 23 2012 (Venezuelanalysis.com) Republican nominee for Vice-President of theU.S., Paul Ryan, has vowed that
a Romney administration would get tough on Castro, tough on Chavez and to end what he
described as a policy of appeasement applied by the Obama administration towards both Cuba and
Venezuela. Ryan made the comments from the Versailles Restaurant in Miami, Florida last Saturday, where he was accompanied by
staunch members of the anti-Castro lobby, including Republican Representative, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Ros-Lehtinen is a member of the Cuban-
American Lobby and the Congressional Cuban Democracy Caucus; organisations which claim to be aimed at speeding up Cubas transition to
democracy. "In a Mitt Romney administration, we will not keep practising this policy of appeasement,
we will be tough on this brutal dictator (Castro). All it has done is reward more despotism... We will
help those pro-democracy groups. We will be tough on Castro, tough on Chavez. And it's because we
know that's the right policy for our country, said Ryan. The nominee had reportedly travelled to Florida in a bid to win
over the majority Latino vote two months ahead of the US elections. Florida is currently thought to be a swing state and could prove a
determining vote for the overall election results. Results of a recent voter intention poll in the state carried out by NBC news show that Obama
currently has a 5% lead over Romney, with a voting intention of 49% to 44%. I learned from these friends, from Mario (Diaz-
Balart), from Lincoln (Diaz-Balart), from Ileana (Ros-Lehtinen), just how brutal the Castro regime is,
just how this president's policy of appeasement is not working. They've given me a great education,
lots of us in Congress, about how we need to clamp down on the Castro regime, said Ryan. According to
Ros-Lehtinen, Ryan is now a loyal friend to those who campaign on Cuba-related political issues.
Obama must push congress to change policies
LeoGrande 12 [William LeoGrande, School of Public Affairs at American University, writing in a presentation titled Fresh Start for a Stale
Policy: Can Obama Break the Stalemate in U.S.-Cuban Relations? for the conference "Proyecciones, tendencias y perspectivas de las relaciones
Cuba - Estados Unidos en el contexto del mandato Presidencial 2013 -2017," which took place on December 17 and 18 2012]
Congress has held a central role in U.S. policy toward Cuba ever since it codified the U.S. embargo into
law in the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (Helms-Burton). To move beyond
limited improvements in relations on issues of mutual interest or limited commercial activity that is,
to move toward the full normalization of diplomatic and economic relations the president would
have to win congressional approval to change the law.

Obama will need to work hard and spend PC to pass the plan, even among democrats
and agencies outside of Congress
LeoGrande 12 [William LeoGrande, School of Public Affairs at American University, writing in a presentation titled Fresh Start for a Stale
Policy: Can Obama Break the Stalemate in U.S.-Cuban Relations? for the conference "Proyecciones, tendencias y perspectivas de las relaciones
Cuba - Estados Unidos en el contexto del mandato Presidencial 2013 -2017," which took place on December 17 and 18 2012]
Can Obama Break the Stalemate? Many of the same forces that prevented Obama from a taking truly
new approach to U.S. Cuban relations during his first term will still be operative during his second.
Seemingly more urgent issues will demand his time, pulling his attention away from Cuba. He will still
face fierce congressional resistance to any Cuba initiative, some from within his own party. Without
pressure from above, the foreign policy bureaucracy, especially the Department of State, will remain
paralyzed by inertia and fear. And, for the time being, Alan Gross is still in prison. If Obama is going to
finally keep the promise of his 2008 campaign to take a new direction in relations with Cuba, he will
need to give the issue more sustained attention than he did in his first term. The damage being done
to U.S. relations with Latin America because of U.S. intransigence on Cuba justifies moving Cuba
higher up on the president's foreign policy agenda. Only sustained attention from the White House
and a willing secretary of state will be able to drive a new policy through a reluctant bureaucracy.
Obama will also need to be willing to marshal his forces on Capitol Hill to confront those who have
developed a vested interest in sustaining the policy of the past. Finally, the president will need the
courage to take the first step, proposing a humanitarian initiative that leads to the release of Alan
Gross, thereby opening the way to a wide range of state-to-state cooperative agreements.
Removing or Changing Embargo Unpopular
Rolling back sanctions on Cuba would be politically controversial
Lee 13 Senior Production Editor of Council on Foreign Relations (Brianna, U.S.-Cuba Relations,
Council on Foreign Relations Background Publication, 1-31-13, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/us-cuba-
relations/p11113)//TQ
Ending the economic embargo against Cuba would require congressional approval. Opinions in
Congress are mixed: A group of influential Republican lawmakers from Florida, including former representative
Lincoln Diaz-Balart, his brother Mario Diaz-Balart, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen are stridently anti-Castro. Still, many favor improving
relations with Cuba. In 2009, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), the top-ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released a
report calling for U.S. policy changes. He said: "We must recognize the ineffectiveness of our current policy and deal with the Cuban regime in a
way that enhances U.S. interests" (PDF). Given the range of issues dividing the two countries, experts say a long
process would precede resumption of diplomatic relations. Daniel P. Erikson of the Inter-American Dialogue says that
though "you could have the resumption of bilateral talks on issues related to counter-narcotics or immigration, or a period of dtente, you are
probably not going to see the full restoration of diplomatic relations" in the near term. Many recent policy reports have recommended that the
United States take some unilateral steps to roll back sanctions on Cuba. The removal of sanctions, however, would be just
one step in the process of normalizing relations. Such a process is sure to be controversial, as indicated by
the heated congressional debate spurred in March 2009 by attempts to ease travel and trade restrictions in a large appropriations bill.
"Whatever we call it--normalization, dtente, rapproachement--it is clear that the policy process risks falling victim to the politics of the issue,"
says Sweig.

Removing the embargo requires tons of PC
Hadar 09 (Leon, Leon T. Hadar is a research fellow in foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute in
Washington DC. Obama Must Move beyond Pseudo-Events CATO Institute.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obama-must-move-beyond-pseudoevents)
But in reality, Obama can claim no concrete diplomatic accomplishments. Europes public and elites have been mesmerized by Obamas
personal charisma and multilateralist rhetoric; but NATO remains a relic of the Cold War and its leading members have been reluctant to send
more of their troops to help the United States fight in Afghanistan. The resetting of Russian-American relationship may have symbolic value
but has yet to produce any major policy changes. Residents of the Middle East may have been impressed by Obamas peaceful intentions, but
there has been no sign of progress on resolving the Iranian nuclear crisis or in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And
notwithstanding all the anticipation for a change in US policy toward Cuba, the US economic embargo
that was imposed in 1962 still remains in place. Indeed, as they to grade the new White House occupants first 100 days in
office, observers will find it difficult to conclude whether Obamas first foreign policys steps have really strengthened American power in the
world. On the progressive left, commentators and activists have been disappointed that Obamas commitments to reverse Bushs foreign policy
have not been carried out. Meanwhile, critics on the right argue that, if anything, the efforts by Obama and his aides to project a less
confrontational approach, like the one embraced by former President George W. Bush, reflects a sense of weakness or even defeatism. But
these critics are wrong. The Bush administrations belligerent style of managing American relations with both friends and foes, so full of empty
bravado and a crusading militaristic spirit, has been one of the reasons for the erosion in US global prestige in the last eight years. Obamas
emphasis on quiet diplomacy and international engagement that is backed by a genuine sense of confidence and a strong military should prove
to be more effective in promoting US interests abroad. One could imagine, for example, Obamas predecessor responding to the recent pirate
attack off the coast of Somalia by labeling the pirates as Islamofascists, adding them to the list of members of Axis of Evil, and threatening
tough American military retaliation. By contrast, Obamas measured response followed by a low-key but precise military action is the kind of
cool approach one expects from American presidents. That the leader of the most powerful country in the world should be willing to listen to,
and treat with respect, foreign critics of American policy is a sign of self-assurance not timidity that Americans should welcome. But style
and media management aside, it is too early to conclude whether Obama will press ahead in transforming foreign policy pseudo-events into
real events. His continuing preoccupation with the economic crisis clearly limits his ability to launch dramatic diplomatic initiatives. Doing
away with the embargo with Cuba or reassessing US policy in the Middle East would require costly fights with
powerful forces in Washington. For now, Obama is expending his political capital elsewhere. There is no
doubt that through his personality and life-story, coupled with the manufactured media events, friendly gestures and cool style, Obama has
been provided with an opportunity to change Americas global brand name. But the expectations created by the new presidents media image
and style of foreign policy need to be matched to specific policy. Such new initiatives in the foreign policy arena will
force Obama to use his political capital.

Changing the embargo is always controversial in congress and drains PC
Sullivan 11 [January 4, 2011, Mark P. Sullivan, Specialist in Latin American Affairs, Foreign Affairs Defense and Trade Division, in a study by
the Congressional Research Service, Cuba: Issues for the 111th Congress http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40193.pdf]
Debate on the Direction of U.S. Policy Over the years, although U.S. policymakers have agreed on the overall
objectives of U.S. policy toward Cubato help bring democracy and respect for human rights to the
islandthere have been several schools of thought about how to achieve those objectives. Some
have advocated a policy of keeping maximum pressure on the Cuban government until reforms are
enacted, while continuing efforts to support the Cuban people. Others argue for an approach,
sometimes referred to as constructive engagement, that would lift some U.S. sanctions that they
believe are hurting the Cuban people, and move toward engaging Cuba in dialogue. Still others call for
a swift normalization of U.S.-Cuban relations by lifting the U.S. embargo. Legislative initiatives introduced over the
past decade have reflected these three policy approaches. Dating back to 2000, there have been significant efforts in
Congress to ease U.S. sanctions, with, one or both houses at times approving amendments to
appropriations measures that would have eased U.S. sanctions on Cuba. Until March 2009, these
provisions were stripped out of final enacted measures, in part because of presidential veto threats. In
light of Fidel Castros departure as head of government, many observers have called for a reexamination of U.S. policy toward Cuba. In this new
context, there are two broad policy approaches to contend with political change in Cuba: a status-quo approach that would maintain the U.S.
dual-track policy of isolating the Cuban government while providing support to the Cuban people; and an approach aimed at influencing the
attitudes of the Cuban government and Cuban society through increased contact and engagement.
Even loosening minor restrictions is super controversial
NYT 12 (New York Times. Easing of Restraints in Cuba Renews Debate on U.S. Embargo
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/world/americas/changes-in-cuba-create-support-for-easing-
embargo.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)
In Washington, Mr. Gross is seen as the main impediment to an easing of the embargo, but there are also
limits to what the president could do without Congressional action. The 1992 Cuban Democracy Act conditioned the
waiving of sanctions on the introduction of democratic changes inside Cuba. The 1996 Helms-Burton Act also requires that the embargo remain
until Cuba has a transitional or democratically elected government. Obama administration officials say they have not given up, and could move
if the president decides to act on his own. Officials say that under the Treasury Departments licensing and regulation-writing authority, there is
room for significant modification. Following the legal logic of Mr. Obamas changes in 2009, further expansions in travel are possible along with
new allowances for investment or imports and exports, especially if narrowly applied to Cuban businesses. Even these adjustments
which could also include travel for all Americans and looser rules for ships engaged in trade with
Cuba, according to a legal analysis commissioned by the Cuba Study Group would probably mean a
fierce political fight. The handful of Cuban-Americans in Congress for whom the embargo is sacred
oppose looser rules. When asked about Cuban entrepreneurs who are seeking more American support, Representative Ileana Ros-
Lehtinen, the Florida Republican who is chairwoman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, proposed an even tighter
embargo. The sanctions on the regime must remain in place and, in fact, should be strengthened, and not be altered, she wrote in an e-
mail. Responsible nations must not buy into the facade the dictatorship is trying to create by announcing reforms while, in reality, its
tightening its grip on its people.
Castors visit to Cuba proves that congress is still arguing over the embargo
Arja 6/3 [ Tanya Arja, writer for Fox News 13, Degree in Mass Communications from USF Rep. Castor stirs controversy with visit to Cuba
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/21912643/2013/04/08/rep-castor-stirs-controversy-with-visit-to-cuba]
TAMPA (FOX 13) Congresswoman Kathy Castor just returned from Cuba after spending four days there, and
she says things are changing. Castor says there are many opportunities in Cuba that the U.S. should
consider. "The United States of America should normalize relations and begin a constructive dialogue
with the island nation. Fidel Castro is no longer in power, there is a generational change occurring in
the government in Cuba," Castor said. While in Cuba, Castor toured the Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology. She
also went to a meeting with the Ministry of Energy. She says she was pleasantly surprised by what she heard. "They have been in
productive multilateral talks with the U.S., the Bahamas, Jamaica, and Mexico to the point where they
have adopted many of the safety recommendations in America's oil spill report authored by Senator
Bob Graham," she said. Congresswoman Castor spoke with the Chief of Mission of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana. They spoke at
length about family reunification and visas for Cubans wishing to visit family in Tampa Bay. "Cuba is the only country in the world that American
citizens are refrained from traveling. Americans are able to North Korea; with warnings, they can travel to Syria and Iran. And yet an hour from
TIA, all of our neighbors cannot visit and travel," Castor said. Castor says the status quo isn't working. "After 50 years of an embargo and
isolation, that has proven it doesn't work in bringing about a lot of change. It's time to try something new, and it's time to refresh our
relationship benefits from meetings," she said. But Castor is getting some backlash for her visit. Ralph Fernandez is a
Tampa criminal defense attorney, and is also a staunch opponent of the Castro regime. He says he
spoke with Castor before she left. "I asked her to meet with U.S. intelligence officials. I wanted her to
know the dangers of her visit. But I guess she couldn't find time. I think she's made a terrible mistake.
It's something that's quite disappointing," Fernandez said. He says nothing has changed when it
comes to Cuba and how the government operates. "It's worse. Instead of being 50 years behind the
times, it's 60 years. It's like traveling to the Old West, expect people really live there. It's really sad, "
Fernandez said. Fernandez said as a Congresswoman, Rep. Castor has a responsibility to listen to others. "It's a real simple
formula. Should we send a lot of money and assets to North Korea without expecting anything in
return? If you checked no, then you're with me on the Cuba issue. You need to see some progress and
progress is not just talking about things that never come to fruition and materialize," Fernandez said.
Rep. Castor says she plans to talk to President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry to encourage
talks on trade and travel with Cuba. But Fernandez says the U.S. would lose out if it invested in Cuba.
"Cuba only seeks to be lent money so that they don't pay it They have not paid a single account in
their history while a Castro has been there. They have not paid one lender back. Any nation that has
lent them, is out of money," Fernandez said. Fernandez says history doesn't lie. "Cuba was our enemy 30 years before Iran
became our enemy. It doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to figure this out. Those uneducated in history open the door for their own country to
suffer the consequences and that's what she has done," Fernandez said. Castor says she expected the backlash, but stands
by her visit. "It's very easy for those who don't understand they're changing, to say well, it's the same
as ever. It's not the same as ever. It is changing and that should be encouraged," Castor said. But she
does know the U.S. can't just rush in. "This should not be done with blinders on, however. There are
still many human rights challenges in Cuba, it's still to many a repressive regime that does not allow
citizens to enjoy all of the human rights that we enjoy. "

Changing Travel Restrictions Unpopular
Republicans are skeptical of contact with Cubans
Kasperowicz 12 *Pete Kasperowicz, 10/3/12 House members blast student visit with US fugitive in
Cuba Graduated from University of Massachusetts Amherst in 1992 http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-
action/house/260003-house-members-blast-student-visit-with-us-fugitive-in-cuba]
Three House Republicans are criticizing an educational trip to Cuba that they say led to a meeting with
a fugitive from U.S. justice last year, and have called on President Obama to ensure that future visits
do not allow these sorts of meetings to take place. Travel to Cuba is allowed for several specific
reasons, including educational activities, although they require a license from the State Department. But
House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King (R-N.Y.) and Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-
Fla.) and Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) said a 2011 trip went to far, and cited reports in The Daily Iowan that
said a University of Iowa student was allowed to meet with someone wanted for a crime in the United
States. "We are appalled that on at least one occasion, 'educational activities' licensed by your
administration included a meeting between American university students and a fugitive from U.S.
justice," they wrote to Obama in a letter they released Tuesday. "Accordingly, we ask that you determine how
many such meetings have occurred since the 2011 regulation changes regarding 'educational
activities' and 'people-to-people' travel, and that you take all appropriate measures to ensure that
licensed travel (through travel-related transactions to Cuba) do not again facilitate meetings between
U.S. travelers and fugitives wanted by the United States." Their letter said it is unclear which fugitive the
student might have met with, but said there are several possibilities, including Joanne Chesimard, who killed a New
Jersey State Trooper, and Charles Hill, who killed a New Mexico State Trooper. It also noted that Victor Gerena fled
to Cuba after robbing a Wells Fargo armored car in Connecticut, and William Morales, the leader of the terrorist
group FALN. "It is a perpetual shame that these and so many other fugitives from U.S. justice remain at large just
ninety miles from our shores," they wrote. "It is an abomination to surviving victims, their families, and the families
of those who were murdered, that an American fugitive remains free in Cuba to apparently spout enemy
propaganda to American students by virtue of a license granted by your administration. "We sincerely hope
that this is not an example of the type of 'educational activities' anticipated by your 2011 changes
which weakened the regulations enforced by the Treasury Department, and that you will strengthen
efforts to guarantee that licensed travel to Cuba will not be used as a tool of the Castro dictatorship to
advance its anti-American agenda."
Changing travel restrictions is highly controversial
Boyd 10 *Clark Boyd, a reporter for The World, July 20, 2010, Talking Travel: Congress debates Cuba travel ban
http://www.theworld.org/2010/07/talking-travel-congress-debates-cuba-travel-ban/]
Above, you can see a street in Trinidad, Cuba. Since 1988, Trinidad has been a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Of course, if you are an
American, spending a single US dollar in Trinidad (or anywhere else in Cuba) means breaking
American law. Apart from special circumstances, US travel to Cuba has been effectively banned for
decades now. But the US Congress is currently considering a measure that would end the travel ban.
Both sides have been arguing their case passionately. Some say there is no reason to punish the
Cuban people by depriving them of needed US tourist dollars. Others say every dollar spent in Cuba
only props up the nations Communist government. In this episode of our Talking Travel podcast, Lonely Planets Robert
Reid and Tom Hall offer their assessments on what the lifting of the travel ban might mean for you as a tourist, and for the Cuban people.

Reducing travel restrictions is a huge controversy and unlikely to pass without
pressure
Heflin 10 [Jay Heflin writer for The Hill, July 19, 2010 Debate Over Travel to Cuba Heats Up http://thehill.com/homenews/house/109593-
debate-over-travel-to-cuba-heats-up]
A congressional debate over whether all Americans should be able to travel freely to Cuba appears to
be heating up. The House Agriculture Committee last month approved a measure that allows travel to
Cuba and eases restrictions on U.S. commodities sold there. The measure still needs approval from
the Foreign Affairs Committee before it can come to the floor for a vote, but Committee Chairman
Howard Berman (D-Calif.) has indicated that he supports lifting the ban. I have long believed that the
nearly fifty year old travel ban to Cuba simply has not worked to help the Cuban people in any way, he
said in prepared remarks. It has not hurt the Castros as it was intended to do, but it has hurt U.S.
citizens. The legislation builds upon efforts by President Obama in 2009 to ease travel restrictions for
Cuban-Americans and would allow virtually all Americans to visit the island. Proponents for ending the
ban contend it will boost trade between the two countries. But not everyone is on board with opening
the travel door to Cuba. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) on Friday reiterated his strong opposition to
lifting the ban. I want to make it absolutely clear that I will oppose and filibuster if need be any
effort to ease regulations that stand to enrich a regime that denies its own people basic human
rights, he said. The fact is the big corporate interests behind this misguided attempt to weaken the
travel ban could not care less whether the Cuban people are free, Menendez said. They care only
about opening a new market and increasing their bottom line. This is about the color of money, not
the desire for freedom. Like Menendez, opponents to the ban argue easing travel restrictions will
funnel money to the Castro regime and essentially fund activities that will provide little benefit to the
Cuban people. The very fact that a travel bill has moved through the House Agriculture Committee
makes one wonder why American agriculture interests would even care about travel to Cuba,
Menendez said. One can only assume its about generating increased tourism dollars for the Castro
regime to buy more agricultural products. Mauricio Claver-Carone, director of the U.S.-Cuba
Democracy PAC, which supports the travel ban, told The Hill that lawmakers in favor of easing
restrictions understand that the votes are not there and have resorted to hiding the provision in
noncontroversial bills to get it passed. What theyre trying to do is package it with an agricultural bill
in order to get it through the back door, he said, adding, Theyre basically trying to maneuver this
any way they possibly can without addressing the travel issue specifically. Last month, Claver-
Carones organization joined nearly 500 organizations that oppose lifting the ban and warned
Congress that nothing good would come from allowing free travel between the two countries. *The+
below signatories believe that the freedom of Cuba will not arrive by means of the pocketbook nor
the lips of libidinous tourists, who are aseptic to the pain of the Cuban family, their letter states,
adding, For that reason we suggest that you maintain a firm and coherent policy of pressure and
condemnation against the tyranny of Havana. When, or if, the Foreign Affairs Committee will vote on
the legislation remains to be seen. A Berman spokesman did not respond to a call about timing for the
measure. Thats where the current question is at, Claver-Carone said. But its pretty clear that they
do not have the votes on the floor.

Huge opposition to relaxing travel restrictions
Padgett 10 (Tim Padgett joined TIME in 1996 as Mexico City bureau chief covering Latin America. In
1999 he moved to Florida to become TIMEs Miami & Latin America bureau chief, reporting on the
hemisphere from Tallahassee to Tierra del Fuego. Will the White House Fight to End the Cuba Travel
Ban? Time Magazine. Aug. 23, 2010
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2013820,00.html)
Proponents of doing just that insist there's more consensus than ever in the U.S. to ditch the Cuba embargo and its travel ban, which, after
almost 50 years, have utterly failed to dislodge the Castro regime. Opening Cuba to Americans, they believe, will do more to stimulate
democratization there than isolating it has. Even a majority of Cuban Americans now agree. Still, for all the good vibes the bill's
backers feel from the White House right now, some note warily that Obama has been loath to spend
political capital in Cuba, or the rest of Latin America for that matter. Critics, for example, point to his decision last
year to stop applying pressure against coup leaders in Honduras, who'd ousted a leftist President, when conservative Republicans in Congress
objected. Embargo supporters, including Cuban-American Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, a Democrat, are
already blasting Obama's plans to relax Cuba travel. "This is not the time to ease the pressure on the
Castro regime," Menendez said this month, insisting it will only give the brothers "a much needed infusion of dollars that will only extend
their reign of oppression." As a result, says one congressional aide who asked not to be identified, when it comes time for the
White House to give the bill more full-throated support, "there's a fear they may just decide that the
fight's not worth it." But Democratic Congressman Howard Berman of California, a co-sponsor of the bill, says tearing down the travel
ban is about more than Cuban rights it's also about the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens to travel freely abroad. "Letting U.S. citizens
travel to Cuba is not a gift to the Castros it is in the interest of our own citizens," Berman said after the House committee vote this summer.
"It's time to trust our own people and restore their right to travel." It's the sort of argument Obama usually agrees with. But now he may need
to show how strongly he concurs when Congress returns next month.
Oil Investment Unpopular
Strong congressional opposition to US investment in Cuban oil
Nerurkar and Sullivan 11 (Neelesh Nerurkar, Specialist in Energy Policy and Mark P. Sullivan,
Specialist in Latin American Affairs for the Congressional Research Service. Cubas Offshore Oil
Development:
Background and U.S. Policy Considerations http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41522.pdf)
On the opposite side of the policy debate, a number of policy groups and Members of Congress oppose
engagement with Cuba, including U.S. investment in Cubas offshore energy development. A
legislative initiative introduced in the 111th Congress, H.R. 5620, would have gone further by imposing
visa restrictions and economic sanctions on foreign companies and their executives who help facilitate
the development of Cubas petroleum resources. The bill asserted that offshore drilling by or under the authorization of the
Cuban government poses a serious economic and environmental threat to the United States because of the damage that an oil spill could
cause. Opponents of U.S. support for Cubas offshore oil development also argue that such involvement
would provide an economic lifeline to the Cuban government and thus prolong the continuation of
the communist regime. They maintain that if Cuba reaped substantial economic benefits from offshore oil development, it could
reduce societal pressure on Cuba to enact market-oriented economic reforms. Some who oppose U.S. involvement in Cubas energy
development contend that while Cuba might have substantial amounts of oil offshore, it will take years to develop. They maintain that
the Cuban government is using the enticement of potential oil profits to break down the U.S.
economic embargo on Cuba.78
Oil Spill Cooperation Unpopular
Oil spill cooperation with Cuba is INCREDIBLY unpopular and leads to gridlock in Washington
Bert and Clayton 12 (Captain Melissa Bert, USCG, 2011-2012 Military Fellow, U.S.Coast Guard, and
Blake Clayton, Fellow for Energy and National SecurityAddressing the Risk of a Cuban Oil Spill Policy
Innovation Memorandum No. 15
http://www.cfr.org/cuba/addressing-risk-cuban-oil-spill/p27515 AJ)
An oil well blowout in Cuban waters would almost certainly require a U.S. response. Without changes in current U.S. law, however, that
response would undoubtedly come far more slowly than is desirable. The Coast Guard would be barred from deploying highly experienced
manpower, specially designed booms, skimming equipment and vessels, and dispersants. U.S. offshore gas and oil companies would also be
barred from using well-capping stacks, remotely operated submersibles, and other vital technologies. Although a handful of U.S. spill
responders hold licenses to work with Repsol, their licenses do not extend to well capping or relief drilling. The result of a slow response to a
Cuban oil spill would be greater, perhaps catastrophic, economic and environmental damage to Florida and the Southeast. Efforts to
rewrite current law and policy toward Cuba, and encouraging cooperation with its government, could
antagonize groups opposed to improved relations with the Castro regime. They might protest any
decision allowing U.S. federal agencies to assist Cuba or letting U.S. companies operate in Cuban
territory.

Removing Embargo Popular
Both the US public and Congress support lowering the embargo
Lee and Hanson 1/31 [Brianna Lee and Stephanie Hanson, Senior Production Editor; both from the Council on Foreign Relations,
January 31, 2013, US-Cuba Relations http://www.cfr.org/cuba/us-cuba-relations/p11113#p3]
What is U.S. public opinion on the isolation of Cuba? Some U.S. constituencies would like to resume
relations. U.S. agricultural groups already deal with Cuba, and other economic sectors want access to
the Cuban market. Many Cuban-Americans were angered by the Bush administration's strict limits on
travel and remittances, though a small but vocal contingent of hard-line Cuban exiles, many of them
based in Florida, does not want to normalize relations until the Communist regime is gone. "When
they're polled, the majority of Cuban-Americans say that the embargo has failed, and support lifting
the travel ban or loosening the embargo or some steps along that continuum of liberalization and
normalization," says Julia E. Sweig, CFR director of Latin American studies. Ending the economic
embargo against Cuba would require congressional approval. Opinions in Congress are mixed: A group
of influential Republican lawmakers from Florida, including former representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart, his
brother Mario Diaz-Balart, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen are stridently anti-Castro. Still, many favor
improving relations with Cuba. In 2009, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), the top-ranking Republican on the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released a report calling for U.S. policy changes. He said: "We
must recognize the ineffectiveness of our current policy and deal with the Cuban regime in a way that
enhances U.S. interests" (PDF).

Cuban-Americans have begun to support lifting the embargo and increasing ties and are an important
voting group
LeoGrande 12 [William LeoGrande, School of Public Affairs at American University, writing in a presentation titled Fresh Start for a Stale
Policy: Can Obama Break the Stalemate in U.S.-Cuban Relations? for the conference "Proyecciones, tendencias y perspectivas de las relaciones
Cuba - Estados Unidos en el contexto del mandato Presidencial 2013 -2017," which took place on December 17 and 18 2012]
When FIU began polling Cuban-Americans south Florida in 1991, 87% favored continuation of the U.S.
embargo. By 2011, support had fallen to 56%. In 1993, 75% of respondents opposed the sale of food
to Cuba and 50% opposed the sale of medicine. By 2011, solid majorities (65% and 75% respectively)
supported both. In 1991, 55% opposed unrestricted travel to Cuba, whereas in 2011, 57% supported
unrestricted travel for all Americans and 66% supported unrestricted travel for Cuban-Americans (Table
2). These changes in Cuban-American opinion were clearly linked to demographic changes in the
community. Exiles who arrived in the United States in the 1960s and 1970s came as political refugees,
motivated principally by their opposition to the socialist course of the revolution. Those who arrived
in the Mariel exodus in 1980 and afterwards were more likely to have left for economic reasons.
Recent arrivals, especially those who arrived in the post-cold war era, were far more likely to have
maintained ties with family on the island. A 2007 poll of Cuban-Americans in south Florida found that
58.3% were sending remittances to Cuba, but fewer than half of those who arrived before 1985 were sending money, whereas
three quarters of more recent arrivals were. The differences in age and experience among different waves of 12 migrants produced sharply
different opinions about relations with the island, with more recent arrivals being far more likely to favor policies that
reduce bilateral tensions and barriers to family linkages, especially the ability to travel and send
remittances (Table 3). Although these attitudinal differences have been clear for some time, they have not manifested themselves in
Cuban-American voting behavior, principally because a far higher proportion of the early arrivals have obtained U.S. citizenship (Table 4), and
thus still comprise a larger share of the Cuban-American electorate than more recent arrivals (although by 2010, Cuban-Americans born in the
United States were a larger voting bloc, comprising almost half the Cuban-American electorate) (Tables 5 and 6). In addition, earlier arrivals are
far more likely to be registered to vote than more recent arrivals. Registration rates for those who arrived before 1985 are over 90%, whereas
for post-cold war arrivals who are citizens, the rate is only 60%.13 But, of course, the early wave of exiles is becoming a smaller and smaller
proportion of the community as new immigrants arrive every year and as natural mortality takes its toll on the aging exiles. And with the
passage of time, more and more of the post-1980 immigrants obtain citizenship and begin to vote. In
addition to generational differences, an important reason for the gradual change in Cuban-American
opinion has been the deepening ties between Cuban-Americans and their families on the island.
During the 1960s and early 1970s, it was difficult if not impossible for families to maintain contact
across the Florida Strait. Travel to Cuba was prohibited by the U.S. embargo, and the Cuban
government would not allow "gusanos" to return to visit. Direct mail service was cut off, and
telephone connections were notorious poor. Moreover, the prevailing opinion in both communities
was one of hostility. To Cubans who left, those who stayed behind were communists. To Cubans who
stayed behind, those who left were traitors.

People are opening up to Cuba prospect
Nathan, 13 James, Khalid bin Sultan Eminent Shcholar in Political Science, Auburn University. End
Appears Coming for Cuba Trade Embargo. Proquest.
U.S. legislation is designed to discourage travel to and make it hard to do business in Cuba. And it is. By the
time I secured a license from the Treasury, a visa from the Cubans, an impossibly difficult space on an iffy charter and a room in a hotel that is
forbidden to take an American credit card, there were still four hours of clearances in punishing lines in a segregated terminal designed to
dissuade even the determined. And, by law, you can't bring back a thing from Cuba -- no rum, cigar, doll, t-
shirt, nothing. I have a special global entry pass to get through U.S. Customs. It worked. But the rest of the plane
coming into Miami required another four hours to get through customs. The old days of trying to do Castro in and to break the Cuban economy
have tottered past their sell-by date. To be sure, the hardline Cuban ethnic lobby has its supporters. Susan
Purcell came recently to the Alabama World Affairs Council and spoke in favor of the embargo of
Cuba. To me, the policy is self-defeating. Brian Latell spoke to the Alabama World Affairs Council in the fall of 2012, noting that "Cuban
Americans are no longer monolithic. There are Cuban-Americans groups and institutions that represent nearly the entire spectrum of opinion."
Latell points out that Cuba is not isolated, except from the United States. And Cuban-Americans are increasingly for
engagement, not isolation, of Cuba. In Florida, the GOP again stood for the embargo in courting Miami
and the swing vote in one of the two most important swing states. Cuban Americans, in record
numbers, for the first time ever, went the other way. A new foreign policy team is forming up in Washington. Sen. John
Kerry sponsored a bill to allow unfettered travel to Cuba. Former Sen. Chuck Hagel is said to harbor doubts regarding
the trade embargo of Cuba. A "reset" is coming.

Mexico Links
Link Uniqueness
Obama will not make any policy changes with Mexico or to NAFTA
Mike Allison 5/2/13 associate professor in the political science department at the University of Scranton in Pennsylvania US
President Barack Obama Returns to Latin America
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/04/2013430105115612555.html
As a result of these issues, the leaders and people of Central America as well as Mexico are highly interested in what
the President has to say about comprehensive immigration reform. Guatemala will also be interested in learning
whether there has been any progress on its request for Temporary Protected Status (TPS). El Salvador, on the other hand, awaits word on
whether TPS for its citizens will be extended past its expiry in September. How the US treats people, whether documented or not, within its
borders is a test of democracy and human rights. However, as in Mexico, Obama needs to somehow make the
strengthening of democracy and the promotion of human rights priorities in the US' relations
with Central America. Honduras has been unable to recover from the June 2009 coup that removed President Manuel Zelaya from office; with
the highest homicide rate in the world, police officers, lawyers, teachers, journalists, taxi drivers, gays and lesbians, and democracy and human
rights activists are now being killed at alarming rates. The executive, legislative and judicial branches are all at loggerheads with one another
and are perhaps more the problem than the solution. While popular, President Daniel Ortega continues to erode democratic structures in
Nicaragua following his questionably legal re-election in 2011. It is unlikely that Obama is going to announce a
significant increase in US economic assistance to the region and the US already has free trade
agreements with Mexico (NAFTA) and Central America (DR-CAFTA). The US is unlikely to agree to significant
drug policy reforms, such as decriminalisation and regulation, desired by so many. Nor is the US likely to cut
security assistance to Honduras and Mexico even as their forces continue to be involved in wide-scale abuses, including
extrajudicial executions. Obama could make a difference, however, returning democracy and human rights to the top of the agenda. In a 1989
conference of the Council of the Americas, President George HW Bush said that a commitment to democracy and market economies would
help define relations between the US and Latin America. At the first Summit of the Americas to take place in Miami, Florida, in 1994, President
Bill Clinton and the heads of state of every Latin American country, except Cuba, agreed on an ambitious plan to deepen democracy and human
rights, to achieve economic growth and improve income redistribution within market economies, eliminate poverty and discrimination, and
secure environmentally sustainable development. Progress on each of those issues was uneven, at best, during the Clinton and George W Bush
administrations. President Obama's trip to Mexico and Costa Rica provides an opportunity for the US and the region to recommit themselves to
strengthening democratic institutions and respecting human rights.

Mexico Econ Engagement Unpopular
Shifting focus from security to economic engagement is super unpopular with
Congress uniquely affects immigration bill
NYT 13 (New York Times. In Latin America, U.S. Focus Shifts From Drug War to Economy May 4,
2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/world/americas/in-latin-america-us-shifts-focus-from-
drug-war-to-economy.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&)
Last week, Mr. Obama returned to capitals in Latin America with a vastly different message. Relationships
with countries racked by drug violence and organized crime should focus more on economic
development and less on the endless battles against drug traffickers and organized crime capos that
have left few clear victors. The countries, Mexico in particular, need to set their own course on
security, with the United States playing more of a backing role. That approach runs the risk of being
seen as kowtowing to governments more concerned about their public image than the underlying
problems tarnishing it. Mexico, which is eager to play up its economic growth, has mounted an aggressive effort to play down its crime
problems, going as far as to encourage the news media to avoid certain slang words in reports. The problem will not just go away, said
Michael Shifter, president of the Inter-American Dialogue. It needs to be tackled head-on, with a comprehensive strategy that includes but
goes beyond stimulating economic growth and alleviating poverty. Obama becomes vulnerable to the charge of downplaying the regions
overriding issue, and the chief obstacle to economic progress, he added. It is fine to change the narrative from security to economics as long
as the reality on the ground reflects and fits with the new story line. Administration officials insist that Mr. Obama remains cleareyed about
the security challenges, but the new emphasis corresponds with a change in focus by the Mexican government. The new Mexican president,
Enrique Pea Nieto, took office in December vowing to reduce the violence that exploded under the militarized approach to the drug war
adopted by his predecessor, Felipe Caldern. That effort left about 60,000 Mexicans dead and appears not to have significantly damaged the
drug-trafficking industry. In addition to a focus on reducing violence, which some critics have interpreted as taking a softer line on the drug
gangs, Mr. Pea Nieto has also moved to reduce American involvement in law enforcement south of the border. With friction and mistrust
between American and Mexican law enforcement agencies growing, Mr. Obama suggested that the United States would no longer seek to
dominate the security agenda. It is obviously up to the Mexican people to determine their security structures and how it engages with other
nations, including the United States, he said, standing next to Mr. Pea Nieto on Thursday in Mexico City. But the main point I made to the
president is that we support the Mexican governments focus on reducing violence, and we look forward to continuing our good cooperation in
any way that the Mexican government deems appropriate. In some ways, conceding leadership of the drug fight to
Mexico hews to a guiding principle of Mr. Obamas foreign policy, in which American supremacy is
played down, at least publicly, in favor of a multilateral approach. But that philosophy could collide
with the concerns of lawmakers in Washington, who have expressed frustration with what they see as
a lack of clarity in Mexicos security plans. And security analysts say the entrenched corruption in Mexican law enforcement
has long clouded the partnership with their American counterparts. Putting Mexico in the drivers seat on security marks
a shift in a balance of power that has always tipped to the United States and, analysts said, will carry
political risk as Congress negotiates an immigration bill that is expected to include provisions for
tighter border security. If there is a perception in the U.S. Congress that security cooperation is weakening, that could play into the
hands of those who oppose immigration reform, said Vanda Felbab-Brown, a counternarcotics expert at the Brookings Institution in
Washington.

NAFTA Revisions Unpopular
Democrats are strongly opposed to NAFTA revisions labor concerns
Perez-Rocha and Trew 12 (Stuart Trew is the trade campaigner for the Council of
Canadians.Manuel Prez Rocha is a Mexican national and an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy
Studies in Washington D.C. They are both contributors to Foreign Policy In Focus. Don't Expand NAFTA
July 26, 2012. Foreign Policy in Focus, a project of the Institute for Policy Studies.
http://www.fpif.org/articles/dont_expand_nafta)
A majority of Democratic representatives (132 out of 191) have expressed that they are troubled that
important policy decisions are being made without full input from Congress. They have written to U.S. Trade
Representative Ron Kirk to urge him and his staff to engage in broader and deeper consultations with members of the full range of committees
of Congress whose jurisdiction touches on the wide-ranging issues involved, and to ensure there is ample opportunity for Congress to have
input on critical policies that will have broad ramifications for years to come." In their letter, the representatives also challenge
the lack of transparency of the treaty negotiation process, and the failure of negotiators to
meaningfully consult with states on the far-reaching impact of trade agreements on state and local
laws, even when binding on our states, is of grave concern to us. U.S. Senators, for their part, have also sent a letter
complaining of the lack of congressional access to the negotiations. What openness and transparency can we in Canada and Mexico expect
when the decision to join the TPP, under humiliating conditions, was made without any public consultation? NAFTA turns 20 years old in 2014.
Instead of expanding it through the TPP we must learn from NAFTAs shortcomings, starting with the historic lack of consultation with unions
and producers in the three member countries. It is necessary to correct the imbalances in NAFTA, which as the
North American union statement explains enhanced corporate power at the expense of workers and
the environment. In particular, we need to categorically reject the investor-state dispute settlement
process that has proven so costly, in real terms and with respect to our democratic options in Canada and Mexico. The unions
statement of solidarity provides a strong foundation for the growing trinational opposition to the TPP in Leesburg, Virginia, and beyond.
Human Trafficking Aid Unpopular
Human trafficking aid is ineffective and unpopular in congress
Seelke 13 (Clare Ribando Seelke; Specialist in Latin American Affairs; January 29, 2013; Mexico and
the 112th Congress; Congressional Research Service;
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32724.pdf)//KDUB
Many Mexican law enforcement activities with respect to combating alien smuggling and human
trafficking receive some degree of U.S. financial support. One way to increase Mexico's role in migration
enforcement may be for Congress to consider additional investments in these programs. The United States
also could include migration control as an explicit priority within other existing programs, such as the Mrida Initiative.
On the other hand, Mexico is already among the largest recipients of U.S. anti-TIP assistance in the
Western Hemisphere, and some Members of Congress may be reluctant to invest more resources in such
programs.
Offshore Drilling Unpopular
Offshore drilling cooperation with Mexico is contentious
Geman 6/25 (Ben Geman 6/25/13; White House cannot support House US-Mexico drilling bill; The
Hill; http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/307769-white-house-cannot-support-house-us-mexico-
drilling-bill)//KDUB
The White House said Tuesday that it opposes House legislation to implement a 2012 administration pact
with Mexico on Gulf of Mexico drilling cooperation, citing unnecessary, extraneous provisions that seriously detract from
the bill. The formal statement of administration policy backs the goal of the bill thats coming to the House floor
Wednesday to implement the U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement. But it cites provisions in the GOP-crafted bill
that exempts oil companies operating under the pact from controversial federal rules that force
energy producers to disclose their payments to foreign governments. As a practical matter, this provision would
waive the requirement for the disclosure of any payments made by resource extraction companies to the United States or foreign governments
in accordance with a transboundary hydrocarbon agreement. The provision directly and negatively impacts U.S. efforts to increase
transparency and accountability, particularly in the oil, gas, and minerals sectors, the White House Office of Management and Budget said.
The White House statement, however, stops short of a veto threat despite saying it "cannot support" the measure. It says the
administration looks forward to working with Congress on an implementing bill.

Venezuela Links
General Unpopular
GOP hates engagement with Venezuela
Robertson 12 (Ewan Robertson, writer/journalist for Venezuelaanalysis.com, Latin American Bureu ,
Correo del Orinoco Internacional, Green Left Weekly, Emancipation and Liberation, and an activist in
Venezuela, US Policy Increasingly Out of Touch with Latin Americas New Political Reality April 11,
2012, http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/6916)
Another aspect of Washingtons approach to Venezuela moving into 2012 has been the increase of
aggressive rhetoric designed to de-legitimise the government and open the possibility of more direct intervention. At a
special Organisation of American States (OAS) session held in Washington in March, Democrat Congressman Eliot Engel said Venezuelan
democracy was being trampled by the Chvez administration and advocated a robust OAS mission be sent to the country to monitor the
October presidential elections. Not to be outdone by their Democratic counterparts, Republicans have
continued to wind up the rhetorical dial on Venezuela. In a presidential nomination debate in Florida this January, Mitt
Romney made a commitment to punish those who are following Hugo Chvez and his ally Fidel
Castro, ex-president of Cuba. He claims that Obama has failed to respond with resolve to Chvezs growing international influence, arguing
in his October 2011 foreign policy white paper foreign policy white paper that he would chart a different course in US policy toward
Venezuela and other leftist governments in Latin America.

Republicans rally against appeasement of Venezuela
Boothroyd 12 *Rachel, Republicans Vow to Halt Policy of Appeasement in Venezuela,
<http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/7283>]
Caracas, September 23 2012 (Venezuelanalysis.com) Republican nominee for Vice-President of theU.S., Paul Ryan, has vowed that
a Romney administration would get tough on Castro, tough on Chavez and to end what he
described as a policy of appeasement applied by the Obama administration towards both Cuba and
Venezuela. Ryan made the comments from the Versailles Restaurant in Miami, Florida last Saturday, where he was accompanied by
staunch members of the anti-Castro lobby, including Republican Representative, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Ros-Lehtinen is a member of the Cuban-
American Lobby and the Congressional Cuban Democracy Caucus; organisations which claim to be aimed at speeding up Cubas transition to
democracy. "In a Mitt Romney administration, we will not keep practising this policy of appeasement,
we will be tough on this brutal dictator (Castro). All it has done is reward more despotism... We will
help those pro-democracy groups. We will be tough on Castro, tough on Chavez. And it's because we
know that's the right policy for our country, said Ryan. The nominee had reportedly travelled to Florida in a bid to win
over the majority Latino vote two months ahead of the US elections. Florida is currently thought to be a swing state and could prove a
determining vote for the overall election results. Results of a recent voter intention poll in the state carried out by NBC news show that Obama
currently has a 5% lead over Romney, with a voting intention of 49% to 44%. I learned from these friends, from Mario (Diaz-
Balart), from Lincoln (Diaz-Balart), from Ileana (Ros-Lehtinen), just how brutal the Castro regime is,
just how this president's policy of appeasement is not working. They've given me a great education,
lots of us in Congress, about how we need to clamp down on the Castro regime, said Ryan. According to
Ros-Lehtinen, Ryan is now a loyal friend to those who campaign on Cuba-related political issues.

Congress perceives Venezuela as security threat
Boothroyd 12 *Rachel, Republicans Vow to Halt Policy of Appeasement in Venezuela,
<http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/7283>]
With the presidential elections now drawing near, the Republican party is beginning to increasingly outline its prospective domestic and foreign
policy, which Romney has said would be principally based on an attempt to implement a neo-liberal Reagan economic zone in Latin America
and other regions, such as the Middle East. The Republican presidential candidate has been outspoken in his
criticism of the anti-American views purported by the governments of Venezuela, Cuba and Iran and
has described them as one of the biggest threats to the United States today. Earlier in July, Romney
branded the Venezuelan government as a threat to national security and accused the country's
president, Hugo Chavez, of spreading dictatorships and tyranny throughout Latin America. The
Republican National Committee also circulated a video of Obama shaking hands with Chavez at the OAS Summit of the Americas in Trinidad
and Tobago 2009 at the same time. Romney has often claimed that the leader of Venezuela's Bolivarian
revolution has links to terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah and has access to weapons that
could harm the US. He has never presented any evidence in support of these accusations.

Venezuela Oil Investment/Coop Unpopular
Congress doesnt want to increase oil cooperation with Venezuela- focusing on
counter-narcotics and democracy assistance instead
Sullivan 12- Mark P., Specialist in Latin American affairs Venezuela: Issues for Congress August 30,
2012 http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/198102.pdf
Because of Venezuelas oil wealth and relatively high per capita income level, the United States has traditionally only provided small amounts of
foreign assistance to Venezuela. In recent years, assistance has focused on counternarcotics and support for
democracy programs. Table 2 below shows U.S. assistance level to Venezuela since FY2006. From FY2002 to FY2007, Venezuela
received small amounts of U.S. assistance under the State Departments Andean Counterdrug Initiative (ACI) focusing on
counternarcotics cooperation and judicial reform support. Since FY2008, no counternarcotics assistance has been
requested for Venezuela, although in FY2009, the United States provided $0.5 million in International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement
(INCLE) assistance. For a number of years, the United States has provided democracy-related assistance to
Venezuela through the U.S. Agency for International Development. In Table 2, all funding for the Development
Assistance (DA), Economic Support Funds (ESF), and Transition Initiatives (TI) foreign aid accounts are for democracy-related funding. In
addition, the United States has supported democracy assistance in Venezuela through the U.S.
government-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), but this type of support has not been typically reflected
in U.S. foreign assistance funding statistics. From 2002 through December 2010, USAID supported democracy projects in
Venezuela through its Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) to provide assistance to monitor democratic stability and
strengthen the countys democratic institutions. According to USAID, more than 600 small-grant and
technical assistance activities were funded by OTI from 2002 through 2010. The objectives of the assistance,
according to USAID, were to enhance access to objective information and peaceful debate on key issues, and to promote citizen participation
and democratic leadership.69 At the end of December 2010, USAIDs support for such activities for Venezuela was transferred from OTI to
USAIDs Latin America and Caribbean Bureau. In FY2011 and FY2012, Congress appropriated $5 million in ESF each year in
democracy assistance for Venezuela, while for FY2013 the Obama Administration has requested $3
million in such assistance. According to the State Departments FY2013 Congressional Budget Justification, the assistance seeks to
promote broad participation in the democratic process by promoting good governance, raising awareness about social issues, increasing
confidence in the democratic process, and encouraging citizen participation. In terms of congressional action on FY2013
foreign aid appropriations, the report to the House Appropriations Committee bill, H.R. 5857 (H.Rept. 112-494), directs that $5
million in ESF be provided for democracy programs in Venezuela, the same amount appropriated in
FY2012, and $2 million more than the Administrations request for $3 million In contrast, the report to the
Senate Appropriations Committee bill, S. 3241(S.Rept. 112-172), recommends $3 million for democracy programs in Venezuela to be
administered by the National Endowment for Democracy
Increasing oil cooperation with Venezuela unpopular in Congress because of
Venezuela-Iran relations
Sullivan 12- Mark P., Specialist in Latin American affairs Venezuela: Issues for Congress August 30,
2012 http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/198102.pdf
The United States has imposed sanctions on Venezuelan companies because of their alleged support
for Iran, and also has imposed sanctions on Venezuelan individuals because of their support for
Hezbollah, the radical Lebanon-based Islamic Shiite group supported by Iran. To date, the United States has imposed
sanctions on two companies in Venezuela because of connections to Irans proliferation activities. In
August 2008, the State Department imposed sanctions on the Venezuelan Military Industries Company (CAVIM) pursuant to the Iran, North
Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act (P.L. 109-353) for allegedly violating a ban on technology that could assist Iran in the development of
weapons systems.149 The sanctions prohibited any U.S. government procurement or assistance to the company. While these sanctions expired
in 2010, they were imposed once again on May 23, 2011, for a two-year period.150 In October 2008, the U.S. Treasury Department imposed
sanctions on an Iranian-owned bank based in Caracas, the Banco Internacional de Desarollo, C.A., under Executive Order 13382 that allows the
President to block the assets of proliferators of weapons of mass destruction and their supporters. The bank is linked to the Export
Development Bank of Iran (EDBI), which the Treasury Department asserts has provided or attempted to provide services to Irans Ministry of
Defense and Armed Forces Logistics.151 In May 2011, the United States imposed sanctions on Venezuelas state
oil company, Petrleos de Venezuela S.A. (PdVSA), pursuant to the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions,
Accountability, and Disinvestment Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-195) because the company provided $50 million worth of reformate,
an additive used in gasoline, to Iran between December 2010 and March 2011. Specifically, the State Department imposed three
sanctions on PdVSA to prohibit it from competing for U.S. government procurement contracts,
securing financing from the Export-Import Bank, and obtaining U.S. export licenses. The sanctions
specifically exclude PdVSA subsidiaries (Citgo) and do not prohibit the export of oil to the United
States.152 Past Venezuelan comments about potential Iranian support for the development of nuclear energy

US relations with Venezuela unpopular
Sullivan 13- Specialist in Latin American Affairs (Mark P., 01/10, Venezuela: Issues for Congress,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40938.pdf)
The United States traditionally has had close relations with Venezuela, a major supplier of foreign oil to the United
States, but there has been significant friction with the Chvez government. For several years, U.S. officials have
expressed concerns about human rights, Venezuelas military arms purchases (largely from Russia), its
relations with Cuba and Iran, its efforts to export its brand of populism to other Latin American
countries, and the use of Venezuelan territory by Colombian guerrilla and paramilitary forces.
Declining Venezuelan cooperation on antidrug and antiterrorism efforts also has been a U.S. concern.
Since 2005, Venezuela has been designated annually (by President Bush and President Obama) as a country that has
failed to adhere to its international anti-drug obligations. Since 2006, the Department of State has
prohibited the sale of defense articles and services to Venezuela because of lack of cooperation on
antiterrorism efforts.

Congress wants to pose more sanctions on Venezuelas oil sector- not increase
economic engagement
Noriega 11 Roger F., senior State Department official from 2001 to 2005, is a visiting fellow at AEI and
managing director of Vision Americas LLC, Latin American Action Agenda for the New Congress
January 06, 2011 http://www.aei.org/article/politics-and-public-opinion/legislative/latin-american-
action-agenda-for-the-new-congress/
Congress should provide sustained and focused oversight to uncover illegal activities and should press
Venezuela's oil-dependent regime to end its aggressive conduct or face crippling sanctions. Because US
diplomats are doing little to confront this threat, Congress, law enforcement agencies, and the judicial branch must
take the lead in responding to the grave and growing threat posed by Chvez, the anti-American caudillo (strongman).
Bipartisan congressional leaders have already indicated their serious concerns regarding the conduct
of the Chvez regime.[3] The appropriate congressional committees--including those responsible for policy,
intelligence resources, and law enforcement--should combine efforts to conduct a thorough review of Venezuela's
aggressive posture and the passive US response. Congressional inquiry will reveal the extent to which Chvez has
transformed his country into a bandit state. Demo-cratic institutions have been neutralized, so his reckless regime is unaccountable. Billions
of dollars in petroleum revenue have been looted by corrupt officials, and the state oil company is
suspected of laundering illicit funds. Venezuela is willfully violating international prohibitions against aiding Iran's illegal quest for
nuclear weapons and uranium. Civilian and security officials are implicated in drug trafficking that threatens neighbors in the Andes, the
Caribbean, Central America, Mexico, and the United States, as well as countries in Africa and Europe. An $8-9 billion arms buildup threatens to
fuel an arms race in the region, and weapons have been shipped from Venezuelan caches to terrorists in South America and the Middle East.[4]
A once-proud democracy and reliable US friend has been twisted into a hostile and potent criminal enterprise. Clearly, the response of US
diplomats and the intelligence community has been inadequate. Policymakers justify their inaction as a conscious ploy to avoid provoking
Chvez, failing to notice that US passivity has sent the message to Iran, China, and Russia that the United States does not care if they join his
conspiracy. Under Washington's nose, Chvez has made strides toward terminating US access to Venezuelan oil by
finding a new buyer in China, provided Iran's terrorist state with a strategic platform from which to
operate near US shores, and resuscitated Cuba's implacable dictatorship.[5] Some in Congress have
advocated designating Venezuela as a terrorist state. Although it is inconceivable that the State Department will abandon
its passive stance in this way, Congress can question why US law enforcement agencies have yet to bring indictments against Chvez's circle of
corrupt cronies and to launch an inquiry against state-run Petrleos de Venezuela, SA (PDVSA). By exposing suspected money-laundering
activities conducted by PDVSA and a network of complicit bankers, US prosecutors can attack the foundation of Chvez's criminal enterprise
and his corrupt power base. The incoming chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Representative Ileana Ros-
Lehtinen (R-FL), has targeted PDVSA for abetting Iran's energy sector, which would subject Venezuela's
largest company to US sanctions. In a September 24, 2010, letter to PDVSA president Rafael Ramrez, congressional leaders
demanded that the company prove that it is not doing business with Iran. Evidence from sources within the Venezuelan regime clearly indicates
that Chvez is making good on his commitment to provide gasoline to Iran to help it circumvent sanctions. Any
serious US investigation will find that Chvez has engaged oil companies from China, Algeria, and other countries
in these suspect transactions.

General Popular
Congresss support for Venezuela runs high
Fox News 3-06 *Obama, US lawmakers see 'new chapter' in Venezuela after Chavez's death,
<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/06/obama-us-supports-venezuelan-people-as-begin-new-
chapter-after-chavez/>]
U.S. officials quickly cast Hugo Chavez's death as an opportunity for America to rebuild a relationship
with Venezuela and for the country itself to pursue meaningful democratic reforms," with President Obama heralding a "new chapter"
in the Latin American country's history. Chavez, who had been battling cancer since 2011, died Tuesday after 14 years in power. An election is
expected to be held in 30 days the transition marks one of the first major challenges for newly appointed 8Secretary of State John Kerry.
Obama kept a measured tone in a statement released Tuesday evening. "At this challenging time of President Hugo Chavezs passing, the
United States reaffirms its support for the Venezuelan people and its interest in developing a constructive relationship with the Venezuelan
government," Obama said. "As Venezuela begins a new chapter in its history, the United States remains
committed to policies that promote democratic principles, the rule of law, and respect for human
rights. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill were less reserved. Hugo Chavez was a tyrant who forced the people of Venezuela to
live in fear, Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a written statement. His death dents the alliance
of anti-U.S. leftist leaders in South America. Good riddance to this dictator. He said that, while not guaranteed, closer U.S.
relations with this key country in our Hemisphere are now possible. Royces Democratic counterpart
on the committee, Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., also said Chavezs death is an opportunity for the people
of Venezuela to chart a new course. This is a moment to review and renew our relationships with Venezuela and nations
throughout the Americas based upon fundamentally shared values that bind our entire hemisphere, he said. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla.,
expressed hope for a peaceful transition with real, meaningful democratic reforms.
Focus Links
Generic Link Wall
The plan would trade off with Congresss ability to avert the shutdown - timing is on
the brink, theyll only have a day or two to vote on the shutdown in the status quo
Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan, 9-11-2013, John Boehner, Eric Cantor struggle to lead House,
Politico, http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/john-boehner-eric-cantor-house-leaders-96675.html

Time is an issue for Boehner, Cantor and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.). The House is in session next week, out
the following week and on the day they return Sept. 30 the governments coffers run dry. Their time off
can be canceled. The soonest a new government funding bill can hit the floor could be next Thursday. While
confusion reigned on Wednesday afternoon, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) said it is not time to
panic Weve got some time left here, Rogers noted. Conversations are taking place among the various elements inside the
House GOP Conference about how to move forward.

Plan saps capital
Kurtzer et al, 11 (Daniel, US Ambassador, Princeton Policy Workshop The 2010 Princeton Policy Workshop is composed of twelve
graduate students at Princeton Universitys Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and Department of History. Working
under the direction of Ambassador Daniel Kurtzer, former U.S. ambassador to Egypt and Israel, the group examined the history and challenges
of four case studies in the Middle East and then traveled to the region to gather relevant and diverse perspectives regarding U.S. foreign policy.
The group developed recommendations to guide the Obama administrations future decision making toward Syria and Hamas. In December
2010, the group presented its recommendations to the U.S. State Departments Under Secretary for Political Affairs William J. Burns. Over the
course of this process, the group consulted over 70 current and former officials, diplomats, scholars, and civil society leaders in Syria, Israel, the
West Bank and the United States, as well as representatives from the United Nations, the European Union, and other international
stakeholders. This policy workshop report represents the conclusion of the 2010 Policy Workshop. Recommendations were reached by
consensus among the participating students, January, http://wws.princeton.edu/research/pwreports_fy10/WWS591d.pdf)
In his first address to a joint session of Congress in February 2009, President Obama proclaimed that a new era of engagement has begun,
asserting that America cannot shun the negotiating table, nor ignore the foes or forces that could do us harm. Nearly two years later,
President Obama faces criticism both from those who argue that greater engagement with difficult actors
has failed to yield results and must be abandoned , as well as from those who contend that such a policy has not fully been
pursued and needs to be given an opportunity to succeed. Foreign Policy in Context: Domestic Political Constraints on Policy Flexibility There
are many challenges to compelling Syria and Hamas to play cooperative rather than destabilizing roles, and U.S. domestic political
constraints limit the Administrations flexibility to quickly alter its approach in pursuing alternatives to sanctions
and isolation as tools to generate behavior change. For example, the Administration has been unable to secure Senate
confirmation for its nominee for Ambassador to Syria, and it had to invest significant political capital to gain a minor change to the laws that
govern the funding of a potential Palestinian unity government that includes members of Hamas. This difficulty is not surprising. As
with any State Sponsor of Terrorism or Foreign Terrorist Organization, once the United States ratchets up rhetoric and
sanctions, it becomes politically perilous for an administration to suggest what may be perceived as a
softer approach without significant and tangible concessions from the problematic actors. Specifically,
because these states and groups often persist in speaking and acting provocatively as the United States
considers its policy options, it is particularly difficult to make a compelling argument that
engagement will be effective in changing behaviors for the better. Political sensitivities are heightened when Israel is involved due
to the deep ties between the two countries, the strong support for Israel in the U.S. Congress and among the American people, the impact of
our policy toward these entities on Israels security, and the effectiveness of pro-Israel advocacy groups. The political currents
favoring policy inertia toward difficult actors, including Syria and Hamas, are further bolstered by the continued
economic downturn, the prevailing opinion that more resources should be dedicated to solving
domestic problems , the Presidents limited political capital in the aftermath of Democratic losses in the midterm
elections, and the highly skeptical view toward engagement of many Republicans who will rise to leadership
position

Political capital is finite --- the plan would tradeoff with domestic economic priorities
Moore, 9/10 --- Guardian's US finance and economics editor
(Heidi, 9/10/2013, Syria: the great distraction; Obama is focused on a conflict abroad, but the fight he
should be gearing up for is with Congress on America's economic security,
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/10/obama-syria-what-about-sequester))

Before President Obama speaks to the nation about Syria tonight, take a look at what this fall will look like inside America. There are 49 million
people in the country who suffered inadequate access to food in 2012, leaving the percentage of "food-insecure" Americans at about one-sixth
of the US population. At the same time, Congress refused to pass food-stamp legislation this summer, pushing it off again and threatening
draconian cuts. The country will crash into the debt ceiling in mid-October, which would be an economic
disaster, especially with a government shutdown looming at the same time. These are deadlines that
Congress already learned two years ago not to toy with, but memories appear to be preciously short.
The Federal Reserve needs a new chief in three months, someone who will help the country confront its raging unemployment crisis that has
left 12 million people without jobs. The president has promised to choose a warm body within the next three weeks, despite the fact that his
top pick, Larry Summers, would likely spark an ugly confirmation battle the "fight of the century," according to some with a Congress
already unwilling to do the President's bidding. Congress was supposed to pass a farm bill this summer, but declined to do so even though the
task is already two years late. As a result, the country has no farm bill, leaving agricultural subsidies up in the air, farmers uncertain about what
their financial picture looks like, and a potential food crisis on the horizon. The two main housing agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, have
been in limbo for four years and are desperately in need of reform that should start this fall, but there is scant attention to the problem. These
are the problems going unattended by the Obama administration while his aides and cabinet members have been wasting the nation's time
making the rounds on television and Capitol Hill stumping for a profoundly unpopular war. The fact that all this chest-beating was for naught,
and an easy solution seems on the horizon, belies the single-minded intensity that the Obama White House brought to its insistence on
bombing Syria. More than one wag has suggested, with the utmost reason, that if Obama had brought this kind of passion to domestic
initiatives, the country would be in better condition right now. As it is, public policy is embarrassingly in shambles at home while the
administration throws all of its resources and political capital behind a widely hated plan to get involved in a civil war overseas. The upshot for
the president may be that it's easier to wage war with a foreign power than go head-to-head with the US Congress, even as America suffers
from neglect. This is the paradox that President Obama is facing this fall, as he appears to turn his back on a number of crucial and urgent
domestic initiatives in order to spend all of his meager political capital on striking Syria. Syria does present a significant humanitarian crisis,
which has been true for the past two years that the Obama administration has completely ignored the atrocities of Bashar al-Assad. Two years
is also roughly the same amount of time that key domestic initiatives have also gone ignored as Obama and Congress engage in petty battles for
dominance and leave the country to run itself on a starvation diet imposed by sequestration cuts. Leon Panetta tells the story of how he tried to
lobby against sequestration only to be told: Leon, you don't understand. The Congress is resigned to failure. Similarly, those on Wall Street,
the Federal Reserve, those working at government agencies, and voters themselves have become all too practiced at ignoring the determined
incompetence of those in Washington. Political capital the ability to horse-trade and win political favors from a
receptive audience is a finite resource in Washington. Pursuing misguided policies takes up time, but
it also eats up credibility in asking for the next favor. It's fair to say that congressional Republicans, particularly
in the House, have no love for Obama and are likely to oppose anything he supports. That's exactly the
reason the White House should stop proposing policies as if it is scattering buckshot and focus with
intensity on the domestic tasks it wants to accomplish, one at a time. The president is scheduled to speak six times
this week, mostly about Syria. That includes evening news interviews, an address to the nation, and numerous other speeches. Behind the
scenes, he is calling members of Congress to get them to fall into line. Secretary of State John Kerry is omnipresent, so ubiquitous on TV that it
may be easier just to get him his own talk show called Syria Today. It would be a treat to see White House aides lobbying as aggressively and
on as many talk shows for a better food stamp bill, an end to the debt-ceiling drama, or a solution to the senseless sequestration cuts, as it is
on what is clearly a useless boondoggle in Syria. There's no reason to believe that Congress can have an all-
consuming debate about Syria and then, somehow refreshed, return to a domestic agenda that has been
as chaotic and urgent as any in recent memory. The President should have judged his options better. As it is, he should now judge his actions
better.

Cuba Embargo Link Wall
Even loosening minor restrictions causes huge Congressional fights
NYT 12 (New York Times. Easing of Restraints in Cuba Renews Debate on U.S. Embargo
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/world/americas/changes-in-cuba-create-support-for-easing-
embargo.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)
In Washington, Mr. Gross is seen as the main impediment to an easing of the embargo, but there are also
limits to what the president could do without Congressional action. The 1992 Cuban Democracy Act conditioned the
waiving of sanctions on the introduction of democratic changes inside Cuba. The 1996 Helms-Burton Act also requires that the embargo remain
until Cuba has a transitional or democratically elected government. Obama administration officials say they have not given up, and could move
if the president decides to act on his own. Officials say that under the Treasury Departments licensing and regulation-writing authority, there is
room for significant modification. Following the legal logic of Mr. Obamas changes in 2009, further expansions in travel are possible along with
new allowances for investment or imports and exports, especially if narrowly applied to Cuban businesses. Even these adjustments
which could also include travel for all Americans and looser rules for ships engaged in trade with
Cuba, according to a legal analysis commissioned by the Cuba Study Group would probably mean a
fierce political fight. The handful of Cuban-Americans in Congress for whom the embargo is sacred
oppose looser rules. When asked about Cuban entrepreneurs who are seeking more American support, Representative Ileana Ros-
Lehtinen, the Florida Republican who is chairwoman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, proposed an even tighter
embargo. The sanctions on the regime must remain in place and, in fact, should be strengthened, and not be altered, she wrote in an e-
mail. Responsible nations must not buy into the facade the dictatorship is trying to create by announcing reforms while, in reality, its
tightening its grip on its people.
Mexico Guest Worker Link
Plan unpopular with GOPdemographics, wages, and illegal immigration
Stanely-Becker 13
(Tom, Government Research Assistant at University of Chicago, Yale Daily News, Peer-reviewed by Peter
Swenson, Yales C.M. Saden Professor of Political Science. Strange Bedfellows: Business, Labor, Guest
Workers, and Immigration Reform in the United States, 1986-2013 April 19
th
, pg online at
http://www.library.yale.edu/prizes/applebaum/papers/stanley-becker.pdf)
Yet as business promotes unrestricted employment of guest workers, a key part of the Republican
Partys base opposes not only the entry of immigrant workers, the undocumented and temporary guests, but the agenda of
immigration reform. Particularly in the House, Republicans come from districts with electorates more white and native-born than
those in Democratic strongholds: 131 House Republicans represent districts that are more than 80% white in contrast to only 31
Democrats elected in such homogeneous districts. And only 46 House Republicans come from districts
that are less white than the national average. Thus, congressional Republicans confront rival pressures, from a
business leadership advocating a broad new guest worker program and an electorate hostile to
increasing the flow of foreign labor into the country and granting any form of amnesty to
undocumented workers. In turn, conservative Republicans leaders have attacked the Chambers position on
guest workers. Echoing the allegations of Democratic Senator Dorgan in 2007, Republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama issued a press release early in 2013 claiming that all Americans
should be concerned about the immigration agenda of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. According to Sessions, the
Chamber is uninterested in a lawful immigration system or securing the borders, but simply wants to get as much cheap
labor as possible. Challenging the Chambers view of the free market, Sessions argued, Surely the Chamber hasnt abandoned belief in the
power of the market; such a visa program is certain to take jobs from American workers and depress
wages.30 In advocating too robustly for an unrestricted guest worker program and the worldwide reach of the U.S.
market in immigrant labor, business risks division from longstanding allies in the Republican Party.

Internal Link
Internal Link - Economy
This will destroy the U.S. and global economy
Davidson, 9/10 (Adam - co-founder of NPRs Planet Money 9/10/2013, Our Debt to Society,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/magazine/our-debt-to-society.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0))

This is the definition of a deficit, and it illustrates why the government needs to borrow money almost every day to pay its bills. Of course, all
that daily borrowing adds up, and we are rapidly approaching what is called the X-Date the day, somewhere in the next six weeks, when the
government, by law, cannot borrow another penny. Congress has imposed a strict limit on how much debt the federal government can
accumulate, but for nearly 90 years, it has raised the ceiling well before it was reached. But since a large
number of Tea Party-aligned Republicans entered the House of Representatives, in 2011, raising that debt ceiling
has become a matter of fierce debate. This summer, House Republicans have promised, in Speaker John Boehners
words, a whale of a fight before they raise the debt ceiling if they even raise it at all. If the debt
ceiling isnt lifted again this fall, some serious financial decisions will have to be made. Perhaps the government can
skimp on its foreign aid or furlough all of NASA, but eventually the big-ticket items, like Social Security and Medicare, will have to be cut. At
some point, the government wont be able to pay interest on its bonds and will enter whats known as
sovereign default, the ultimate national financial disaster achieved by countries like Zimbabwe, Ecuador and Argentina
(and now Greece). In the case of the United States, though, it wont be an isolated national crisis. If the American government
cant stand behind the dollar, the worlds benchmark currency, then the global financial system will very likely enter a
new era in which there is much less trade and much less economic growth. It would be, by most accounts,
the largest self-imposed financial disaster in history. Nearly everyone involved predicts that someone will blink before
this disaster occurs. Yet a small number of House Republicans (one political analyst told me its no more than 20) appear willing to see what
happens if the debt ceiling isnt raised at least for a bit. This could be used as leverage to force Democrats to drastically cut government
spending and eliminate President Obamas signature health-care-reform plan. In fact, Representative Tom Price, a Georgia Republican, told me
that the whole problem could be avoided if the president agreed to drastically cut spending and lower taxes. Still, it is hard to put this act of
game theory into historic context. Plenty of countries and some cities, like Detroit have defaulted on their financial obligations, but only
because their governments ran out of money to pay their bills. No wealthy country has ever voluntarily decided in the
middle of an economic recovery, no less to default. And theres certainly no record of that happening to the country
that controls the global reserve currency. Like many, I assumed a self-imposed U.S. debt crisis might unfold like most involuntary ones. If the
debt ceiling isnt raised by X-Day, I figured, the worlds investors would begin to see America as an
unstable investment and rush to sell their Treasury bonds. The U.S. government, desperate to hold on
to investment, would then raise interest rates far higher, hurtling up rates on credit cards, student loans, mortgages and
corporate borrowing which would effectively put a clamp on all trade and spending. The U.S. economy
would collapse far worse than anything weve seen in the past several years. Instead, Robert Auwaerter,
head of bond investing for Vanguard, the worlds largest mutual-fund company, told me that the
collapse might be more insidious. You know what happens when the market gets upset? he said. Theres a flight to quality.
Investors buy Treasury bonds. Its a bit perverse. In other words, if the U.S. comes within shouting distance of a default
(which Auwaerter is confident wont happen), the worlds investors absent a safer alternative,
given the recent fates of the euro and the yen might actually buy even more Treasury bonds.
Indeed, interest rates would fall and the bond markets would soar. While this possibility might not
sound so bad, its really far more damaging than the apocalyptic one I imagined. Rather than resulting in a
sudden crisis, failure to raise the debt ceiling would lead to a slow bleed. Scott Mather, head of the global portfolio at Pimco, the worlds largest
private bond fund, explained that while governments and institutions might go on a U.S.-bond buying frenzy in the wake of a debt-ceiling panic,
they would eventually recognize that the U.S. government was not going through an odd, temporary bit of insanity. They would eventually
conclude that it had become permanently less reliable. Mather imagines institutional investors and governments
turning to a basket of currencies, putting their savings in a mix of U.S., European, Canadian, Australian
and Japanese bonds. Over the course of decades, the U.S. would lose its unique role in the global
economy. The U.S. benefits enormously from its status as global reserve currency and safe haven. Our
interest and mortgage rates are lower; companies are able to borrow money to finance their new products more cheaply. As a result, there is
much more economic activity and more wealth in America than there would be otherwise. If that status erodes, the U.S.
economys peaks will be lower and recessions deeper; future generations will have fewer job opportunities and suffer
more when the economy falters. And, Mather points out, no other country would benefit from Americas diminished
status. When you make the base risk-free asset more risky, the entire global economy becomes riskier and costlier.

Failure crushes the econ gridlock, loss of investor confidence, and credit downgrade
Huffington Post 1/4 (Sam Stein, Debt Ceiling Showdown: GOP Pledges To Extract Cuts From Obama, Huffington Post, January 4,
2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/04/debt-ceiling-showdown_n_2409656.html, nw)

WASHINGTON -- The just-completed deal to resolve the so-called fiscal cliff has created an even greater cliff down the road. By the end of
February, lawmakers will have to grapple with $1 trillion in sequestration cuts that are scheduled to take effect
and the need for a debt limit increase. Shortly thereafter, they will have to deal with the end of a
continuing resolution to keep the government funded. Any one of these issues on its own would be difficult to resolve.
Taken together, they could produce complete gridlock , which itself would have deep economic
consequences. President Barack Obama has pledged that he won't negotiate over the debt ceiling as a matter of principle. But
Republicans are still insisting that they will extract as many concessions from the talks as they can. Sen.
Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" this week, "we Republicans need to be willing to tolerate a
temporary, partial government shutdown" in order to achieve spending cuts and entitlement reforms. On
Friday morning, meanwhile, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told members that he was prepared to use the debt ceiling fight as leverage
to get spending cuts. According to a source in the room, Boehner showed fellow lawmakers the results of a survey by the Winston Group, a
GOP polling firm, which showed that 72 percent of Americans "agree any increase in the nation's debt limit must be accompanied by spending
cuts and reforms of a greater amount." "The debate is already under way," the speaker said. Elsewhere on Friday morning, Sen. John Cornyn
(R-Texas), the second-ranking Senate Republican, penned an op-ed making a similar argument. Republicans are more
determined than ever to implement the spending cuts and structural entitlement reforms that are needed
to secure the long-term fiscal integrity of our country. The coming deadlines will be the next flashpoints in our
ongoing fight to bring fiscal sanity to Washington. It may be necessary to partially shut down the
government in order to secure the long-term fiscal well being of our country, rather than plod along the path of Greece, Italy and Spain.
President Obama needs to take note of this reality and put forward a plan to avoid it immediately. It wasn't entirely clear from the op-ed
whether Cornyn was arguing for Republicans to avoid passing an additional continuing resolution (absent spending cuts), refuse to raise the
debt ceiling, or both. A spokeswoman for the Texas Republican told The Huffington Post that she didn't see a distinction between the two, with
respect to whether or not the GOP should use them as leverage. "I wouldn't look too much into it. I think there are three big deadlines," the
spokeswoman said, adding sequestration into the mix. A Republican Senate aide added: "We all know this deadline is coming. In regards to the
CR vs the debt ceiling, a downgrade will likely occur if spending is not cut, not if Congress were to refuse to debt ceiling temporarily." But there
would, indeed, be different consequences depending on which event is used to extract spending cuts. If, for example, Congress passes a debt
limit increase but fails to pass a continuing resolution, the government can continue to borrow funds to pay its existing bills. But it would cease
to operate as normal. As the Congressional Budget Office noted in a 1995 report: Failing to raise the debt ceiling would not bring the
government to a screeching halt the way that not passing appropriations bills would. Employees would not be sent home, and checks would
continue to be issued. If the Treasury was low on cash, however, there could be delays in honoring checks and disruptions in the normal flow of
government services. On the other hand, if Congress were to pass a continuing resolution but not raise the debt ceiling, the government would
be operating on dwindling funds. Over time, the Treasury would fail to meet its obligations on salaries and wages, retirement funds and social
security benefits. And then there would be the macro and global impact. As a 1979 Government Accountability Office report noted: At a
minimum, however, the government could be subject to additional claims for interest on unredeemed matured debt and to claims for damages
resulting from failure to make payments. But even beyond that, the full faith and credit of the U.S. government would be
threatened. Domestic money markets, in which government securities play a major role, could be
affected substantially. More recently, JP Morgan's managing director outlined the consequences in a letter to the Treasury
Department. Among the impacts projected were the following: A rise in Treasury's long-term funding costs; A
contraction of credit; A reduction in the purchase of Treasuries by foreign investors on a permanent
basis or even sell off exiting holdings; A downgrading of the U.S. sovereign credit rating; A possible
run on money market funds; The destruction of market confidence.

Internal Link - Shutdown
Failure reach an agreement causes a government shut-down and debt default,
wrecking the economy
Agence France Presse, 8/29, Prepare for Yet Another Budget Showdown in Congress, 08/29/2013,
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/29/prepare-for-yet-another-budget-showdown-in-congress/, AC)
President Barack Obama is facing the prospect of a fiscal fight with Congress, with both sides having three weeks to break funding impasses or
risk government default. Two crucial votes are on the horizon for the divided and gridlocked Congress, including approval of
a federal budget for fiscal year 2014, which begins October 1. Complicating matters, conservative Republicans are
itching to use the upcoming showdown about raising the governments $16.7 trillion debt limit as a way to defund Obamas national health
care law. Lawmakers are on recess until September 9, at which point they will have just nine legislative days to hammer out an agreement on
federal spending.Republicans are calling for greater budget austerity and their leader in the House, Speaker John Boehner, has urged his caucus
to hold firm on its demands as they enter negotiations with Obamas Democrats. Should the two sides fail to strike a deal,
parts of the government will be forced into shutdown, triggering a fiscal domino effect that could
send markets reeling. A more contentious battle looms. With the government projected to hit its borrowing limit by mid-October,
the two sides must reach agreement on raising that cap or risk a potentially calamitous default.
Lawmakers have long used the debt ceiling as leverage in budget negotiations. But Boehner, at a fund-raiser Monday in Idaho, raised the
specter of a bitter battle in the weeks ahead, repeating his aim not to raise the borrowing limit unless his party gets an equal amount in
spending cuts. It may be unfair, but what Im trying to do here is to leverage the political process to produce more change than what it would
produce if left to its own devices, Boehner said. Were going to have a whale of a fight. The two sides are far from agreement, but Obama
has insisted he will not negotiate over the US responsibility to pay its bills. Should they fail to reach a deal, the crisis could ding the
countrys gold-plated credit rating, which suffered a hit in 2011 when Republicans and Obama brought their disastrous fiscal
negotiations to the brink before coming to terms.

Causes government shutdown and credit downgrade destroys the global economy
Huffington Post 1/2 (Jason Linkins, Fiscal Cliff Deal Fails To Neutralize Debt Ceiling Hostage Takers, So Everything Is Still Terrible,
January 2, 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/02/fiscal-cliff-debt-ceiling_n_2398091.html, nw)

But while there's a lot of disappointment to go around this morning, it all pales in comparison to the
gigantic calamity that still looms: the future fight over the debt ceiling. It's coming in March, and it will likely be a
repeat of the last round, in which Republican legislators weaponized the process and threatened to destroy the
global economy. They are planning to do so again: "This is the best that could be done," said Senator Lindsey Graham (R-
S.C.), who added, "It's not all I would have liked, but it's called American democracy, so on to the debt ceiling." (And Graham is supposed to be
a "reasonable" senator whom Democrats can "work with" to pass bipartisan legislation.) The "debt ceiling" is like the "fiscal cliff" in at least
one important way -- it's a metaphor that doesn't describe what's actually going on, while being simultaneously easy to deploy as a means to
drive panic. The whole concept of "raising the debt ceiling" has come to mean, in the popular consciousness, an act that permits Congress to
spend more. People visualize this ritual process as one that creates brand-new space for brand-new spending. That is almost perfectly
incorrect: the act of raising the debt ceiling is actually a ritual in which Congress acknowledges the expenses of its collective past actions and
reaffirms its promise to make good on its obligations. Imagine, for a moment, that you are in one of those college-style living arrangements in
which you and a handful of roommates occupy an apartment, and each of you has agreed in advance to pay a portion of the rent that, in total,
keeps you in the clear with your landlord. Every month, you and your flatmates write a check, and you pay the amount stipulated in your lease.
Naturally, from time to time, having to pay rent puts a crimp in what you'd like to do, budget-wise, but you are a reasonable person and, like a
reasonable person, you recognize that shelter from the elements is essential to your well being. But one day, one of the people with whom
you've entered into this arrangement says, "I need to free up money in my budget, so I'm going to be paying $200 less each month." How will
you, as a group that's entered into a mutual obligation to pay the landlord, continue to meet it? "Not my problem," says the suddenly
intransigent roommate, "You guys can come up with the money out of your budgets, or agree to accommodate my wishes through concessions,
like reducing my expenses for me in another way, but I'm holding firm to this position." When you point out the part where the refusal to pay
the entire monthly rent could result in everyone "defaulting" on the obligation and being tossed into the street, the lunatic roommate says,
"Well, I guess you'd better figure out what to do then, because that sounds bad." That's essentially what happened in the previous debt ceiling
fight, but in a concession that has to be made to the werewolves who glommed onto this tactic as a means of extracting concessions, it should
be pointed out that President Barack Obama made the mistake of inviting negotiations over the debt ceiling in order to craft a "grand bargain."
By doing so, he emboldened the debt ceiling lunatics -- it was the first drop of blood that made them hungry for more. As you might recall,
those negotiations did not end in a "grand bargain." Rather, they resulted in a grand disaster: the Budget Control Act, which begat the Super
Committee, which begat the sequestration cuts, which begat the fiscal cliff, which begat yesterday's temporary solution to the fiscal cliff, which
now spawns the next crisis. And that crisis hilariously combines the next required lift of the debt ceiling with the unresolved sequestration cuts
and forces a new deadline for both at the beginning of March. That's right! We combine the cause of all our fiscal problems with the presumed
solution to those same problems in a KFC-style Double Down of Fried Fiscal Offal that we have to "avert" in March. And unlike the so-
called fiscal cliff, there are actual, immediate consequences that include a possible government
shutdown and the default on our sovereign credit.

Failure causes government shutdown
ABC News 1/4 (Arlette Saenz, GOP Senators Mull Partial Govt Shutdown in Debt-Ceiling Fight, ABC News, January 4, 2013,
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/01/gop-senators-mull-partial-govt-shutdown-in-debt-ceiling-fight/, nw)

A number of Republican senators say a partial government shutdown should be considered as an
option if President Obama doesnt concede on spending cuts to the GOPs satisfaction. The coming
deadlines will be the next flashpoints in our ongoing fight to bring fiscal sanity to Washington, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, wrote in an op-ed in
the Houston Chronicle this morning. It may be necessary to partially shut down the government in order to
secure the long-term fiscal well being of our country, rather than plod along the path of Greece, Italy
and Spain. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told the Dallas Morning News that he would be open to a partial government shutdown, pointing
to the 1995 shutdown as the greatest degree of fiscal responsibility we have seen from Congress in
modern times. Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., Wednesday urged Republicans to consider a partial government shutdown,
saying it would be a hell of a lot better than agreeing to a deal with no spending cuts.

Internal Link Default
Failure to extend the debt ceiling leads to default
Calmes, 9-10 (Jackie, GOP Eyes Hard Line Against Health Care Law, New York Times, 09/10/2013,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/us/politics/gop-eyes-hard-line-against-health-care-
law.html?_r=0, AC)
Many economists and analysts say the bigger economic risk, however, is a failure to lift the debt ceiling, which
would leave the Treasury unable to pay creditors and bills that the government already is obligated
for, harm the nations credit rating and ultimately could cause the first default
Internal Link Jobs/Investor Confidence
Key to jobs and investor confidence
Boak 1/4 (Joan, New Congress Faces New War over Debt Ceiling, The Fiscal Times, January 4, 2013,
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/01/04/New-Congress-Faces-New-War-over-Debt-Ceiling.aspx#mE2tCojjMvAlBorL.99, nw)

The wounds of the previous Congress have quickly aged into scars. Disputes over economic stimulus, the 2011 debt ceiling fight,
and the frustration in passing a fiscal cliff deal this week all look like a prelude to the turmoil to
come . Boehner already had a weak grip on his fellow House Republicans. The majority opposed the cliff deal
that averted an economy-crushing tax hike and delayed automatic spending cuts for two months. His relationship with President Obama
appears to be in tatters, with aides for the Ohio congressmen declaring that direct talks between the two men are niceties of the past. As
Boehner narrowly secured another term as speaker yesterday afternoon, it became clear that the
turmoil of the past two years would bleed into the 113th Congress. He dedicated his re-election speech to the next
battle with Obama: another needed increase to the debt ceiling that the government technically breached last Monday. GOP lawmakers have
told the White House that every dollar added to the governments borrowing capacity must come attached with a dollar in reduced
expenditures. At $16 trillion and rising, our national debt is draining free enterprise and weakening the ship of
state, said Boehner, summoning all of his gravitas with his gravelly voice. The American Dream is in peril so long as its namesake is weighed
down by this anchor of debt. Break its hold, and we begin to set our economy free. Jobs will come home.
Confidence will come back. We do this not just to boost GDP or reduce unemployment, but to secure
for our children a future of freedom and opportunity. Nothing is more important.
Impacts
Turns Case Economic Engagement

In consideration of the ideological and political strife, President Obama and the Democrats may very well sacrifice cuts to foreign aid to save
entitlement spending and social spending on things like education. The Republicans will target foreign aid, because it's easier to argue for making cuts here and they can add it to their
talking points come 2014. The question comes down to how one interprets the progress made by the various aid agencies in their mission to create good will for America through foreign aid. Like any other enterprise, if
foreign aid programs cannot show results or worse, be a burden for donor states, for the investment made by U.S. taxpayers, there is a strong probability that such spending will be
on the chopping block. Most Americans don't understand why they are paying for foreign aid,
especially when the recipient states are often in turmoil before and after such spending is doled out.
That's why the evaluation process for U.S. foreign aid is so important in the upcoming debt ceiling debate. The method for evaluating development-focused aid programs has been an evolutionary process that has been
undergoing changes since the Bush administration by streamlining the process and updating the methodology for reviewing and improving how foreign aid is implemented.The CRS report from November identifies the evaluation
process as being critical. There are two primary means of evaluation. First, performance evaluation functions as a project management mechanism to make sure that the specific projects are executed according the plan and
measuring the efficiency of aid projects. Second, impact evaluation seeks to measure the effectiveness of aid projects by, for example, observing the impact on AIDS/HIV reduction programs in Africa.USAID, according to the
report, has long been dogged by its less than consistent and stringent methodology for both performance and impact evaluation since its creation by President Kennedy. The MCC has had more success as a newcomer in U.S.
foreign aid, but with more strict evaluation and supported by independent evaluation.The CRS report's conclusion is that: The primary U.S. agencies charged with implementing foreign assistance have made significant steps in
the last two years to address ongoing deficiencies in evaluation practices that make it difficult to judge whether foreign assistance is achieving its various objectives. There is widespread agreement, reflected in new policies, on the
need for consistent performance evaluation of aid programs. The value of rigorous impact evaluation is broadly recognized as well, though the agencies differ in their capabilities and aspirations in this respect. In short, the aid
agencies have tried to improve their methods for setting objectives, evaluation, accountability, and local ownership, the process is still riddled with the basic problem of having an inability to produce concise and coherent
evaluations that show results for the investment.There is some hope, according to aid advocates, because reform is possible to untangle the mess of foreign aid.The Modernization Foreign Assistance Network (MFAN) has been
working to put forward a proposal on how we can fix most of the problems that ail the aid programs by streamlining the aid process to work in tandem within recipient states and push for a efficient use of resources by a single aid
agency that has a table at the National Security Council. Technology and leadership by an updated Foreign Aid Act is emphasized as being key in revamping the aid process to make sure that future evaluations will be more
definitive in their results.This way the aid efforts will be more incisive and can push foreign aid into the 21st century by keeping aid in line with our national security strategy and simplified and technology enabled evaluation
process that makes it easy to produce coherent evaluations. In the end, foreign aid may be cut to some degree, but fiscal conservatives in Congress may be persuaded by the fact that there should be fewer cuts. The other factor
is the politics of the debt ceiling debate, during which horse-trading may reduce foreign aid spending. Whatever the result, U.S. soft power will
undoubtedly be affected for better or for worse
Turns Case US Econ
Its a prerequisite No growth is possible under the debt ceiling gets resolved
Business Standard 1/4 (Michael D Shear & Jackie Calmes, Lawmakers gird for clash on debt ceiling, Business Standard, January 4,
2013, http://business-standard.com/india/news/lawmakers-gird-for-clashdebt-ceiling/497720/, nw)

The presidents position is sure to appeal to his liberal allies, who fear another round of compromises by Obama. But it once again
sets the stage for a nail-biting standoff that economists warn could lead to a damaging financial
default and doubt from investors about the ability of the country to pay its obligations.(WHERE US
GOVERNMENT MONEY GOES) Moodys, the rating agency, warned on Wednesday that the looming political battles over
the nations debt could lower the groups rating of American debt. Were in for another round of
brinkmanship and uncertainty, said Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moodys Analytics, who predicted weeks
of angst, discussion and hand-wringing in Washington. I dont think the economy can really find its footing and
jump to a higher level of growth until we get to the other side of this. Joel Prakken, senior managing director of
Macroeconomic Advisers, an economics forecasting firm, said bluntly, This is kind of a mess.

Collapses the global economy credit downgrade, collapses the banking system and
global trade, and causes government shutdown.
Gersten 1/3 (Ben, associate editor at Money Morning, Why the U.S. Debt Ceiling Debate is a Bigger Deal than the Fiscal Cliff, Money
Morning, January 3, 2013, http://moneymorning.com/2013/01/03/why-the-u-s-debt-ceiling-debate-is-a-bigger-deal-than-the-fiscal-cliff/, nw)

The last time the country approached the U.S. debt ceiling, in 2011, it came close to defaulting on its
debt and had its AAA credit rating stripped by Standard & Poor's for the first time ever. S&P at the time said "political
brinksmanship" in the debt ceiling debate had made the U.S. government's ability to manage its finances "less stable, less effective and less
predictable." The previous budget battle actually led to an agreement to impose across-the-board spending cuts, known as "sequestration," on
Jan. 1, 2013, as well as implement tax increases - together known as the fiscal cliff. If no U.S. debt ceiling deal is reached this
time, the country will most likely receive credit rating downgrades from multiple rating agencies, sending
equity markets into a tailspin and the economy back into a recession. If the country defaults, a very real possibility,
it would essentially have to choose what expenses and debts to pay and which can wait. The Treasury's inability to make some
payments could cripple the global banking system, which has a huge stake in U.S. assets and the
dollar. A default would also delay or stop Social Security and unemployment benefits as well as
military service members' checks, and unemployment and inflation would rise. The Heated U.S. Debt Ceiling
Debate In 2011, when the country was on the brink of default, the debt limit was raised after U.S. President Barack Obama agreed to $1 trillion
in immediate spending cuts and another $1.2 trillion in cuts set to kick in this year. This time, the president has made clear he does not want
to engage in any more political brinksmanship over the debt ceiling. "While I will negotiate over many things, I will not have another debate
with this Congress about whether or not they should pay the bills they have already racked up," President Obama said in remarks at the White
House. This time, Republicans want debt limit increases to be matched dollar-for-dollar with spending cuts, while President Obama and fellow
Democrats insist on implementing both spending cuts and tax hikes. "If Congress refuses to give the United States
government the ability to pay these bills on time, the consequences for the entire global economy
would be catastrophic - far worse than the impact of a fiscal cliff," Obama said. Yet Republicans now appear more
ready than ever to push the country into default and accept the consequences. "Our opportunity here is on the debt ceiling," Sen. Pat Toomey,
R-PA, said on MSNBC, adding Republicans would have the political leverage against Obama in that debate. "We Republicans need to
be willing to tolerate a temporary, partial government shutdown, which is what that could mean."

Obama will have to undergo a big fight with the GOP to pass the debt ceiling failure
collapses the global economy
Ahlert 1/3 (Arnold, columnist for FrontPage Magazine, Taking up the Debt Ceiling War, The Patriot Post, January 3, 2013,
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/16118, nw)

The tax battle is over. Democrats, President Obama and their media cheerleaders succeeded in
getting a nervous and divided Republican Party to acquiesce to a bitter bargain. They allowed taxes to rise,
while getting almost nothing in return in terms of spending cuts, other than vague promises to be fulfilled sometime in the future. Given
the tenor of the times -- with entitlement mentality run amok, our spendthrift president's reelection
in November, and the certainty that anything short of capitulation would have been framed by the
media as a Republican-created debacle -- perhaps it was the only reasonable course of action
Republicans could take right now. In the upcoming and far more serious battle over the debt ceiling,
Republicans must unify for the simplest of reasons: either they extract serious spending cuts from Democrats
and the Obama administration in exchange for raising the debt ceiling -- or the nation is headed for
fiscal collapse. Republicans desperately need to educate Americans about our current trajectory. In the last four years, the national debt
has increased by more than $5 trillion, including $2.1 trillion of additional debt accumulated since August 2011, when the debt ceiling was
raised from $14.3 trillion to $16.4 trillion. Thus, a mere seventeen months later, America technically went bankrupt again on New Year's Eve.
This means that until further credit is authorized by the House in the form of raising the debt ceiling -- again -- Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner
will have to move money around in federal accounts, a process he claims will buy us about two more months before technical bankruptcy
becomes genuine bankruptcy. Now one might think that our runaway freight train of deficit spending would
have chastened our elected representatives. One would be completely and utterly wrong. Despite the
great fiscal cliff "victory" being touted by Democrats and their media enablers, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
revealed that the heart of that victory, raising taxes on wealthy Americans, is little more than emotional boob bait for the masses: as a
result of the deal, $3.9 trillion will be added to the national debt over the next ten years, bringing us
up to more than $20 trillion. Unfortunately and incredibly, this is small potatoes compared to America's
unfunded obligations . Christopher Cox, former chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee and the Securities and Exchange
Commission, and Bill Archer, former chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, reveal the true scope of America's problem in a Wall
Street Journal article. "The actual liabilities of the federal government -- including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees' future
retirement benefits -- already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP," they write. Yet the most important part of the article addresses the
reality of taxation. "When the accrued expenses of the government's entitlement programs are counted, it becomes clear that to collect
enough tax revenue just to avoid going deeper into debt would require over $8 trillion in tax
collections annually... Some public officials and pundits claim we can dig our way out through tax increases on upper-income earners,
or even all taxpayers. In reality, that would amount to bailing out the Pacific Ocean with a teaspoon," they warn (italics added). In response to
this reality, our intrepid president and his party have brought their teaspoons to the battle. Even as the fiscal cliff deal was on the cusp of being
made, Obama insisted that the one atom of relative sanity, the spending cuts mandated by sequestration, conveniently kicked down the road
for another two months, were a bridge too far. "We're using an axe instead of a scalpel," he contended. For perspective's sake, it should be
noted that the total amount of spending scheduled to be "axed," absent the further whittling that will more than likely occur when the political
class inevitably reprises its lament regarding "draconian cuts," comes to $1 trillion over ten years. Such unseriousness, courtesy of reckless
Democrats and, in some respects, spineless Republicans, is precisely what brought the nation to the brink of insolvency. If one compares the
minuscule level of cuts deemed "draconian," with the gargantuan and growing level of spending that is somehow "manageable," as long as the
"rich" pay their "fair share," only one logical, if painful, conclusion can be reached: Despite their past culpability, either Republicans stand firm,
take control of the federal spending debate immediately and endure the coordinated and massive attacks that are sure to accompany any
effort to bring the nation's spending addiction under control, or the country will face dire consequences. Such attacks have already begun.
Huffington Post columnist Jason Linkins refers to debt ceiling "hostage takers" who are "dangerous
psychopaths, full stop." House Democrat Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), who must have missed the memo regarding over-the-top
language, referred to Republicans seeking to leverage the debt ceiling as "somewhat like taking your child hostage and saying to somebody
else, 'I'm going to shoot my child if you don't do what I want done.'" Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) chairman of the Finance Committee, was less
incendiary, but equally unrealistic. "It's anachronistic," he said. "We've already voted on spending and revenue, and so the debt ceiling is just a
confirmation of what we voted on." Baucus is disingenuous at best, and an outright liar at worst. Over the course of the last three and a half
years, House Republicans have sent budget proposal after budget proposal to the Democratically-controlled Senate. Every one of them has died
without a vote. Despite being required by law to do so, the Senate has not only failed to pass a budget in those same three and a half years,
they failed to even draft one in 2011 or 2012. The House also passed a bill in October to avoid the fiscal cliff, and Democrats not only tabled it,
but sent out Chuck Schumer to warn Republicans that any attempt to reform the tax code in 2013 would be completely resisted, because the
idea is "obsolete." Democrats have been so irresponsible, even MSNBC's Joe Scarborough noticed. Senate Democrats are "negligent" and
"cynical" because "they don't want the American people to know what their priorities are," he contended. Democrat priorities are painfully
obvious. They wish to grow the size and scope of government, and the costs of doing so are irrelevant. As far as the president is concerned,
the Constitution may be irrelevant as well. On New Year's day, Obama warned Republicans that he intends to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally.
"I will negotiate over many things, I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills, they have
already racked up through the laws they have passed," he said. He continued. "Let me repeat, you can't not pay bills that we have already
incurred," he said. "If Congress refuses to the United States government the ability to pay these bills on-
time, the consequences for the entire global economy would be catastrophic -- far worse than the
impact of a fiscal cliff. People will remember back in 2011, the last time this course of action was threatened,
our entire recovery was put at risk . We can't go down that path again." U.S. News and World Report editor-in-chief Mort
Zuckerman illuminates the president's preferred path. "If you constantly live beyond your means by increasing your credit card balance and
bank borrowing, eventually your debt rises to a level where all you are doing is paying the interest on your credit cards and loans...This is what
is facing the United States. Unless we make changes, by 2055 interest costs will be the only thing that the United States will be able to pay for
with available revenues and resources," he writes. And that's assuming we make it that far. Any remaining daylight between now and
the ultimate day of reckoning is predicated on the reality that the rest of the world still believes American is
not a deadbeat nation. Americans have virtually no clue how fast things can change once investors
lose confidence in our ability to get our fiscal act together. In 2012, the interest alone on the current level of debt was
almost $360 billion -- financed at record-low interest rates. If rates return to their historic norms, those payments could
double in a New York minute. Adding more debt would raise them still higher. In other words, America
could be facing a future where more than a trillion dollars is spent -- on absolutely nothing other than
interest. Yet somehow any attempt by Republicans to draw a line in the sand amounts to hostage-taking of children by dangerous
psychopaths engaged in anachronistic and obsolete endeavors.

Leads to global economic collapse
CBS Miami 1/3 (Washington Prepares For Next fight, CBS Miami, January 3, 2013,
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/01/03/washington-prepares-for-next-fiscal-fight/, nw)

WASHINGTON (CBSMiami) The smoke has barely cleared from the prolonged fight over the fiscal cliff on Capitol
Hill, but already Congressional leaders and the White House are drawing lines in the sand over the debt
ceiling. The federal government hit its statutory debt limit on New Years Eve and the Treasury Department will take extraordinary
measures to keep the government from defaulting. The measures will last upwards of two months, meaning Congress has to raise the debt
ceiling before then. Otherwise, the United States of America will default on its debt. The 113th Congress begins its legislative session on
Friday: The fight has played out between both sides during the 112th Congress. In 2011, Republicans in the House of Representatives pushed
the government to default as they demanded spending cuts before they would raise the debt ceiling. A deal was eventually
reached in 2011, but Republicans paid a hefty political price for their stance and willingness to push
the U.S. into default. Republicans have also shouldered the blame for the fiscal cliff problems the
country just went through for an unwillingness to raise taxes. If the U.S. defaulted on its debt, it
could trigger a global economic crisis not seen since the crash of Lehman Brothers and other banks in
2008. The U.S. has never officially defaulted on its debt.
Failure to resolve the debt ceiling will cause another recession and threatens the
global financial markets
Washington Post, 1-1, 13, http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/fiscal-cliff/fiscal-cliff-deal-
does-little-to-tame-threats-from-debt-ceiling-high-unemployment-rates/2013/01/01/8e4c14aa-5393-
11e2-bf3e-76c0a789346f_story_1.html
In many ways, the threat of default in two months is a more serious risk than the Jan. 1 fiscal cliff deadline. If Congress
does not increase the debt ceiling, the government will quickly run out of ways to pay the nations bills and make interest payments on the
nations outstanding debt. Any failure by the government to meet its financial obligations could be seen as a
default, shaking world financial markets, given the special role that U.S. government bonds play in the global economy. And while a
default would be all but certain to push the economy into recession, growth is likely to be slow and job-market
improvement slight even without such a cataclysmic event. The unemployment rate, which stands at 7.7 percent, is not expected to fall
below 7.4 percent by the end of this year, and not below 6 percent until at least 2016 or later.

Another recession would cause depression
Isidore 11 (Chris Isidore, CNN Money citing Dan Seiver, finance professor at San Diego State University,
8/10/11, Recession 2.0 would hurt worse,
http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/10/news/economy/double_dip_recession_economy/index.htm)
Another recession could be even worse than the last one for a few reasons. For starters, the economy is more
vulnerable than it was in 2007 when the Great Recession began. In fact, the economy would enter the new recession much weaker than
the start of any other downturn since the end of World War II. Unemployment currently stands at 9.1%. In November 2007, the month before
the start of the Great Recession, it was just 4.7%. And the large number of Americans who have stopped looking for work in the last few years
has left the percentage of the population with a job at a 28-year low. Various parts of the economy also have yet to recover from the last
recession and would be at serious risk of lasting damage in a new downturn. Home values continue to lose ground and are projected to
continue their fall. While manufacturing has had a nice rebound in the last two years, industrial production is still 18% below pre-recession
levels. There are nearly 900 banks on the FDIC's list of troubled institutions, the highest number since 1993. Only 76 banks were at risk as the
Great Recession took hold. But what has economists particularly worried is that the tools generally used to try to jumpstart an
economy teetering on the edge of recession aren't available this time around. "The reason we didn't go into a
depression three years ago is the policy response by Congress and the Fed," said Dan Seiver, a finance
professor at San Diego State University. "We won't see that this time." Three times between 2008 and 2010, Congress approved massive
spending or temporary tax cuts to try to stimulate the economy. But fresh from the bruising debt ceiling battle and credit rating downgrade,
and with elections looming, the federal government has shown little inclination to move in that direction. So this
new recession would likely have virtually no policy effort to counteract it.

Econ UQ
1NC evidence assumes recovery now a default can still happen
Growth now
Bangladesh Government News, August 31, 2013
US economic growth revised up to 2.5% for 2nd quarter
The official news Agency of Bangladesh (BSS) has issued following news release: The US economy grew much faster than
originally estimated in the second quarter, the Commerce Department reported yesterday, boosting the case for the Federal
Reserve to begin cutting back stimulus. But some analysts said the details of the pickup to a moderate 2.5 percent pace in the April-June
period still belied certain weaknesses that could mean a slower third quarter. The original estimate for the second quarter was a tepid 1.7
percent, nevertheless an acceleration from the sluggish beginning of the year. But the department said consumer spending was
stronger than it had initially estimated, and that exports grew faster and imports slower than the
preliminary data had shown in July. In addition, the impact of government spending cuts in the second quarter was less than
initially estimated. The cuts, made as the government strives to trim the bloated federal deficit, trimmed 0.18 percent from gross domestic
product, less than the 0.82 percent negative impact in the first quarter. Private fixed investment was a strong positive
contribution to growth, adding 1.48 percent, double the contribution from the previous quarter. Inflation pressures were subdued in
the April-June quarter, the department said, as it maintained its 0.3 percent estimate for the rise in its price index from the first quarter.
Excluding food and energy costs, the second-quarter price index gained 0.9 percent, slower than the first quarter's 1.4 percent gain. The
upward revision to the growth estimate was expected -- though most expectations were for only a
2.1 percent gain -- as monthly trade data had already shown a rise in exports and a slowdown in imports. Exports grew 8.6 percent in
the second quarter, the fastest pace since the end of 2010, while import growth was only 7.0 percent.

Economic Collapse
Global economic collapse causes extinction
Friedberg and Schoenfeld 8
(Aaron, professor of politics and international relations at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School and Gabriel, senior
editor of Commentary, is a visiting scholar at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, N.J., October 21, 2008, Wall Street Journal,
The Dangers of a Diminished America, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455074012352571.html, June 27, 2012)
Then there are the dolorous consequences of a potential collapse of the world's financial architecture. For
decades now, Americans have enjoyed the advantages of being at the center of that system. The worldwide use of the dollar, and the stability
of our economy, among other things, made it easier for us to run huge budget deficits, as we counted on foreigners to pick up the tab by
buying dollar-denominated assets as a safe haven. Will this be possible in the future? Meanwhile, traditional foreign-policy challenges are
multiplying. The threat from al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist affiliates has not been extinguished. Iran and North Korea are
continuing on their bellicose paths, while Pakistan and Afghanistan are progressing smartly down the road to chaos. Russia's
new militancy and China's seemingly relentless rise also give cause for concern. If America now tries to
pull back from the world stage, it will leave a dangerous power vacuum. The stabilizing effects of our
presence in Asia, our continuing commitment to Europe, and our position as defender of last resort for Middle East
energy sources and supply lines could all be placed at risk. In such a scenario there are shades of the 1930s,
when global trade and finance ground nearly to a halt, the peaceful democracies failed to cooperate, and
aggressive powers led by the remorseless fanatics who rose up on the crest of economic disaster exploited
their divisions. Today we run the risk that rogue states may choose to become ever more reckless with their
nuclear toys, just at our moment of maximum vulnerability. The aftershocks of the financial crisis will
almost certainly rock our principal strategic competitors even harder than they will rock us. The
dramatic free fall of the Russian stock market has demonstrated the fragility of a state whose
economic performance hinges on high oil prices, now driven down by the global slowdown. China is
perhaps even more fragile, its economic growth depending heavily on foreign investment and access
to foreign markets. Both will now be constricted, inflicting economic pain and perhaps even sparking
unrest in a country where political legitimacy rests on progress in the long march to prosperity. None of this is good news if the authoritarian
leaders of these countries seek to divert attention from internal travails with external adventures. As for our democratic friends, the present
crisis comes when many European nations are struggling to deal with decades of anemic growth, sclerotic governance and an impending
demographic crisis. Despite its past dynamism, Japan faces similar challenges. India is still in the early stages of its emergence as a world
economic and geopolitical power. What does this all mean? There is no substitute for America on the world stage. The choice
we have before us is between the potentially disastrous effects of disengagement and the stiff price tag of
continued American leadership.
Hegemony
Default risks US credibility and eliminates our ability to maintain position as hegemon.
Whitney 11 (Mike, Staff at Information Clearing House, May 9, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28060.htm)

It matters because the bond market supports the dollar, and the dollar is the foundation upon
which the empire is built. When UST's lose their special role as the benchmark for pricing financial assets, the whole unipolar
system will begin to teeter. In other words, attracting foreign capital to UST's is a lot more important to the
maintenance of the US imperium, than winning wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. A flight from UST's will
accelerate America's decline and constrain its ability to project power around the world. So, we shouldn't underestimate the significance
of the debt ceiling drama. The stakes couldn't be higher. If congress botches the budget deal, we're likely
to see major dislocations in the world's largest and most liquid market, USTs. Here's an excerpt
from an article by Kevin Warsh, a former member of the Board of Governors at the Fed, who
explains what will happen if confidence in USTs begins to wane: "The Fed's increased presence in the market for
long-term Treasury securities also poses nontrivial risks. The Treasury market is special. It plays a unique role in the global financial system.
It is a corollary to the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency. The prices assigned to Treasury securities--the risk-
free rate--are the foundation from which the price of virtually every asset in the world is
calculated. As the Fed's balance sheet expands, it becomes more of a price maker than a price taker in the Treasury market. And if
market participants come to doubt these prices--or their reliance on these prices proves fleeting--risk premiums across asset classes and
geographies could move unexpectedly. The shock that hit the financial markets in 2008 upon the imminent failures of Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac gives some indication of the harm that can be done when assets perceived to be relatively riskless turn out not to be." ("The
New Malaise", Kevin Warsh, Wall Street Journal) Warsh has every reason to be concerned, Congress is unwisely putting the
very credibility of the United States on the line. Remember, the US does not keep underground
bunkers loaded with gold bullion to meet its obligations. It depends on the confidence of foreign
central banks and investors to maintain the illusion of solvency. Once that confidence runs out,
then... POOF... the game is over. The US will be unable to maintain its preeminent role in the
global order. The empire will wither.

2NC Disease Impact
Government shutdown wrecks CDC disease monitoring key to check outbreaks
Emily Walker, 4-8-2011, "Both Sides Claim Win as Shutdown Averted," Med Page Today,
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Washington-Watch/Washington-Watch/25826
The vast majority of employees at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would be furloughed if the
government ceased operations, said an HHS spokesman. Because the CDC tracks new public health threats
such as disease outbreaks, the worst-case scenario during a shutdown would be a massive outbreak of
a food-borne illness or other communicable disease. The CDC's emergency operation center -- a command center for monitoring and
coordinating CDC's emergency response to public health threats in the United States and abroad -- will remain open. The center is currently
working on responses to the earthquake and tsunami in Japan. But responses may be delayed, the spokesman said. "If a state were to call us
and say 'We need help,' we may not be able to respond quickly," the spokesman said. While emergency workers will continue
their jobs, the staff who work to "get people out the door," by booking travel and facilitating meetings, won't be
working. "This would prevent us from responding as quickly as we'd like," the spokesman said. In addition, the CDC's ability to
detect an outbreak could be jeapordized, he said. "We have a lot of disease surveillance networks. If those are
scaled back to just the staff that monitor those networks, it could conceivably lead to us not being able to detect an
outbreak as quickly as we'd like to. We simply won't have the manpower we have right now," the HHS spokesman said.

Extinction
Quammen 12 David, award-winning science writer, long-time columnist for Outside magazine for
fifteen years, with work in National Geographic, Harper's, Rolling Stone, the New York Times Book
Review and other periodicals, 9/29, Could the next big animal-to-human disease wipe us out?, The
Guardian, pg. 29, Lexis
Infectious disease is all around us. It's one of the basic processes that ecologists study, along with predation and competition. Predators are big beasts that eat their
prey from outside. Pathogens (disease-causing agents, such as viruses) are small beasts that eat their prey from within. Although infectious disease can seem grisly and dreadful, under
ordinary conditions, it's every bit as natural as what lions do to wildebeests and zebras. But conditions aren't always ordinary. Just as
predators have their accustomed prey, so do pathogens. And just as a lion might occasionally depart from its normal behaviour - to kill a cow instead of a wildebeest, or a human instead of a
zebra - so a pathogen can shift to a new target. Aberrations occur. When a pathogen leaps from an animal into a person, and succeeds in establishing itself as an infectious
presence, sometimes causing illness or death, the result is a zoonosis. It's a mildly technical term, zoonosis, unfamiliar to most people, but it helps clarify the biological complexities
behind the ominous headlines about swine flu, bird flu, Sars, emerging diseases in general, and the threat of a global pandemic. It's a word of the future, destined for
heavy use in the 21st century. Ebola and Marburg are zoonoses. So is bubonic plague. So was the so-called Spanish influenza of 1918-1919, which had its source in a
wild aquatic bird and emerged to kill as many as 50 million people. All of the human influenzas are zoonoses. As are monkeypox, bovine tuberculosis, Lyme disease, West Nile fever, rabies and
a strange new affliction called Nipah encephalitis, which has killed pigs and pig farmers in Malaysia. Each of these zoonoses reflects the action of a pathogen that can
"spillover", crossing into people from other animals. Aids is a disease of zoonotic origin caused by a virus that, having reached humans through a few
accidental events in western and central Africa, now passes human-to-human. This form of interspecies leap is not rare; about 60% of all human infectious diseases currently known either
cross routinely or have recently crossed between other animals and us. Some of those - notably rabies - are familiar, widespread and still horrendously lethal, killing humans by the thousands
despite centuries of efforts at coping with their effects. Others are new and inexplicably sporadic, claiming a few victims or a few hundred, and then disappearing for years. Zoonotic
pathogens can hide. The least conspicuous strategy is to lurk within what's called a reservoir host: a living organism that carries the pathogen while
suffering little or no illness. When a disease seems to disappear between outbreaks, it's often still lingering nearby, within some reservoir host. A rodent? A bird? A butterfly? A bat? To reside
undetected is probably easiest wherever biological diversity is high and the ecosystem is relatively undisturbed. The converse is also true: ecological disturbance causes diseases to emerge.
Shake a tree and things fall out. Michelle Barnes is an energetic, late 40s-ish woman, an avid rock climber and cyclist. Her auburn hair, she told me cheerily, came from a bottle. It approximates
the original colour, but the original is gone. In 2008, her hair started falling out; the rest went grey "pretty much overnight". This was among the lesser effects of a mystery illness that had
nearly killed her during January that year, just after she'd returned from Uganda. Her story paralleled the one Jaap Taal had told me about Astrid, with several key differences - the main one
being that Michelle Barnes was still alive. Michelle and her husband, Rick Taylor, had wanted to see mountain gorillas, too. Their guide had taken them through Maramagambo Forest and into
Python Cave. They, too, had to clamber across those slippery boulders. As a rock climber, Barnes said, she tends to be very conscious of where she places her hands. No, she didn't touch any
guano. No, she was not bumped by a bat. By late afternoon they were back, watching the sunset. It was Christmas evening 2007. They arrived home on New Year's Day. On 4 January, Barnes
woke up feeling as if someone had driven a needle into her skull. She was achy all over, feverish. "And then, as the day went on, I started developing a rash across my stomach." The rash
spread. "Over the next 48 hours, I just went down really fast." By the time Barnes turned up at a hospital in suburban Denver, she was dehydrated; her white blood count was imperceptible;
her kidneys and liver had begun shutting down. An infectious disease specialist, Dr Norman K Fujita, arranged for her to be tested for a range of infections that might be contracted in Africa. All
came back negative, including the test for Marburg. Gradually her body regained strength and her organs began to recover. After 12 days, she left hospital, still weak and anaemic, still
undiagnosed. In March she saw Fujita on a follow-up visit and he had her serum tested again for Marburg. Again, negative. Three more months passed, and Barnes, now grey-haired, lacking
her old energy, suffering abdominal pain, unable to focus, got an email from a journalist she and Taylor had met on the Uganda trip, who had just seen a news article. In the Netherlands, a
woman had died of Marburg after a Ugandan holiday during which she had visited a cave full of bats. Barnes spent the next 24 hours Googling every article on the case she could find. Early the
following Monday morning, she was back at Dr Fujita's door. He agreed to test her a third time for Marburg. This time a lab technician crosschecked the third sample, and then the first sample.
The new results went to Fujita, who called Barnes: "You're now an honorary infectious disease doctor. You've self-diagnosed, and the Marburg test came back positive." The Marburg virus had
reappeared in Uganda in 2007. It was a small outbreak, affecting four miners, one of whom died, working at a site called Kitaka Cave. But Joosten's death, and Barnes's diagnosis, implied a
change in the potential scope of the situation. That local Ugandans were dying of Marburg was a severe concern - sufficient to bring a response team of scientists in haste. But if tourists, too,
were involved, tripping in and out of some python-infested Marburg repository, unprotected, and then boarding their return flights to other continents, the place was not just a peril for
Ugandan miners and their families. It was also an international threat. The first team of scientists had collected about 800 bats from Kitaka Cave for dissecting and sampling, and marked and
released more than 1,000, using beaded collars coded with a number. That team, including scientist Brian Amman, had found live Marburg virus in five bats. Entering Python Cave after
Joosten's death, another team of scientists, again including Amman, came across one of the beaded collars they had placed on captured bats three months earlier and 30 miles away. "It
confirmed my suspicions that these bats are moving," Amman said - and moving not only through the forest but from one roosting site to another. Travel of individual bats between far-flung
roosts implied circumstances whereby Marburg virus might ultimately be transmitted all across Africa, from one bat encampment to another. It voided the comforting assumption that this
virus is strictly localised. And it highlighted the complementary question: why don't outbreaks of Marburg virus disease happen more often? Marburg is only one instance to which that
question applies. Why not more Ebola? Why not more Sars? In the case of Sars, the scenario could have been very much worse. Apart from the 2003 outbreak
and the aftershock cases in early 2004, it hasn't recurred. . . so far. Eight thousand cases are relatively few for such an explosive infection; 774 people died, not 7 million. Several factors
contributed to limiting the scope and impact of the outbreak, of which humanity's good luck was only one. Another was the speed and excellence of the laboratory diagnostics - finding the
virus and identifying it. Still another was the brisk efficiency with which cases were isolated, contacts were traced and quarantine measures were instituted, first in southern China, then in
Hong Kong, Singapore, Hanoi and Toronto. If the virus had arrived in a different sort of big city - more loosely governed, full of poor people, lacking first-rate
medical institutions - it might have burned through a much larger segment of humanity. One further factor, possibly the most crucial,
was inherent in the way Sars affects the human body: symptoms tend to appear in a person before, rather than after, that person becomes highly infectious. That allowed many Sars cases to
be recognised, hospitalised and placed in isolation before they hit their peak of infectivity. With influenza and many other diseases, the order is reversed. That probably helped account for the
scale of worldwide misery and death during the 1918-1919 influenza. And that infamous global pandemic occurred in the era before globalisation.
Everything nowadays moves around the planet faster, including viruses. When the Next Big One comes, it will likely conform to the same perverse
pattern as the 1918 influenza: high infectivity preceding notable symptoms. That will help it move through cities and
airports like an angel of death. The Next Big One is a subject that disease scientists around the world often address. The most recent big one is Aids, of which the
eventual total bigness cannot even be predicted - about 30 million deaths, 34 million living people infected, and with no end in sight. Fortunately, not every virus goes
airborne from one host to another. If HIV-1 could, you and I might already be dead. If the rabies virus could, it would be the
most horrific pathogen on the planet. The influenzas are well adapted for airborne transmission, which is why a
new strain can circle the world within days. The Sars virus travels this route, too, or anyway by the respiratory droplets of sneezes and coughs - hanging in the air of a hotel corridor, moving
through the cabin of an aeroplane - and that capacity, combined with its case fatality rate of almost 10%, is what made it so scary in 2003 to the people who understood it best. Human-
to-human transmission is the crux. That capacity is what separates a bizarre, awful, localised, intermittent and mysterious disease
(such as Ebola) from a global pandemic . Have you noticed the persistent, low-level buzz about avian influenza, the strain known as H5N1, among disease experts over the
past 15 years? That's because avian flu worries them deeply, though it hasn't caused many human fatalities. Swine flu comes and goes periodically in the human population (as it came and
went during 2009), sometimes causing a bad pandemic and sometimes (as in 2009) not so bad as expected; but avian flu resides in a different category of menacing possibility. It worries the flu
scientists because they know that H5N1 influenza is extremely virulent in people, with a high lethality. As yet, there have been a relatively low number of cases, and it is poorly transmissible,
so far, from human to human. It'll kill you if you catch it, very likely, but you're unlikely to catch it except by butchering an infected chicken. But if H5N1 mutates or reassembles itself in just the
right way, if it adapts for human-to-human transmission, it could become the biggest and fastest killer disease since 1918. It got to Egypt in 2006 and has been especially problematic for that
country. As of August 2011, there were 151 confirmed cases, of which 52 were fatal. That represents more than a quarter of all the world's known human cases of bird flu since H5N1 emerged
in 1997. But here's a critical fact: those unfortunate Egyptian patients all seem to have acquired the virus directly from birds. This indicates that the virus hasn't yet found an efficient way to
pass from one person to another. Two aspects of the situation are dangerous, according to biologist Robert Webster. The first is that Egypt, given its recent political upheavals, may be unable
to staunch an outbreak of transmissible avian flu, if one occurs. His second concern is shared by influenza researchers and public health officials around the globe: with all that mutating, with
all that contact between people and their infected birds, the virus could hit upon a genetic configuration making it highly transmissible among people. "As long as H5N1 is
out there in the world," Webster told me, "there is the possibility of disaster. . . There is the theoretical possibility that it can acquire the ability
to transmit human-to-human." He paused. "And then God help us." We're unique in the history of mammals. No other primate has ever weighed upon
the planet to anything like the degree we do. In ecological terms, we are almost paradoxical: large-bodied and long-lived but grotesquely abundant. We
are an outbreak. And here's the thing about outbreaks: they end. In some cases they end after many years, in others they end rather
soon. In some cases they end gradually, in others they end with a crash. In certain cases, they end and recur and end again. Populations of tent caterpillars, for example, seem to rise steeply
and fall sharply on a cycle of anywhere from five to 11 years. The crash endings are dramatic, and for a long while they seemed mysterious. What could account for such sudden and recurrent
collapses? One possible factor is infectious disease, and viruses in particular.
2NC Food Prices Impact
Failure to avert debt ceiling causes T-Bond sellout
Davidson, 9/10 (Adam, 9/10/2013, "Our Debt to Society,"
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/magazine/our-debt-to-society.html?pagewanted=all26_r=0, AC)
Like many, I assumed a self-imposed U.S. debt crisis might unfold like most involuntary ones. If the debt ceiling isnt raised by X-Day,
I figured, the worlds investors would begin to see America as an unstable investment and rush to sell
their Treasury bonds. The U.S. government, desperate to hold on to investment, would then raise interest rates far higher, hurtling up
rates on credit cards, student loans, mortgages and corporate borrowing which would effectively put a clamp on all trade
and spending. The U.S. economy would collapse far worse than anything weve seen in the past
several years.

That causes food prices to spike
Min 10 (David, The Big Freeze, 10/28/2010,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/report/2010/10/28/8572/the-big-freeze/, AC)
The U.S. dollar, of course, is the worlds reserve currency in large part because of the depth and liquidity of
the U.S. Treasury bond market. If this market is severely disrupted, and investors lost confidence in
U.S. Treasury, then it is unclear where nervous investors might go next. A sharp and swift move by
investors out of U.S. Treasury bonds could be highly destabilizing, straining the already delicate global economy.
Imagine, for example, if investors moved from sovereign debt into commodities, most of which are priced and traded in dollars. This could
have the catastrophic impact of weakening the worlds largest economies while also raising the prices
of the basic inputs (such as metals or food) that are necessary for economic growth.

Price spike causes food wars and 1.5 billion dead overnight
Brown 98, Lester, President of the Worldwatch Institute , January 11, 1998 (The Futurist. No. 1. Vol.
32. Pg. 34)
If we continue to overfish, still more fisheries will collapse. If overgrazing continues, so, too, will the conversion of rangeland into desert.
Continuing soil erosion at the current rate will slowly drain the earth of its productivity. If the loss of plant and animal species continues at the
rate of recent decades, we will one day face ecosystem collapse. Everyone agrees that these trends cannot continue indefinitely, but will they
stop because we finally do what we know we should do, or because the economic expansion that is causing environmental decline begins to be
disrupted? Agriculture: The Missing Link The food system is likely to be the sector through which environmental
deterioration eventually translates into economic decline. This should not come as a surprise. Archaeological evidence
indicates that agriculture has often been the link between environmental deterioration and economic
decline. The decline of the early Mesopotamian civilization was tied to the waterlogging and salting of its irrigated land. Soil
erosion converted into desert the fertile wheatlands of North Africa that once supplied the Roman Empire with grain. Rising grain
prices will be the first global economic indicator to tell us that we are on an economic and demographic path
that is environmentally unsustainable. Unimpeded environmental damage will seriously impair the capacity of fishers and farmers to
keep up with the growth in demand, leading to rising food prices. The social consequences of rising grain prices will become unacceptable to
more and more people, leading to political instability. What begins as environmental degradation eventually
translates into political instability. A doubling of grain prices, such as occurred briefly for wheat and corn in early 1996, would
not have a major immediate effect on the world's affluent, both because they spend only a small share of their income for food and because
their food expenditures are dominated more by processing costs than by commodity prices. But for the 1.3 billion in the world who
live on a dollar a day or less, a prolonged period of higher grain prices would quickly become life-
threatening.
2NC Bioweapons Impact
Economic decline causes the creation of bio-weapons and biological warfare
Lewis 12 Grant, Stanford University ( The Spread of Biological Agents Bioterrorism & Black Markets, Stanford University,
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Em-VMI-
t30sJ:www.stanford.edu/class/e297a/The%2520Spread%2520of%2520Biological%2520Agents%2520Bioterrorism%2520%26%2520Black%2520
Markets.doc+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgLUiHYEPrDPodja3bmhX__E4hyAPaux1rZDAusJbdKJ4VqFfEbjZrndwcl-
ukD0e6624ykeSjvu1dYmXDnCdKqEQVv4WIOo1BA0LcmrVVp7b649Dx-
xpQWrEv8K59o3UVDf_BA&sig=AHIEtbQ8Vzc9nW5PLiS2HGXkvaXw3jqqoA)

Russias economic decline has led to the departure of several scientists and a severe compromise of security.
The disappearance and unknown location of the departed scientist is particularly alarming due to the intensified recruiting by Iran, Libya, Syria,
and North Korea.
i
As a result, the existing threat is substantiated by the existence of rogue states with intentions to
develop biological weapons capabilities, well-financed religious cults, and a supply of unemployed scientists with weapons capability know-
how. These forces have forged a volatile situation with potentially devastating consequences. Some
arguments suggest that almost any individual with intent would be capable to produce and dispense a biological weapon. Fortunately, only a
few have the potential to be successful at obtaining any of the category A, top-rated agents, in a form suitable to be dispensed in an aerosol
form. Naturally occurring cases of plague, anthrax, and botulism provide a potential source for strains. However, the variation in the virulence
of different strains requires knowledge of the agent in order to choose the most pathogenic strain. This knowledge is generally restricted to
individuals with high expertise. Furthermore, producing the agent in large quantity and at the size needed for aerosolization requires laboratory
sophistication beyond the average facility. These requirements reduce the likelihood of an attack but do not eliminate the threat all together.
It is likely that a number of countries possess laboratories with the sophistication and capacity to
produce most of the pathogenic organisms because the costs of equipping and staffing such
laboratories are much lower than a nuclear weapon program. As a consequence, they are a likely substitute for budget
constrained countries. Furthermore, because only small quantities are needed to inflict casualties over a wide area transportation of the agents
is relatively easy. Thus, in countries where government institutions have been eroded or corrupted due to
economic decline there is a substantial risk of bio-weapon capabilities being exchange on a black market. Current
measures of screening to intercept these agents from transport across state or national borders are insufficient.

Causes extinction and outweighs nuclear war
Matheny 07 Jason, research associate with the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University
(Reducing the Risk of Human Extinction, Risk Analysis, 10/07,
http://jgmatheny.org/matheny_extinction_risk.htm)
Of current extinction risks, the most severe may be bioterrorism. The knowledge needed to engineer a virus
is modest compared to that needed to build a nuclear weapon; the necessary equipment and
materials are increasingly accessible and because biological agents are self-replicating, a weapon can
have an exponential effect on a population (Warrick, 2006 ; Williams, 2006 ).
5
Current U.S. biodefense efforts are
funded at $5 billion per year to develop and stockpile new drugs and vaccines, monitor biological agents and emerging diseases, and strengthen
the capacities of local health systems to respond to pandemics (Lam, Franco, & Shuler, 2006 ). There is currently no independent body assessing
the risks of high-energy physics experiments. Posner (2004) has recommended withdrawing federal support for such experiments because the
benefits do not seem to be worth the risks. We may be poorly equipped to recognize or plan for extinction risks (Yudkowsky, 2007 ). We may
not be good at grasping the significance of very large numbers (catastrophic outcomes) or very small numbers (probabilities) over large
timeframes. We struggle with estimating the probabilities of rare or unprecedented events (Kunreuther et al., 2001 ). Policymakers may not
plan far beyond current political administrations and rarely do risk assessments value the existence of future generations.
18
We may
unjustifiably discount the value of future lives. Finally, extinction risks are market failures where an
individual enjoys no perceptible benefit from his or her investment in risk reduction.


i
Miller, J. and Broad, W. Iranians bioweapons in mind, lure needy ex-Soviet scientists, New York Times,
December 8, 1998. p. A1