You are on page 1of 139

GDI Scholars

1 Politics

Politics GDI (3rd week)

Politics GDI (3rd week) ................................................. 1 ***FSC FSC Good 1NC Shell (1/3)........................................... 3 FSC Good 1NC Shell (2/3)........................................... 4 FSC Good 1NC Shell (3/3)........................................... 5 Yes FSC............................................................................ 6 Bush is pushing FSC now................................................ 7 Political Capital key to FSC............................................. 8 Horse-trading key to FSC ................................................ 9 FSC key to Free Trade ................................................... 10 FSC Key to EU Trade .................................................... 11 FSC key to Economy ..................................................... 12 EU Sanctions Bad .......................................................... 13 No FSC ........................................................................... 14 Bush isnt pushing FSC ................................................. 15 A2: FSC impact trade war .......................................... 16 A2: FSC impact jobs ................................................... 17 A2: FSC impact exporters........................................... 18 A2: FSC impact trade cred.......................................... 19 ***TAX CUTS Tax cuts good economy .............................................. 20 Tax cuts good general ................................................. 21 Tax cuts have no economic impact................................ 22 Tax cuts deficits .......................................................... 23 Deficits hurt US economy.............................................. 24 Deficits increase interest rates ....................................... 25 Deficits cause long-term rate rise .................................. 26 Deficits cause long-term rate rise .................................. 27 Rate rise hurts recovery.................................................. 28 Deficits hurt US leadership and economy..................... 29 Tax cuts hurt the economy............................................. 30 Tax cuts bad Reward wealthy..................................... 31 Tax cuts increased taxes ............................................. 32 Tax cuts bad Head Start .............................................. 33 Tax cuts bad social programs ..................................... 34 ***CAFTA No CAFTA ..................................................................... 35 Maybe CAFTA vote during lame duck session......... 36 CAFTA trade deficit ................................................... 37 No CAFTA delay ........................................................ 38 ***ASBESTOS Yes Asbestos reform ...................................................... 39 Capital key to asbestos reform....................................... 40 Asbestos reform key to the economy ............................ 41 ***LINKS AND INTERNALS Environmental lobby is powerful .................................. 42 Bush is supporting PKOs now....................................... 43 Conservative backlash against UN now........................ 44 GOP backlash hardline on Syria................................. 45 ***OTHER AGENDA STUFF AFTA passed.................................................................. 46 No space ......................................................................... 47 No Social Security reform (even with Bush victory) ... 48 Capital key to Social Security reform ........................... 49 Bush win Social Security reform................................ 50 ***ELECTIONS UNIQUENESS Bush wont win now ...................................................... 51 Kerry wont win ............................................................. 52 AT: Convention = Help Kerry....................................... 53 ***ELECTIONS LINKS AND INTERNALS Bush good libertarians module ................................... 54 Bush good Jewish voters module ............................... 55 Bush good Jewish voters module ............................... 56 Jewish voters key to election ......................................... 57 Conservative base key to election ................................. 58 Conservative base key to election ................................. 59 Florida key to election.................................................... 60 Funding key to election.................................................. 61 ***SPACE Bush space................................................................... 62 Bush space................................................................... 63 Bush space................................................................... 64 Bush doesnt space...................................................... 65 Space solves extinction .................................................. 66 Space solves extinction .................................................. 67 Space good...................................................................... 68 Got to Get off the Rock by 2050 ................................... 69 Space Colonization Solves War..................................... 70 Space Bad ....................................................................... 71 Space Bad ....................................................................... 72 Space Bad ....................................................................... 73 ***KYOTO Kerry Kyoto................................................................. 74 Kyoto good unilateralism bad..................................... 75 Kyoto good warming .................................................. 76 Kyoto bad readiness .................................................... 77 Kyoto bad readiness .................................................... 78 Kyoto bad (economy) hurts US economy.................. 79 Kyoto bad (economy) steel......................................... 80 Kyoto bad (economy) small businesses ..................... 81 Kyoto bad (economy) agriculture............................... 82 Kyoto bad (economy) EU competitiveness................ 83 Kyoto bad (economy) drives corporations away ....... 84 Kyoto Bad (economy) general.................................... 85 Kyoto Bad (economy) general.................................... 86 Kyoto Bad GDP stagnation death ........................... 87 Kyoto Bad 3rd World Countries.................................. 88 Kyoto bad self-determination ..................................... 89 Kyoto Good US-Europe Relations ............................. 90 Kyoto Good Credibility .............................................. 91 Kyoto Good US key.................................................... 92 Kyoto Good AT: Readiness........................................ 93 Kyoto good competitiveness....................................... 94 Kyoto good competitiveness....................................... 95 Kyoto good intl credibility.......................................... 96 Kyoto Defense Not Solve 1/2 ..................................... 97

GDI Scholars

2 Politics Draft good..................................................................... 119 Draft bad....................................................................... 120 Draft bad....................................................................... 121 Draft bad....................................................................... 122 ***ROE/ABORTION Roe doesnt matter to abortions................................... 123 Roe good (Backally abortions) .................................... 124 Roe good (Turns are NU: abortions still happen)....... 125 Roe good (AT: Kills innocent babies)......................... 126 Roe good (Feminism/War) .......................................... 127 Roe good (Court Legitimacy) [1/2]............................. 128 Roe good (Court Legitimacy) [2/2]............................. 129 Roe good (Warfare)...................................................... 130 Abortion bad (Nuclear War/Militarism)...................... 131 Abortion bad (Militarism)............................................ 132 Abortion bad (Feminism)............................................. 133 Abortion bad (Dehumanization).................................. 134 Roe bad (Human Rights Credibility)........................... 135 Abortion bad (AT: Back ally abortions kill) ............... 136 ***OTHER ELECTIONS STUFF Kerry multilateralism/soft power ............................. 137 Kerry hurts federalism ................................................. 138 Bush ANWR ............................................................. 139

Kyoto Defense Not Solve 2/2 ..................................... 98 War outweighs Kyoto .................................................... 99 Global Warming long timeframe.............................. 100 ***BUSH DOCTRINE/STRIKES Bush strike on NK..................................................... 101 Bush strike on NK..................................................... 102 Bush Iran war ............................................................ 103 Bush Syria invasion .................................................. 104 Bush loss Syria war (wag the dog)........................... 105 Bush wont attack Syria ............................................... 106 ***TESTING Bush testing ............................................................... 107 Testing good deterrence............................................ 108 Testing good EMP .................................................... 109 Testing bad war ......................................................... 110 Testing bad free trade................................................ 111 Testing bad A2: EMP................................................ 112 Testing bad A2: deterrence....................................... 113 Testing bad A2: deterrence....................................... 114 ***DRAFT Bush draft .................................................................. 115 Bush draft .................................................................. 116 Bush draft .................................................................. 117 Draft good..................................................................... 118

GDI Scholars

3 Politics

FSC Good 1NC Shell (1/3)

A. Uniqueness: FSC has strong support, but Democrats would like to block it Environment and Energy Daily, 7-19-04
"The Democrats don't want to give President Bush a signing ceremony, that's what it's come to," said one lobbyist. Lobbyists are waiting for the House to name its conference committee members, expected early this week, as well as who will get the chairmanship -- either House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) or Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). Indeed, the final push to get to conference on the corporate tax bill appears designed to show some congressional movement on the issue, considered a "must pass" piece of legislation in this final week of legislative activity before the six-week congressional summer recess. The Senate took procedural votes last week to incorporate the language of its corporate tax bill, S. 1637, into the House corporate tax bill, H.R. 4520, with one change: The Senate adopted a combination of the House's tobacco industry buyout language with provisions giving the Food and Drug Administration regulatory authority over tobacco products. The combination appeared to win significant Senate support for the bill, though the tobacco regulation provision is likely to find just-assignificant opposition in the House. The corporate tax bill is considered must pass this year because it repeals the Foreign Services Corporation/Extraterritorial Income Act (FSC/ETI), a law the World Trade Organization declared illegal, leading European nations this spring to impose rising tariffs on U.S. goods. It has attracted a series of tax provisions considered essential to the various interests who would benefit, including energy industries. For these energy industries, the corporate tax package in its Senate iteration represents a significant portion the comprehensive energy bill that stalled on the Senate floor last fall. The $19.4 billion energy tax package targets oil, gas, coal, nuclear, renewable and energy conservation programs. The most significant of those provisions is an expansion of the production tax credit for wind power to other renewable energy sources.

B. Link: Supporting Peacekeeping Operations decreases credibility and triggers controversy in congress, draining political capital MICHELE KELEMEN Source: Weekend Edition Sunday (NPR); 07/13/2003
In making his decision this week on a military contingent for Liberia, President Bush faces some tricky issues involving administration credibility. Based on the assessment of a Pentagon survey team, the president is expected to go for a plan that would have the American forces provide mainly logistical support for a peacekeeping force drawn from West African countries, including Nigeria and Ghana. But a cost estimate for American participation is likely to raise anew in Congress the issue of the lowball cost estimate for the invasion of Iraq.

GDI Scholars

4 Politics

FSC Good 1NC Shell (2/3)

2. Bushs capital is key getting to FSC reform Jeremy Scott-Joynt, BBC, October 16, 2002,
The Thomas bill - "a good first step", according to Mr Desai - proposes to sweep away the FSC rules but allows a range of tax deductions on interest payments. That upsets a number of big companies, mostly industrial firms which manufacture in the US, and which have collectively saved billions of dollars through FSCs and ETI. Aerospace and defence giant Boeing, for one, benefited by more than $200m in 2001 alone. Others, including Coca-Cola, Wal-Mart and General Motors, are behind the Thomas bill because it should switch some of the gain to themselves. Which is a pity, says Bill Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council, whose corporate members straddle the divide. Reforming corporate tax, which costs companies billions of dollars a year simply to calculate, is in everybody's interest, he says. "We end up talking not about policy and talking instead about benefits," he says. The White House steps in Nothing will happen publicly on this either until well after the elections, buying valuable time to talk further with Europe about avoiding sanctions on goods ranging from asparagus to diesel engines. So with the wind behind tax reform, the question becomes less "when" than "what". And this is where the White House is stepping in. It is well known that Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, former head of aluminium giant Alcoa, wants to scrap corporate income tax altogether, replacing it with some kind of value-added system. Fullscale proposals are due in the New Year. And his deputy, Kenneth Dam, has recently been making a point of speaking out on the issue. Bogged down But critics doubt that anything really substantive is going to come out in the near term. Regardless of whether the coming election produces a Republican majority across Congress, which seems possible, Democrats say that the White House is not really ready to put its shoulder behind genuine reform. "They want to see this issue go away," says Stuart Eizenstat, deputy secretary of the Treasury - and ambassador to the EU - during Bill Clinton's presidency and now head of international trade at law firm Covington & Burling. Tax is such a divisive issue that bipartisan, wideranging consensus is needed. That takes time, he says - and commitment from the top. But the White House is doing little more than express support for the Thomas bill, which Mr Eizenstat contends does nothing to tackle the real seat of the problem. Thanks to inertia and years of pork-barrel politics, US corporate tax law is stuck somewhere in the pre-globalisation era, he believes. It is a holding action, which the White House hopes will allow time for some consensus to emerge - but without expending any political capital along the way on anything but the Big Bang solution. "There are very few people who believe it will ever get onto the president's desk," he says. So the issue will rumble on, and corporate inversion, the catalyst that started the ball rolling, is likely to get caught in the turbulence.

C. Impacts: Failure to act on FSC causes EU sanctions, hurts US business, and destroys US/EU Trade Relations Australian Financial Review, 3-1-04
In the latest trans-Atlantic trade dispute, the European Union will start imposing millions of dollars in sanctions on US goods on Sunday because of Washington's failure to end export tax breaks ruled illegal by the World Trade Organisation. "We've been waiting for years," European Commission spokesman Diego de Ojeda said in confirming that the sanctions would go ahead as announced months ago. They "are automatic and there's nothing we can do about it". Although the WTO has authorised a whopping $US4 billion ($5.2 billion) in sanctions - the biggest amount ever - the EU is taking a graduated approach intended to increase the pressure on Congress while limiting the disruption to European companies and consumers. Sanctions hurt US producers by making it more expensive for them to sell their products in Europe. But they can also backfire by pushing up prices in Europe or disrupting production if other suppliers can't be found. "The longer Congress takes to act, the more damage could be done to US-EU trade relations," said Richard Weiner, a trade lawyer with Sidley, Austin, Brown and Wood in Brussels. The duty might not be taken seriously at first by US exporters coasting on the weak US dollar, he said. "But if that flipped and the dollar reached parity, this would become a major issue."

GDI Scholars

5 Politics

FSC Good 1NC Shell (3/3)

2. Economic Decline Triggers global war Chris H. Lewis, environmental historian, University of Colorado-Boulder, THE COMING AGE OF SCARCITY, 1998
Most critics would argue, probably correctly, that instead of allow-ing underdeveloped countries to withdraw from the global economy and undermine the economies of the developed world, the United States, Europe, Japan, and others will fight neocolonial wars to force these countries to remain within this collapsing global economy. These neocolonial wars will result in mass death, suffering, and even regional nuclear wars. If First World countries choose military confrontation and political repression to maintain the global economy, then we may see mass death and genocide on a global scale that will make the deaths of World War II pale in comparison. However, these neocolonial wars, fought to maintain the developed nations' economic and political hegemony, will cause the final collapse of our global industrial civilization. These wars will so damage the complex economic and trading networks and squander material, biological, and energy resources that they will undermine the global economy and its ability to support the earth's 6 to 8 billion people. This would be the worst-case scenario for the collapse of global civilization.

GDI Scholars

6 Politics

FSC will pass soon Main Wire, 7-16-04
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas said Thursday that Congress could conceivably pass a stripped down corporate tax bill in a short period of time, but added that the talks are more likely to drag on and not be concluded until September. At a breakfast speech to National Association of Manufacturing, Thomas said that passing the corporate tax bill that includes the FSC-ETI export subsidy is crucial given that the EU continues to ratchet up the sanctions it is imposing on a wide array of American products that are exported to Europe. Thomas said that it urgent "to get the sanctions off our back. Time is our absolute and mortal enemy," noting that Congress will soon take a six week summer recess and then return to a highly politicized climate for a brief session in September.

FSC will pass in September Mondaq Business Briefing, 7-16-04

Prior to the Congressional July Fourth recess, Senate Democratic leaders submitted a preliminary list of conditions to Majority Leader Bill Frist (R -TN) and Senate Finance Chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) on how to proceed to conference on the FSC/ETI repeal bill. With approximately three legislative work weeks remaining in July and the upcoming August Congressional recess, the conference will not be completed until at least September. House Ways and Means Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jim McCrery (R-LA) concurred, "I am optimistic that we will get done, but not before the August break." Senate Democrats want assurances that the final bill will be revenue neutral, but that stipulation is opposed by House Republicans. McCrery said, "When push comes to shove, we will have a FSC/ETI bill that is not revenue neutral." In addition to resolving the issue of revenue neutrality, the Senate must decide how to deal with the controversial House provision on tobacco buyouts.

GDI Scholars

7 Politics

Bush is pushing FSC now

Bush is pushing for FSC State Department, 6-26-04
While the United States and the EU are working to advance WTO negotiations, both the United States and the EU have had laws and other measures challenged under WTO dispute settlement procedures. President Bush intends to comply with final WTO rulings against U.S. measures, such as in the FSC/ETI case where the Bush Administration continues to work closely with the U.S. Congress. The United States is currently awaiting EU action to comply with the WTO ruling in the beef hormone case, as well as awaiting a WTO ruling against the EU moratorium on biotech approvals. The cooperation with the EU on WTO Doha negotiations is part of President Bush's broader effort to open markets globally, regionally, and bilaterally.

Bush is pushing for FSC State Department, 6-17-04

The WTO has repeatedly found FSC/ETI provisions to be impermissible under international trade rules and has authorized the EU to impose up to $4 billion in retaliatory tariffs on U.S. exports. The EU began in March to impose tariffs of 5 percent on a wide range of U.S. products, and said the rate would increase by 1 percentage point a month up to 17 percent. As of June 1, the tariff rate was 8 percent. The Bush administration repeatedly has called on Congress to repeal the FSC/ETI tax breaks and bring the United States into compliance with its WTO obligations. The White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a statement supporting passage of the House bill, but also suggested that House and Senate negotiatiors should work to reduce the measure's $34 billion cost. "The administration looks forward to working with the conferees on this legislation to move it toward budget neutrality," OMB said.

GDI Scholars

8 Politics

Political Capital key to FSC

Bushs capital is key getting to FSC reform Jeremy Scott-Joynt, BBC, October 16, 2002,
The Thomas bill - "a good first step", according to Mr Desai - proposes to sweep away the FSC rules but allows a range of tax deductions on interest payments. That upsets a number of big companies, mostly industrial firms which manufacture in the US, and which have collectively saved billions of dollars through FSCs and ETI. Aerospace and defence giant Boeing, for one, benefited by more than $200m in 2001 alone. Others, including Coca-Cola, Wal-Mart and General Motors, are behind the Thomas bill because it should switch some of the gain to themselves. Which is a pity, says Bill Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council, whose corporate members straddle the divide. Reforming corporate tax, which costs companies billions of dollars a year simply to calculate, is in everybody's interest, he says. "We end up talking not about policy and talking instead about benefits," he says. The White House steps in Nothing will happen publicly on this either until well after the elections, buying valuable time to talk further with Europe about avoiding sanctions on goods ranging from asparagus to diesel engines. So with the wind behind tax reform, the question becomes less "when" than "what". And this is where the White House is stepping in. It is well known that Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, former head of aluminium giant Alcoa, wants to scrap corporate income tax altogether, replacing it with some kind of value-added system. Fullscale proposals are due in the New Year. And his deputy, Kenneth Dam, has recently been making a point of speaking out on the issue. Bogged down But critics doubt that anything really substantive is going to come out in the near term. Regardless of whether the coming election produces a Republican majority across Congress, which seems possible, Democrats say that the White House is not really ready to put its shoulder behind genuine reform. "They want to see this issue go away," says Stuart Eizenstat, deputy secretary of the Treasury - and ambassador to the EU - during Bill Clinton's presidency and now head of international trade at law firm Covington & Burling. Tax is such a divisive issue that bipartisan, wideranging consensus is needed. That takes time, he says - and commitment from the top. But the White House is doing little more than express support for the Thomas bill, which Mr Eizenstat contends does nothing to tackle the real seat of the problem. Thanks to inertia and years of pork-barrel politics, US corporate tax law is stuck somewhere in the pre-globalisation era, he believes. It is a holding action, which the White House hopes will allow time for some consensus to emerge - but without expending any political capital along the way on anything but the Big Bang solution. "There are very few people who believe it will ever get onto the president's desk," he says. So the issue will rumble on, and corporate inversion, the catalyst that started the ball rolling, is likely to get caught in the turbulence.

Bushs capital is key to FSC reform CalTrade Report, 3-23-04,

Levin also called for better leadership from the Bush Administration in resolving disagreements in Congress over how best to repeal US export tax breaks that have been ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization (WTO).The WTO has authorized the European Union (EU) to impose sanctions on US exports of up to $4 billion a year. The EU on March 1 began imposing tariffs worth 5% of the authorized level and is prepared to increase the level by one percentage point a month up to 17%. Competing versions of legislation to repeal the tax breaks are pending in Congress, but movement has been slow and neither the Senate nor the House has managed to reach agreement on a single measure that would pass both chambers. Levin said presidential leadership will be necessary to resolve the stalemate. Unless the administration steps in and supports a specific tax overhaul measure, "it's just not likely to happen," he said.

GDI Scholars

9 Politics

Horse-trading key to FSC

Passing FSC will require horse-trading Energy Pulse, 7-6-04,
The backdoor nature of policymaking by tax reform makes an already complex system even more complicated. The tax system should be designed to impose and collect taxes, not to administer social programs, said Donald Alexander, a former commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, in recent testimony on tax simplification. Such pleas tend to fall on deaf ears in a Congress committed to fixing some problem by altering the tax code. Besides, everyone is far more obsessed with the outcome of winners and losers in particular bills and focused on the horsetrading necessitated by our legislative process. In this instance, energy-tax provisions will be the primary leverage when the two bill alternatives enter conference committee in coming weeks. Because the Senate passed its version of FSC/ETI first, the Senate Finance Committee is expected to manage the conference process. Finance Committee chair Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has promised a bipartisan effort, but he has already expressed concerns about state sales-tax deductions and the lessening of federal regulations related to tobacco farmer buyouts that are featured in the House version. Grassley, however, also wants to maintain ethanol subsidies for his corn-growing constituency. House leadership, however in the person of Tom Delay (R-Texas) does not want the energy-tax provisions stripped from the comprehensive energy bill, which also was resurrected last week by the House. Some are predicting that the entire energy policy bill may get attached to the FSC/ETI repeal measure that emerges from committee. Oh, what a fine mess that would be.

A compromise FSC bill will pass Environment and Energy Daily, 7-19-04
Conferees could have their first meeting as early as this week on the corporate tax bill in the wake of the Senate's vote last week that ended a procedural logjam on the matter. And early assessments are that the outlook is good for the proposed $19.4 billion energy tax package in the Senate version of the bill, aimed at oil and gas, coal, nuclear, renewable energy companies and energy efficiency programs. The House version of the bill also included some energy provisions, but less extensively. The House version advances extenders for oil and gas and wind energy production tax credits, as well as nuclear import-related measures targeted at the industry's need for steam generators and reactor vessel heads for nuclear power plants. Lobbyists say they expect that something resembling the Senate version of the energy tax package will prevail, as it was a key element of passing the bill out of the chamber two months ago and the House already has given some ground on the energy tax package with its extenders.

FSC has strong support, but Democrats would like to block it Environment and Energy Daily, 7-19-04
"The Democrats don't want to give President Bush a signing ceremony, that's what it's come to," said one lobbyist. Lobbyists are waiting for the House to name its conference committee members, expected early this week, as well as who will get the chairmanship -- either House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) or Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). Indeed, the final push to get to conference on the corporate tax bill appears designed to show some congressional movement on the issue, considered a "must pass" piece of legislation in this final week of legislative activity before the six-week congressional summer recess. The Senate took procedural votes last week to incorporate the language of its corporate tax bill, S. 1637, into the House corporate tax bill, H.R. 4520, with one change: The Senate adopted a combination of the House's tobacco industry buyout language with provisions giving the Food and Drug Administration regulatory authority over tobacco products. The combination appeared to win significant Senate support for the bill, though the tobacco regulation provision is likely to find just-as-significant opposition in the House. The corporate tax bill is considered must pass this year because it repeals the Foreign Services Corporation/Extraterritorial Income Act (FSC/ETI), a law the World Trade Organization declared illegal, leading European nations this spring to impose rising tariffs on U.S. goods. It has attracted a series of tax provisions considered essential to the various interests who would benefit, including energy industries. For these energy industries, the corporate tax package in its Senate iteration represents a significant portion the comprehensive energy bill that stalled on the Senate floor last fall. The $19.4 billion energy tax package targets oil, gas, coal, nuclear, renewable and energy conservation programs. The most significant of those provisions is an expansion of the production tax credit for wind power to other renewable energy sources.

GDI Scholars

10 Politics

FSC key to Free Trade

Failure to pass FSC legislation dooms free trade LA Times, 3-2-04
The standoff has exacerbated trade tensions. In the United States, trade critics have cited the WTO ruling as another example of the nation ceding sovereignty to global authorities. U.S. trading partners have interpreted congressional inaction as evidence of U.S. unwillingness to play by the rules of the global trading system that it helped establish. "Again and again and again, both the United States and the EU honor their WTO obligations only when their backs are absolutely against the wall," said Brink Lindsey, director of trade policy studies at the conservative Cato Institute. "The signal we're sending to the rest of the world is: Cheat on your WTO obligations until you're caught red-handed, then drag it out as long as humanly possible." EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy downplayed the dispute, stressing that the EU sanctions were much smaller than authorized by the WTO and would be rescinded if Congress went ahead and repealed the tax break for U.S. exporters that establish overseas subsidiaries known as foreign sales corporations. "The U.S. has not brought its legislation in line with WTO rules. We are therefore left with no choice but to impose countermeasures," Lamy said in a statement. "The name of the game is not retaliation but compliance. Countermeasures will be lifted the day the FSC is repealed." President Bush urged Congress to move quickly. "If we don't act to replace the current provisions in the tax code, the tariffs that have been imposed today will, over the next year, impose an increasing burden on American exporters, their workers and the overall economy," he said in a statement. His appeal was echoed by U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue, who said the tariffs could cost some U.S. workers their jobs just as the global economy is beginning to show signs of growth. "The United States must lead by example and comply with adverse decisions if we are to expect similar behavior from our trading partners," he said in a letter to Congress.

GDI Scholars

11 Politics

FSC Key to EU Trade

Failure to act on FSC dooms US/EU trade relations Australian Financial Review, 3-1-04
In the latest trans-Atlantic trade dispute, the European Union will start imposing millions of dollars in sanctions on US goods on Sunday because of Washington's failure to end export tax breaks ruled illegal by the World Trade Organisation. "We've been waiting for years," European Commission spokesman Diego de Ojeda said in confirming that the sanctions would go ahead as announced months ago. They "are automatic and there's nothing we can do about it". Although the WTO has authorised a whopping $US4 billion ($5.2 billion) in sanctions - the biggest amount ever - the EU is taking a graduated approach intended to increase the pressure on Congress while limiting the disruption to European companies and consumers. Sanctions hurt US producers by making it more expensive for them to sell their products in Europe. But they can also backfire by pushing up prices in Europe or disrupting production if other suppliers can't be found. "The longer Congress takes to act, the more damage could be done to US-EU trade relations," said Richard Weiner, a trade lawyer with Sidley, Austin, Brown and Wood in Brussels. The duty might not be taken seriously at first by US exporters coasting on the weak US dollar, he said. "But if that flipped and the dollar reached parity, this would become a major issue."

GDI Scholars

12 Politics

FSC key to Economy

Lifting the FSC subsidies is key to the economy and free trade San Mateo County Times, 3-2-04
"These retaliatory tariffs will hurt U.S. exports to Europe at a time when ... the global economy is showing signs of renewed growth. Moreover, these tariffs will negatively impact jobs of American workers," according to a joint letter to Congress, signed by U.S. Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Thomas Donohue. "The United States must lead by example and comply with adverse WTO decisions if we are to expect similar behavior from our trading partners," the letter urged.

FSC action soon is key to save the economy Forbes, 3-25-04,
Treasury Secretary John Snow urged Congress Thursday to quickly resolve the impasse over legislation that would allow the European Union to lift its costly tariffs on U.S. exports. The Senate became deadlocked this week on the corporate tax and trade bill when it became tangled in an unrelated legislative dispute over the administration's proposed rules on overtime pay. "I certainly would implore the Congress to act on it. It's awfully important to get that resolved so that these sanctions don't adversely affect our economy and our recovery," Snow said at a hearing of the House Financial Services Committee. U.S. manufacturers expect the tariffs imposed March 1 by the European Union will soon begin to hurt them.

GDI Scholars

13 Politics

EU Sanctions Bad
EU sanctions cause US company trade backlash EUpolitix, 3-1-04,
Britain wants Brussels to tread carefully in its latest dispute with Washington over illegal tax breaks since it stands to lose the most in any Trans-Atlantic trade tussle. CBI an organisation representing British industry stressed that the 290 million sanctions imposed by the EU on a range of US products was extremely bad news for UK business, fearing retaliation as well as a weakening of US-UK trade relationship, worth 76bn annually. There wasnt much business support for this case being brought in the first place, said a CBI spokesman, and the UK is always going to come off worse due to our particularly strong relationship with the US. The phenomenon of tax and trade being put together is a worrying one, he added referring to the illegal tax breaks known as Foreign Sales Corporations at the heart of the dispute. Brussels had given Washington until March 1 to repeal the FSC legislation, but with the Congress and Senate dragging their feet in election year Brussels claimed it was left with no other choice than to impose the sanctions. UK trade minister Mike OBrien is reportedly putting pressure on Brussels to suspend the sanctions as soon as the US shows signs of pushing the necessary legislative changes through to repeal the FSCs. "I hope the European Union won't be unnecessarily pedantic if there is legislation that's going through at a reasonable rate," OBrien told The Independent. UNICE an umbrella group representing European business asked Brussels last month to consider softening their stance over imposing sanctions amid fears of a backlash from US companies.

EU sanctions will damage the economy, 3-1-04,,2106,2831015a12,00.html

Officials have tried to play down the impact of the trade row, the first time since the WTO was created in 1995 that the EU has retaliated on US goods. "This is not the beginning of a trade war. WTO disputes are all part of the system," one Washington official told reporters ahead of the March 1 deadline for the sanctions to apply. However, EU firms have expressed worries over the escalation of a dispute that could lead to extra costs as the economy splutters back to life.

GDI Scholars

14 Politics

FSC is in committee differences still need to be resolved before it can pass Mondaq News Alerts, 7-19-04
SENATE MOVES TO GO TO CONFERENCE ON FSC/ETI BILL: Yesterday, the Senate passed the House FSC/ETI bill and appointed its conferees. The Senate also approved an amendment on tobacco that provides a federal buyout for tobacco farmers and requires FDA oversight of tobacco products. The House could appoint conferees on July 19 followed by a possible conference committee meeting on July 20. The issue of who will serve as chairman for the conference committee meetings still has to be determined. Significant differences in the House and Senate bills will have to be resolved once the conference committee meetings officially begin. Yesterday, in a speech, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-CA) threatened to use a "surgical saw" on extraneous provisions unrelated to the corporate tax cuts and repealing the FSC/ETI, but did not specify which provisions he was referring to. Thomas said, "What we need is a very sharp saw." Thomas also commented on the short timeframe for completing the conference before the elections. Thomas said the negotiations could take "almost forever." Thomas added, "Imagine what happens if we can't get this and if we have to come back in January next year and start all over."

FSC will collapse under its own weight Energy Pulse, 7-6-04,
The bottom line: Energy-efficiency tax breaks likely will be preserved in the resulting FSC/ETI bill, but so will many of the things that the Senate is unhappy with. Although Congress has a way of welding the good to the bad (however you might define them) the entire package could die of its own weight. That would leave everyone frustrated, fail to address the international trade crisis, and defer the conflict over energy-tax provisions to another day.

Democrats will block FSC for now Environment and Energy Daily, 7-19-04
Lobbyists say they expect that something resembling the Senate version of the energy tax package will prevail, as it was a key element of passing the bill out of the chamber two months ago and the House already has given some ground on the energy tax package with its extenders. "I can't see how you can't have the energy taxes in this bill," one lobbyist said. But even as the bill is now officially in a conference committee, many observers do not expect to see final action on it until either shortly before Congress adjourns for the presidential election or during a lame-duck session at the end of November. "The Democrats don't want to give President Bush a signing ceremony, that's what it's come to," said one lobbyist.

FSC wont pass this year Main Wire, 7-16-04

Baucus said the fact that both the House and Senate corporate tax bills include the repatriation provision will give it significant staying power in the coming congressional negotiations. "It's going to be part of the final bill," Baucus said. "It would be hard to get it out." Both the House and Senate bills include a provision that would allow American companies a one year period to bring foreign earned income to the U.S. subject to an effective 5.25% tax rate. But Thomas said it "may be hard to get a tax bill (passed by Congress) in September," and continuing delays could postpone passage of the bill until 2005.

FSC wont pass this year Main Wire, 7-15-04

Thomas said Senate Democrats are seeking to have a "sign off on the final product" before allowing the talks to begin. He called this an "unmeetable goal." "No one is standing in the way except Sen. Daschle," Thomas said, referring to the Senate minority leader. Thomas said that unless the House-Senate tax negotiations begin soon, nothing will be accomplished until September. He added that it "may be hard to get a tax bill (passed by Congress) in September." Thomas said continuing delays could postpone passage of the bill until 2005.

GDI Scholars

15 Politics

Bush isnt pushing FSC

The Bush administration has not yet articulated their policy towards the FSC Regulations Main Wire, 7-15-04
With the 78-15 vote late July 15, senators agreed to proceed to conference with the House of Representatives to resolve the many differences between their bills. The two houses must pass a final version and the president must sign it for the bill to become law. The underlying issue of the legislation, repeal of the export tax breaks ruled illegal by the WTO, was scarcely mentioned in Senate debate. No serious opposition to repeal of the tax breaks has appeared in Congress. The two bills differ substantially in detail even though both contain massive corporate tax cuts to attract support. Now both contain provisions to offer tobacco farm owners buyouts from an obsolete quota/price-support scheme although those provisions differ sharply. The House version would authorize the federal U.S. government to spend $9.6 billion for the buyout and end the quota system. The Senate version would require the tobacco industry and tobacco importers to finance a $12 billion buyout as well as subject tobacco production, marketing and distribution to FDA regulation for the first time. The fate of the tobacco provisions in a House-Senate conference is highly uncertain. FDA regulation of tobacco is known to be anathema to Representative Tom DeLay, the Republican House majority leader, and Representative Bob Goodlatte, Republican chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. The Bush administration position has not been issued. Linking a tobacco buyout with FDA regulation of tobacco was viewed as the only way to pass both measures in the Senate, however. Senators passed the provision as an amendment to their original bill passed in May. The amendment would give the FDA broad authority to regulate tobacco, especially with the aim of discouraging children from starting to smoke, but not prohibit cigarettes or nicotine. For example, it would ban color ads for cigarettes in magazines -- ads could appear only in black and white. It would ban flavored cigarettes. It would require larger health warnings on cigarette packages and listing of ingredients. The underlying issue of the House and Senate bills is resolution of a longstanding dispute with the European Union (EU) over U.S. tax breaks to exporters under the Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC) law, and its successor regime, the Extraterritorial Income Act (ETI). The WTO has repeatedly ruled FSC/ETI provisions as violating international trade rules and has authorized the EU to impose up to $4 billion in retaliatory tariffs on U.S. exports. The EU began in March to impose tariffs of 5 percent on a wide range of U.S. products and said the rate would increase by 1 percentage point a month up to 17 percent. As of July 1, the tariff rate was 9 percent. Both the House and Senate measures would reduce the income tax rate for manufacturers from 35 percent to 32 percent by 2008, which would be partly offset by repeal of the export tax breaks. Both bills include a special one-year 5.25 percent income tax rate for companies that repatriate foreign earnings. Since many companies currently don't repatriate foreign earnings, this would provide a substantial one-time windfall gain for federal revenues. Both bills contain billions of dollars in tax cuts for specific industries. With Congress approaching its summer recess, Representative Bill Thomas, Republican chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, warned that wrangling by House-Senate conferees over sector-specific provisions could jeopardize final congressional passage in the few remaining weeks before Congress adjourns for November elections.

GDI Scholars

16 Politics

A2: FSC impact trade war

FSC sanctions wont cause a trade war Seattle Times, 3-2-04
Because planes and software avoided sanctions, the EU's move appears to have minimal impact on the Northwest economy, trade experts and companies said. "It's really just sort of a warning shot, a slap on the wrist, to remind us that Congress needs to take some action," said Bill Center, president of the Washington Council on International Trade. "I don't think it's the intention of the trade people in Europe to provoke a trade war here."

EU sanctions wont cause a trade war, 3-1-04,,2106,2831015a12,00.html

Officials have tried to play down the impact of the trade row, the first time since the WTO was created in 1995 that the EU has retaliated on US goods. "This is not the beginning of a trade war. WTO disputes are all part of the system," one Washington official told reporters ahead of the March 1 deadline for the sanctions to apply.

GDI Scholars

17 Politics

A2: FSC impact jobs

Non-unique Chinese currency pegging will doom jobs Planet Ark, 3-19-04,
While January trade data showed the weak dollar helping to narrow the U.S.-Europe trade gap, analysts reckon the U.S. trade deficit is likely to continue expanding as long as Asian trading partners keep their currencies weaker vs. the dollar. U.S. manufacturers, who have shed 2.9 million workers, or about 17 percent of all jobs in the sector since George W. Bush was elected president, complain that these policies give Asian exporters an advantage by cheapening their goods. "Asia is keeping the United States from reaping the benefits of a weaker dollar," said Michael Woolfolk, senior currency strategist at Bank of New York.

Contextual evidence that the trade deficit outweighs Frank Wolf, United States Congressman, 3-19-04,
Yet today, the United States buys more goods from China than it sells there a gap of $124 billion in 2003, an all-time high. By country, the U.S. trade gap with China is the largest, twice that with Japan, the next largest, and it makes up almost one-fourth of the total U.S. trade deficit. Putting that into perspective, in 1989, at the time of the Tiananmen Square massacre in Beijing, the U.S. trade deficit with China was $6 billion. That deficit is a major reason the U.S. is losing its manufacturing base. Commerce Department data show that since December 1997, over 3 million U.S. manufacturing jobs have been eliminated as imports replace domestic production. As the fast-rising trade deficit with China documents, many of those jobs have gone to China as U.S. firms have moved their factories there.

GDI Scholars

18 Politics

A2: FSC impact exporters

FSC sanctions dont hurt exporters Boston Globe, 3-2-04
However, they are much less than the $4 billion the WTO has authorized, and the EU is hoping its measured approach will quickly persuade Congress to change its Foreign Sales Corporation legislation. The targeted products will be subject to a 5 percent penalty tariff that would increase 1 percentage point each month over the next year unless Congress acts. There were some doubts, though, that the duty would be taken seriously early on since US exporters are currently coasting on a weak dollar.

The Byrd amendment will doom exporters Yahoo, 3-8-04,

The Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition (CITAC) today again called for the United States to repeal or modify the "Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act" (CDSOA), known informally as the "Byrd Amendment" following the release last week of a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report confirming that the law is harming the U.S. economy. CITAC has been urging repeal or modification of the CDSOA to bring the U.S. into compliance with a 2003 World Trade Organization (WTO) finding. The CBO Report also found that the Byrd Amendment encourages the filing of more antidumping and countervailing duty trade cases (which force up the cost of affected imported products to consuming industries), and estimates that CDSOA distributions to U.S. companies who file successful trade cases will total more than $3.8 billion by 2014. The Byrd Amendment mandates distribution of antidumping and countervailing duties to companies that have petitioned the U.S. Government for trade protection, rather than to the U.S. Treasury, where other duties are sent. To date, the U.S. Government has paid more than $700 million to U.S. companies who file antidumping and countervailing duties petitions. In his letter to Rep. Bill Thomas, Chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin states that the Byrd Amendment "subsidizes the output of some firms at the expense of others, leading to the inefficient use of capital, labor and other resources of the economy. It discourages settlement of cases by U.S. firms and will lead to increased expenditure of economic resources of administration, legal representation of parties and other various costs ... . the law may lead to further interference in the ability of U.S. exporters to compete in the global trading system."

GDI Scholars

19 Politics

A2: FSC impact trade cred

The Byrd Amendment makes EU sanctions and loss of US trade credibility inevitable Forbes, 3-9-04,
It could face sanctions on at least a further $150 million of exports if Congress does not repeal another trade measure, known as the Byrd amendment, which the WTO also has said is illegal under world trade rules, Zoellick said. "We can't be a scofflaw," Zoellick told the Senate Finance Committee. "Frankly, we lost that (export tax) case ... two years ago and now you're going to start to see the EU increase taxes on American exporters unless we get it repealed." He said it was important for the United States to follow international trade rules if it expected other countries to adhere to WTO obligations. But Zoellick estimated the amount of U.S. goods hit with increased duties in the spat at $3 billion, compared with the $4 billion figure both the EU and the WTO have used. A U.S. trade official said the United States added up the export value of the goods on the EU retaliation list in the tax break spat and came up with the lower number. The lower U.S. estimate could reflect the drop in the value of the U.S. dollar since the EU finalized its retaliation list early last year, a business lobbyist said. Meanwhile, the EU, Japan and other trading partners have asked the WTO for permission to retaliate on hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. exports in the Byrd amendment dispute. A ruling on that is expected in the coming months.

GDI Scholars

20 Politics

Tax cuts good economy

Bushs tax policies improve both the domestic and global economy. Mitchell 04 (Daniel Mitchell, the Heritage Foundation, Were the Bush tax cuts good for the economy?
YES/NO, New York Times Upfront, March 8 2004, p.28) YES President Bush's tax policies have improved the U.S. economy and helped make America more competitive in the global economy. By lowering tax rates on work, savings, investment, and entrepreneurship, the President has helped reinvigorate the stock market and create new jobs. When you tax something, you get less of it. Indeed, this is why governments tax tobacco and alcohol-to discourage smoking and drinking. But it is foolish to impose high tax rates on productive behavior. We don't want to penalize people for inventing new products, building new factories, and employing more people. We don't want to punish people for working harder. This is why the President's tax-rate reductions on income, dividends (profits distributed to shareholders), and capital gains (profits from the sale of assets like stocks and real estate) have helped boost growth. This doesn't mean that tax policy is the only thing that determines economic performance, or that President Bush deserves high marks in all areas. But international comparisons may provide the best positive evidence for the Bush tax cuts. The U.S. is growing much faster than most other industrialized nations. We certainly are outperforming Europe's welfare states. We create more jobs and offer more opportunity, partly because we do not have the class-warfare tax systems that have caused stagnation in places like France and Germany. America is still the land of opportunity, and President Bush's tax cuts will keep that promise alive for future generations

GDI Scholars

21 Politics

Tax cuts good general

Tax cuts extension is necessary Associated Press, 7/20/04 (Mary Dalrymple,, accessed 7/20/04) If the tax cuts expire at the end of the year as scheduled, Americans can expect tax increases in three forms. The child tax credit would drop from $1,000 to $700. The bottom 10 percent tax bracket would shrink, increasing taxes on about $1,000 in income from 10 percent to 15 percent. Married couples who had enjoyed benefits from an increased standard deduction and wider tax brackets would see some of those benefits disappear.

GDI Scholars

22 Politics

Tax cuts have no economic impact

Extension of Bushs tax cuts will have no impact on the economy. Fram 04 (Alan Fram, Bush Budget Wont Jolt Economy, Associated Press, March 8 2004, p. Lexis)
The tax cuts and other policies President Bush proposed in his $2.4 trillion budget would probably have a minimal impact on the economy, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Monday. In its annual report on the president's budget, the agency that provides fiscal analysis for lawmakers said Bush's proposals could either increase or reduce economic output through 2009, and improve it in the following five years. "However, the differences are likely to be small, affecting output by less than one-half of one percentage point on average," the study said. The conclusion by the budget office comes in the early stages of Bush's reelection campaign, in which the core of his plan for strengthening the economy has been his call to make earlier tax cuts permanent. The economy and a dearth of job creation in his administration have emerged as major issues this election year. Congress' Republican leaders have already decided to ignore Bush's proposal for permanent tax cuts this year because it would boost record federal deficits even higher and because they lack the votes to prevail. The Senate on Monday began debating a $2.36 trillion GOP-written budget for 2005 that includes just some of the tax cuts Bush proposed, plus lower deficits and spending than his plan mapped. The House Budget Committee will debate a similar plan later this week. The analysis attributed the budget's scant effect largely to the small size of the policies Bush proposed compared with the $12 trillion-a-year U.S. economy. For example, its proposed tax cuts would total only 0.3 percent the size of the economy over the next five years and its spending cuts would be 0.4 percent.

GDI Scholars

23 Politics

Tax cuts deficits

Bushs tax cuts create unsustainable deficits The Providence Journal, 7/18/04 (Robert Kuttner, Child tax cut is reverse Robin Hood, 40718_kut18x.2852e2.html, accessed 7/20/04) Congressional Republicans are hoping to pass yet another budget-busting tax cut this summer, and manipulate Democrats into voting for it by using poor children as the bait. In 2001 and 2003, Congress passed legislation providing a child tax credit for the middle class that gradually rose to $1,000 per child, but Republicans excluded working-class children who needed help the most. In the 2003 law, families earning between $10,500 and $26,625 got nothing, including 260,000 children of activeduty service men and women. All told, about one child in four was excluded. Working-class families were left out because their breadwinners are too poor to pay much federal income tax. Republicans argued that anyone who paid little or no income taxes had not earned tax relief. Of course, these families do pay sales taxes, payroll taxes, excise taxes and property taxes. Republicans are now proposing to extend token benefits to lower-income families, but their price is a dramatic expansion of the tax breaks for well-to-do families with incomes of up to $309,000 -- that's the richest two percent of American families. The pre-existing law wisely phased out all child tax credit benefits at family incomes of $149,000. The new Republican proposal would more than double that income ceiling, at a 10-year cost to the deficit of $89 billion. Under the Republican bill, which has already passed the House, the affluent families would get tax cuts of $1,000 per child. The poor ones would get $150 per child. Anyone with income less than $10,500 would get nothing. That's almost exactly the annual income of one full-time minimum-wage earner. As fiscal policy, this proposal is appalling, since the previous tax cuts tilted to the wealthiest already create decades of unsustainable deficits. As social policy, it is even worse -- perfect Robin Hood in reverse. But Congress may well enact this legislation, deftly timed for a Rose Garden signing ceremony festooned with happy children and right on the eve of the Democratic National Convention. In a charming touch, Republicans have dubbed the week of July 19 "Tax Fairness Week." Here are the legislative politics: The extension of the tax breaks to more affluent families, plus a few crumbs for poor ones, is wrapped into a bill that makes the middle-class child tax credit and other tax cuts permanent and also gets rid of the so-called marriage penalty. Total 10-year cost: about $500 billion. The child tax credit was one of the few provisions in the Bush tax program that actually delivered some benefits to the broad middle class. Few legislators will have the nerve to vote against a package that includes it.

GDI Scholars

24 Politics

Deficits hurt US economy

Deficits are the biggest threat to US economic stability. Andrews 04 (Edmund L. Andrews, Greenspan warns of deficit as big threat to economy, The New York
Times, May 7 2004, p. C7) Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, warned on Thursday that rising federal deficits may be the biggest threat to the nation's longterm economic stability. In a speech that ranged from Americans' household debt to the nation's huge foreign debt, Mr. Greenspan said he was optimistic that most financial imbalances could be reduced smoothly through the effect of normal market forces. ''But that is certainly not the case for our yawning fiscal deficit,'' he told a conference at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. ''Our fiscal prospects are, in my judgment, a significant obstacle to long-term stability because the budget deficit is not readily subject to correction by market forces.'' Mr. Greenspan refrained from directly criticizing either the Bush administration or Congress, and he made no reference to the bitter battles under way in Congress over making President Bush's tax cuts permanent. But his comments suggested growing alarm about the budget deficit, which is likely to run more than $400 billion this year and is widely expected to remain high even though tax revenues are now rising because of faster economic growth.

GDI Scholars

25 Politics

Deficits increase interest rates

Rising deficits increase long-term rates - killing the recovery The Columbus Dispatch, May 6, 2002, p. 1A (MHBLUE1553)
Now, budget analysts fear that the combined deficits for fiscal years 2003 and '04 could exceed $230 billion. Unless those deficits are brought under control, they could lead to an increase in long-term interest rates, which could choke off the fragile economic recovery. "It strikes me as a silly argument to say (deficits have) no effect," Wyss said. "You can argue about how big an effect it is. But if you believe in supply and demand, you believe it would (have an impact). "As we start recovering and corporations start borrowing money, then interest rates move up. That means mortgage rates go up and all other borrowing rates go up. You're not going to get zero-percent financing."

Deficits raise long-term interest rates and sap recovery Roll Call, April 8, 2002, p. Lexis (MHBLUE1629)
The consequence of the lost surplus, he argues, is a reversal of the conditions that led to prosperity in the 1990s - low long-term interest rates and a boom in business investment and productivity. Instead, despite the Federal Reserve Board's consistent lowering of short-term rates, Sperling contends, long-term rates have risen, inhibiting investment and probably contributing to a weak economic recovery.

GDI Scholars

26 Politics

Deficits cause long-term rate rise

Claim that deficits do not impact long-term rates is flawed Gene Sperling, Visiting Fellow, Brookings Institution, FDCH CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY, February 14, 2002, p. Lexis (MHBLUE1632)
Over the last few months, there have been increasing claims within the Administration and among some conservative economists that the degree of public debt and deficits do not have a clear impact on long-term interest rates. Yet this position defies the basic laws of supply and demand, recent experience with savings in the United States, and even the positions of well known Republican economists.

Deficits impact capitals rates - arguments to the contrary are false Gene Sperling, Visiting Fellow, Brookings Institution, FDCH CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY, February 14, 2002, p. Lexis (MHBLUE1633)
Therefore, the full reason that net national savings nearly doubled, as opposed to declining, was that the federal government went from dissavings and deficits of 4.7% of GDP to a surplus of 2.2% of GDP -- a swing of 6.9% of GDP. Between 1993 and 2000, the swing of 6.9% of GDP is the equivalent of making $680 billion additional capital available to private sector. To argue that deficits and debt are irrelevant to long-term interest rates, one would have to argue that an additional $680 billion in the supply of capital has no impact on the price of that capital - a highly dubious proposition.

GDI Scholars

27 Politics

Deficits cause long-term rate rise

Rise in deficits increases long-term rates Financial Times, April 18, 2002, p. 36 (MHBLUE1634)
Mr Greenspan warned against a return to deficit spending, which he said threatened to put upward pressure on long-term interest rates. The Fed chairman took issue with those who claim that monetary policy had been less effective than in the past. He said that both fiscal and monetary policy had been "reasonably well calibrated" and worked "better than they usually work" as an anti-recession measures.

Deficits cause long-term interest rates to rise The Atlanta Journal and Constitution February 24, 2002, p. Lexis (MHBLUE1635)
Critics of deficits warn that they push up long-term interest rates, forcing consumers and companies alike to pay a hidden tax every month on everything from office buildings to refrigerators. Deficits force taxpayers to spend billions of dollars on interest, money that could be used for other needs.

Low deficits have been vital to keeping long-term rates low Gene Sperling, Visiting Fellow, Brookings Institution, FDCH CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY, February 14, 2002, p. Lexis (MHBLUE1636)
Some have tried to downplay the impact of deficits on interest rates by stating that interest rates did not drop in 1999 when surpluses were rising and have not skyrocketed this year when the surplus were plummeting. But such observations ignore the demand side of the supply and demand laws. We expect the price of capital to fall when there is low demand for capital in times of recession, and we expect such interest rates to rise when there is great demand for capital in boom times. The right issue, therefore, is whether fiscal policies have made interest rates higher or lower than they otherwise would have been in differing economic times. A Goldman Sachs analysis published on April 14, 2000 asked the right question in discussing how, given the high level of investment demand, interest rates would have been different under the scenario of large deficits. The Goldman Sachs analysis concluded that "According to the model the swing in federal budget position from a deficit of $290 billion in 1992 to a surplus of $124 billion in 1999 - roughly matching the improvement in the general government position - has lowered equilibrium bond yields by a full 200 basis points." This estimated 200 basis points impact would save an owner of a $150,000 home as much as $3,000 a year in mortgage costs.

GDI Scholars

28 Politics

Rate rise hurts recovery

Investors look at fiscal policy to signal investments Gene Sperling, Visiting Fellow, Brookings Institution, FDCH CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY, February 14, 2002, p. Lexis (MHBLUE1637)
What explains this failure of long-term interest rates to fall even half as much as short-term rates? A perception of a strengthening economy alone cannot explain why long-term interest rates did not even fall half as much as short-term rates. Greenspan stated that "some of the firmness of long-term interest rates probably is the consequence of the fall of projected budget surplus." Goldman Sach's chief strategist Abby Cohen stated that "the reason is that many investors are concerned about the long-term implications of the change in fiscal policy... The very large tax cut that was implemented just a few months ago really puts us toward the edge of ... losing all of the surplus that we might have enjoyed.""

Bond investors are worried - rise in rates could harm the recovery Business Week Online, April 1, 2002, p. Lexis (MHBLUE1638)
Some worrying signs, however, indicate that the long-term rate rise could get out of hand. Just as they did in the early '90's, investors are beginning to fret about a pick-up in inflation. Some question the Fed's determination to control it by manipulating short-term rates. "There has been a big increase in inflation expectations," says Tony Crescenzi, chief bond market strategist at broker Miller Tabak & Co. In fact, real long-term rates are more than 4%, well above the average of 3.4% over the last decade. If the Fed can't assuage the market's nascent concerns about inflation, long-term rates could rise further, undercutting the stock market and stifling the economy in the process.

Rising long-term rates hurt the recovery CNN - FN, MONEY & MARKETS, April 1, 2002, p. Lexis (MHBLUE1639)
And obviously the worry, as you mentioned, that the Bush administration must have, and obviously the financial markets or equity markets now have, the higher long-term interest rates might abort this recovery, which is still, if we call it a recovery, in its very early stages. So the worry is, is the recovery won't continue.

Deficits raise long-term rates, which harms the economy Bloomberg News, April 17, 2002, p. Lexis (MHBLUE1640)
"We have to be very careful about going back into deficit spending, which is very easy to do," Greenspan said. "And the reason largely, obviously, is that the evidence does indicate that if you start to run substantial deficits you will begin to move long-term interest rates. And the effect of that on the economy is clearly not favorable."

GDI Scholars

29 Politics

Deficits hurt US leadership and economy

High deficits could spark a cycle collapsing US economy and leadership The Hamilton Spectator, February 25, 2003; Pg. B04 (PDOCSS221)
The trade deficit too was an equal concern. Thus far the downward adjustment of the dollar has been relatively orderly but, in Mr Greenspan's words, "There are other scenarios in which there are disruptions.... How adjustments will occur is unclear. That it will occur is inevitable." His comments, especially about those about the desirability of the tax cuts so infuriated the White House that leaks emerged of how a displeased President may not renominate Mr Greenspan for a further two years when his current term expires in 2004. But pique does not banish the nightmare -- that foreign investors, who have poured in hundreds of billions of dollars in the belief the U.S. economy offers the best returns, are no longer willing to fund the deficit, at least at the current exchange rate. At that point a vicious circle could set in, as investors became ever more wary of holding dollar debt as the currency declined. The enormous strategic advantage of the dollar's role as reserve currency would be eroded. And so the U.S. might face the sort of humiliating crisis suffered by the Thailands, Indonesias and Argentinas of this world: a flight of short-term capital and collapse of the currency. Would the U.S. favour the "benign neglect" of old, letting the dollar fall and in the process dealing a heavy blow to recovery prospects elsewhere? Or would the Fed feel obliged to act, raising interest rates and delivering the coup de grace to a faltering Wall Street? And a final point is worth remembering. When it was the superpower in the late 19th century, Britain was also the world's largest creditor. The U.S. is the world's largest debtor. One day, even the all-dominant U.S. may be forced to choose between guns and butter.

High deficits could spark a cycle collapsing US economy and leadership The Hamilton Spectator, February 25, 2003; Pg. B04 (PDOCSS225)
The trade deficit too was an equal concern. Thus far the downward adjustment of the dollar has been relatively orderly but, in Mr Greenspan's words, "There are other scenarios in which there are disruptions.... How adjustments will occur is unclear. That it will occur is inevitable." His comments, especially about those about the desirability of the tax cuts so infuriated the White House that leaks emerged of how a displeased President may not renominate Mr Greenspan for a further two years when his current term expires in 2004. But pique does not banish the nightmare -- that foreign investors, who have poured in hundreds of billions of dollars in the belief the U.S. economy offers the best returns, are no longer willing to fund the deficit, at least at the current exchange rate. At that point a vicious circle could set in, as investors became ever more wary of holding dollar debt as the currency declined. The enormous strategic advantage of the dollar's role as reserve currency would be eroded. And so the U.S. might face the sort of humiliating crisis suffered by the Thailands, Indonesias and Argentinas of this world: a flight of short-term capital and collapse of the currency. Would the U.S. favour the "benign neglect" of old, letting the dollar fall and in the process dealing a heavy blow to recovery prospects elsewhere? Or would the Fed feel obliged to act, raising interest rates and delivering the coup de grace to a faltering Wall Street? And a final point is worth remembering. When it was the superpower in the late 19th century, Britain was also the world's largest creditor. The U.S. is the world's largest debtor. One day, even the all-dominant U.S. may be forced to choose between guns and butter.

GDI Scholars

30 Politics

Tax cuts hurt the economy

Bushs tax cuts will be devastating both in the long and short term. Bator 04 (Francis Bator, professor emeritus political economy @ Harvards Kennedy School, Tax cuts will not
rescue America, Financial Times, April 6 2004, p. 13) The Bush tax cuts that apply far into the future will sharply narrow the options. Because taxpayers typically spend some of their extra after-tax income on consumption, unless the government reduces its spending on consumption dollar for dollar, total spending on consumption will be higher. To prevent this igniting inflation, the Federal Reserve will be forced to raise interest rates so as to hold down interest-sensitive spending, notably business and infrastructure investment and US net exports - that is, exports less imports. (High interest rates, by boosting demand for dollar-denominated bonds, will tend to make the dollar and American goods more expensive and foreign goods cheaper.) Barring a supply-side miracle, the president's future tax cuts will shift the composition of spending in favour of consumption and against national investment. As a result, the economy's capacity to produce output for our own use will grow more slowly. There will be less output available in 15 to 20 years when our relatively few grandchildren - who will produce that output - will have to share it with our many retired baby-boomer children. The planned future tax cuts also pose a danger in the shorter term. Tax cuts unmatched by cuts in government consumption, together with high interest rates to prevent inflation, may not be a sustainable policy combination. Because high US interest rates tend to cause the dollar to appreciate, they are likely to make an already large trade deficit larger. If borrowing to pay for the resulting excess of imports over exports means that our foreign debt keeps increasing faster than gross domestic product, our creditors are likely to get nervous. Should they try to reduce their holdings of dollar debt, or even to cut back on new lending, they might inadvertently set in motion a speculative run from the dollar. The Fed might try to prevent a free fall in the dollar's price by driving interest rates still higher. Whether it succeeds or fails, US financial markets would take a beating and the real economy, jobs included, would suffer damage. As a saving grace, counter-cyclical measures aside, we would be compelled to restore long-term fiscal order. Slower growth over the long term - and an appreciable risk of a financial crisis in the short term - are a steep price to pay for a little stimulation of current demand that could readily have been achieved by measures that would do more good now and cause no damage later.

Tax cuts extensions will cost billions Washington Post, 7/20/04 (Jonathan Weisman, Bush Pushes Congress To Extend Tax Cuts,, accessed 7/20/04) "Our intent is to have middle-class tax relief passed," said House Ways and Means Committee spokeswoman Christin Tinsworth. But the scope of the package is in dispute. House GOP leaders and the White House want a five-year extension of the three middle-class tax cuts, with a one-year AMT fix, a package that would cost the Treasury up to $130 billion. Some House Republicans are pushing for an expanded child credit that would extend eligibility for the credit to families with incomes as high as $309,000. Currently, the full credit is available to families with incomes up to $110,000. Grassley aides called that "an overreach" that could sink the whole package, though administration officials expressed confidence that expanding the child credit to higher-income families "would not be an issue" in the end. The desire to trim expectations was underscored Monday, when Sens. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., Max Baucus, D-Mont., John McCain, R-Ariz., Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., and John Breaux, DLa., endorsed a far more modest approach. Citing a budget deficit that will top $400 billion this year, the senators proposed a one-year extension of the middle-class cuts, with the $30 billion cost fully offset by closing tax shelters and raising customs fees.

GDI Scholars

31 Politics

Tax cuts bad Reward wealthy

Bush tax cuts only reward the wealthy and do nothing for the middle class. Gale & Orszag 04 (William G. Gale, Arjay and Frances Fearing Miller Chair Federal Economic Policy @
Brookings Institute, Peter R. Orszag, Joseph A. Pechman Senior Fellow @ Brookings Institute, War on the Middle Class, The American Prospect, May 2004, p. 52) THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION CLAIMS THAT THE guiding principle for its fiscal policy has been "lower income taxes for all, with the greatest help for those most in need," as the White House Web site puts it. The reality is starkly different. The tax cuts enacted during George W. Bush's presidency shift the burden of taxation away from upper-income, capital-owning households and toward the wage-earning households of the lower and middle classes. For all but the wealthy, this will ultimately cause substantial harm. Shifting costs to future generations of workers to finance tax boons for today's owners of capital is unproductive, unfair, and unwise. The Bush administration presided over two major tax cuts, in 2001 and 2003, along with a smaller one in 2002. Those cuts officially were going to cost the federal government $ 1.7 trillion between 2001 and 2014, and to add nearly $ 1 trillion in higher payments on the national debt over that period. That may sound like a lot, but in fact the official estimates are low, artificially held down by gimmicks, including the ostensible sunsets of all the tax cuts in 2010 or before. At least under the administration's plans, these tax cuts would continue beyond their official expiration dates. If they are extended, they would reduce revenue by $ 3.6 trillion between 2001 and 2014 and cost a whopping $ 4.8 trillion when the additional debt service is included. Without a doubt, and despite White House rhetoric to the contrary, the direct effect of the tax cuts is to widen after-tax income inequality. If the tax cuts are extended into 2011, after-tax incomes will increase by more than 9 percent for households in the top 1 percent of the income distribution in that year, by between 2 percent and 3 percent for households in the middle 60 percent, and by only 0.1 percent for households in the bottom 20 percent. Most of the cost from the tax cuts reflects highly regressive measures, including lower marginal tax rates for high-income households, reduced taxation on capital gains and dividends, and elimination of the estate tax. These components provide extremely large benefits to a very small number of households, but they generate little if any benefit for most families. For most of the population, wages and salaries represent the vast majority of income. Capital income is much more significant the more income one makes. The top 1 percent of the population earns about one-tenth of the total wage and salary income but almost half of all the capital income. Shifting away from a tax on all income and toward a tax on just wages thus moves the tax burden on to lower-earning workers. That means that the administration's claim -- that the cuts are progressive because high-income households will pay a higher share of the income tax after the changes than before -- is misleading. It's true that high-income households will pay a higher share of the income tax, at least in the short run. But changes in tax shares are not an accurate way of measuring progressivity. If we reduced everyone's income tax by 99.9 percent, for example, the shares of income taxes paid would remain constant -- but the net result would be highly regressive. Furthermore, the administration's argument conveniently omits the estate tax (which is progressive and is slated to be eliminated), the corporate tax (which is progressive and was reduced in the tax cuts), and the payroll tax (which is regressive and was not cut). When all federal taxes are considered, the share paid by high-income households will decrease significantly because of the tax cuts. So how did the White House manage to convince the public that Bush's tax cuts were in fact good for the middle class? The cuts did have some provisions that were designed to help the middle class, including a new 10-percent bracket (which means that all households, including low-and middle-income ones, pay a 10-percent rate rather than a 15-percent one on their first dollars of taxable income -- $ 7,000 in taxable income for singles and $ 14,000 for married couples); an expanded child credit; and tax cuts for married couples. Yet these provisions account for about one-third of the revenue loss from the tax cuts as a whole over a 10-year period. In other words, the middleclass elements of the tax cuts were just a remarkably successful marketing ploy. They allowed proponents to extol the benefits for carefully selected Americans, disguising the much more regressive and expensive components and confusing the debate.

GDI Scholars

32 Politics

Tax cuts increased taxes

Payment for the Bush tax cuts will come from increasing taxes. PR Newswire 04 (Study shows Republican tax cuts will actually increase taxes, PR Newswire, June 2 2004,
p. Lexis) House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (MD) released the following statement in response to an important study released today at a press conference with the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). The joint report examines the effects of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, illustrating that while wealthy taxpayers benefited from the tax cuts, low- and middle-income households are likely to lose significantly once costs of the tax cuts are paid for: "Democrats warned that the irresponsible fiscal policies pursued by President Bush and the Republican Congress would have damaging consequences. This study bears out those warnings. We already knew that the Republican tax bills failed to create the millions of jobs promised and that they exploded the budget deficit and national debt, but now we see that the unfair tax cuts will punish middle- and lower-income taxpayers. "The bill for these tax cuts will eventually come due, either in the form of increased taxes, reduced investments in our country, or the pillaging of Medicare and Social Security. "Unfortunately, this report shows that under two likely scenarios for financing the tax cuts, the bottom four-fifths of households -- those making $76,400 or less -would end up far worse off than the wealthiest households. These taxpayers will give back all of their tax cut and more. At the same time, investment in important programs that these same Americans depend on will be reduced. "Under President Bush and the Republican Congress, the U.S. tax code has continued to balloon into a complex mess with thousands of loopholes, complicated forms, and exemptions. And giving tax cuts to working families with one hand while taking away even more with the other is not how our government should operate. "I support tax reform to make the tax code more simple, fair and sensible so that all Americans pay their fair share, and no more than their fair share, in taxes."

GDI Scholars

33 Politics

Tax cuts bad Head Start

Bushs tax cuts hurt children. US Newswire 04 (While corporations and the wealthy benefit from huge tax cuts, poor families still struggle,
US Newswire, April 14 2004, p. Lexis) Huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans have robbed the federal government of much needed revenue that could help fund programs for children, the (CDF) said today. According to statistics released by CDF, the lost revenue could provide enough funds in 2004 to pay for Head Start for all eligible children, provide comprehensive health insurance for the nation's more than nine million uninsured children, and ensure that all poor families have affordable housing. The Bush Administration's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 heavily favored wealthy Americans while offering little or nothing to working families. In 2004, the average millionaire can expect to receive a tax cut of over $100,000 (Note 1). By 2010 when the tax cuts are fully implemented, the richest 1 percent of Americans will have received 52 percent of the benefits from the tax cuts, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Corporations are also reaping huge benefits from the new tax cuts. Business tax cuts alone amounted to $44.3 billion in fiscal year 2002 and are projected to be $64 billion in FY 2004. These tax breaks, combined with the increased use of tax loopholes, shelters, and subsidies, have resulted in corporate tax levels that are among the lowest seen in the last 70 years (Note 2). According to a recent GAO report, between 1996 and 2000, 61 percent of American corporations paid no income taxes at all, and in 2000, 94 percent paid less than 5 percent of their total income in taxes (Note 3). The revenue lost as a result of the business tax cuts in 2002 would have provided enough income to allow all of the nation's 5.4 million poor families with children to escape from poverty that year. At the same time that the Administration pursued generous tax cuts for the wealthy -- which were not paid for in the budget -- it failed to aid 12 million American children by speeding up the refundability of the Child Tax Credit (CTC). It would also have provided the average poor family of three with an additional $193. The Administration fought for more tax breaks for millionaires, while denying poor families this modest amount that would have cost roughly 1 percent of the 2003 tax bill. "This April 15 should serve to remind us that the Administration is favoring corporations and the wealthy rather than aiding the millions of families with children who are the backbone of this nation, many of whom are struggling to stay afloat," said Deborah Cutler-Ortiz, director of the Family Income Division at the Children's Defense Fund.

GDI Scholars

34 Politics

Tax cuts bad social programs

Extending tax cuts will require a decrease in funding for Social Security and Medicare. Chattanooga Times 04 (The Bush tax-cut sham exposed, Chattanooga Times Free Press, February 28 2004,
p. B6) Americans will not like Alan Greenspan's assertion that the nation, now strangled again by tax cut-induced deficits as far as the eye can see, must cut Social Security and Medicare benefits to keep those vital programs affordable. But we can thank the Federal Reserve Board chairman for making clear to Congress and the nation on Wednesday what George W. Bush has implausibly denied about his reckless tax cuts: That the country cannot afford them. Nor can Mr. Bush keep his pre-election pledge that his excessive tax cuts would do no harm to Americans' basic safety net programs. Mr. Greenspan's assertion should raise alarm about the harm Mr. Bush's outrageous fiscal policies are doing. In fact, his administration has hidden the actual size of his stunning budget deficits by kicking all the annual Social Security surpluses, a cumulative $850 billion since he took office, into the operating budget -- mocking the Republicans' empty pledge for a "lockbox" for Social Security surpluses.

Bush tax cuts force decisions between cutting services and increasing taxes. Krugman 04 (Paul Krugman, New York Times, Were the Bush tax cuts good for the economy? YES/NO, New
York Times Upfront, March 8 2004, p.28) NO Nobody likes paying taxes, but most Americans care a lot about the things taxes pay for. As a result of the tax cuts of the last three years, there is now a fundamental mismatch between the benefits Americans expect from the government and the revenues government collects. This is already having profound effects at the state and local levels: Teachers and policemen are being laid off. The federal government can mask its problems for a while by running huge budget deficits. But eventually, it will have to decide whether to cut services or raise taxes. And we are not talking about minor policy adjustments. If taxes stay as low as they are now, government as we know it cannot be maintained. Social security will have to become far less generous; Medicare will no longer be able to guarantee comprehensive medical care to older Americans; Medicaid will no longer provide basic medical care to the poor. Though most Americans feel that they pay too much in taxes, they get off quite lightly compared with the citizens of other advanced countries. Furthermore, most middle-income Americans haven't seen a significant tax increase since 1989. The wealthy, meanwhile, have had their taxes cut to the lowest levels since the 1930s. The question isn't whether the tax cuts were better for the economy than nothing; they probably were. The right question is whether some other economic-stimulus plan could have achieved better results at a lower budget cost. And it is hard to deny that, on a jobs-per-dollar basis, the Bush tax cuts have been extremely ineffective.

GDI Scholars

35 Politics

Bush wont push for CAFTA because hes too weak to take on the sugar industry Australian, 7-17-04
Australia, for example, didn't get the extra sugar quota into the highly priced US market that the Central American nations got under the CAFTA - but that deal has yet to make it to Congress, although it was negotiated before Australia's. The reason is, the sugar lobby is so widespread and powerful that members of Congress and Bush weren't prepared to take them on, especially in an election year.

CAFTA would be defeated right now Washington Times, 7-13-04

Prospects for the agreement remain uncertain. It appears less vital for the United States than for the other countries, which exported almost $17 billion in goods and services to the United States in 2003, but it aims to expand free-trade opportunities in the Western Hemisphere, in the light of other trade agreements currently negotiated with Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Panama. The Bush Administration has announced that it would not submit the treaty to Congress for a vote before the presidential election. The outcome of the election could also influence the ratification of CAFTA, as presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., has said that he would review the agreement if he wins the election. All other signatories also need to ratify CAFTA separately. Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., said that if the agreement were submitted to Congress, "it would be defeated." Levin added that Democrats were not opposed to CAFTA, but that they want core labor rights to be included in the treaty.

Bush cant get the votes for CAFTA Boston Globe, 7-6-04
Democratic lawmakers now say they are determined to deny the Bush White House the votes it needs to pass the trade agreement. A majority of the vote in both the House and the Senate is all that is needed to pass the agreement, which is expected to go before Congress for ratification after the November election. "The political environment has made it more difficult to put together a bipartisan majority for CAFTA and a number of free trade agreements," said Representative Calvin Dooley, Democrat of California, one of the minority of Democrats who support the agreement.

Opposition from Democrats is preventing the passage of CAFTA VOA News, 7/14/04, Officials of the Bush administration say they are making progress on the administration's trade agenda, having achieved approval of accords with Singapore and Chile last year, and started negotiating agreements with a range of countries from Africa and Asia to the Middle East. However, efforts to achieve easy congressional approval of a Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) are not doing as well, as Democrats, with support from major labor unions, press for tougher labor and environmental provisions. Trade agreements and their impact on employment in the United States, are an issue in this U.S. election year. Senator John Kerry, the presumed Democratic party nominee for President, opposes the Central American pact, and says he would review existing trade deals if he is elected.

GDI Scholars

36 Politics

Maybe CAFTA vote during lame duck session

CAFTA will come up for a vote in the lame duck session UPI, 7-13-04
"(CAFTA) is bad for our businesses who need a growing middle class to buy their products made in America," Levin said. But Mark Smith, director of Western Hemisphere affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the Chamber viewed CAFTA as a "very, very positive agreement." He said he hoped the vote on the treaty would be tackled by Congress in a lame duck session, after the outcome of the election but before the new administration has been inaugurated. He said CAFTA was the most rigorous trade agreement the United States has negotiated to date, and it has provided real incentives for Central American countries to improve their labor standards. Smith added that for crucial industries such as the apparel industry, a rejection of the free trade agreement by Congress would have dramatic consequences.

GDI Scholars

37 Politics

CAFTA trade deficit

CAFTA increases the trade deficit Boston Globe, 7-6-04
CAFTA "is part of the exodus of good American jobs," said Senator Byron L. Dorgan, chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee, said at a recent congressional hearing. Dorgan said the agreement would lead to "a relentless increase in our trade deficit" by encouraging consumers to import less expensive goods and failing to raise foreigners' income so they could afford US exports. "We will be consigned forever to higher and higher trade deficits and an eroding manufacturing sector," he said.

GDI Scholars

38 Politics

No CAFTA delay
Bush wont push CAFTA until after the election, it would fail anyway if pushed now United Press International, 7/13/04
Prospects for the agreement remain uncertain. It appears less vital for the United States than for the other countries, which exported almost $17 billion in goods and services to the United States in 2003, but it aims to expand freetrade opportunities in the Western Hemisphere, in the light of other trade agreements currently negotiated with Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Panama. The Bush Administration has announced that it would not submit the treaty to Congress for a vote before the presidential election. The outcome of the election could also influence the ratification of CAFTA, as presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., has said that he would review the agreement if he wins the election. All other signatories also need to ratify CAFTA separately. Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., said that if the agreement were submitted to Congress, "it would be defeated." Levin added that Democrats were not opposed to CAFTA, but that they want core labor rights to be included in the treaty.

CAFTA wont come to a vote this year Houston Chronicle, 7-8-04

A Congressional vote on a controversial free trade pact between the United States and five Central American nations will have to wait until after U.S. presidential elections, President Bush told his Salvadoran counterpart, Antonio Saca, on Monday. Bush has delayed sending the U.S.-Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA, to Congress, even though the negotiations concluded in December and similar deals with Australia and Morocco have already been sent to Congress for ratification. U.S. officials have said before that Congressional approval was unlikely before the November vote, but this is the first time Bush has confirmed this to a Central American leader.

GDI Scholars

39 Politics

Yes Asbestos reform

Its literally now or nevercompromises will allow a revised version of the asbestos legislation to pass now National Journals Congress Daily, 7-16-04, lexis
Senate Minority Leader Daschle said today he will meet Tuesday with Majority Leader Frist to discuss asbestos legislation in a bid to propel the long-stalled bill. They will discuss Frist's proposal to create a $140 billion trust fund to compensate individuals with asbestos-related illnesses. Daschle said Frist's proposal, floated Thursday, lacked enough details. "It was not a complete proposal," Daschle said. "It was part of what we're going to be discussing next week." Frist's offer -- which follows a proposal by Daschle in June for a fund as large as $145 billion -- is significantly less than the $149 billion labor unions have insisted is needed. Sources said Frist's plan would include $136 billion from insurers and companies with asbestos liabilities, with an additional $4 billion coming from existing private asbestos trust funds. A spokesman for the American Insurance Association said the group has not seen Frist's proposal but said the plan was not expected to compel insurers to contribute more than $46 billion, which the group said is the most it would muster. Frist declined today to supply details of his proposal, but noted that his and Daschle's figures are getting closer. "It's never been this close before," he said. Although other issues must be resolved beyond the overall size of the fund, Frist said he hoped the bill would pass the Senate this session. He said this may be the only chance to pass the legislation.

GDI Scholars

40 Politics

Capital key to asbestos reform

Political capital is key to tort reform legislationBushs ability to pressure Congress is critical to tort reform Forbes, 1-6-03,
What's ahead in 2003? Too much depends on Washington, I hate to say. Tax cuts, tort reform and telecom deregulation--if passed--would set off a capital spending boom to shame the 1990s. Timidity, on the other hand, will boost the odds that we'll go the way of Europe. China will then take our place--not in 2003, of course. But if President Bush doesn't use his political capital to drive home some big reforms soon, prepare for a long slide.

GDI Scholars

41 Politics

Asbestos reform key to the economy

Failure to pass asbestos tort reform legislation collapses the US economy Business Insurance, 3-15-04, lexis
The third major tort issue-reforming the current litigation-based system of compensating victims of asbestosrelated disease-has the potential to wreck the economy if it is not resolved, said Sen. Ensign. But ''the average person doesn't understand how important this is,'' he said. The ever-expanding net of liability has already driven about 70 companies into bankruptcy, he said. If the system is not reformed, ''it will literally destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs, if not millions,'' said Sen. Ensign.

GDI Scholars

42 Politics

Environmental lobby is powerful

Environmental lobbyists are incredibly powerful Tom DeWeese, ChronWatch, July 18, 2004,
Instead, Congress plays to the whims of the Greens, NIMBYS and BANANAS by ignoring domestic resources and importing oil from unstable political sources. By doing that, Congress eliminates pressure from highly paid green lobbyists who want the land locked away and sidesteps town meetings with angry citizens who dont want oil wells in their back yards. However, the nations energy problem is much worse than just not being able to drill our American oil. Even if we could drill our own oil or even had a glut of imported oil, the supply crisis couldnt be averted to bring oil prices down. Thats because the United States hasnt built a new oil refinery since 1976. All remaining American refineries are running at full capacity. There is barely time for the plants to shut down to perform needed upkeep and repairs because such activity will cause a bump in the system and force prices up. The industry can do nothing to keep up with demand. Rules and regulations, both federal and state, are blocking the industrys ability to build new refineries. Even worse: old, worn out refineries are closing, reducing capacity even more. In California, ten refineries representing 20% of the states refining capacity were closed between 1985 and 1995. With California energy policy literally dominated by radical environmental groups, it is unlikely that any new refineries will ever be built. To build a new refinery would take a risk of at least $2 billion in a ten-year undertaking. In the end, even if permits are obtained there is no guarantee that the refinery will ever be built. Nobody wants to invest in new refineries because there is no money to be made. If there were investors willing to take the risk, where would it be built? What town would welcome it? What land would be used? Radical environmentalists are well organized to build pressure on any politician who might support such an endeavor. They know how to energize the NIMBYS and BANANAS. All the greens have to do is voice concerns about air pollution or the dangers of large trucks carrying hazardous materials or the potential for leakage into the environment. Just a hint at these things and poof, the refinery is history. Scientific facts are rarely heard in the din of the argument.

GDI Scholars

43 Politics

Bush is supporting PKOs now

Bush pushes PKO policies now link is non-unique Fearon and Laitin, 2004 (James D. Fearon and David D. Laitin are Professors of Political Science at Stanford
University, International Security, Spring 2004 p. Lexis Nexis, Ironically, the Bush administration has since undertaken state-building projects that are vastly larger and more difficult than anything the Clinton administration ever attempted. The U.S. military is now building kindergartens in Afghanistan, in addition to paving roads and assisting with many other major infrastructure projects in both Afghanistan and Iraq. n5 GIs report on instructing Iraqis in how to run a town meeting with an agenda and turn taking -- "It's basic P.T.A. stuff," one commented. n6 These are local-level complements to the complex, higher-level efforts to build workable national political structures in both countries. And all this is happening without any significant reduction in U.S. involvement in ongoing peacekeeping operations in Kosovo or Bosnia. Indeed, the Bush administration even took on new peacekeeping responsibilities in Liberia, albeit very small ones thus far.n7

GDI Scholars

44 Politics

Conservative backlash against UN now

Bush has already sponsored UN programs angers conservatives Tom DeWeese February 8, 2004,
Worse yet, the Bush administration is now sponsoring a United Nations curriculum designed to deny the sovereignty of the United States, teaching a citizen of the world philosophy. In another social area, schools continue to ignore an abstinence message in favor of lessons in sexuality that grants equality to all forms of sex. The use of drugs like Ritalin to control children continues unabated. Schools are no longer safe zones and even the daily pledge of allegiance is disputed in the courts.

GDI Scholars

45 Politics

GOP backlash hardline on Syria

The hawks are fighting to have Bush go hardline on Syria now the recent Iraqi victory is causing them to turn to Syria next
The Yearbook of Experts, Authorities and Spokespersons (R) July 16, 2004, p. l/n Those threats culminated Sunday when Bush himself accused Syria of having chemical weapons, although he did not specify whether they were home-grown or received from Iraq for safe-keeping, as alleged by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon earlier this year and repeated by senior Pentagon officials. Last week, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld accused Syria of harbouring members of Hussein's regime, and, asked whether Damascus was "next" after Iraq, replied that "it depends on people's behaviour". Intelligence officials told reporters last week that Rumsfeld had ordered the drawing up of contingency plans for a possible invasion of Syria and that Feith, the Pentagon's number three official, had begun work on a policy paper about Syria's support of terrorist groups. "There's got to be a change in Syria," said Deputy Secretary of State Paul Wolfowitz last Sunday on a TV network news programme. "It is a strange regime, one of extreme ruthlessness". At the same time, former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director James Woolsey, a favourite of Wolfowitz and Perle who may be tapped to play a top political role in post-war Iraq, declared that Washington was fighting enemies in a "World War IV" that includes "fascists of Iraq and Syria", a reference to Syria's ruling Ba'ath Party. These statements have contributed to the growing impression that administration hawks do indeed consider Syria next on the list, although some have also made clear that if President Bashar Assad - who CIA sources have said has generally co-operated with U..S. efforts against the al-Qaeda terrorist group of Osama bin Laden - meets a number of demands, possibly including turning over Iraqi officials who may have entered Syria, he is unlikely to face the full force of U.S. military power, at least for now. Still, there is no question that the hawks, boosted by the easier-than-expected victory in Baghdad, are eager to throw their weight around, particularly in Syria's direction.

GDI Scholars

46 Politics

AFTA passed
AFTA has already been passed PR Newswire, 7/15/04 (, accessed 7/17/04) Harold McGraw III, Chairman of Business Roundtable's International Trade and Investment Task Force and Chairman, President and CEO of The McGraw-Hill Companies, today praised the Senate for approving a comprehensive free trade agreement (FTA) with Australia. "By approving the Australia free trade agreement, the Senate has sent a strong bipartisan message that it is committed to new opportunities for American companies and workers and to the advancement of a forwardlooking U.S. trade policy that will help keep other trade negotiations on track.

GDI Scholars

47 Politics

No space
NASA just got its budget cut again there isnt enough money for the vision Reuters, 6/20/04
The bill, approved in the subcommittee by a voice vote, cuts National Aeronautics and Space Administration funding by $229 million compared to the 2004 budget. It falls $1.1 billion short of the amount requested by Bush. The president earlier this year declared a long-term plan to return humans to the moon and on to Mars but has since said little about this idea. The subcommittee left intact the requested $4.3 billion for the space shuttle program. New programs such as Project Prometheus, NASA's plan to develop nuclear power for spacecraft to help explore the solar system, bore the brunt of the cuts. "We simply could not afford to fund the vision," said the subcommittee chairman, Rep. Jim Walsh, a New York Republican.

GDI Scholars

48 Politics

No Social Security reform (even with Bush victory)

Private investment accounts cant pass, even if Bush wins Hartford Courant, 7-13-04
If Bush wins re-election, he will face several obstacles gaining approval for personal investment accounts. Among them: _Democratic opposition in Congress. Even if Republicans maintain control of both houses of Congress, Democrats are expected to have enough votes in the Senate to block any plan that would carve personal accounts out of Social Security. If Democrats regain control of the Senate, personal accounts will be virtually dead. _Opposition from AARP. The 35-million member senior citizen lobby supports increasing personal savings but not carving out investment accounts from Social Security, said John Rother, AARP's director of planning. AARP plans to use its publications this fall to remind members of the organization's views and the positions of the candidates. _Transition costs. Allowing younger workers to put some of their payroll taxes into private accounts while guaranteeing full benefits to older workers and retirees - as many propose - would increase the program's short-term deficit. Estimates vary but start at $1 trillion. With the government currently running an annual deficit of about $475 billion, covering the transition costs would be difficult. In addition, a recent report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Social Security will remain solvent until 2052, a decade longer than previously forecast. That could give many politicians a reason to sidestep the issue altogether. Thomas Mann, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, said large deficits will inhibit the next president in passing proposals that involve any major new spending. "Do I think that Congress would pony up a trillion dollars for the transition costs to private accounts in Social Security? No, I do not," Mann said.

GDI Scholars

49 Politics

Capital key to Social Security reform

Political capital is key to Social Security reform Hartford Courant, 7-13-04
David John, who tracks Social Security issues for the Heritage Foundation, another Washington think tank, said he is "pretty confident" that Bush will push private investment accounts if he is re-elected. "This is a legacy issue," John said. It also has the support of key segments of Bush's conservative political base and business groups. But Bush will have to push the issue during the campaign if he wants to claim a secondterm mandate for changing Social Security, several analysts said. At the moment, Iraq and the economy are the dominant issues for voters. Social Security is barely a blip in most polls, which means the president will have to put his own political capital on the line to achieve any change in the retirement program, analysts said. "Congress will not do it alone," John said.

GDI Scholars

50 Politics

Bush win Social Security reform

Bush victory causes Social Security private investment reform Hartford Courant, 7-13-04
After Jim DeMint, a youthful looking 43-year-old, won the Republican Senate nomination in South Carolina last month, conservatives quickly said his victory proved that politicians can safely advocate major changes in Social Security. Defying traditional political wisdom to leave Social Security alone, DeMint openly embraced the most far-reaching revisions ever proposed for the program, changes long supported by conservatives who have considerable influence with the Bush administration. The question now is: Has President Bush been paying attention? Analysts who have very different views about what should happen to Social Security agree that if Bush is re-elected, he will make a major push to set up private individual investment accounts within Social Security.

Bush will push Social Security privatization if he wins Hartford Courant, 7-13-04
Bush threw his support behind private investment accounts during the 2000 campaign, as a way to give workers more control over their money, then sidetracked Social Security in favor of revamping Medicare. But if voters return Bush to the White House, conservatives say, they have been told the president's top domestic priority will be Social Security, the New Deal creation that paid $471 billion in benefits last year, making it the nation's largest domestic program. "I think the prospect of Social Security being an agenda item in a second Bush administration is a certainty," said Derrick Max, executive director of the Alliance for Worker Retirement Security, one of several conservative coalitions working to promote private investment accounts.

Bush will push for Social Security privatization Hartford Courant, 7-13-04
Bush campaign adviser James C. Capretta confirmed those expectations. "The president has made it very clear that he is willing and eager to show the leadership that is necessary to move the (Social Security) program to a much more solvent and secure program," said Capretta, a former White House budget official who worked on Social Security issues. "The president believes personal accounts are central to that." Bush has not embraced a specific plan for creating private accounts, but conservatives say he will support their idea of carving the accounts out of the existing 12.4 percent Social Security payroll tax. Proposals call for setting aside up to half of the payroll tax to establish the accounts.

GDI Scholars

51 Politics

Bush wont win now

Bush approval ratings on the economy are low The New York Times, 7/16/04 (Richard W. Stevenson and Janet Elder, Poll puts Bush at ominously low
level,, accessed 7/17/04) Signs that the economy has put the worst of its troubles behind it and is on relatively solid ground have helped Bush's standing somewhat since the winter, but his approval ratings on the economy still remain relatively low. Forty-two percent of those surveyed approved of his handling of the economy, and 51 percent disapproved. The poll indicated that Kerry was making progress in introducing himself to voters but that he still drew much of his support from those voters who are mostly motivated by their dislike of Bush.

Kerry is ahead in several polls Daily Reporter, July 20, 2004

The results of a poll of 801 "likely voters" by Strategic Vision, LLC of Atlanta, Ga., released to The Daily Reporter this week, shows that in Michigan, the John Kerry-John Edwards ticket led Bush-Cheney 47 percent to 45 percent, with 8 percent undecided and in a three-way contest with the Bush-Cheney, the Kerry-Edwards and the Ralph Nader-Peter Camejo ticket, the results were Kerry-Edwards 46 percent, Bush-Cheney 44 percent and Nader-Camejo 1 percent, with 9 percent undecided. Nationwide, a new New York Times/CBS News poll of 943 registered voters found the race to be close in a head-to-head matchup, with the KerryEdwards ticket supported by 49 percent and a Bush-Cheney ticket by 44 percent. In a three-way race, Sen. Kerry was at 45 percent, Mr. Bush at 42 percent and Nader at 5 percent.

GDI Scholars

52 Politics

Kerry wont win

Kerry lead is only temporary; the election is still anyones game United Press International, 7/15/04 (Sara Ganus, Kerry bounce may bounce back, analysts say., accessed 7/17/04) With less than two weeks until the Democratic National Convention, likely Democratic Party candidate for president John Kerry's convention bounce could push him into a significant lead over President George W. Bush, but it may not last for very long, the American Enterprise Institute's Election Watch 2004 panel said Thursday. AEI political analysts Karlyn H. Bowman and William Schneider participated in the seventh of a series of briefings Thursday to discuss the November presidential election. Schneider, CNN senior political analyst and AEI resident fellow, said that after the Democratic Convention, Kerry could end up 15 or 16 percentage points ahead of Bush in the polls. However, the series of events following the convention could counteract the bounce. "It will be considered a triumph, and then the Olympics (happen)," he said. "For three weeks in August, everyone will be watching the Olympics and the whole thing will fade. Then the Republicans get the ball, where the main thing they have to worry about is their convention at the end of August." Bowman, senior editor of the American Enterprise Magazine and an AEI resident fellow, said she is also skeptical about the impact of the possible convention bounce. "It won't last very long," she said. Bowman said there are several polls that continue to show the contest to be dead even, meaning that after the convention, the bounce could evaporate very quickly. The average convention bounce has been 6 percentage points since 1964, according to Gallop electionpolling trends. "I think it's a very closely divided electorate that we have," Bowman said. "It's entirely unrealistic to expect either Kerry or Bush to get much of a bounce from their conventions, but Kerry needs to have a successful convention for other reasons."

GDI Scholars

53 Politics

AT: Convention = Help Kerry

Americans are frozen, the convention will have little effect Christian Science Monitor, July 20, 2004
This seemingly frozen campaign stems in large part from a polarized electorate: Polls show the vast majority of Americans are firmly behind one candidate or the other, with far fewer undecided voters than in previous elections. As a result, pollsters say, any postconvention swings in the race - both for Kerry and President Bush - are likely to be relatively small, and at the margins.

GDI Scholars

54 Politics

Bush good libertarians module

A. Libertarians hate the UN. They think we shouldnt engage in any foreign alliance. Libertarian Thinking. 04 (Accessed). p.
On the political standpoint, the "world policeman" ideology seems to be predominant, as testify the popularity of the United Nations and armed American interventions. Some see the role of active peacekeeper as necessary. Yet, what does it accomplish, apart from making foreign countries hate the United States even more ? It seems every tin pot dictator or terrorist that rises up against American interests was once financed by the Americans. What do military bases in foreign countries accomplish, except for the occasional scandal and taxmoney spent ? It is obvious that our current methods of resolving conflict are not working. Sure, politicians like these old ways because they are the most politically profitable, but we must eschew such motivations. Isolationism is one solution that libertarians have been proposing for a long time - the idea that we should not entangle ourselves in foreign alliances, nor make enemies. As Jefferson said, "friend with all, ally with none". This is simple good sense.

B. If Libertarians are pissed at Bush theyll nominate their own candidate causing him to lose. Ennis, 2002 (Patrick, 3/30, Democratic Underground, ) It is possible that significant elements of the GOP may turn against the president in '04, as happened to his father in '92, with Democrats lifting nary a finger, except perhaps to call attention to the reasons Bush has already given them to do so. This includes, among others, both
libertarians and far-right extremists, who can and likely will field their own presidential candidates.
The reason such candidates failed to draw voters away from the GOP base in the last two presidential elections is obvious: They had no chance whatsoever of winning, and a vote for them would have been a vote for the Democratic candidate, the worst possible option in their eyes. But then, that was true in 1992 also, and Ross Perot still managed 19% of the vote nationwide. This total included many libertarians incensed over Poppy Bush's broken "Read My Lips" pledge on new taxes. So, Democrats have a vested interest in making certain elements of the Republican base who aren't particulary Republican, unhappy with Republicans and the president.

Libertarians and Christian

conservatives spring readily to mind, as both are numerous within the GOP and both tend to be well organized politically. It is not even necessary to make these erstwhile Republicans enamored of their own third-party candidates - say, Harry Browne (again) for the Libertarians and Gary Bauer or Pat Buchanan (again) for the Christian Right -

it is only necessary to give them sufficient reason to turn on their Republican incumbent. An anti-Bush vote would be as almost as good as a pro-Gore (or Kerry or Edwards, etc.) vote. And they are not necessarily pragmatists, you know.
Consider the way conservative Republicans in California rejected moderate Republican Gubernatorial candidate Dick Riordan, despite his overt support from the White House, in favor of right-wing ideologue Bill Simon, who has little chance to unseat Democrat Gray Davis in such a liberal state. So what may make Christian conservatives stand on principle and turn against Bush in 2004? Barely a year into the reign of George II, there is already his failure to deliver on his promise of private school vouchers as part of his education reform package, his promise of an "Office of Faith-Based Initiatives" which has not gotten off the ground, and the open courting of the Hispanic vote, which parallels the overt and unabashed "pandering" to the African-American community for which conservatives have been haranguing Democrats for years. Toward that end, the GOP is encouraging party leaders who are not already bilingual to take Spanish lessons - rather inconsistent for the party that brought us "official English" and "English only" education. But what is much worse, in the eyes of the Christian Right, is the GOP's much more low-key solicitation of - dare I say it aloud? - the gay community. Gasp! Sinners! Abominations before God! I did mention that this pandering is low-key, didn't I? Good. No surprise there. The question: How to publicise the fact. Then there

are those maddeningly elusive independent libertarians. Wrapped in a flag, holding a rifle and a copy of the U.S. constitution, and quoting Thomas Jefferson, libertarians espouse both the left and right of the
political spectrum, pledging allegiance to the whole of the constitution - or at least to their interpretation of it - libertarians are widely credited with costing Al Gore both his home state of Tennessee and his former boss's state of Arkansas in 2000, primarily because of a perceived hostility to the 2nd Amendment. Is there anything about the Bush administration so far (remember, we have a good two and a half years yet to go) to start these Friends of Franklin thinking of revolt? Of course! We can start with the ironically named "Patriot Act," which curtails civil liberties, the very raison d'etre of civil libertarians. Then there is the president's decision to impose tariffs on imported steel, a move that, while popular with blue collar labor unions, is seen as a slap in the face for free trade and a betrayal of general principle for the sake of political expediency. And let's not forget Bush's freshly inked signature on the hated Campaign Finance Reform Bill, which had the NRA and other libertarian as well as conservative groups scrambilng for the courts to challenge its constitutionality before the day was even out. The likelihood of luring the

If Democrats can just get them to vote for somebody - anybody! - other than Bush, they'll likely win a plurality in a 4-5 way race. Just as Nader in 2000 pulled votes from the left, Buchanan or Browne (or whoever represents their factions) in 2004 will pull votes from the right.
Christian Right and the civil libertarians into the Democratic fold is practically nil. But that is not necessary. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

GDI Scholars

55 Politics

Bush good Jewish voters module

A. Bush will win thanks to Jewish voters Slate Magazine, 2004 (February 10th,
When the American Jewish Committee released a poll last month showing that as many as 31 percent of American Jews would vote for President Bush if presidential elections were held today, Brooks could hardly contain his glee. In fact, he didn't seem to try at all. "It [is] now undeniable that there is a major shift taking place among Jewish voters," Brooks trumpeted in a press release commenting on the poll. Considering that Bush drew just 19 percent of the Jewish vote in 2000, it wouldn't take much of a shift for the numbers to rise. But the RJC shouldn't pop the champagne corks prematurely; Jews may have some very good reasons to shift their allegiances, but they also have strong motivation to stay within the Democratic fold. November is a long way off, and there's plenty of time for people to think and rethink the question of which candidate to choose.

B. Jewish people hate the UN because of anti-Israli tendencies Salvato, 2004 (Frank, a political media specialist, Jews In The United States: Whose Side Are They On?, April
20th, Conversely, while John Kerry contends that he stands in alliance with Israel, he supports using the United Nations to bring about peace, not only in the Middle East but to the Israeli and Palestinian people as well. On the surface it sounds as though Mr. Kerry stands committed to Israel but that would be a flawed assumption to say the least. The United Nations has repeatedly condemned the Israeli government for their retaliation against acts of terrorism sponsored by groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, terrorist organizations that sit at the negotiating table by proxy every time the Palestinian Authority takes its seat. Yet they expect the Israelis to negotiate in good faith with the very people that send young, brainwashed children to commit acts of terrorism against innocent Israelis through the employment of suicide bombings. The United Nations may have spoken out against the use of terrorism but they refuse to acknowledge the fact the Palestinian Authority, who they recognize as a member in good standing of the world community, counts terrorist organizations among their "legitimate government." To say the least, a level playing field for the Israelis does not exist within the walls of the United Nations.

C. Jewish people are key to the election changing positions will affect their vote Helmreich, 2001 (Jeff, writer for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, April 6th, written for the Jerusalem
Center for Public Affairs, Forward, Jewish Voters still in the Swing of Things,, Some people, no doubt, are wondering when these factors will add up to the death knell of Jewish political power in this country. The answer: no time soon, and probably never. The truth is that the doomsayers (Mr. Lefkowitz et al.) have had it wrong all along. The available evidence on Jewish voting patterns, when examined closely, shows that the Jewish community is in fact an extremely potent political force in the United States and will likely be so for years to come. But its power does not depend on the size or party loyalties of the American Jewish population, nor does it derive from the mythical Jewish money and media machines. One true source of Jewish clout is, nevertheless, easy to spot: Jews are strategically located in the places that make the most difference on Election Day. Remember those TV ads for George W. Bush and Al Gore? Probably not, if you're from New York or Maryland. These states are a lost cause to the Republicans and a sure thing for the Democrats; therefore, they are not worth the cost of campaigning. But the so-called swing states Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan and, as the Republicans saw it, California are the ones both parties seek to sway, because their voters historically

GDI Scholars

56 Politics

Bush good Jewish voters module

Helmreich, 2001
swing between parties. As it turns out, Jews are concentrated and communally active in all these electoral battlefields, especially Florida, Pennsylvania and California. This has been true for decades, even if it did not get national attention until November 2000, when Mr. Bush, by some interpretations, won his presidency thanks to the thousands of Florida Jews who unwittingly cast their votes for Pat Buchanan. But the story doesn't end there. Jews not only are concentrated in swing states; they also include in their ranks a uniquely formidable swing vote. True, a majority of Jews vote Democratic. However, a study of Jewish voting habits during the past century shows that enough Jewish voters some 30% (will) (switch) (parties) to punish a candidate who take positions they dislike. In states such as Florida and California, in which Jews number 4% to 6% of the electorate, a 30% swing can tip the scales in a close election. There will be disagreement on exactly why they swing, but the fact that Jews do swing in certain key elections is undeniable and the timing is revealing. In 1972, for example, when Jewish support for the Democrats was at record highs, the party's candidate was the liberal isolationist George McGovern. So controversial was Mr. McGovern's stance on the Middle East that Israel's ambassador in Washington at the time, Yitzhak Rabin, went public with his preference for President Nixon. In that election, 16% of the Jewish vote shifted away from the Democrats. An even greater Jewish exodus accompanied the 1980 re-election bid of President Carter, just months after his administration voted for an anti-Israel resolution in the United Nations Security Council. In both cases, the defecting Jewish votes made up a significant portion of the Republican victory margin. The most dramatic case was the 1992 election, in which the senior George Bush took his political battle with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir to the streets, weighing in as a "lonely little guy" against the "powerful political forces" of the Jewish lobby. Some 23% to 25% of American Jewish voters had supported Mr. Bush in 1988, but most now dumped the incumbent president, leaving him with a mere 10%, according to the American Jewish Committee. Those Jewish defectors, close to a million votes in all, made up a significant part of President Clinton's 4 million-vote victory margin. What all this means is that the Jewish vote counts.

GDI Scholars

57 Politics

Jewish voters key to election

Getting the Jewish block is key to Bushs reelection Bill Berkowitz , 2004, Working For Change online, 5.28
Since President Bush came into office, his political strategists have made a priority of going after the Jewish vote, which makes up about 4% of the national electorate. Although historically in the Democratic column, Bush received about 17% of the Jewish vote in 2000. He's hoping to bump that number up to 30% in November. Over the past few weeks, Vice President Dick Cheney addressed the Jewish Federation of South Palm Beach County and national security advisor Condoleezza Rice spoke to the Anti-Defamation League's annual conference in Washington. Therefore, it wasn't surprising that Bush would take time off from touring the battleground states and reassuring the public that all was going well in Iraq to drop in at the AIPAC event. According to the Los Angeles Times, Bush's 39-minute AIPAC address "was interrupted repeatedly with cheering and applause [and] on two occasions, at least a third of the audience burst into chants of 'Four more years!' "The Jewish community is seeing that on the issues that really matter to them, the Republican Party is offering real leadership and clear vision," Matthew Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, told the Times.

Jews effect the election monumentally due to geographical location Arab News, 2004 (May 1 ,
st %20Michael%20Saba,%20Arab%20News.htm)

Jews constitute only about two percent of the American population, but they tend to have a much stronger political role in American politics than their raw numbers indicate. Jews are concentrated in important political battleground states such as Florida and Ohio. They are known for their large turnout in elections as much as 80 percent as compared to around 50 percent for the national average of all American voters.

Jews key to the Election Slate Magazine, 2004 (February 10th)

Jews would have to overlook major points of contention on domestic issues in order to reward Bush for standing by Israel. Some of the most vocal in the community may do so, but it's unlikely that large numbers will follow. Nonetheless, the RJC's Brooks need not despair just yet: If we're in for a tight race in November, even a few thousand Jewish votes for Bushespecially in a swing state like Floridacould be the key to a second term in the White House.

GDI Scholars

58 Politics

Conservative base key to election

Maintaining base support is key to determining if Bush gets a second term Boston Globe, 2003 (Kuttner, September 3, p. Lexis
WITH LABOR DAY 2003, the race to November 2004 is on. Seemingly, President Bush will be seriously on the defensive on the issues, but with a big advantage on the politics. However, voters are likely to be energized in 2004 as they have rarely been in recent years. And voter mobilization will ultimately determine whether Bush gets a second term.

Bush needs conservative support to win the election Tom DeWeese February 8, 2004,
A President and a Party get elected and reelected based as much on what they are for as what they are against. A lot of Republicans and independents who lean in their direction are against Big Government and Big Spending. Since 2000 that is all the Bush administration has given them and many are in a state of insurrection, desperately trying to get the White House to understand this is not what they voted for. Does the White House need to be reminded how narrow their last victory was? Do they need to be reminded that they are in office only because the Supreme Court gave them an Electoral College victory, not a victory by the popular vote?

Bush needs to assert himself as a hardcore conservative by denying UN action Tom DeWeese February 8, 2004,
In a nation that remains sharply divided, the Republican Party and the White House, however, have abandoned the very principles that drew people increasingly to its ranks. Half or more of all Americans no longer even bother to vote and, if disaffected Republicans and Independents stay home on Election Day in November, George W. Bush will become, as his father before him, a one-term President. Are there differences between the Republican and Democrat Parties? Yes, but the line has been so blurred by the policies and actions of the White House, a rising tide of distress is being expressed from within the Party and may well be reflected in a new administration in January 2005, one that will win because too many are asking, Is Bush listening? Is Bush a conservative?

GDI Scholars

59 Politics

Conservative base key to election

The base will matter more this election than swing voters Washington Post, 7/15/04 (Dana Milbank and Mike Allen, Bush Fortifies Conservative Base,, accessed 7/15/04) Rosemary Metzdorff, after cheering her way through a speech full of references to abortion restrictions, tax cuts, caps on jury awards and other conservative favorites, could not decide which part she liked best. "Every part -- I'm such a Bush fan," she replied, adding that the president probably did not change many minds here. "They were all for him, anyway." Therein lies an important key to understanding Bush's reelection strategy. Although age-old campaign rules dictate that the general-election candidate must emphasize moderate "swing" voters and political independents, Bush strategists are predicting that this election, more than previous ones, will be determined by the turnout of each side's partisans. Although not discounting swing voters, Bush is placing unusual emphasis so far on rallying the faithful. "In close elections in today's environment, the old political strategy of focusing just on independents won't work," said Matthew Dowd, the Bush campaign's chief strategist. "Campaigns have to motivate supporters at the same time of appealing to swing voters." There is evidence to support the Bush theory. A study by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found that 21 percent of registered voters are undecided or might change their minds -- at this point in 2000, it was 32 percent. Still, Pew reasoned, "the swing vote, while smaller in relative terms, is still substantial and certainly large enough to propel either of the presidential candidates to a big victory." Democrats say Bush's approach is novel. "It's a new way to run for president," said James Carville, the strategist behind Bill Clinton's 1992 victory. Whereas "usually you quietly shore up your base and aggressively court the swing voter, Bush is aggressively shoring up his base and quietly courting the swing voter." Some Bush allies say it is more efficient to boost turnout among partisans than to sway the fencesitters, who the campaign believes may be 10 percent of the electorate or less. "How much time and energy do you give to picking up the 10 percent, who are disengaged from politics, and how do you communicate with them even if you want to?" asked Grover G. Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. "You can go to the 45 percent [who already support Bush] and ask them to bring a brother or a sister or a friend to the polls."

If his base stays home, it will hurt Bushs chances IPS, 7/7/04 (Jim Lobe, Inter Press Service News Agency, Cheney in the balance,, accessed 7/17/04) Although the neo-conservatives have seen their influence steadily decline since late last year, Cheney's absence in a second Bush term would make it far more difficult for them to stage a comeback. Indeed, this was precisely the motive behind a discreet effort launched late last year by some cronies of former president - the current leader's father -- George HW Bush (1989-93) including Brent Scowcroft and James Baker, to persuade the younger Bush to dump Cheney. But given his failure so far to fire anyone responsible for the post-war debacle in Iraq, most analysts believe the president will not force Cheney off the ticket, particularly because it would risk alienating much of his core constituency, especially the Christian Right and aggressive nationalists. If even small numbers of these groups stay home on Election Day, Nov. 2, Bush's chances of winning re-election would be significantly eroded.

GDI Scholars

60 Politics

Florida key to election

Florida most important state in the election The Associated Press, June 9th, 2004
"As Florida voters of all political stripes expressed dismay over the war in Iraq. The race is as close as it was four years ago, when a mere 537 votes tipped the state and the presidency to Bush." "Since then, the capital of close elections has grown by more than 1 million, mostly Democratic-leaning Hispanics and blacks as well as conservative whites drawn by Florida's warm temperatures and booming suburbs. 'This may be the most dynamic state in all the 50,' said Jeb Bush, who hopes to deliver 17-million-strong Florida to his brother this November." "The state's 9.3 million registered voters are a microcosm of America - black, white and brown; immigrants and Southern aristocracy; Panhandle conservatives, Miami-Dade County liberals and a growing number of independents; scores of voters driven by single issues such as Fidel Castro's rule in Cuba, Israel's security and, yes, the disputed outcome of the 2000 presidential election. They will determine whether Bush or Democrat John Kerry gets Florida's 27 electoral votes, a 10th of the total needed to win the White House. It's the largest prize of the battleground states, with each campaign spending more than $10 million in television commercials since March."

Florida key to the Election Orlando Sentinel, 3-26-2003

This is partly a strategic public appearance -- drawing full media coverage. Bush already has the public's backing, with 72 percent of Americans surveyed in the Gallup poll this week supporting the war with Iraq. But Bush is traveling, once again, to a state that will be critical to his re-election chances in 2004. This is the 14th time since his inauguration the president has visited Florida, and his brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, plans to appear alongside him once again today. And Florida, where a close and contested vote in 2000 was key to the president's election, will provide even more electoral power in the next presidential election -- the state's 27 electoral votes offering one-tenth of the number needed for victory.

GDI Scholars

61 Politics

Funding key to election

Campaign funding defines policies and its spin will deicide the election Associated Press, April 26 2004

Money is the lifeblood of politics, and increasingly, it defines and dominates campaigns. It gives rich candidates an instant edge. It makes politicians prisoners of the coffee-andcocktail fund-raising circuit - time that could be used to do the work of government, or to engage voters who are not wielding checkbooks. It fuels the constant barrage of costly TV ads that have become a staple of elections in an era where a 30-second commercial can define a life. Critics complain the frantic scramble for money is corrosive and has turned elections into a carnival of slick consultants, pollsters and sound bites. They say well-heeled contributors spread around enormous wads of cash in return for favors, corrupting the system. But defenders say money is used to inform voters and dollars collected from grass-roots fund-raising - including the Internet - give Americans more of a say in deciding who will govern. Either way, money talks in politics and it's louder than ever. "The amount of money that it takes to run a presidential campaign is just absolutely mind-blowing," says Joe Scarborough, a former Florida congressman-turned-MSNBC talk show host. "It can't be healthy for this republic that you've got to raise $200 million to have a shot."
Many of President Bush's supporters think he could raise $200 million in his re-election bid; Democratic challenger John Kerry hopes to reach about $105 million by summer. And that doesn't include the $74.6 million each candidate will receive in public financing for the fall race. But not everyone laments the high cost of campaigns

GDI Scholars

62 Politics

Bush space
A second term for Bush is key to Space plan and Space exploration Washington Post, 2004 (Mike Allen and Eric Pianin, Republican officials said conservative lawmakers who
might balk at the cost are likely to be lured by the chance to extend the U.S. military supremacy in space, January 15, 2004, President Bush vowed yesterday to "extend a human presence across our solar system," starting with a return to the moon within 16 years to build a permanent staging ground for manned missions to Mars and planets beyond. The election-year plan calls for retiring the three remaining space shuttles by 2010, after the international space station is complete. Bush wants to develop a manned exploration vehicle to travel to the moon and farther, and he made a commitment that Americans would return to the moon between 2015 and 2020. In a concession to objections in Congress and elsewhere that such an audacious goal is out of place in an era of deep deficits, Bush said the research and development for the exploration venture can be done for relatively little over the course of this presidential term and the next one - $12 billion over five years, just $1 billion of which would be new money for NASA. Bush's plan would gradually shift more and more of the space agency's budget and resources to the lunar and Mars missions and away from the space shuttle and space station. The Pentagon and private companies will collaborate with NASA on the venture. Bush invited other countries to join, and officials said Russia has already expressed interest. "We may discover resources on the moon or Mars that will boggle the imagination, that will test our limits to dream," Bush said. "We do not know where this journey will end, yet we know this: Human beings are headed into the cosmos."

Bush re-election gets us off the rock Newsday, 2003 (December 9, p. Lexis)
Now word emerges from the White House that the president's men contemplate a grand return to space - to the moon, no less - if Bush wins a second term. The news excites the imagination, if only because we need some project to relieve the melancholy. Among scientists, there is no agreement that moon exploration is the next important undertaking in space. The argument, if it indeed becomes seriously engaged, is not likely to be settled through the collective effort of the best and the brightest but by a contest among lobbyists for big defense contractors. That is how things are decided these days. It is commonplace for presidents to seek higher ground when seeking re-election. But if Bush takes such a giant leap, he also must be required to take one small step: Tell us how he would pay for his big ideas. And who would do the paying. When it is not conjuring up some expansive vision for the future to win voters' hearts, the Bush administration is concocting more tax-cut schemes and sending the bill to future generations. That is, to people who won't yet be eligible to vote next year.

GDI Scholars

63 Politics

Bush space
Kerry would stop Bushs space plan if elected Sietzen, 2004 (UPI, Frank Sietzen, Space Daily Washington, April 22, 2004 United Press International.
Meanwhile, the administration is moving along another track to bolster the new space plan. The White House has endorsed language in a proposed NASA reauthorization bill that essentially takes the goals embodied in the new space plan and defines them as the central purpose for NASA's existence. Should the reauthorization bill pass this year, it would formalize all of the advanced human spaceflight goals that Bush is seeking to pay for with his budget. That way, even if the full budget request fails to pass, having the supporting language written into law might create an easier starting point for the FY 2006 budget debate. The move would create a political backstop in case Bush fails to win reelection and Sen. John F.

Kerry, D-Mass., is elected instead. Kerry has been critical of the Bush space plan and might even attempt to cancel it, in whole or in part, if he assumes the presidency next year. However, if this year's authorization is approved and if it contains
language supporting a moon-Mars goal, Kerry would have a tough time trying to adjust NASA's charter to accommodate lesser objectives. Others have suggested that, ultimately, the distinction would not matter. They note that Kerry would not be

obligated to continue Bush space policies, no matter what language is contained in NASA's reauthorization. Moreover, without funding, the point would be moot.

Bush requires a second term to keep the space plan alive The Mars Society, January 24, 2004
For various political and diplomatic reasons, the Bush policy delays the phase out of the Shuttle and ISS until 2010, thereby delaying substantial human exploration program start until about that time. Thus the choice on whether or not to really start a Moon or Mars human exploration program, and what its pace or objectives should be, is effectively being placed in the hands of the 2009 administration. The merit of this decision is debatable. A key point however, is that the 2009 administration will have a choice. By making clear that the fundamental purpose of the human spaceflight program is to allow humans to FLY ACROSS SPACE (the Apollo era vision) to explore other worlds, rather than to allow humans to EXPERIENCE SPACE (the Shuttle era vision), the Bush policy (should it be sustained by either his reelection or the concurrence on this issue of an alternative 2005 administration) effectively precludes the commitment of NASA to a second generation Shuttle ("Shuttle 2") as its next major program.

GDI Scholars

64 Politics

Bush space
Kerry election is the only way for Space Privatization, which is key to space exploration Bloomberg News, 2004 (June 22nd, &refer=columnist_ferguson&sid=aEyz6I6oiDts)
And all of this could be achieved, Bush claimed, by reshuffling NASA's existing budget, augmented by modest increases of 5 percent a year through 2008. The apparent inconsistency between Bush's rhetoric and the reality of his budget proposals has drawn criticism from Democratic challenger John Kerry. This in turn raises hope, especially among space enthusiasts, that space may yet be an issue in this November's presidential campaign. ``There's little to be gained from a `Bush space initiative' that throws out lofty goals, but fails to support those goals with realistic funding,'' Kerry last week told the weekly business publication Space News. Here is where the commission's work may prove unexpectedly clarifying. Its report concludes that Bush's modest budget proposals for NASA could support his ambitious goals -- but only if the agency were radically reformed and its mission sharply redefined. Privatizing Space ``Root-and-branch change must be fully internalized throughout NASA,'' the report said. Specifically, the commission proposes privatizing huge chunks of the agency's mission, handing them over to an as-yet nonexistent private space industry. NASA's work would be limited to the far-reaching tasks that no venture capitalist would dare underwrite: remote exploratory missions, for example, whether manned or robotic. ``The Commission believes that commercialization of space should become the primary focus of the (government's space) vision, and that the creation of a space-based industry will be one of the principal benefits of this journey,'' the report said. Not surprisingly, the report was warmly embraced by space enthusiasts. `Critical Shift' ``This is a critical shift, said George Whitesides, executive director of the National Space Society, a grassroots group that lobbies for space exploration. ``It keeps NASA at the forefront of exploration, where it should be.'' And it gets NASA out of the way of private companies, which see a commercial future in space. The Bush administration embraced the commission's privatization plan last week, as well. Kerry, in comments to Space News, declined to go that far. He said only that a Kerry administration would pursue ``continued investment in a reinvigorated NASA.'' As the commission points out, the creation of a private space industry would require reorienting the government's role in regulating private space endeavors, and here again the differences between Bush and Kerry should be more widely aired. Last March, with White House encouragement and the approval of the Republican leadership, the House of Representatives passed a bill streamlining federal regulation of private space flight. Among its features were a simplified process for licensing experimental manned flights and a relaxation of liability rules for entrepreneurs who conduct them. The bill isn't popular with trial attorneys, a key Kerry constituency, and for now it remains stuck in the Senate. But like the commission report, the House bill can have a clarifying effect. It forces the space debate beyond romantic talk about the ``final frontier, on the one hand, and extravagant, ``Swiss Army knife'' claims about public policy implications on the other. What's NASA's future? Will the U.S. have a private space industry, and if so, how will it be developed? Those are the kinds of questions voters should ask, and presidential candidates should answer.

GDI Scholars

65 Politics

Bush doesnt space

Theres no chance of a space plan being sustained CNN, January 14, 2004 (
Would the government sponsor it, though? Obviously, even if President Bush is reelected, he's really only in office another four years. His own schedule, even if it's accurate, would extend decades beyond that. Will the Congress fund something this enormous? No one really knows what it's going to cost. Would subsequent presidents agree to support it any more vigorously than presidents have supported the previous President Bush's plans to do this 20 years ago?

Bush wont be able to pass the plan after being elected TCU Daily Skiff, 2004 (January 28,
The Bush space plan a better name would be the Bush re-election plan is another classic Karl Rove bait and switch. The president promises us the moon literally while saddling the next president with the costs of such a lofty mission. Bush proposes shifting $11 billion in NASAs five-year budget and adding another $1 billion in new funding as a down payment for the mission. The plan is sure to cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Papa Bush proposed a Mars mission in 1989, which crashed and burned in Congress after cost estimates hit $400 billion, or $600 billion in todays dollars.

GDI Scholars

66 Politics

Space solves extinction

Space is key to averting extinction 10 reasons Pelton, 2003 (Joseph N., director of Space and Advanced Communications Research Institute at George
Washington University and Ex. Director of the Arthur C. Clarke Foundation, September 12th Actually the lack of a space program could get us all killed. I dont mean you or me or my wife or children. I mean that Homo sapiens as a species are actually endangered. Surprising to some, a well conceived space program may well be our only hope for long-term survival. The right or wrong decisions about space research and exploration may be key to the futures of our grandchildren or great-grandchildren or those that follow. Arthur C. Clarke, the author and screenplay writer for 2001: A Space Odyssey, put the issue rather starkly some years back when he said: The dinosaurs are not around today because they did not have a space program. He was, of course, referring to the fact that we now know a quite largish meteor crashed into the earth, released poisonous Iridium chemicals into our atmosphere and created a killer cloud above the Earth that blocked out the sun for a prolonged period of time. This could have been foreseen and averted with a sufficiently advanced space program. But this is only one example of how space programs, such as NASAs Spaceguard program, help protect our fragile planet. Without a space program we would not know about the large ozone hole in our atmosphere, the hazards of solar radiation, the path of killer hurricanes or many other environmental dangers. But this is only a fraction of the ways that space programs are crucial to our future. We rely on space systems for communicating with many parts of the world, for navigating our airplanes, for coping with weather systems, for charting the path of hurricanes and tidal waves, and for monitoring air and water pollution. Right now space scientists and engineers are developing new technology to protect us from environmental perils, to alert us to terrorist attacks and to stimulate new industries that actually create new jobs. Cheap energy, essential to sustaining modern life, may very well have to come from space-based energy systems. Every dollar NASA spent on developing the communications satellites industry has put back more than $25 into the economy. It is important for citizens to know that the lack of a space program may truly imperil generations to come. Many people have said the time has come to re-evaluate our space programs, define a new vision and articulate new goals in space. These people are dead right. The time for a major review is indeed now. It is time for everyone to know and understand the ways that space programs are absolutely critical for solving the largest problems that all people living on our planet now face. NASA Administrator Sean OKeefe and President George W. Bush are welcome to share this list with the American people and members of the U.S. Congress who ask, why do we need a space program? Prevention of environmental disaster: Remote sensing satellites allow us to monitor the ozone hole, global warming, air, water and ocean pollution, the effect of oil spills on the melting of the ice caps, the loss of rain forests and other environmental threats to human survival. These systems can help us trace our recovery from the worst environmental threats and improve our quality of life. Creating a global network for modern communications, entertainment and networking: Advanced satellites provide global connectivity by means of the telephone, fax, the Internet, radio and television extend far beyond the reach of fiber optic cables. Eleven thousand television channels are now available via satellite and well over 200 countries and territories are linked via satellite. Global education and health services: Over 2 billion of the 6 billion people in our world today lack formal educational systems, health care services, potable water or power. The only way to provide global education and health care services in coming decades at reasonable cost and broad coverage is via space-based communication systems. Socrates once said, there is only one good knowledge, and only one evil -- ignorance. In an age of terrorism and great intolerance the need for global education is ever more important. Cheap and environmentally friendly energy: NASA scientists and engineers already have gone a long way to develop space technology that can provide unlimited low cost energy from space. The operational systems, however, still need to be developed and proven in practice. Transportation safety: The 6,000 commercial airplanes that are aloft at one time during peak periods in the U.S. depend on satellite navigation for safe operation. New systems can provide better fuel efficiency,


GDI Scholars

67 Politics

Space solves extinction

earlier warnings of safety hazards and alert of terrorist attack. This is but one of the ways that future space systems can provide greater transportation safety in decades to come. Emergency warning and recovery systems: The ability to warn populations of pending dangers from hurricanes, monsoons, tidal waves, fires and earthquakes are increasingly dependent on space-based systems. Further rescue operations, from emergency communications to disaster assessment to recovery operations, are dependent on satellite networks as well. Protection of our information networks from cyberterrorists: Many of our current electronic information networks that control transportation systems, energy grids, banking systems and governmental databases are vulnerable. Public Key Infrastructure systems are in need of upgrade. New types of security systems based on GPS location and encryption systems are dependent on space-based systems. National defense and strategic security: Space has been called the high frontier. National security systems are increasingly based on smart technologies and instruments that operate in outer space. Ever since Operation Desert Storm, military operations are based heavily on space systems and future systems will be even more so. Protection against catastrophic planetary accidents: It is easy to assume that an erratic meteor or comet will not bring destruction to the Earth because the probabilities are low. The truth is we are bombarded from space daily. The dangers are greatest not from a cataclysmic collision, but from not knowing enough about solar storms, cosmic radiation and the ozone layer. An enhanced Spaceguard Program is actually a prudent course that could save our species in time. Creation of new jobs and Industries -- a new vision for the 21st century and a mandate to explore truly new frontiers: Most of the economically advanced countries such as Japan, Canada, Australia and Europe, not to mention China, India and Russia, use their space programs to stimulate their economy, expand their educational and health care networks, improve their agriculture, upgrade their information networks, enhance their entertainment networks and create new jobs. In this respect the U.S. space program now spends precious little of its resources in these areas, but it once did and it could again. These are only some of the ways that space programs could help create a better future for generations yet to come, but it is an impressive list that impacts every American. Space is actually our future. Some would argue that space is the next great step forward for a pioneering nation that sees the need for advancement and discovery. In Nebraska a historical display dedicated to the pioneers that went out West notes that the cowards stayed home but the brave died seeking a better tomorrow. Now is the time to assess our values and our aspirations. It is time to truly ask some key questions:

Space is key to prevent extinction [gender modified] James Oberg, space writer and a former space flight engineer based in Houston, 1999, Space Power Theory, We have the great gift of yet another period when our nation is not threatened; and our world is free from opposing coalitions with great global capabilities. We can use this period to take our nation and our fellow men into the greatest adventure that our species has ever embarked upon. The United States can lead, protect, and help the rest of [hu]mankind to move into space. It is particularly fitting that a country comprised of people from all over the globe assumes that role. This is a manifest destiny worthy of dreamers and poets, warriors and conquerors. In his last book, Pale Blue Dot, Carl Sagan presents an emotional argument that our species must venture into the vast realm of space to establish a spacefaring civilization. While acknowledging the very high costs that are involved in manned spaceflight, Sagan states that our very survival as a species depends on colonizing outer space. Astronomers have already identified dozens of asteroids that might someday smash into Earth. Undoubtedly, many more remain undetected. In Sagans opinion, the only way to avert inevitable catastrophe is for mankind to establish a permanent human presence in space. He compares humans to the planets that roam the night sky, as he says that humans will too wander through space. We will wander space because we possess a compulsion to explore, and space provides a truly infinite prospect of new directions to explore. Sagans vision is part science and part emotion. He hoped that the exploration of space would unify humankind. We propose that mankind follow the United States and our allies into this new sea, set with jeweled stars. If we lead, we can be both strong and caring. If we step back, it may be to the detriment of more than our country.

GDI Scholars

68 Politics

Space good
10 to the 32 power lives perish every second we delay Space Exploration Bostrum, 2003, Professor of Philosophy at Yale, Is Cosmology Relevant to Transhumanism
Suns are illuminating and heating empty rooms; unused energy is being flushed down black holes; our great common endowment of negentropy is being irreversibly degraded into entropy on a cosmic scale, as I write these words. These are resources that an advanced civilization could have used to create value-structures, such as sentinent beings living worthwhile lives. The rate of this loss boggles the mind. One recent paper speculates, using loose theoretical considerations based on the rate of increase of entropy, that the loss of potential humans lives in our own galactic super cluster is at least 10^46 per century of delayed colonization (Cirkovic 2002 ). This estimate assumes that all the lost entropy could have been used for productive purposes, although no currently known technological mechanisms are even remotely capable of doing that. Since the estimate is meant to be a lower bound, this radically un-conservative assumption is undesirable. THE EVIDENCE CONTINUES Given these estimates, it follows that the potential for approximately 10^38 human lives is lost every century that colonization of our local super cluster is delayed; or equivalently, about 10^31 potential human lives per second

GDI Scholars

69 Politics

Got to Get off the Rock by 2050

Well all be dead by 2050 unless we colonize space Daily Record, 7/8/2002
THE Earth will be so gutted, wrecked, over-exploited and the barren seas so fished out that we will have to find a new planet - or even two - by 2050. Environmentalists at the World Wildlife Fund say we have just another half century of luxury living left before the Earth becomes a spent husk. By that time, we will either have to colonise space or risk human extinction as population and consumption expand.

GDI Scholars

70 Politics

Space Colonization Solves War

Space colonization solves all wars Isaac Asimov, visionary genius, 1985, I have a feeling that if we really expanded into space with all our might and made it a global project, this would be the equivalent of the winning of the West. It's not just a matter of idealism or preaching brotherhood. If we can build power stations in space that will supply all the energy the world needs, then the rest of the world will want that energy too. The only way that each country will be able to get that energy will be to make sure these stations are maintained. It won't be easy to build and maintain them; it will be quite expensive and time-consuming. But if the whole world wants energy and if the price is world cooperation, then I think people are going to do it. We already cooperate on things that the whole world needs. International organizations monitor the world's weather and pollution and deal with things like the oceans and with Antarctica. Perhaps if we see that it is to our advantage to cooperate, then only the real maniacs will avoid cooperating and they will be left out in the cold when the undoubted benefits come in. I think that, although we as nations will retain our suspicions and mutual hatreds, we will find it to our advantage to cooperate in developing space. In doing so, we will be able to adopt a "globalist" view of our situation. The internal strife between Earthlings, the little quarrels over this or that patch of the Earth, and the magnified memories of past injustices will diminish before the much greater task of developing a new, much larger world. I think that the development of space is the great positive project that will force cooperation, a new outlook that may bring peace to the Earth, and a kind of federalized world government. In such a government, each region will be concerned with those matters that concern itself alone, but the entire world would act as a unit on matters that affect the entire world. Only in such a way will we be able to survive and to avoid the kind of wars that will either gradually destroy our civilization or develop into a war that will suddenly destroy it. There are so many benefits to be derived from space exploration and exploitation; why not take what seems to me the only chance of escaping what is otherwise the sure destruction of all that humanity has struggled to achieve for 50000 years? That is one of the reasons, by the way, that I have come from New York to Hampton despite the fact that I have a hatred of traveling and I faced 8 hours on the train with a great deal of fear and trembling. It was not only The College of William and Mary that invited me, but NASA as well, and it is difflcult for me to resist NASA, knowing full well that it symbolizes what I believe in too.

Space colonization harmoniously unites humanity The Columbus Dispatch, 5/23/2001

There may come a time when humans will consider space colonization. Initiatives such as the space station and a manned Mars landing could be steppingstones toward pitching a tent on another world. In one unexpected consequence, an international push into space could be the great uniter. The heavens, so immense and enigmatic, could make ethnic and religious groups look beyond their problems with each other. Everyone has a stake in this trip.

GDI Scholars

71 Politics

Space Bad
Going to space causes extinction, intergalactic environmental exploitation, epidemics and war Bruce K. Gagnon, Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, 1999, We are now poised to take the bad seed of greed, environmental exploitation and war into space. Having shown such enormous disregard for our own planet Earth, the so-called "visionaries" and "explorers" are now ready to rape and pillage the heavens. Countless launches of nuclear materials, using rockets that regularly blow up on the launch pad, will seriously jeopardize life on Earth. Returning potentially bacteria-laden space materials back to Earth, without any real plans for containment and monitoring, could create new epidemics for us. The possibility of an expanding nuclear-powered arms race in space will certainly have serious ecological and political ramifications as well. The effort to deny years of consensus around international space law will create new global conflicts and confrontations.

Going to space results in asteroid-slinging terrorists that destroy the world Clifford E. Singer, professor of nuclear engineering and director of the Program in Arms Control, Disarmament, and International Security at the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, Spring 2001, Swords and
Ploughshares, However the technology to build isolated extraterrestrial settlements naturally brings along with it another potentially powerful technologythe ability to move sizeable asteroids. Back in 1979 it was shown that this is not as difficult as one might at first think. The requisite technique is to land a spacecraft on one asteroid, dig up material and throw it the path of another asteroid that will approach nearby, and perturb the orbit of that asteroid until it passes nearby another large object. Once an asteroid or comet makes a controlled approach near any planet but Mercury or Pluto, then it can easily be directed near or at the earth at enormous velocity. Fortunately for our hypothetical descendants here destroying all human life on earth by asteroid impact would likely require moving objects with a diameter in excess of ten kilometers. While there are many of these, the required orbit perturbation would require a lot of lead-time and work and could be very difficult to motivate and conceal. Nevertheless with contributions from this technology a dispute between the earth and a handful of its fragile far-flung offspring in space that is carried to the extreme could conceivably lead to human extinction. Only when settlements in space are sufficiently numerous or far flung would such a possibility effectively be ruled out, primarily by physical considerations.

Space flight destroys the ozone layer Helen Caldicott, April 15, 2000,
But in reality NASA is busily destroying the ozone layer. Because each space shuttle releases 240 tons of concentrated HCl, hydrochloric acid, much of it in the stratosphere where the ozone layer is located. The chlorine atom then splits off from the HCL molecule and starts eating up the ozone layer. It was predicted a few years ago by a Russian scientist that if the space program continued as planned (though it's actually expanding), ten percent of the ozone would be depleted within ten years. NASA didn't contradict this prediction. I broke this story in the US, and instead of NASA trying to fix the problem they launched a satellite to measure the ozone depletion and the ozone holes in the southern hemisphere, and radioed back the results to high schools here, so the children could all do projects on the ozone depletion. That's called management control in PR language..

GDI Scholars

72 Politics

Space Bad
Ozone destruction causes extinction Anna Goodwin et al, students at the University of Bristol, 2001, The Permian-Triassic boundary extinction was the largest extinction the world has ever experienced. About 90 percent of all species vanished in this mass extinction 250 million years ago. Approximately 85% of all marine species and 70% of all terrestrial species went extinct in less than one million years. By studying the species which became extinct at this time, the rate at which they became extinct, and the regions of the Earth in which the greatest extinction occurred, hypotheses about possible methods for the cause of extinction have been devised. There are many theories which have been developed to understand this historic mass extinction. One theory is the formation of a super-continent which caused a reduction of shallow continental shelves. Such a reduction in oceanic continental shelves would result in ecological competition for space, perhaps acting as an agent for extinction. However, although this is a viable theory, the formation of Pangaea and the ensuing destruction of the continental shelves occurred in the early and middle Permian, and mass extinction did not occur until the late Permian Impact from an extraterrestrial object is a common theory for the explanation of this extinction. The collision wasn't directly responsible for the extinction but rather triggered a series of events, such as massive volcanism and changes in ocean oxygen, sea level and climate. Those in turn led to species extinction on a wholesale level. The collision would either weaken or kill much of the life that thrived during this time. Dust clouds and CO2 in the atmosphere would have caused major climate changes for the species and make it unsuitable for them to thrive. Evidence of increased levels of atmospheric levels of CO2 exists in the fossil record. Glaciation is also a viable theory. Simultaneous glaciation events on the north and south poles could have caused rapid warming and severe climatic fluctuations. In temperate zones, there is evidence of significant cooling and drying in the sedimentological record, shown by thick sequences of dune sands and evaporites, while in the polar zones, glaciation was prominent. This caused severe climatic fluctuations around the globe, and is found by sediment record to be representative of when the Permian mass extinction occurred. Another theory is volcanism. Basaltic lava eruptions in Siberia were large and sent a quantity of sulphates into the atmosphere. Evidence in China supports that these volcanic eruptions may have been silica-rich, and thus explosive, a factor that would have produced large ash clouds around the world. The combination of sulphates in the atmosphere and the ejection of ash clouds may have lowered global climatic conditions. The age of the lava flows has also been dated to the interval in which the Permian mass extinction occurred. Other than changes in atmospheric carbon, no other evidence exists for this theory. Scientists are working to precisely date volcanic ash from Permian fossil reefs in Texas and China. This will provide a kind of timeline for the extinction to build a global database of extinction for the Permian Age, which species died, where they died and when they died. This too will help him determine the timing of the extinction in more detail and highlight gaps in the fossil record that may be distorting palaeontologists' understanding of when various organisms went extinct and how rapidly they did so. Lastly, a new theory has been proposed- the Supernova explosion. A supernova occurring 30 light years away from earth would release enough gamma radiation to destroy the ozone layer for several years. Subsequent exposure to direct ultra-violet radiation would weaken or kill nearly all existing species. Only those living deep in the ocean will be secured. Sediments contain records or short-term ozone destructionlarge amounts of NOx gasses and C14 plus global and atmospheric cooling. With sufficient destruction of the ozone layer, these problems could cause widespread destruction of life.

GDI Scholars

73 Politics

Space Bad
Space exploration risks extra-terrestrial pandemics Helen Caldicott, April 15, 2000,
I digressed. Well, NASA and the relevant corporations plan bring this 300 grams of space minerals back to earth, but they are not going to use a parachute, they're going to slam it into Utah at 300 to 400 G-force. Which will break the container apart. Now why is this a problem? Oh, I forgot, they have to put two nuclear power plants up on Mars, by the year 2007, so they can provide power for the human colony, keep it operating, turn the urine into water, do all that stuff, keep the men warm, and to provide power I suppose to the robots that will travel around picking up the dirt. It is predicted that humans will be present on Mars by the year 2016. But there is a problem, it is believed that there could be bacteria on Mars. Now, you know about the Ebola virus. Everyone is scared by Ebola viruses well as HIV and many other dangerous viruses. Scientists predict that there could be a massive epidemic of some uncontrollably dangerous virus in the future. It's quite interesting, though, when you look at history, in the early to mid-1300s, one quarter of the European population died as the result of a flea from China that carried the plague. When the Spaniards began to explore the Americas, they brought with them the smallpox virus, that killed tens of thousands of people. European explorers to Polynesian Hawaii in the 1500s, infected the natives with microbes. We killed a large number of Aborigines from just the common cold and flu in Australia. So if 300 grams of Martian soil slams into the desert on earth and bursts apart, there is a possibility that the earth could be infected, and the microbes could spread. The scientists will not have microscopes, labs and gram-positive stains to search for Martian bacteria, before they return. And what about our bacteria infecting Mars? And guess what they'll do? They'll stick an American flag on Mars. So that's probably all I have to say, except that-in the March issue of the Scientific American which I stole from my son under great protest-there is a huge section describing how men will get to Mars. By God, are they pushing it. So we've got a huge amount of work to do. And I think anger is totally appropriate, because I always mentally refer to Germany. The only way evil flourishes is for good people to do nothing. And I don't mean being polite. Go and lobbying your representatives and really tell them the truth, don't take no for an answer. Be nasty to them if necessary. Take a baby into your senator's office and change the diaper on the table, and say, "I am talking about this baby's future". Do whatever it takes to penetrate their psychic numbing.

The terminal impact is human extinction Frank Ryan, M.D., 1997, virus X, p. 366
How might the human race appear to such an aggressively emerging virus? That teeming, globally intrusive species, with its transcontinental air travel, massively congested cities, sexual promiscuity, and in the less affluent regions where the virus is most likely to first emerge a vulnerable lack of hygiene with regard to food and water supplies and hospitality to biting insects' The virus is best seen, in John Hollands excellent analogy, as a swarm of competing mutations, with each individual strain subjected to furious forces of natural selection for the strain, or strains, most likely to amplify and evolve in the new ecological habitat.3 With such a promising new opportunity in the invaded species, natural selection must eventually come to dominate viral behavior. In time the dynamics of infection will select for a more resistant human population. Such a coevolution takes rather longer in "human" time too long, given the ease of spread within the global village. A rapidly lethal and quickly spreading virus simply would not have time to switch from aggression to coevolution. And there lies the danger. Joshua Lederbergs prediction can now be seen to be an altogether logical one. Pandemics are inevitable. Our incredibly rapid human evolution, our overwhelming global needs, the advances of our complex industrial society, all have moved the natural goalposts. The advance of society, the very science of change, has greatly augmented the potential for the emergence of a pandemic strain. It is hardly surprising that Avrion Mitchison, scientific director of Deutsches Rheuma Forschungszentrum in Berlin, asks the question: "Will we survive! We have invaded every biome on earth and we continue to destroy other species so very rapidly that one eminent scientist foresees the day when no life exists on earth apart from the human monoculture and the small volume of species useful to it. An increasing multitude of disturbed viral-host symbiotic cycles are provoked into self-protective counterattacks. This is a dangerous situation. And we have seen in the previous chapter how ill-prepared the world is to cope with it. It begs the most frightening question of all: could such a pandemic virus cause the extinction of the human species?

GDI Scholars

74 Politics

Kerry Kyoto
Bush keeps the US out of Kyoto Lamb, 2001 (Henry, the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and chairman
of Sovereignty International. Copywrite 2001 WorldNet.Com, The recent negotiations in Bonn, Germany, have breathed a semblance of life into the monstrosity still-born in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997. Fortunately, President Bush understands the dangers inherent in the monster and has chosen to keep the United States out of its grasp for now. You can be sure that had the election gone the other way last November, the U.S. would be caught in the clutches of this maniacal global monster.

Kerry would take us back to Kyoto Kuwait Times, March 4th, 2004
More striking are his differences with the Bush administratioin over the environment, with the White House pulling the United Strates out of the Kyoto protocol on global warming. "We will return America to its rightful role as a leader in the global battle against climate change, poverty and the spread of disease," says Kerry, who became known as an environmental champion in the Senate.

Its Bushs fault we arent in Kyoto National Journal, April 3, 2004 (p. Lexis)
Bush's environmental record has been defined by his most controversial actions. Key examples are his decisions not to regulate carbon dioxide emissions and to withdraw from the Kyoto global-warming treaty aimed at controlling worldwide emissions of such greenhouse gases. Analysts across the political spectrum describe those acts as among Bush's most important environmental decisions, though they disagree on how voters should interpret them. Environmentalists charge that Bush abdicated his responsibility to lead the world on environmental policy. "The climate-change issue is the single most urgent environmental issue of our generation," said Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense, one of the most moderate national environmental groups. "The rest of the industrialized world is moving forward with real [greenhouse-gas] reductions," Krupp said. "But, to date, this administration has taken no constructive actions on addressing climate change."

Democratic president ensures that we would ratify Kyoto Lamb, 2004 (Henry, the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and chairman
of Sovereignty International, Republicans: Dont give up on W now!,, January 31, 2004) A return to progressive Democrat leadership in the United States is a return to the Kyoto Protocol and U.N. control over energy use in the United States. It is a return to subservience to the United Nations as Howard Dean says, to get "permission" from the U.N. before defending our nation. It is a return to total government control over land use, education and every other facet of life.

Kerry win would bring the US into ratification Agence France Presse, April 14th, 2004
"We call on the Duma to take an important step by ratifying the Kyoto protocol," he said, noting that Russia's ratification was currently essential if the agreement is to come into force. "Once again, our country is lagging behind the world community," Panfilov said. The Kyoto treaty, aimed at reducing the emissions which cause global warming of the atmosphere, needs to be ratified by either the United States or Russia if it is to come into force. The US administration of President George W. Bush has refused to ratify it, although John Kerry, the presumed Democratic candidate in next November's US presidential election has said he favours ratification. "If John Kerry wins the US election, the American Congress will ratify the agreement and Russia's stance on it will no longer have any importance," said Panfilov, whose tiny party has no seats in the Duma.

GDI Scholars

75 Politics

Kyoto good unilateralism bad

Failing to implement Kyoto gives America the perception of being Unilateralist Khan, 2003 (Greg, J.D. Candidate @ UC Berkeley, Failing to join in Kyoto reinforce Unilateralism, Failing to
join in to Kyoto reinforce Uniltateralism, 21 Berkeley J. Intl 548, lexis The charge that Bush's rejection of the Kyoto process was unilateral is far more poignant, because by rejecting a process yet failing to propose an alternative, Bush could be viewed as unwilling to work with other countries. However, it is apparent that Bush will not implement any solution that could hurt the U.S. economy and therefore cannot put forward an alternative that the EU would seriously consider. With economic efficiency as the guiding principle, Bush is unlikely to create an international regime that would interest any country attempting to arrest global warming. President Bush is not unwilling to work with other countries to solve the problem; he appears to be opposed to solving the problem using the methods in the Protocol. Ultimately Bush has appeared unilateral while being non-lateral. He has little interest in curtailing global warming, especially since he may not even believe that global warming exists. Whatever Bush's shortcomings on the environment are, a unilateral rejection of the Protocol is not one of them. In order to adopt a multilateral posture, Bush would need to share a common goal with other countries. In this situation, however, his only goal is to take as little action as possible, and his interest in cooperating with other countries to do so cannot brand him a unilateralist. Bush's attempt at creating an agreement which avoids any serious solution is not unilateral, because he is willing to work with other countries. It is not multilateral, however, because it is impossible to construct a regime that encourages an independent lack of action. Bush's clear lack of interest in solving the problem of climate change through an international treaty, therefore, is non-lateral, because in his view it is not a problem that needs to be aggressively addressed at all.

GDI Scholars

76 Politics

Kyoto good warming

Kyoto is key to curbing global warming Sarah R. Hamilton 2003 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 37, * p. Lexis
2003 marked the eleventh year since the seminal United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, and the first year following the "Rio Plus Ten" conference in Johannesburg, South Africa. Despite the time that has passed, implementation of concrete measures designed to achieve the goals expressed at both those conferences remains minimal, and global warming continues to accelerate. The many conferences held in 2003 consisted largely of aspirational speeches and calls for additional research, but little real action towards reducing global emissions. While the Kyoto Protocol is an indisputably flawed document, and even if fully implemented would fail to address significant sources of pollution in the developing world, its likely alternative is continued inaction. Such apathy is short-sighted, to say the least, in light of the increasingly frequent and urgent scientific warnings of impending crisis.

GDI Scholars

77 Politics

Kyoto bad readiness

Kyoto hamstrings military capability and international credibility Jeffrey Salmon, Executive Director of the George C. Marshall Institute, May 18, 1998, The very ambiguity that now surrounds the meaning of this protocol with respect to the militarys use of energy is an open invitation to mischief. Hostile nations will read this treaty in ways most likely to hamstring American military power. It is probable that every movement our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard -- including training exercises within the United States -- will become the subject of debate and controversy on the grounds that greenhouse gas use was improperly accounted for, or was improperly reported, or not reported in a timely fashion, or not reported at all, or should be counted against the nations national total, or should be counted against another nations total and not ours, and on and on. Unless we have a clear picture ourselves of our obligations under this treaty, we will be subject to endless negotiation and discussion over every tank maneuver and ship deployment. The treaty presents a world of nightmares to the U.S. military. Political pressures, however, are not the only kinds of interference the military needs to fear if it becomes entangled in the Kyoto environmental net. It is worth contemplating the possibility that direct legal action could be taken against our armed forces by either foreign governments, corporations or by non governmental organizations. Whether through the international court of justice or through a foreign governments legal system, the military could be sued for violating Kyoto greenhouse gas limits if it somehow tripped up in the way it reported its emissions, or in some other way failed to comply with the treaty. Since the Protocol is itself so ambiguous, the options for falling into some arguable violation are almost endless and the military is particularly vulnerable to hostile legal action of the sort discussed because it operates globally.

Kyoto inhibits foreign operations. Domestic criticism will block deployment Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. Director of the Center for Security Policy, May 14, 1998, Readiness: Unfortunately, the U.S. military is already being "hollowed out." After thirteen years of real reductions in defense spending, America's armed forces are at the ragged edge of what is required to perform competently in wartime and, perhaps, even to operate safely in peacetime. If training has to be cut back further to reduce fossil fuel emissions, there will not only be still fewer flying hours, steaming days and training opportunities in tank and other gas-guzzling motorized vehicles; there will probably also be accidental and avoidable losses of the lives of servicemen and women. The readiness of America's military is to some extent a function of the extent to which its force structure is too small to be everywhere it is needed. This translates into longer overseas deployments and excessive wear-and-tear on both personnel and materiel. If, as Secretary Goodman has anticipated, the Nation has to obtain and operate larger military forces than those now in place (or projected), it will be unable to do so under the Kyoto Protocol ceilings. Unless the Defense Department is clearly exempted from those limits, the treaty could become an impediment to rebuilding the sort of defense capabilities the United States requires. Presence: The Protocol could have another impact on U.S. overseas deployments if, as seems predictable, the cutbacks translate into reduced operations abroad -- whether because it is deemed necessary to do so in order to meet lower levels of emissions or to hoard emission chits against future warfare requirements. A related question that the White House "guidance" addresses incomprehensibly involves the treatment of American forces on foreign soil: Will their emissions count against our national allowances -- or against those of the host governments? If the latter, it seems predictable that this will serve to increase the pressure from host governments (e.g., Japan) to reduce U.S. forward deployments. Will to Fight: The American people are always reluctant to go to war, often even when national security requires such a step. Under the Kyoto regime, that reluctance may translate into an absolute refusal to do so -- notwithstanding the fact that vital interests and alliance commitments may be at stake -- if the practical effect will be to cripple the U.S. economy by diverting emissions from fossil fuel consumption in the private sector to the military.

GDI Scholars

78 Politics

Kyoto bad readiness

Kyoto inhibits readiness and military deployment Frank Gaffney, March 30, 2001, National Review, The Clinton administration subsequently asserted that this formulation protects priority Defense concerns as well as all multilateral, peacekeeping, and humanitarian operations to include, for example, those that might not actually be authorized by the United Nations but simply be "consistent with" the UN Charter. In fact, the treaty's text and its negotiating history clearly contradict suggestions by the Clinton administration that the military's operations and activities were fully protected. The result would likely have been adverse, and potentially acute, with deleterious implications for the forces' readiness, overseas presence, procurement, and combat capability. It is even conceivable that the nation's very ability to mount combat operations could have been affected by the Kyoto Protocol's emissions-trading arrangements governing greenhouse gasses. For instance, the United States might have been put in the absurd position of being unable to wage war without getting emission chits from prospective enemies and/or their non-aligned friends! At the very least, the new one-world mega-bureaucracy that would have been required to facilitate, monitor, and regulate such a trading regime would have turned into an enormous impediment to national security, as well as a grievous infringement on U.S. sovereignty.

Kyoto would reduce military readiness to the point where none of the armed forces would be able to train or respond immediately to any crisis Randall, 99 (Tom, The Heartland Institute, Environment News, Kyoto Protocol puts National Security at
Risk, Oct 1, accessed: Jul 15, 04,
But the Kyoto Protocol raises national security implications not because there is doubt as to whether the military can meet the treatys goals for reducing energy usage. The Clinton-Gore administrations downsizing of the military has already reduced its energy use by 20 percent since the Kyoto baseline year of 1990. The real national security question lies in the international controls the

treaty seems to place on the use of our military. That question, as well as the possibility of further energy cuts that might be imposed by the administration, have raised concerns in Congress and among many military experts. The Threat to Preparedness Salmon quotes Sherri Goodman, Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Environmental Security,
as saying the DoD would be a leader in addressing the greenhouse problem. While it is difficult to know what exactly such vague statements mean, the Clinton-Gore administration has already made deep cuts in the military. According to the Marshall Institute, the

Pentagon has already published a paper detailing the impact on preparedness of just a 10 percent cut in energy usage. Salmon quotes that report as concluding: For the Army, a 10 percent reduction in fuel use would reduce OPTEMPO [thats Pentagonese for the pace of operations] . . . to a level that would downgrade unit readiness and require up to six additional weeks to prepare and deploy. Strategic deployment schedules would be missed, placing operations at risk. For the Navy, this 10 percent reduction would cut some 2000 steaming days per year from training and operations for deployed ships, causing cancellation of both bi-lateral and multi-lateral exercises. And, since reductions would not be taken from ships and aircraft deployed in trouble spots, other units would be required to take proportionately greater cuts, meaning less training and a potentially significant threat to crew safety. In the Air Force, a 10 percent reduction in fuel use would result in the loss of over 210,000 flying hours per year. Readiness would be reduced to the point [that the Air Force] would be incapable of meeting all the requirements of the national Military Strategy.

GDI Scholars

79 Politics

Kyoto bad (economy) hurts US economy

Kyoto causes worldwide depression Thomas Gale Moore, Global Warming: More Than Hot Air? June 24, 1998,, accessed 2/1/03 The Clinton administration had difficulty deciding what it could accept at Kyoto. Its quandary was magnified by the projected failure of the United States to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. Rather than cutting them, a booming economy appears likely to boost emissions of carbon dioxide by at least 15 percent in this decade. Cutting emissions enough to prevent climate change, which might require slashing emissions by some 60 percent, seems out of reach. Avoiding a warmer world would require a radical curbing of emissions by all countries, which in turn would lead to a worldwide slowdown in growth, perhaps even a depression that might make the 1930s look like Disneyland on a good day. The Kyoto agreement is futile. Even Bert Bolin, the former chairman of the United Nations' body of experts on global warming, says that the present plan would, if fully implemented, cut warming a quarter century from now "by less than 0.1 degree C, which would not be detectable." We are plunging into a treaty that creates gigantic obligations without examining its costs and benefits. Congress has demanded that the Clinton administration provide estimates of the costs, but none have been forthcoming.

Kyoto increases energy prices Frank Murkowski, US Senator, Harvard Journal on Legislation, Summer, 2000, 37 Harv. J. on Legis. 345
At the same time, the Kyoto treaty would harm the United States economy. It requires us to reduce energy use by as much as 40% below the levels otherwise expected in the year 2010. The Energy Information Administration, an independent arm of the Department of Energy, predicts that implementation of the Kyoto Protocol could cause gasoline prices to rise by 53% and electricity prices by 86% over the next decade. The estimated total cost of implementation is between 2% and 5% of the annual United States Gross Domestic Product ("GDP"). Cost estimates for other developed nations show similar impacts.

GDI Scholars

80 Politics

Kyoto bad (economy) steel

Kyoto crushes the steel industry Heather Villanova, Villanova Environmental Law Review, 2000, 11 Vill. Envtl. L.J. 161
The Protocol negatively affects the United States steel industry in two ways: (1) the mandatory reductions make the current coke process economically infeasible and (2) the increase in the cost of energy makes the price of steel rise. These effects economically disadvantage the United States steel industry while benefitting rival steel companies in developing nations, such as China, India, Brazil, and South Korea, because these rival steel companies are not bound to the mandatory regulations of the Protocol. As a consequence of this disadvantage in the international market place, steel production will shift to developing nations. As more production shifts, the more American steel plants will close down and the more jobs will be lost. The Protocol will also cause the steel industry's independent efforts to decrease pollution and invest in energysaving technology to screech to a halt. The United States steel industry will unjustly take a stronger beating from the Protocol than most other countries. This result is inherently unfair. A. The Protocol's Effect on the Coke Process The coke process includes the burning of coal which produces more carbon dioxide than any other fossil fuel. Coke ovens in the United States have become increasingly more environmentally sound since their invention. These ovens, however, will not meet the Protocol's mandated reductions. In order to satisfy the Protocol, the coke ovens must be equipped with a "filtering process" to eliminate particles from entering into the environment. Improving the filtering process is difficult because it is not technologically possible and, even if it is technologically possible, it is not cost-effective. It is economically infeasible for the steel industry to add such a filtering process because the coke ovens have evolved to a point where new technology would be costly. If the steel industry cannot meet these regulations, it will be penalized either through fines or through verdicts against it in civil suits. Due to its inability to comply with the mandatory regulations, the steel industry's coke process will be shut down. The steel industry's termination of the coke process will devastate the industry in the United States. The coal industry mines coal for two purposes: (1) the production of coke and (2) the production of electricity. If the steel industry no longer produces coke, the coal industry will lose the majority of its business. An alternative to the coke process in the production of steel is the use of scrap metal in mini-mills. Mini-mills, however, do not provide an adequate substitute because: (1) mini-mills have a lower output rate of steel per year; (2) there is a limited amount of scrap metal, an essential ingredient for mini-mills; and (3) mini-mills can produce only limited finished products. For example, mini-mills cannot produce steel for the production of structural members such as i-beams. Since the production of steel requires coke, United States steel companies will have to import coke from other countries. The importation of coke will increase steel production costs and place its foreign competitors even further ahead in the global market place.

The steel industry is key to the economy and military Bob Taft, Governor of Ohio, September 17, 2001,, accessed
2/3/03 Ohios steel makers and steelworkers will be competitive under an open and fair international trading system. On behalf of the people of the State of Ohio, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak today and encourage you to find in favor of our domestic steel industry and recommend a strong, comprehensive and fair set of remedies. Lastly, although it is beyond the scope of your review, I would like to point out that Americas entire steel industry is in jeopardy and it would be a grave risk to be entirely dependent on other nations for a commodity that is so essential to our economy and our military capability.

GDI Scholars

81 Politics

Kyoto bad (economy) small businesses

Kyoto crushes small businesses which drive the economy Raymond Keating, Chief Economic of the Small Business Survival Committee, FDCH, June 4, 1998
BACKGROUND Make no mistake, government-imposed costs inflict considerable harm on smaller enterprises. Small businesses often operate on tight margins, struggling to stay alive month to month and year to year. This is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that more than half of new businesses fail or reorganize within five years, as noted by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). At the same time, however, small businesses have long proven to be the wellspring of innovation, invention and job creation in our economy. In any given year, smaller businesses also account from anywhere from two-thirds to more than 100 percent (large firms often shed more jobs than they create) of net job creation. So, these high-risk ventures are critical to the economy. Unfortunately, increased government-imposed costs weigh heavily around the necks of entrepreneurs. For example, according to an SBA study, the annual per employee costs of federal regulations range from $2,979 for businesses with 500 or more employees to $5,195 for businesses with 20 to 499 employees to $5,532 for businesses with fewer than 20 employees. Regulatory economist Thomas Hopkins estimates that the real costs of federal regulations are expected to rise by more than 30 percent between 1988 and 2000. Starting up and investing in businesses are high-risk ventures. If government imposes weighty taxes and regulations, then fewer enterprises will be created, fewer will survive, and job creation will wane. If implemented, the Kyoto Protocol would guarantee that governmental burdens on entrepreneurs -- indeed, on businesses of all sizes -- would continue to rise, thereby damaging economic growth and job creation.

GDI Scholars

82 Politics

Kyoto bad (economy) agriculture

Kyoto devastates US agriculture Margo Thorning, Ph.D. ACCF Senior Vice President and Chief Economist, FDCH, July 18, 2001
U.S. agriculture would also lose competitiveness if the United States complied with the Kyoto Protocol. A study based on the DRI model by Terry Francl of the American Farm Bureau Federation, Richard Nadler of K.C. Jones Monthly, and Joseph Bast of the Heartland Institute (FNB) predicts that implementation of the Protocol would cause higher fuel oil, motor oil, fertilizer, and other farm operating costs. This would mean higher consumer food prices and greater demand for public assistance with higher costs. In addition, by increasing the energy costs of farm production in America while leaving them unchanged in developing countries, the Kyoto Protocol would cause U.S. food exports to decline and imports to rise. Reduced efficiency of the world food system could add to a political backlash against free trade policies at home and abroad. The FNB analysis, which concludes that U.S. agriculture would be adversely affected by the Kyoto Protocol, stands in sharp contrast with the May 1999 report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which finds that the Kyoto Protocol would have "relatively modest" impacts on U.S. agriculture. The USDA report is seriously flawed for two reasons, according to a recent analysis by Mr. Francl. First, the USDA report relies on the unrealistic assumptions about the impact of the Kyoto Protocol on energy prices contained in the Administration's 1998 CEA analysis. Second, the USDA report makes the heroic assumption that U.S. farmers will have unrestricted access to carbon credit trading.

Agriculture is key to the economy Journal of Commerce, December 31, 1998

U.S. agriculture prices have reached lows not seen in 10, 20 or even 30 years, while the costs of living, labor and machinery are at record highs. The only thing missing that was present 70 years ago is a stock-market plunge and massive unemployment. If this country continues to allow its agriculture to sink to Depression-era levels, how can it keep the stock market from tumbling, too? Think about the stock market's falling to levels of 30 years ago, say around 700, instead of flirting with 9,000. Impossible? In just over two years, cash grain prices have dropped over 70 percent from the high posted in July 1996. Hog prices also reflect a near-70 percent decline since 1990. Many things have contributed to this dramatic decline of commodity prices. Some have directly benefited the consumer, like lower petroleum prices that were passed on at the gas pump. However, this has not been the case with meats and other commodities in 1997 and 1998. Processors and retailers decided they could increase their margins rather than passing on the savings to the consumer (which would have cleaned up the oversupply). Supplies continue to build, benefiting only processors and retailers, not consumers. Free markets have been stymied. I am not trying to tell you we are heading for a sequel of the Great Depression. But why is the greatest production machine in the world, American agriculture, going through such difficult times? Why should a minority, those who produce the majority of our food, be subjected to cost inflation and price deflation at the same time? U. S. taxpayers coughed up $6 billion dollars this year to help the farmer. Along with next year's Freedom to Farm payments, the extra cash is helping us through the crisis. Thank you, it is just what we needed: another Band-Aid. Government policy for the past 60 years has been to intravenously feed farmers the ""antibiotic'' of farm subsidies and price supports. But the wound has never healed. The Freedom to Farm Act attempts to wean agriculture from subsidies and supports by initiating a ""withdrawal'' process. The problem is, other grain-producing countries around the world don't see it that way. They continue to subsidize their producers. The livestock producer gets no help from taxpayers. But if these prices continue, it is a pretty sure bet the banks holding his notes will get bailed out. We can make our products much more affordable to foreign buyers by devaluing the dollar. But, you say, that will cause inflation. Maybe investors should rethink inflation. Maybe a little inflation is much better than another Depression. If you look at government money-supply figures, it would appear that Washington may have started to print money (which, in hindsight, could have prevented the Great Depression). I hope this is the case. The enormous power of the hedge funds that continuously short commodity futures - the pricing mechanism of the world these days - is staggering. If agriculture dies an economic death, the rest of the economy is sure to follow. It is not too late, but we must act now. Please, help America's farmers sell our products outside our borders. We are dying out here.

GDI Scholars

83 Politics

Kyoto bad (economy) EU competitiveness

Failure to ratify boosts competitiveness relative to the EU Hans H.J. Labohm, Blair's Blunder, Netherlands Institute of International Relations 'Clingendael,' February 9, 2002,, accessed 12/23/02
The Third World has been excluded from the obligations of Kyoto, while the US has decided to opt out with Australia in its wake, while Japan and Canada are still having qualms. If the European Union will be the only party that will implement Kyoto, the result will be a (relative) loss of economic activity in Europe. It will adversely affect Europe's competitiveness and will lead to a massive outflow of industries - particularly energy-intensive ones - such as steel and chemicals, to countries that do not ratify Kyoto or are exempt from its obligations. Those include the US, the Asian tigers and other countries in the Third World.

GDI Scholars

84 Politics

Kyoto bad (economy) drives corporations away

Kyoto will cause an industry exodus to developing nations John Dingell, MI-Representative (D), Keynote Address at The Kyoto Commitments: Can Nations Meet Them With the Help of Technology? Symposium, October 13, 1999,, accessed 8/26/02
Our ability to produce a given amount of goods for a given input in costs is hurt. And in many industries right now, such as steel, aluminum, and automobile manufacturing that were once given up for dead because of technology and innovation, we are now as competitive, on average, as most any country, even those in the developing category. But if you increase energy costs in an energy-intensive business by 30 percent, forget it. Theres no question that a significant portion of those industries will be displaced and dislocated to those developing nations that arent affected by the binding carbon reductions. China, Korea, Malaysia, and Indonesia are dying to allocate greater investment into these energy-intensive industries in order to capture a significant share of the U.S. market. The economic impact and the job impact would be significant.

Kyoto drives multinationals away from US markets World Climate Report, New Kyoto: 1 Winner, 178 Losers, August 6, 2001, accessed 2/2/03 The warming rate in the U.N. models is fairly constant, once you choose your "storyline" (that's what they call their future social projections these days). The mean "storyline" in vogue right now warms the surface about 2.5C in 100 years, or 0.025C per year. Thus does the New Kyoto signify nothing. Do the math: If all participants do what they say they will, the mean global surface temperature that normally have been expected on January 1, 2050, will appear on September 18, 2050. The New Kyoto delays that warming by 288 days. That, of course, assumes that the United States does nothing, while the other nations raise taxes enough to drive emissions to 1.8 percent below 1990 levels. That's the only way we know to reduce the energy use that produces these emissions. No one knows what the total cost will be. But it certainly means that European governments are going to gobble up even more of their people's income and corporate profits than they do now. That will have the salutary effect of forcing multinational business over to our side of the ocean, where people will have more money to invest. Like stockholders everywhere, they are going to demand more production with increased efficiency. Thus the New Kyoto will in fact force investment in technologies that are more likely to produce things that cost less energy to operate. The irony is that our European friends have sentenced themselves to economic stagnation while doing nothing about global climate change. At the same time, they have insured a vibrant United States that will, with the investment dollars that the New Kyoto diverts in our direction, produce a cleaner future. All of which is inevitable only if President Bush stays the course and stays away from the New Kyoto. All signs point in that direction. The July 27 Washington Post reports that EPA administrator Christine Whitman "said President Bush is unlikely to offer a substantial alternative [to the New Kyoto] when negotiators meet again late this year in Morocco."

GDI Scholars

85 Politics

Kyoto Bad (economy) general

Kyoto would devastate our economy by increasing energy prices, decreasing productivity, and damaging US competitiveness in manufacturing across the globe The Heritage Foundation, 01 (Washington, May 11, accessed: Jul 15, 04, Many Americans are already struggling to cope with soaring energy prices, says Heritage environmental analyst Charli Coon. And complying with this treaty will make matters worse. A recent study by the American Council for Capital Formation shows that attempting to comply with the Kyoto emissions standards would cause gasoline prices to climb by at least another 30 percent, and electricity rates to rise by 50 percent to 80 percent. U.S. productivity would drop anywhere from $100 billion to $400 billion under the treaty, Coon says, because its emissions reduction mandates would force a dramatic contraction in economic output. American workers could expect to see their wages shrink and living standards to fall, she says. And more than 2 million Americans would lose their jobs, most of them in the low- and moderate-income brackets. American competitiveness would suffer as well. Developing countriesmany of which escape the treatys draconian requirementscould easily undercut U.S. merchants on products that use energy-intensive manufacturing processes, such as steel, paper, automobiles and chemicals. By 2020, American manufacturers would have to curb production by up to 15 percent if the United States adopted the Kyoto treaty, Coon says. Worse, the treaty exempts developing nations, whose carbon dioxide emissions will surpass those of the industrialized world before 2020. Even if the United States met its targets under the treaty, greenhouse gas emissions wont decrease over that period because developing countries will produce more, Coon says. In fact, the situation could worsen as energy-intensive industries move to undeveloped countries where energy use is less efficient but less expensive.

Kyoto will devastate the US economy and should be avoided Moore, Author of Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn't Worry about Global Warming, published by the Cato Institute, 98 (Thomas Gale, Global Warming: More Than Hot Air?, Jun 24, accessed: Jul 15, 04, In short, this unnecessary measure would devastate our economy. For most of the world, warming over the next century would cost only a little or would be an actual benefit. The few regions that actually would be harmed by warming should have help. Delaying action by 20 to 30 years is the only prudent, "no regrets" policy. Technology will advance. Incomes in Third World countries will grow. The world will be more capable of coping with change. Except for measures that make sense with or without global warming -- like ending subsidies for energy and energy use -- Congress should resist any attempts to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

GDI Scholars

86 Politics

Kyoto Bad (economy) general

Other steps to stop global warming would not cripple our economy Moore, Author of Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn't Worry about Global Warming, published by the Cato Institute, 98 (Thomas Gale, Global Warming: More Than Hot Air?, Jun 24, accessed: Jul 15, 04, The Kyoto agreement is futile. Even Bert Bolin, the former chairman of the United Nations' body of experts on global warming, says that the present plan would, if fully implemented, cut warming a quarter century from now "by less than 0.1 degree C, which would not be detectable." We are plunging into a treaty that creates gigantic obligations without examining its costs and benefits. Congress has demanded that the Clinton administration provide estimates of the costs, but none have been forthcoming. There is no need to rush into a treaty that would have little benefit but great cost. If climate change becomes a real problem, many steps can be taken that wouldn't cripple our economy. Ocean scientists have shown, for example, that if the seas were "fertilized" with iron filings, phytoplankton (algae) would bloom and absorb vast quantities of carbon dioxide. The minuscule plants are nutritionally starved for iron and, when provided with that metal, multiply rapidly, absorbing large amounts of carbon. Some experts estimate that iron supplements might offset 15 to 20 percent of man-made carbon dioxide over the next few decades.

Kyoto wont work it will hurt the US economy which hurts the world economy The Heritage Foundation, 01 (Washington, May 11, accessed: Jul 15, 04, The Kyoto Protocol simply wont work, Coon says. Even if it comes into force, it wont do what its supporters claim it will. All it will do is drag down the U.S. economy, which drags down the world economy. We need to know more about climate change and how human behavior affects it before we lock ourselves into policies such as this.

Kyoto requires the reduction of emissions, hurting major economies Moore, Author of Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn't Worry about Global Warming, published by the Cato Institute, 00 (Thomas Gale, Hoover Institution, Essays in Public Policy, In Sickness and in Health: The Kyoto
Protocol Versus Global Warming, accessed: Jul 15, 04, Most of the concern with climates effects on health relates to mortality in the poor tropical portions of the globe. Reducing incomes in the industrialized nations, however, is no remedy for sickness and deaths in Africa and Southeast Asia. Economics is not a zero-sum game in which the poor benefit from making the rich less wealthy, but Kyoto would do just that. It requires the affluent countries of the world to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases by 5 percent from 1990 levels during the years 2008 to 2012. For the United States and Canada as well, this implies a major cutback, over 30 percent, from levels that would exist under a business-as-usual scenario. On a per capita basis, Canada is a more prolific user of energy even than the United States and would suffer much more from slashing fossil fuel consumption.

GDI Scholars

87 Politics

Kyoto Bad GDP stagnation death

Kyoto will cause thousands of deaths due to its stagnation of the GDP Moore, Author of Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn't Worry about Global Warming, published by the Cato Institute, 00 (Thomas Gale, Hoover Institution, Essays in Public Policy, In Sickness and in Health: The Kyoto
Protocol Versus Global Warming, accessed: Jul 15, 04, The improvements in health and life expectancies during the twentieth century have brought great benefits to the human race. What led to this remarkable improvement in health? Greater use of ever cheaper energy and, of course, higher incomes. The Kyoto Protocol threatens both those sources of human gains. Higher incomes, coupled with falling energy prices, have produced the greatest improvements in the well-being of men and women in all of history. Where incomes are high, so is life expectancy. Where incomes are low, disease and death are all too prevalent. Economists studying the relationship of income and earnings to mortality have found that the loss of $5 to $10 million in the U.S. GDP leads to one extra death. Recently the Energy Information Administration (EIA), part of President Clintons Department of Energy, released its estimates of the cost of meeting the Kyoto targets. According to that agency, which was surely under pressure to minimize its estimate of the burden on the American people, the cost, depending on whether trading emission reductions were possible and how many emission credits could be purchased abroad, would be between $77 billion and $338 billion annually. Given the opposition of Europe to trading emission credits across national boundaries, the United States is unlikely to be able to purchase much of its quota in reduced greenhouse gas emissions from overseas. Assuming, therefore, that trading across national boundaries does not take place, the EIA estimates imply that somewhere between 33,800 and 67,000 more Americans will die annually between 2008 and 2012.

GDI Scholars

88 Politics

Kyoto Bad 3rd World Countries

Kyoto would hurt health, harm 3rd world countries, , kill the economy, and then not even solve the problem Moore, Author of Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn't Worry about Global Warming, published by the Cato Institute, 00 (Thomas Gale, Hoover Institution, Essays in Public Policy, In Sickness and in Health: The Kyoto
Protocol Versus Global Warming, accessed: Jul 15, 04, However, abiding by the Kyoto Protocol will hurt peoples health. It will make them poorer. Even though they are exempted from the protocols provisions, Third World countries would be harshly affected by a poorer West. Moreover, as is well known, the Kyoto treaty will neither stop the buildup of greenhouse gases nor prevent climate change. To reduce carbon dioxide emissions, more drastic steps will be necessary. Some believe that, in order to stabilize the climate, our use of fossil fuels must be cut by more than 60 percent. That would certainly be disastrous for mankind, far worse than any climate change. Global warming would have minimal effects on human health and life expectancy. Kyoto kills; climate change does not.

Kyoto would kill jobs, spike energy prices, create international bureaucracies and police forces, damage exporters and 3rd world countries, and be difficult to enforce Singer, President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project, Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University and professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, 00 (S. Fred,
Hoover Institution, Essays in Public Policy, Climate PolicyFrom Rio to Kyoto: A Political Issue for 2000and Beyond, accessed: Jul 16, 04,\&EXTRA_ARG=\&HOST_ID=1\&P AGE_ID=1810) To sum up: Controlling emissions, by whatever method, is extremely costly, distorts economic decisions, destroys jobs, is difficult to monitor, and practically impossible to enforce. It is likely to create huge international bureaucracies and police forces, damaging not only industrialized countries but also certainly coal and oil exporters, and most of the developing countries, since they depend on trade with the industrialized nations. In addition, controls would do little good unless emissions are cut drastically worldwide.

Kyoto would devastate 3rd world countries and increase their death tolls dramatically Moore, Author of Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn't Worry about Global Warming, published by the Cato Institute, 00 (Thomas Gale, Hoover Institution, Essays in Public Policy, In Sickness and in Health: The Kyoto
Protocol Versus Global Warming, accessed: Jul 15, 04, The Kyoto Protocol would devastate Third World countries as well. Even if they remain exempt from the limits on CO2 emissions, they will find that the United States buys fewer of their goods and services. Imported goods from the advanced countries will also cost more. As a result, the poor countries will become even poorer. We cannot estimate the toll on those countriesit would vary greatly from country to countrybut we know that being poorer will increase their already too high death rate. What these countries need is higher, not lower, incomes. With greater earnings, their people can look forward to longer life expectancies and reductions in disease. Higher incomes may also reduce violence between and within these states. All in all, the Kyoto treaty is a far more violent killer than any climate change could be. Lets arrest it before it kills someone.

GDI Scholars

89 Politics

Kyoto bad self-determination

The plan would spur indigenous energy development Tracey LeBeau, Member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and Vice President of Earth Energy & Environment, LLC, Stanford Law & Policy Review, 2001, Spring, 12 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev 237
Indian tribes have the ability to move swiftly to pursue development in a sustainable manner. This affinity for sustainable development is due partly to cultural sensibility and partly to a degree of financial conservatism that financial institutions have demanded of Indian tribes. The growing interest in sustainable development and the global embrace of the principles embedded in the Kyoto Protocol (though not yet fully accepted in the United States) will help advance tribal regulatory and business agendas in tandem. Tribes can thus make significant contributions to the industry as leaders in sustainable development strategies and technologies. Indeed, tribes can turn the disadvantage of inadequate infrastructure (or worse, infrastructures requiring overhauls or reconfigurations) to their advantage by developing new and more efficient utility services and infrastructure.

That sends a signal for self-determination Dean Suagee, J.D., University of North Carolina, University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, Spring and Summer 1992, 25 U. Mich. J.L. Ref. 671
There is, of course, a political dimension to the transfer of soft-path technologies to indigenous communities. Providing communities in indigenous areas with electricity by connecting them to power grids reinforces state authority over indigenous peoples, as does the practice of building transmission lines and oil pipelines through indigenous territories. Providing electricity to indigenous communities through stand-alone systems has the potential to empower indigenous peoples in a political sense and, because such stand-alone systems can readily incorporate telecommunications, this approach also has the potential to link indigenous communities into the growing global network of indigenous peoples. Thus, realizing the soft energy vision could support self-determination for indigenous peoples not only by relieving the pressure on their homelands from exploitative "development," but also by empowering indigenous communities both to make their own decisions about the kinds of development that they want for themselves and to draw on the experiences of other indigenous peoples in making those decisions.

A right to self determination leads to rampant secessionism Daniel Philpott, assistant professor of Political Science at UC-Santa Barbara, 1998, National Self-Determination
and Secession, p. 84 A principle of self-determination does not have to be converted into law or policy. It could be that the worlds political institutions, its international law and its domestic constitutions, are, at this stage in history, too blunt-edged, too bereft of judicial clout and enforcement capacity, to propound a law of self-determination that would, through its legitimation and its enforcement, effectively cull the just claims, sift out the harmful consequences, make the precious distinctions, qualify nimbly, issue the partial and truncated approvals that many imperfect claims will require, determine the extent and amount of settlements, and perform judgments that would be heeded and respected just as, say, the judgments of the United States Supreme Court are usually heeded and respected. It could be that to bolster any movement would be to goad all, even the worst.

Secessionism causes multiple global wars Gidon Gottlieb, Leo Spitz Professor of International Law and Diplomacy University of Chicago Law School, 1993, Nation Against State, p. 26-27
Self-determination unleashed and unchecked by balancing principles constitutes a menace to the society of states. There is simply no way in which all the hundreds of peoples who aspire to sovereign independence can be granted a state of their own without loosening fearful anarchy and disorder on a planetary scale. The proliferation of territorial entities poses exponentially greater problems for the control of weapons of mass destruction and multiplies situations in which external intervention could threaten the peace. It increases problems for the management of all global issues, including terrorism, AIDS, the environment, and population growth. It creates conditions in which domestic strife in remote territories can drag powerful neighbors into local hostilities, creating ever widening circles of conflict. Events in the aftermath of the breakup of the Soviet Union drove this point home.

GDI Scholars

90 Politics

Kyoto Good US-Europe Relations

Bushs failure to pass the Kyoto Protocol angered Europe passing it would do the opposite Kahn, J.D. Candidate, , School of Law, University of California, Berkeley, 03 (Greg, Berkeley Journal of
International Law, v.21, BETWEEN EMPIRE AND COMMUNITY: The United States and Multilateralism 2001-2003: A Mid-Term Assessment: ENVIRONMENT: The Fate of the Kyoto Protocol Under the Bush Administration, p.559, Lexis) As soon as the Bush administration announced its opposition to the Protocol, the European press as well as European politicians pilloried the decision. British members of Parliament called Bush the "Toxic Texan" and the "fool on Capitol Hill," among other things.n78 One German newspaper called him the "Climate Killer." n79 The British press took it one step further; the Independent published a photo of Bush on the front page with the headline "Polluter of The World." n80 There was even talk of implementing trade sanctions in response to the American refusal to support the Protocol. n81 British Prime Minister Tony Blair, cognizant of the special relationship between England and the United States, promised to talk to President Bush and attempt to secure his support for the Protocol. n82 Upon Bush's visit to Europe for the 2001 EU-U.S. summit, the EU leaders issued a statement that, "We cannot accept this [rejection of Kyoto]. EU ministers have therefore confirmed that they stand firm behind the Kyoto Protocol." n83 During his visit, Bush was constantly confronted with protesters angry at his rejection of the Protocol. n84 Bush maintained that he would work together with EU leaders on climate change.

GDI Scholars

91 Politics

Kyoto Good Credibility

Not passing Kyoto makes Bush look as if hes ignoring the greatest environmental problem Greenpeace, 01 (accessed: Jul 16, 04, President George W. Bushs announcement in late March that the United States was abandoning the Kyoto Protocol was met by a storm of protest, both in the US and internationally. Governments, scientists, religious leaders, labour and other public figures, as well as environmental organisations, condemned the move. The US was seen as abandoning its moral, political and legal responsibility to work internationally to address the most pressing international environmental problem of the 21 st century: global climate change. President Bushs visit to Europe threatens to be marked by outrage created by the worlds worst greenhouse gas polluters rejection of the last 12 years of international climate negotiations.

GDI Scholars

92 Politics

Kyoto Good US key

The US is key to Kyoto because of its massive output of emissions Holtsmark and Hagem, Assistant Director General at the Ministry of Finance and researcher at CICERO, 01 (Bjart and Cathrine, Kyoto Protocol without the United States: with no teeth, March, accessed: Jul 17, 04, The model calculations predict that the Kyoto Protocol without the United States means that the global emissions will be reduced only by 0.9 percent relative to BAU. The reason that the global effect of the climate agreement becomes so minimal if the United States drops out is related to three conditions. First, US emissions of greenhouse gases made up a large portion of the industrialized countries emissions in 1990 (32%). Second, the Protocol requires the United States to reduce its emissions by 7 percent, which is higher than the average of 5 percent for the industrialized countries as a whole. Third, the expected increase in BAU emissions in the United States is higher than average for the industrialized countries. If the United States were to uphold its Kyoto commitments, its emissions would have been 27 percent lower than in the BAU scenario. The comparable figure for the other industrialized countries is (on average) 3.7 percent. Thus implementing the Kyoto Protocol without the participation of the United States means that the impact of the global abatement efforts becomes minimal, not only because the United States was responsible for a large share of the industrialized countries total emissions in 1990, but also because the Kyoto Protocol set particularly stringent abatement requirements for the United States in the period 20082012 compared to BAU emissions.

GDI Scholars

93 Politics

Kyoto Good AT: Readiness

Global warming is a big enough threat that it is necessary to downsize the military Salmon, Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Science at the U.S. Department of Energy, 98 (Jeffrey, George
C. Marshall Institute, National Security and Military Policy Issues Involved in the Kyoto Treaty, May 18, accessed: Jul 16, 04, In other words, if one grants the Administrations basic premise that global warming is a threat to our survival equal to that faced in World War II or in the stand-off with the Soviet Union there remains little or no justification for objecting to comprehensive measures and comprehensive sacrifices to defeat the climate change menace. If Americas military establishment must contribute to this battle by further downsizing, or by submitting to various restrictions on its training and operations, that would be a small price to pay, given the degree of risk the Administration argues we face were we to hold back or take only half-measures against planet-wide warming. Considering the cascade of calamities that global warming might bring coastal flooding, spreading diseases, drought, and famine it must be granted equal status to national security as a call against our resources if, in fact, the Administrations reading of this problem is correct.

GDI Scholars

94 Politics

Kyoto good competitiveness

Failure to ratify will crush U.S. competitiveness. It will lock in Europe and Japan's current competitive edge in environmental tech - they can meet Kyoto requirements at virtually no cost to their economies The Engineer, 8-17-2001
Under Kyoto, the EU committed to an 8% reduction in emissions from 1990 levels by 2012. And according to the report, the EU could achieve 85- 95% of this target without harming its economies. This is because a large part of the reduction of CO2 could be made in sectors sheltered from international competition (such as energy supply, provided the whole of EU industry acts together). Additional costs could be passed on to customers, the report says, bandying around a number of scenarios of Japanese GDP edging ahead, the US national income falling and costs of implementation limited to a hundredth of one percentage point of GDP in Europe. The problem with all this, though, is the burden this places on some sectors of heavy industry that are already on the backfoot in the face of global oversupply and falling margins. Those most exposed to competition are also the most energy intensive: iron and steel, non- ferrous metals, building materials, chemicals and paper and pulp. Their average production costs would increase by up to 5%, with steel and chemicals, already vulnerable, facing the highest costs of cutting emissions. This is where policymaking gets tricky. If the approach to applying Kyoto to these industries is too heavy handed in Europe, tens of thousands more jobs will disappear and production will shift elsewhere. 'There would be no point in a restructuring that simply shifted iron and steel production to the developing world,' admits Ute Collier. The technical innovation required to reduce energy consumption in heavy industry and, for that matter, to shift power generation to an infrastructure that creates less Co2 (which unavoidably reopens the debate on nuclear power) is a long-term game - unlikely to be resolved by the 2012 Kyoto target date. Meanwhile, the UK has already made unilateral plans for the main Kyoto policies: the much-reviled Climate Change Levy and, from next April, emission trading. Taking this moral high ground means it is in the UK's interests that other countries get as tough on CO2 as it has. But there's another dimension to competitiveness. Reducing emissions also means cutting out waste in production. If the UK does this ahead of other countries, it will also gain an advantage in the design and implementation of new technologies, and these can be exported. 'There could be opportunities to take a lead in low-carbon technologies,' says Nick Sturgeon of the Chemical Industries Association. But it is not just the environmentalists who are talking up Kyoto. A report by engineers at the German Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research shows carbon dioxide emissions in Germany could be reduced by 23m tonnes annually, with major spin-off savings in energy consumption. Compressed air production alone is responsible for 10% (over 80bn kW) of industrial electricity consumption annually, and many systems are so inefficient that savings of up to 50% are possible. 'It cannot be ruled out that the Europeans will be able to greatly increase their foreign trade by selling ecoefficient technologies to the US,' says Dr Harold Bradke, head of energy technology at Fraunhofer. 'If the US does not ratify Kyoto and the EU and Japan do, they will gain a competitive advantage.' If their predictions are right, the US may have missed a trick. In fact, US under-secretary of state for global affairs Paula Dobriansky came close to admitting as much, albeit unwittingly, when she commented on the US decision to ditch Kyoto: 'The treaty is not workable for the US,' she said after the Bonn summit. 'But the US has not sought to prevent others from moving ahead.'

GDI Scholars

95 Politics

Kyoto good competitiveness

Failure to ratify subjects US multinationals to regulations without benefits. That kills markets Kiplinger Business Forecasts, 7-27-2001
Revival of the Kyoto Protocol is forcing U.S. multinationals and exporters to consider hard questions about the benefits and costs of sitting on the sidelines as other countries combat climate change. While U.S. manufacturers will be spared the costs of reining in carbon dioxide emissions, there are some definite downsides to staying out of the international carbon-control regime. Many U.S. businesses and most major industry trade groups back the Bush administration's decision to rebuff Kyoto. They cite studies showing tremendous compliance costs, job losses, lower productivity and slower economic growth if the U.S. were to have agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 7% below 1990 levels, as required by the protocol. To meet that target, the U.S. would have to cut its anticipated carbon dioxide emissions by 25%-30% in 2012, estimates show. Assessing the potential economic impact is extremely difficult, but cost estimates of such drastic emissions cuts range up to 4% of the gross domestic product annually. By remaining outside Kyoto's restrictions, U.S. businesses won't be forced to undertake expensive upgrades of their manufacturing processes to limit carbon dioxide emissions. They'll also be spared the higher energy costs that would result as power generators passed along the cost of retooling themselves. The money saved will grant U.S. businesses a considerable competitive advantage over foreign-based firms operating under Kyoto's strictures"at least in the near term. Bet on those competitors characterizing that edge as a de facto government subsidy. They're likely to press their own governments to respond. "To the extent that the U.S. has tried to turn this into an economic and not an ecological issue," says Michael Marvin, president of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, "the EU [European Union] may try to show that the economic consequences of nonparticipation are greater than any perceived economic consequences from participation." That could easily take the form of tariffs against U.S. goods manufactured without the treaty-set CO2 limits. U.S. firms whose operations are essentially in line with Kyoto's provisions may not be targeted for retaliation, particularly if their exports are labeled as such. Companies that have taken steps to cut their CO2 output worldwide, including DuPont, IBM, Johnson & Johnson and others, will have a much easier time adjusting, if and when Kyoto comes into force. Their emissions will be as low in the U.S. as in countries that plan to ratify the treaty. But these companies do face a lost opportunity from the United States' refusal to go along. They won't be able to participate in the planned global market for pollution-credit trading. Under such a system, a company or country that can't meet its emission-reduction targets will be able to get "carbon credits," either by creating carbon "sinks" (through restoring CO2-absorbing forests, for example) or by purchasing credits from a country that has already lowered its emissions below target levels. With the U.S. on the sidelines, any CO2-limiting activities a U.S. company engages in here would be worthless as far as generating carbon credits goes, though that company would still gain credit for such activities conducted overseas"such as reforesting clearcut areas in developing countries. As the world's biggest generator of greenhouse gases, the U.S. is also the largest potential buyer of carbon credits. And the potential for what the World Bank estimates as a $100billion international commodities market in CO2 emissions shrinks considerably without U.S. participation. Also lost is the expertise the U.S. has already developed in setting up commodities markets for other emissions, such as sulfur dioxide. Persisting regulatory uncertainty poses yet another problem. "U.S. companies that have to deal with different carbon regimes in different countries will find this expensive and have difficulty harmonizing them, especially as long as the U.S. has no carbon regime of its own," says Alexandra Deane Thornton, executive director of the Center for a Sustainable Economy. The resulting frustrations will be comparable to those felt by companies doing business in different states with conflicting state laws. The EU, Japan, Russia, Canada and Australia are all likely to ratify Kyoto by next year, just in time for the 2002 climate change conference in Johannesburg, South Africa. But how much the treaty will be worth without U.S. participation remains doubtful, given the sheer volume of greenhouse gases produced in this country. "The Europeans know that going ahead without the U.S. doesn't make much sense other than in a short-term, tactical sense," says Daniel Esty, director of Yale University's Center for Environmental Law and Policy. Michael Glantz, a social scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research, puts it more colorfully. "Before we withdrew from Kyoto, we were a 600-pound gorilla. Now we are a 400-pound gorilla. We are still a force, and they still need us."

GDI Scholars

96 Politics

Kyoto good intl credibility

Failure to ratify Kyoto is one of the greatest foreign policy disasters in US history - will drain power and prestige Nathalie Eddy, Ascribe Newswire, 7-23-2001
This agreement is a geopolitical earthquake. Other countries have demonstrated their independence from the Bush administration on the world's most critical environmental problem. They now need to follow up with the rapid ratification of the Protocol. Today's decision also sends an unambiguous signal to business and industry to begin investing in measures that cut carbon pollution. While the deal is weaker than WWF had hoped, it provides sound architecture for the Protocol, and will put CO2 emissions from industrialized countries on a downward trend. In the battle against global warming, this first small step is a giant leap for humanity and for the future of our planet. David Doniger, policy director, Natural Resources Defense Council Climate Center, and Former U.S. Treaty Negotiator: The agreement reached today overwhelmingly rejects President Bush's attempt to scuttle the Kyoto global warming treaty. It paves the way for treaty ratification and real action to reduce the heat- trapping pollution that threatens public health and natural ecosystems around the world. The President's posture on global warming is at odds with public opinion at home, as well as abroad. He is already facing mounting pressure in Congress to cut global warming pollution from power plants and vehicles, and to enact a clean, efficient energy plan. The breakthrough today will only strengthen the demand for action at home. The President's isolation and delay will cost American jobs and business, as we lose access to new markets for clean energy technologies. It will rob American farmers and foresters of credit for the carbon soaked up by their crops and trees. And it will saddle American consumers with both higher energy bills and more pollution.

GDI Scholars

97 Politics

Kyoto Defense Not Solve 1/2

The science upon which Kyoto is based is incorrect it will not solve global warming The Heritage Foundation, 01 (Washington, May 11, accessed: Jul 15, 04, Even if the agreement somehow did come into force, the measures it calls for wouldnt reduce greenhouse gases, according to Coon. The science on which much of the treaty is based is simply unreliable, she says. It fails to account for historical climate patterns, it lumps together human and non-human causes of greenhouse gas emissions, and it rests on the most pessimistic and unsubstantiated scientific assumptions. One study Coon cites, published last year by NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies, suggests carbon dioxide may not be the biggest contributor to greenhouse gases, even though carbon dioxide reduction remains the focus of treaty advocates.

Kyoto will never work European countries cannot adopt it and it doesnt include China or India Zakaria, Professor of International Relations, 02 (Fareed, The New Yorker, Oct. 14, accessed: Jul 15, 04, p.72,
The complaints have risen to a clamor during the current Bush Administration, which has shown a disdain for allies, treaties, and international organizations. In its first two years it has reneged on more international treaties than any previous Administration. Often its actions seem gratuitous. The Kyoto treaty on global warming, for example, was moribund before the Administration loudly pronounced it dead. (Few European countries are close to meeting their goals, and by leaving out China and India the treaty forfeited the possibility of having any real effect.) But by withdrawing in such confrontational tones the Administration sent a signal that the world's largest consumer of energy was unconcerned about the environment. American allies-even, on occasion, Great Britain-complain that they are informed of, rather than consulted about, American policy. Even when the Administration has ended up pursuing policies multilaterally it has done so muttering and grumbling-as it has in taking its case against Iraq to the United Nations-so that much of the good will it might have generated has been lost.

Kyoto lacks scientific founding even environmentalists agree Catanzaro, staff member of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, 03 (Michael,
Climate-Gate: What Is President Bush Being Accused Of, Exactly? Jun 20, accessed: Jul 15, 04, Or, what about the 46 climate scientists who sent a letter, printed in the June 3 edition of Canada's National Post, to a Canadian member of Parliament, questioning the theory that mankind is responsible for global warming? According to the signatories, the Kyoto Protocol "lacks credible science." Moreover, "Many climate science experts from Canada and around the world, while still strongly supporting environmental protection, equally strongly disagree with the scientific rationale for the Kyoto Accord."

GDI Scholars

98 Politics

Kyoto Defense Not Solve 2/2

Kyoto will not solve the warming problem, nor is it scientifically founded Catanzaro, staff member of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, 03 (Michael,
Climate-Gate: What Is President Bush Being Accused Of, Exactly? Jun 20, accessed: Jul 15, 04, Dr. Tom Wigley, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, found that if the Kyoto Protocol were fully implemented by all signatories, it would reduce temperatures by a mere 0.07 degrees Celsius by 2050, and 0.13 degrees Celsius by 2100. What does this mean? Such an amount is so small that ground-based thermometers cannot reliably measure it. Dr. Richard Lindzen, an MIT scientist and member of the National Academy of Sciences, who has specialized in climate issues for over 30 years, told the Committee on Environment and Public on May 2, 2001 that there is a "definitive disconnect between Kyoto and science. Should a catastrophic scenario prove correct, Kyoto will not prevent it. If we view Kyoto as an insurance policy, it is a policy where the premium appears to exceed the potential damages, and where the coverage extends to only a small fraction of the potential damages." Similarly, Dr. James Hansen of NASA, considered the father of global warming theory, said that Kyoto Protocol "will have little effect" on global temperature in the 21st century. In a rather stunning follow-up, Hansen said it would take 30 Kyotos-let me repeat that-30 Kyotos to reduce warming to an acceptable level.

GDI Scholars

99 Politics

War outweighs Kyoto

The claim that global warming is the worst threat ignores threats of war and poverty Singer, President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project, Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University and professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, 00 (S. Fred,
Hoover Institution, Essays in Public Policy, Climate PolicyFrom Rio to Kyoto: A Political Issue for 2000and Beyond, accessed: Jul 16, 04,\&EXTRA_ARG=\&HOST_ID=1\&P AGE_ID=1810) The Kyoto Protocol is being advertised as an international agreement to reduce the threat of greenhouse warming to the global climate. As its framers and supporters phrase it, global warming is the greatest challenge to human existence on this planet; this apparently ignores the challenges from nuclear war, attacks with biological and chemical weapons by terrorists or rogue nations, and the perennial problems of poverty and social unrest. It also ignores the very real threat of a geologically imminent ice age. The late political scientist Aaron Wildavsky more correctly characterized global warming as the mother of all environmental scares. In reality, the Kyoto Protocol is a radical, ecology-based initiative for launching economic and social policies that threaten personal freedom, economic growth, and national sovereignty; it would also result in a major transfer of wealth from the industrialized nations.

GDI Scholars

100 Politics

Global Warming long timeframe

The impacts for global warming wont be seen for over 100 years the DA has no timeframe Salmon, Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Science at the U.S. Department of Energy, 98 (Jeffrey, George
C. Marshall Institute, National Security and Military Policy Issues Involved in the Kyoto Treaty, May 18, accessed: Jul 16, 04, There is considerable doubt, however, that global warming presents anywhere near the degree of peril the Vice President and others believe it does. And even if the most pessimistic scenarios proved accurate, they are based on a time frame that often exceeds 100 years, and so one can reasonably question the immediacy of the threat. Public policy normally demands that a problem be serious, certain, and soon to demand action. Climate change meets none of these tests.

GDI Scholars

101 Politics

Bush strike on NK
A Bush Election in 2004 leads to a first strike on North Korea Pinkerton 2002, (Fellow New America Foundation, James, Newsday December 31)
Not every New Year's resolution is kept. The year 2002 began with America hunting for Osama bin Laden, and it ended with America aiming for Saddam Hussein. In between has come the inconvenient nuclear news from North Korea - but that's been pushed way down on the "to do" list. Indeed, the last half-century shows that the low-prioritizing of Pyongyang has been the norm. Yet one year, maybe next year, Uncle Sam is going to regret his irresolution. "U.S. softens line on North Korea." That was the header atop Monday's Financial Times, the London-based paper that most pithily captured the incongruity between the administration's unilateralist hawkery toward Iraq and its multilateralist dovery toward North Korea. But nobody should be fooled. George W. Bush has no intention of taking a soft line on North Korea forever.

A military conflict between the US and North Korea would ignite a thermonuclear exchange Choi, 2002 (Kim, Nautilus Institute for Security and Stable Development, Chol.html, October 24) Any military strike initiated against North Korea will promptly explode into a thermonuclear exchange between a tiny nuclear-armed North Korea and the world's superpower, America. The most densely populated Metropolitan U.S.A., Japan and South Korea will certainly evaporate in The Day After scenario-type nightmare. The New York Times warned in its August 27, 2002 comment: 'North Korea runs a more advanced biological, chemical and nuclear weapons program, targets American military bases and is developing missiles that could reach the lower 48 states. Yet there's good reason President Bush is not talking about taking out Dear Leader Kim Jong II. If we tried, the Dear Leader would bombard South Korea and Japan with nerve gas or even nuclear warheads, and (according to one Pentagon study) kill up to a million people."

GDI Scholars

102 Politics

Bush strike on NK
Bush in 2004 leads to North Korean first strike Cummings 03, Korea Historian [Bruce, Standoff in the East, LA Weekly, August 29, p.24., LN]
If Gore had won in 2000, I think North Korea would have evolved a great deal from its menacing state. It keeps saying it wants change and good relations. There can be more change if Bush loses re-election or exercises leadership now by following a consistent policy. North Korea, too, also has responsibilities in this. I don't think it's made up its mind to reform like China or Vietnam. While it's behaved rationally, from the view of its own interests, the real danger is that for a long time it's had no hope of extending its system south. That was always their goal in the past. Old hard-liners who fought the war are maybe going around thinking: If Bush wants to push this, it's our last chance to unify Korea through force -- we've got nothing from our attempts to engage Washington. Hard-liners here have their counterparts there. They're both wrong. Kim Jong Il himself doesn't have a policy of taking the South through force. I think he's desperate to find a way out of North Korea's troubles. But he's in a patriarchy where age counts so much. Bush's team seems split on whether to keep his regime involved in change or squeeze it. But wish for collapse and you're wishing for the next Korean War, because they'll go down fighting. What can come of this week's multilateral negotiations in Beijing? North Korea's package deal has to be taken seriously. It's the essence of what they want. They proposed it in last year's talks, this April's talks and in 1993, which led to the agreement. It involves security guarantees, aid and normalization. The U.S. should go ahead and do it. It's the one way we'd finally gain influence over North Korea. The key is simultaneous, confidence-building steps, but Bush wants Kim to give it all up first, saying he won't be "blackmailed." We've been threatening North Korea for 50 years with our own nukes. When Bush says blackmail, it's just a sign he's not serious. What's easy is figuring out what works with North Korea. You push them around -- it won't work. You engage in tradeoffs and treat them as equal partners -- it works every time. That's what worked finally for Clinton. But to expect them to give up something for nothing is idiotic! Yet that's what Bush wants them to do while we continue to threaten them. It sounds like there's no hope until after the 2004 presidential elections. I'm much more worried if Bush gets re-elected absent any progress. In a second term, the administration might feel they have a freer hand to push coercively. They'd have troops for it. I hope the talks achieve some success or lead to more. But North Korea will probably table proposals attractive to everybody except Bush. Let's say the talks go well, the U.S. and North Korea come to a rapprochement. What's the best-case scenario? The future [that former South Korean President] Kim Dae Jung laid out in his "sunshine" policy: a prolonged peace as North Korea changes so that, decades from now, Korea unifies under a democratic system. Worst-case: The negotiations keep tanking. Then all bets are off. North Korea might declare itself a nuclear power, even test nuclear weapons. It'll be Bush's bomb. You can blame it on Bush because it didn't have to happen.

GDI Scholars

103 Politics

Bush Iran war

Bush re-election leads to a bloody war with Iran Vanguard News, 03 April 14
Then there's a long-standing hatred Iranians have for the United States, which guarantees that mass surrenders in such a conflict would not be something we could count on. On the other hand, Iran is rich in petroleum reserves, which of course is something our dear president is keenly interested in. If Bush is re-elected in 2004, you can pretty much count on this war happening. But it'll be a long, bloody struggle with lots of body bags.

Iranian war leads to counterbalancing, full scale warfare, and brings the world to the nuclear Brink Gaffney, 2003 (Mark is a researcher, writer, poet, environmentalist, anti-nuclear activist, and organic gardener.
He was the principal organizer of the first Earth Day in April 1970 at Colorado State University. Mark's forthcoming book is a radical study of early Christianity: SECRETS OF THE NAASSENE SERMON.2003.05.29, Asks: Will Iran be next?) It is very possible--some would say probable--that the U.S., possibly in conjunction with Israel, will launch a "preventive" raid and destroy the Bushehr reactor before it goes on line. Such a raid would be fateful for the region and the world. It would trigger another Mideast war, and possibly a confrontation with Russia, with effects that are difficult to predict. A war with Iran might bring about the collapse of the NPT, and bring the world to the nuclear brink. THE EVIDENCE CONTINUES In their current state of hubris the men around the president obviously believe they can accomplish anything with U.S. military power, now supreme on the planet. However, such a war would undoubtedly be perceived by the world as a serious escalation, and would likely produce a new anti-U.S. coalition. Various states, in defiance of U.S. threats, might even come to Iran's assistance. The common border shared by Russia and Iran raises the stakes. To understand why, we need only consider how the U.S. would respond to a foreign attack on, say, Mexico. The Russians might supply Iran with advanced military arms, ground-toair missiles, etcetera. Pakistani President Musharraf would face growing pressure at home to assist a fellow Islamic state. With assistance from Russia and/or Pakistan, the Iranians might force the U.S. to launch commando assaults with special forces, or even invade and occupy the country (notice, this implies regime change, precisely what Ariel Sharon has advocated). Such a path--I hasten to add-would be insane, for reasons that should be apparent to anyone who can find Iran on a map. Iran is five times larger than Iraq, a rugged mountainous country of sixty-five million people. What if invading U.S. forces should meet return fire, in kind? One shudders at the reaction in Washington should the Iranians turn on U.S. troops the same depleted uranium weapons that the U.S. has been using with such horrible effect on others. That would bring George W. Bush eyeball-to-eyeball with Vladimir Putin, the obvious supplier, and possibly even with Pervez Musharraf and Pakistan. Lest we forget, both are nuclear-armed (unlike Saddam Hussein) and capable of defending themselves. The assumption that Putin will back down in a crisis on his own border could be a serious miscalculation. If U.S. hawks insist on victory, and escalation ensues, events could spin out of control. To prevent such a catastrophe we must all work together. We must stop Bush's next war BEFORE it starts.

GDI Scholars

104 Politics

Bush Syria invasion

Bush getting elected leads to an invasion of Syria which leads to a giant middle eastern conflict People's Weekly World Newspaper,2003 04/19/03(
Drunk with power, the Bush administration is preparing its next steps to rule the world and attack democracy here at home. Turning the world upside down with its most extreme imperialist policies of unilateral, preemptive war, this administration presents dangers never before faced by the American people and the world. The Bush Doctrine and its accompanying terrifying actions demand the highest and broadest levels of unity, organization and struggle by democratic forces in response, to slow and defeat these forces of evil. Broad unity can be built on such demands as End the occupation, No more Iraqs, and What we need is work, not war. But most importantly is organizing smarter and better to defeat Bush and his cronies in the 2004 elections. These elections take on even greater importance in the wake of the criminal pillage and plunder of Iraq, threats towards Syria, Iran and North Korea and rollback of democracy here.
Democratic forces from everyday people concerned about the future of this country and planet to more organized forces like the labor movement, the organizations of African American, Mexican American, Puerto Rican, American Indian, Arab, Asian and other racially and nationally oppressed peoples, women, young people, students, seniors, small business people, the GLBT, environmental, civil rights movements, the faith-based communities and yes, even the Democrats and most Republicans, all have a stake and self-interest in defeating this undemocratic and vicious of all regimes. But organizing, especially mass political education at the grassroots for the elections has to begin now. It has to help shape the terms of the debate, the issues for struggle and the candidates. Organizing for the 2004 elections also has to take into account that the ultra right is ruthless. They will lie, cheat, steal their way to the White House, again. They will use racism and fear, war and repression to divide and suppress the vote. But mass united struggle can cut through their fear-mongering and all their weapons of mass reaction. While not finished with its plans for military occupation of Iraq, the Bush administration is setting the stage for its next step toward colonial domination of the world. In recent days, key administration officials, including George W. himself, have launched a coordinated campaign of accusations and threats against the government of Syria. In what has now become standard operating procedure, Syria is being accused of possessing chemical weapons, committing hostile acts against the United States, harboring terrorists and giving sanctuary to Iraqi war criminals.

While Syria has long been on the Pentagons list of countries targeted for preemptive military strikes, the timing of the administrations rhetoric agaist Syria is meant to serve a secondary purpose as well: that of distracting the publics mind from the failure to find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and keeping up the war hysteria that is bound to disapate with the end of military operations in Iraq.
Having promised the public that U.S. troops would be greeted with flowers, the Bush administration is now trying to hide the embarrassing fact that, every day, an increasing number of ordinary Iraqi people are joining anti-occupation demonstrations, right in front of U.S. troops, demanding that they leave the country immediately.

By extending the threat of war to Syria, the Bush administration is, indeed, throwing gasoline on the Middle East fires. The region is already brimming with anger and growing anti-American feelings. Any expansion of the war into other countries of the region will not only lead to an uncontrollable regional conflagration, but also to a further isolation of the United States. It is time to disarm Bush. And the first step towards this end is putting an end to his doctrine of preemptive strike. Congresswoman Barbara Lees (D-Calif.) anti-preemption resolution is a good starting point.

GDI Scholars

105 Politics

Bush loss Syria war (wag the dog)

If Bush is going to lose the election, then he will invade Syria Nimmo, 2004 [Kurt, Will Bush Steal the 2004 Election? Another Day in the Empire, February 26,]
According to Francis Boyle, international law professor, University of Illinois, UrbanaChampaign, Rove and Bush will engineer a Syrian invasion in September if they think the election is lost. "Its just like what happened in the 2002 congressional campaign," Boyle told Snowshoe Films. "Karl Rove got the Senate back and more votes in the House by going to war against Iraq. And they'll do the same thing this time. I think the most likely target is Syria. They're setting Syria up for an attack. So they'll sit there and wait and see how things turn out and after everyone goes on vacation in August, after Labor Day weekend, if they're going to lose, I think they'll go to war. Chomsky gave a lecture down in Cuba and he said the same thing.

GDI Scholars

106 Politics

Bush wont attack Syria

Bush cant attack Syria unilaterally his lack of international support prevents him from striking Syria South China Morning Post, July 13, 2004, p. l/n
Instead, future American diplomacy will once again rely more heavily on the conventional tools of alliances, the United Nations and other international organisations to find common solutions to common problems. There will be less of what the world has come to see as an impatient, aggressive and unilateral diplomacy, with its underlying threat of force to get quick results. In fact, this is less a prediction than a recognition of something already well under way. After the US twice failed to create a temporary government in Baghdad, Mr Bush reluctantly turned to a UN diplomat, who got the job done. Backroom bluster about attacking North Korea if it did not give up its nuclear weapons has evolved into laborious six-nation negotiations with the same goal. And no one in Washington seems to be talking any longer of striking Iran or Syria over alleged weapons programmes or aid to terrorists. On the contrary, Mr Bush has just completed two European trips to plead for more help and understanding in Iraq and Afghanistan. But despite his newly conciliatory manner, the results were meagre - some police training for Baghdad and a few more Nato troops for Kabul. The Bush style and substance have created resentments that the president is finding difficult to overcome.

GDI Scholars

107 Politics

Bush testing
A second term gives Bush free reign leads to unrestrained testing Isaacs 03, Executive Director of Council for a Livable World
[John, To vote or not to Vote? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March/ April, ASE] Congress approved an administration study that would examine the cost and requirements for resuming nuclear testing on an accelerated schedule. While few expect the president to break the decade long American nuclear testing moratorium before the 2004 election, political restraints would disappear in a second Bush term.

Bush re-election leads to nuke testing Norris, May, 2003 ( The Bush administrations plan for nuclear testing)
The administration is planning to revitalize the entire nuclear weapon complex so that it could, if directed, design, develop, manufacture and certify new warheads. One essential activity in this process would be testing new warhead designs. In expectation of that possibility, the administration has recommended that the Nevada Test Site drastically reduce the amount of time it would take to resume testing. NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) sees this initiative as the first step toward resuming testing and designing a new generation of nuclear weapons if President Bush wins a second term.

Nuke testing comes after re-election Japan Economic Newswire May 6, 2003
The administration of President George W. Bush has decided to reduce the time needed to resume nuclear tests to 18 months from the current two to three years and asked Congress for $25 million to help meet that goal, congressional sources said Tuesday. The Energy Department recently decided that it should be capable of conducting a nuclear test within 18 months should the president determine one necessary, the sources said.

GDI Scholars

108 Politics

Testing good deterrence

Testing is necessary to ensure reliability as warheads age Kathleen Bailey, Senior Fellow at National Institute for Public Policy The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: An Update on the Debate, March, 2001,, accessed 8/8/02
Many things can and have gone wrong with deployed U.S. nuclear weapons. Some defects have been design flaws; some have been introduced during the weapons manufacture; others developed as a result of aging. Despite the fact that weapons designs in the stockpile have been extensively tested, problems continue to arise. John C. Browne, Director of Los Alamos National Laboratory, testified in 1999 that We also continue to find problems that were introduced during the original manufacturing of some specific weapons. We have identified several issues that, if they had occurred when testing was active, most likely would have been resolved by nuclear testing. In the future, warhead problems associated with manufacturing may be even more prevalent. This is due to the fact that older weapons will need to be remanufactured. Many materials and components used in original manufacture are no longer available and substitutes must be used; older processes and procedures may have to be changed (e.g. they are outdated or unsafe by todays standards). These changes could severely impact weapons reliability. Nuclear testing is the only way to validate, with certainty, that the new materials, components, processes, and procedures used in weapons remanufacture do not affect weapons performance.

Deterrence is critical to credibility and preventing nuclear war by design or miscalculation Robert Spulak, senior analyst at the Strategic Studies Center, Weapons of Mass Destruction: Opposing Viewpoints, 1999, p. 53-54
The need for nuclear deterrence will not disappear. There are still powerful nations in the world which are potential adversaries, both immediate and future. The interests of these other nations will, at times, be in conflict with the interests of the United States. It is inevitable that another great power or a coalition of powers will arise to oppose the hegemony of the United States. Although the Cold War is over, Russia still has the capability to destroy the United States; the strong showing of the nationalists and communists in the Russian elections, the obvious failure of reforms, the desire of Russia to be recognized as a great power, and replacement of the reformers in the Russian government with officials from the communist era have refocused our concerns on this point. In a few years Japan, a Western European state, or China could pose a strategic threat to our broad security interests; China is rapidly modernizing its arsenal and could soon be a strategic nuclear threat. Since we will be cautious about attacking any nuclear power with conventional forces, it will be difficult to deter even smaller nuclear powers such as North Korea, Iran, or Iraq if our nuclear threat to them is not credible. Credibility is important for deterrence because the conditions under which the United States would actually use nuclear weapons, and therefore the conditions under which nuclear deterrence even exists, depend on limitations we place on ourselves. Credibility has been one of the most important aspects of nuclear policy from the beginning. For example, the lack of credibility of the U.S. policy of massive retaliation led to the more limited U.S. doctrines that were then developed. The development of warfighting capabilities as a contribution to deterrence was based on the need to demonstrate that there was a likelihood that nuclear weapons would actually be used. Minimizing and stigmatizing our nuclear weapons can create a self-imposed taboo with respect to even nuclear adversaries, thereby delegitimizing deterrence and inviting threats to our interests. This self-injury to our nuclear deterrence is not the delegitimization of all nuclear weapons that the proponents of nuclear stigma hope for. It is neither reciprocal with our potential enemies nor permanent, even for ourselves. Credible nuclear deterrence is robust, not delicate. Policies and actions that establish credibility couple with our nuclear arsenal to create the possibility that in a war with the United States an enemy may face a risk of annihilation. A potential enemy need not even be very rational to be deterred from actions that ensure his own destruction. (This is not to argue for belligerence; we can keep the threshold for nuclear use high without undermining credibility.) This creates extreme caution in the behavior of other states if they wish to threaten vital U.S. security interests, and it substantially reduces the likelihood of miscalculation.

GDI Scholars

109 Politics

Testing good EMP

Nuclear testing is key to solve EMP vulnerability Dr. Robert Barker, former Deputy Associate Director for Arms Control, October 7, 1999, testimony before the
Senate Armed Services Committee Fourth, the legislation does not allow underground nuclear testing to ensure that U.S. forces, other than our nuclear weapons, would be able to fulfill their functions despite exposure to nuclear effects. Such testing is extremely important for a wide range of systems, including conventional systems, sensor of all types, other defensive systems, and all command and control elements. Thus the constraints of Public Law 102-377 will have an adverse impact on a wide range of U.S. capabilities, in addition to our nuclear deterrent. (U) In consequence, the Administration has concluded that it is not possible to develop a test program within the constraints of Public Law 102-377 that would be fiscally, militarily and technically responsible. The requirement to maintain and improve the safety of our nuclear stockpile and to evaluate and maintain the reliability of U.S. forces necessitates continued nuclear testing for those purposes, albeit at a modest level, for the foreseeable future. The administration strongly urges the Congress to modify this legislation urgently, in order to permit the minimum number and kind of underground nuclear test that the United States requires-regardless of the action of other states--to retain safe and reliable, although dramatically reduced deterrent forces." The record could not be more clear, on January 19,1993 a CTBT was a long term goal because nuclear testing was necessary for a safe and reliable U.S. deterrent. What changed?

EMP vulnerability destroys power projection Jack Spencer, Policy Analyst for Defense and National Security in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation, 5/26/2000, Heritage Foundation Reports
Although the threat that an enemy would use a high-altitude EMP against America existed during the Cold War, the likelihood that this could happen may be greater today. n5 During the Cold War, an EMP attack was viewed as the first step in launching a nuclear war, but it was never tried because the threat of massive nuclear retaliation provided an effective deterrent. This principle holds true today for an attack by Russia or China on the United States. In the post -- Cold War years, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction makes the threat more difficult to assess. More important, the traditional deterrent of retaliation does not apply. No rogue nation has the capacity to fight a general nuclear war with the United States; therefore, it is not likely that an EMP blast would be used as a precursor to full-scale war. And since an EMP blast is not likely to kill anyone directly or to be followed by a nuclear strike that would annihilate U.S. cites, the United States is less likely to retaliate and destroy an entire nation of innocent people as punishment for the decisions of a rogue leader. The motivation for a rogue state to use its limited nuclear arsenal in an EMP strike against the United States is simple: It maximizes the impact of its few warheads while minimizing the risk of retaliation. This decrease in risk for rogue leaders could compel them to use EMP to offset overwhelming U.S. conventional power on the battlefield. An EMP blast would debilitate U.S. forces in a hot spot where they might be deployed and throughout a region of strategic interest, such as Northeast Asia or the Middle East. Because the United States has no policy on deterrence for a rogue state's use of high-altitude EMP, and because EMP attacks are less risky for those states, such attacks are far more likely to occur in this era of nuclear proliferation than they were at any time during the Cold War.

GDI Scholars

110 Politics

Testing bad war

Nuke Testing leads to nuclear war Nelson, 2001 (Theorist on Nuclear Weapons who works on technical arms issues,
The end of the Cold War should allow us to place further limits on the development and use of nuclear weapons. The danger of moving from a conventional to a nuclear war is so enormous, that the US refrained from using nuclear weapons in Korea even when US troops were in danger of being overwhelmed. Attempts to develop a new generation of low-yield nuclear weapons would only make nuclear war more likely, and they seem cynically designed to provide legitimacy to nuclear testing - steps that would return us to the dangers of Cold War nuclear competition, but with a larger number of nations participating.

Testing leads to regional conflict and arms buildup Las Vegas Review-Journal (Nevada) August 15, 2002
Such a move 'would open the floodgates for nuclear testing worldwide,' he said, noting later, 'If we decide to resume nuclear weapons testing, other countries are going to take notice of that. While we don't have anything to fear from India or Pakistan, both of those countries fear each other

GDI Scholars

111 Politics

Testing bad free trade

Testing causes protectionism Christopher Paine, Senior Researcher/Nuclear Program, Natural Resources Defense Council, October 6, 1999
At the instigation of a bipartisan majority in both houses of Congress, good faith multilateral negotiations undertaken during President Clintons first term at long last yielded a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996. At no time, during these four years or since, has any resolution or directive passed by the Congress indicated serious disagreement with the course of these negotiations or the specific terms of the treaty. Nor did any significant number of Senate Republicans seek to discourage the President from signing the treaty in September 1996. To suddenly jettison the treaty at this late date would severely damage not only U.S. national security interests but also the security of many other allied and friendly countries. Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Australia, Canada, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Norway, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, South Africa indeed virtually the entire community of advanced industrial democracies -- have already ratified the test ban treaty. Torpedoing the test ban will decimate Americas standing with the publics and parliaments in these countries, and possibly spark retaliatory boycotts of American goods and services (recall the uproar and boycott of French products that greeted Frances final nuclear test series in the Pacific in 1995) Cooperation on a range of trade and export control issues will become much more difficult or even impossible.

GDI Scholars

112 Politics

Testing bad A2: EMP

Nuclear testing isnt key to checking EMP vulnerability Jack Spencer, Policy Analyst for Defense and National Security in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation, 5/26/2000, Heritage Foundation Reports
Protecting Against High-Altitude EMPs. There are methods to test system vulnerability to EMPs without exploding nuclear weapons. For example, a system could be injected with current and voltage to see how it would react. The United States has several simulators that could be modified to emulate the EMP effect of a high-altitude nuclear blast. The Defense Special Weapons Agency and its predecessors have already developed models that closely reproduce the effects of the high-altitude tests over the Pacific, which were validated by underground nuclear testing.

Critical systems are already shielded Eileen Walling, Colonel Eileen Walling, 2001, The Technological Arsenal, p. 91-92
The militarys interest in HPM technology is an outgrowth of previous military and civilian research and studies in the field of radar technology that began during the 1930s and continues today. This work also emerged from the U.S. nuclear program with the discovery of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) during the 1950s. Although typically equated with nuclear detonations, EMP is also produced by nonnuclear sources. An example is the static and distorted radio signals that occur when a car is driven beneath high-voltage power. Although, in this case, EMP only disrupts the signals and does no harm to the radio, it can have such serious and catastrophic effects on electronics equipment that the Department of Defense hardens and shields many of its weapons systems and subsystems against the effects of EMP.

The limited test ban treaty already stops effective EMP testing Steve Fetter, Professor in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Maryland, 1992, Towards A
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, Since the Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT) was signed in 1963, all U.S., Soviet, and U.K. nuclear testing has been performed underground; France and China have more recently restricted their testing to underground. This greatly limits the types of nuclear effects experiments that can be done. For example, one can test the vulnerability of a reentry vehicle to the X-rays and neutrons produced by an explosion, but one cannot test C3 or BMD systems for the effects that are produced only by atmospheric explosions. Understanding these effects is crucial for building C3 and BMD systems that would be effective during nuclear war, but the existing LTBT already prohibits gaining such understanding; a CTB would not change anything in this respect. The LTBT also prevents nuclear experiments to determine the hardness of silos, mobile missile launchers, and bombers. A CTB would only eliminate nuclear weapons as test sources of X-rays, gamma rays, neutrons, and ground shock, and there are other ways to generate these phenomena.

GDI Scholars

113 Politics

Testing bad A2: deterrence

GDI Scholars

114 Politics

Testing bad A2: deterrence

On balance, the SSP maintains a credible deterrent Christopher Paine, Senior Researcher, NRDC Nuclear Program, February 1999, Some additional observations by Hecker, not cited in the Cato Policy Analysis, are pertinent to the subject at hand: "I believe that the SSMP as currently configured and fully funded provides the best approach to keeping the confidence level in our nuclear stockpile as high as possible for the foreseeable future. We recognize that there is no substitute for full-systems testing in any complex technological enterprise. This is certainly true for nuclear weapons. A robust nuclear testing program would undoubtedly increase our confidence. However, our long-term confidence in the stockpile would suffer if we substituted a program consisting of an occasional nuclear test for a robust stewardship program because it would lock us into an empirical approach tied to limited testing data without the benefit of the flexibility and resiliency provided by better scientific understanding (emphasis added."(4) Hecker certainly realizes, even if Dr. Bailey does not, that in the post-Cold War era "a robust nuclear testing program" cannot be justified by DOD's current or reasonably foreseeable nuclear weapon requirements, and could not be justified politically to the American public and the international community, which overwhelmingly support an end to nuclear explosive testing. In his responses to Kyl, Director Hecker returns twice more to the theme of the tradeoff between continuation of a modest nuclear test program without the CTBT, and a robust stewardship program with the CTBT, and he repeatedly chooses the latter: "Again, I would like to add the caution that conducting an occasional nuclear test in lieu of a fully-funded SSMP will jeopardize our long-term confidence in the stockpile.

A preponderance of experts agree ratification wouldnt hurt U.S. stockpiles Tom Collina, director of the Arms Control and International Security Program, and Christopher Paine, senior
research associate in the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, July/August 1999,, accessed 8/8/02 While tacitly acknowledging the lack of any current requirements for nuclear test explosions, test ban opponents raise worst-case "what if" scenarios to suggest that a "prudent" approach to maintaining nuclear deterrence requires an ever present option to test, and thus the avoidance of any binding treaty commitment. In reality, America's deterrent can be sustained without nuclear explosive tests. This conclusion is supported by the three nuclear weapons laboratories; by numerous independent weapons experts; by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and four former chairmen (Colin Powell, John Shalikashvili, David Jones, and William Crowe); and by the Defense Department. And if the United States ever chose to exercise the "option" to resume underground nuclear test explosions, it would pay a very high political cost.

GDI Scholars

115 Politics

Bush draft
If Bush is re-elected, the draft will be reinstated Farrell, 2003 (Maureen, writer and media consultant, Would a Second Bush Term mean a return to
Conscription? Why Dodging the Draft Would be Trickier Than you Thnk, November 11, So now that occupation "ifs" have become reality, concerns that the US military is stretched too thin are being voiced regularly. And news that the Pentagon is advertising for personnel to staff draft boards has
notched up speculation. "This is significant," Dartmouth presidential scholar and former professor of strategy at the National War College in Washington Ned Lebow said. "What the department of defense is doing is creating

the infrastructure to make the draft a viable option should the administration wish to go this route."
Meanwhile, the Guardian openly wondered "why the Pentagon decided at this time it was necessary to fill staff bodies which had played no function since the early 1980s." [LINK] As early as last November, however, red flags were being raised. The Journal News in New York state, for example, featured an article regarding New York's Selective Service System need for draft board members in case "a military draft would ever become necessary." And Rep. Charles B. Rangel's Dec. 31 op-ed piece in The New York Times entitled "Bring Back the Draft" caused considerable uproar, especially as it was accompanied by legislation introduced by Rangel and Sen. Fritz Hollings to do just that. "The experts are all saying we're going to have to beef up our presence in Iraq," Rangel said in the Nov. 3, 2003 edition of "We've failed to convince our allies to send troops, we've extended deployments so morale is sinking, and the president is saying we can't cut and run. So what's left? The draft is a very sensitive subject, but at some point, we're going to need more troops, and at that point the only way to get them will be a return to the draft." As most point out, however, any mention of conscription would be ill-advised before the 200 4 election. "A number of analysts said yesterday that while any public suggestion of a draft would be politically suicidal for U.S. President George W. Bush in an election year, he could find himself with few other options if he is returned for a second term and the fighting in Iraq is still raging," the Toronto Star recently reported. "I don't think a presidential candidate would seriously propose a draft," the Cato Institute's Charles Pena added. "But an incumbent, safely in for a second term -- that might be a different story." Moreover, though a recent Newsweek poll should that only 44 percent of American voters would like to see a second Bush term (vs. fifty percent who would not), as concerns over voter roll-scrubbing, black box voting irregularities and other election oddities raise questions about our democracy, its nave to imagine that next years presidential election won't involve some of the same shenanigans we saw in 2000. And given the radical direction the Bush

administration has taken this country since barreling into power, can you imagine what four years of Bush would be like if reelection wasn't a consideration? And so, folks could do a lot worse than to wager that a GOP victory in 2004 would mean a return to conscription. They would, however, run into trouble gambling on ways US citizens might successfully dodge the draft.
Many Americans, remembering the Vietnam-era loopholes, still erroneously believe that college and Canada are options, without understanding the differences between then and now.

GDI Scholars

116 Politics

Bush draft
Bush in 2004 means draft Black, 2004 (April 14, David, Editor of,
I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet. I even work for a non-prophet organization. Yet I will go out on a limb and make the following prediction: If Bush is reelected and our empirebuilding continues, and if reenlistment in the armed forces dries up, as seems likely following the fiasco in Iraq, more warm bodies will be needed in a hurry to fight the nations wars, and the call from Washington to resume the draft will become deafening. Our government has already taken the first steps toward a targeted military draft of Americans with special skills in computers and foreign languages. True, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says he will not ask Congress to authorize a draft, and officials at the Selective Service System (SSS), the federal agency that would organize any conscription, stress that the so-called special skills draft is remote. But the agency has begun the process of creating the procedures to conduct a draft in case our military leadership asks Congress to authorize it.

If Bush is re-elected, there will be a new Draft Goslin, 2003 (Goslin, December 15, 2003, HighSchool Teacher in Northern Arizona, Over the last two years, some have suggested the possibility of reinstating military conscription. No wonder. If President Bush is reelected in 2004, he will have no electoral restraints on his imperial ambitions. Given recent surveys indicating that a significant portion of active duty and reservist military personnel will not reenlist, the president will need to tap other sources for axis of evil guerrillas to shoot. Should these suggestions receive serious discussion among the ruling elite, prefaced on the demands of their masters in the worlds of finance, industry, and international Zionism, the American people can expect a barrage of patriotic propaganda the likes of which has not been seen since World War II. The evil forces standing against America will be rabidly demonized, like the Japs and krauts of yore, and the American people will be prodded along like a herd with never-ending terror alerts. Our national color will be orange.

Re-Election makes the draft inevitable, April 22, 2004 (
The military has already wasted millions of dollars trying to boost recruitment through entertainment like NASCAR. Not surprisingly, recruitment goals have fallen far short of expectations. Current soldiers, meanwhile, have made it clear that they want out. Not even signing bonuses are coaxing them to re-enlist. Why go through this mess again? The draft is the only remaining option. Bush will start implementing a draft through reactivation of the Selective Service Boards, shortly after he is sworn in for a second term, if that nightmare scenario of his election should come to pass. But not to worry for the offspring of the Bush dynasty. The Bush loyalists will find a way to keep the twins and other Bush kin from serving. None of the Bush brothers, including George, have fought in a war. They don't plan on starting any new Bush traditions now with the "next generation."

GDI Scholars

117 Politics

Bush draft
President Bush would re-instate the Draft, Kerry wont Russell, 2004 (Chris, February 20, An Issue of Trust, Stop the, An Issue of What do a former fighter pilot in the National Guard and a former officer in the Navy have in common? Both have promised not to reinstate the military draft if elected president. Senator John Kerry has promised that if elected president he will not reinstate the military draft, but will increase troop numbers by 40,000. President Bush and his staff have also promised the American public that there are no plans to reinstate the military draft. Promises are great, but talk is cheap. As voters, we must look into these promises with eyes of skepticism. Reinstating the military draft would dramatically affect millions of young men and women and their families. Although President Bush ensures the public that he has no plans to reinstate the military draft, facts show otherwise. For all young men and women between the ages of 18 and 26, two bills introduced in the Senate and House of Representatives are quietly looming under the cloudy skies of our future. On January 7, 2003, two identical bills (S.89 Senate Bill and H.R.163 House of Representatives Bill) known as the Universal National Service Act of 2003 were drafted and are waiting to be ratified. The bills call for reinstating the draft declaring that it is the obligation of every U.S. citizen, and every other person residing in the United States, between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a two-year period of national service . . . It is widely assumed by political analysts that President Bush is merely postponing the reinstatement of the military draft until after the presidential election is over because it would hinder his chances of becoming reelected.

GDI Scholars

118 Politics

Draft good
Reinstitution of the draft is key to prevent overstretch maintaining leadership Stanton, 2003 (Junios, B.A. Liberal Arts English from Cheyney State and Masters from Upenn in City Planning,
October 13th, , Reinstituting the Military Draft: Politically Activating America's Youth, But the invasion and occupation of Iraq has changed all that. When former Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki testified before Congress he stated it would take something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers to successfully invade, stabilize, and occupy Iraq. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz scoffed at Shinsekis figures then swiftly moved to marginalize him and hasten his retirement. As fate would have it, Shinsekis figures now seem to be on the mark. There are currently over 180,000 US soldiers in the region counting the Persian Gulf plus a substantial number of soldiers in Afghanistan and Central Asia. Where will the additional soldiers come from to occupy Iraq in the event Bush is unsuccessful getting more countries to join the occupation and reconstruction? In all probability, by the measure of some, a resurrected military draft would satisfy the need. The overextended US forces in addition suffer from sinking morale with soldiers being attacked and dying daily. Due to this unanticipated Iraqi resistance and sabotage taking a heavy toll on US forces and slowing reconstruction efforts, Bush, Powell, and Rumsfeld are scrambling to bribe or coerce countries to participate in the occupation and share reconstruction costs. Ironically, it is not the rabid Neocons in the Bush administration who formulated and pushed the policy of pre-emptive military strikes and created the current military crisis, but rather it is the equally morally bankrupt Democrats who are calling for the revival of the draft! Recently, Congressman Rangel reiterated his call for a universal draft and legislators on both sides of the aisle starting to think it's a good idea. So rather than pressure the administration to rethink AmeriKKKa's foreign policy, go back to the table and work out a compromise with the UN or cut their losses in Iraq and Afghanistan and bring the troops home, the Democrats are colluding to reinstitute the draft and conscript males and females to help Bush establish military hegemony all over the world.

Reinstituting the draft is key to solve military overstretch and prevent terrorism Moskos, 2003 (Charles, Prof. Of Sociology @ Northwestern, Should the Draft Be Reinstated?, Time Magazine
Online,, December 21st) Our country is facing new kinds of threats and needs a new kind of draft. Even before the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, our military was severely overstretched in fulfilling its missions. But more important, we have done nothing serious about homeland defense in the war against terrorism. We need guards for our nuclear power plants, dams and public facilities. We have done little to create the necessary border patrollers, customs agents and cargo-ship inspectors. Short-term draftees, under professional supervision, could perform these duties admirably. It takes less than four months to train a military police officerprecisely the kind of role most needed in peacekeeping missions and guard duties. This would free up professional soldiers, and it would stop the unprecedented activation of reservists. Their multiple tours have led to demoralization and impending recruitment shortfalls. We must institute a three-tiered draft system in America, with 15-to-24-month tours of duty for citizens ages 18 to 26. In the new-style draft, conscripts could serve in the military, in homeland security or in a civilian-service program like AmeriCorpsand there is no reason women could not be drafted for the latter categories.

GDI Scholars

119 Politics

Draft good
Draft is key to preventing Terrorism Gerber, 2001 (Robin, Senior Fellow at Academy of Leadership at the University of Maryland, The Christian
Science Monitor, Sen. John McCain has gone full circle, from opposing AmeriCorps - the federal program that involves tens of thousands of young people in building houses, tutoring, assisting the elderly, and otherwise acting as a domestic Peace Corps - to becoming a true believer. Last week, he and Sen. Evan Bayh introduced new national service legislation to boost funding for AmeriCorps and "dramatically expand opportunities for public service." Unfortunately, it's a good idea that's masking a missed opportunity. Senator McCain wants to give every young person who's interested the opportunity for service. But in a time of war, he can and should call for more. Young Americans should be told they have an obligation to serve, a duty to actively support their democracy. National conscription for national service is what America needs to ensure that when we win the war on terrorism we have a civil society as mighty as our military. No one likes the idea of a draft, but we've never tried a draft that didn't have battle as the recruits' ultimate objective. Right now, the military appears to have enough volunteers willing to fight so that we don't need to force young people into harm's way. But our battlefront is not only in the barren reaches of Afghanistan. As President Bush said in his speech last Thursday calling for new opportunities within Americorps, our country needs "a commitment to service in our own communities." What better time to enlist young people to help their country than right now?

GDI Scholars

120 Politics

Draft bad
The draft is counter-productive and creates an inefficient military and funding cuts Slate Magazine, June 23, 2004
Bringing back the draft would lasso the social dregs along with the society elite. Would the net effect be a "more equitable representation of people making sacrifices," as Rangel put it? Maybe, maybe not. Even with a draft, not everyone would serve. About 11 million Americans are 20 to 26 years old. The military doesn't need 11 million people. A draft would have to involve some sort of lottery. If that's the way it goes, there should be no exemptions (except for the physically disabled, the mentally incompetent, convicted felons, and perhaps conscientious objectors). Still, unless a military draft was one component of a compulsory national-service program (the subject of another essay), only some would be called. It's a matter of chance whether the kids from the suburbs would be called more than the kids from the projects. There is a still more basic question: What is the purpose of a military? Is it to spread the social burdenor to fight and win wars? The U.S. active-duty armed forces are more professional and disciplined than at any time in decades, perhaps ever. This is so because they are composed of people who passed comparatively stringent entrance examsand, more important, people who want to be there or, if they no longer want to be there, know that they chose to be there in the first place. An Army of draftees would include many bright, capable, dedicated people; but it would also include many dumb, incompetent malcontents, who would wind up getting more of their fellow soldiers killed. It takes about six months to put a soldier through basic training. It takes a few months more to train one for a specialized skill. The kinds of conflicts American soldiers are likely to face in the coming decades will be the kinds of conflicts they are facing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Bosnia"security and stabilization operations," in military parlance. These kinds of operations require more trainingand more delicate trainingthan firing a rifle, driving a tank, or dropping a bomb. If conscription is revived, draftees are not likely to serve more than two years. Right now, the average volunteer in the U.S. armed forces has served five years. By most measures, an Army of draftees would be less experienced, less cohesivegenerally, less effectivethan an Army of volunteers. Their task is too vital to tolerate such a sacrifice for the cause of social justice, especially when that cause isn't so urgent to begin with. Would lawmakers be less likely to approve and fund wars if their children and the children of their friends might be drafted to fight?

GDI Scholars

121 Politics

Draft bad
Renewing the Draft would jack the USs military Bandow, 1999 (Doug, a Sr. Fellow at the Cato Institute and Special Assistant to President Reagan, Fixing What
Aint Broke: The Renewed Call for Conscription, Cato Policy Analysis No. 351, The United States has relied on a volunteer military for most of its history. However, the Cold War transformed a number of American institutions, including the armed services. Washington retained conscription after World War II and did not abandon the practice until 1973. Despite a rocky start, the All-Volunteer Force (AVF) now works exceedingly well, providing America with the best military in its history and in the world today. Yet recruiting and retention problems have begun to appear; moreover, the war against Yugoslavia has heightened concerns about the fairness of a volunteer military. The result has been an increasing number of calls for a return to conscription. The draft was bad policy during the Cold War and would constitute amazing foolishness today. For instance, renewed conscription would reduce the quality of new service personnel. Returning to the draft would also increase the costs of raising a military force. Conscription is an expensive processfor individuals, government, and society. For the armed services, a draft would yield higher turnover, thus increasing training costs. Also, because few conscripts choose to make the military a career, the Pentagon would have to hike reenlistment benefits. A draft would not improve the retention rate of skilled personnel or inculcate civic virtue. The military does have some serious personnel problems; however, such problems could be solved by returning to a foreign policy that is proper for a republic. The Clinton administration's promiscuous use of military force in conflicts irrelevant to U.S. security drives many potential recruits away from and current career personnel out of the service. Furthermore, policymakers should adjust compensation and benefits to more successfully attract both new recruits and skilled personnel in the years ahead. A renewed draft would be bad for the military. But more important, conscription would be unfair and unjustsacrificing the very constitutional liberties that the military is charged to defend.

GDI Scholars

122 Politics

Draft bad
Voluntary forces are key to maintaining an effective military Bandow, 1999 (Doug, Senior Fellow at Cato and Special Assistant to President Reagan, Fixing What Aint
Broke: The Renewed Call for Conscription, Cato Policy Analysis No. 351, First, the militarys problem is not an inadequate quantity of recruits but an inadequate quantity of quality recruits. The AVF is choosier than a draft militaryactually rejecting many bodies. Navy recruiter Petty Officer Benny Granillo
explains, Most of the people who walk into the office have something wrong with them.66 Of roughly 9 million males between the ages of 17 and 21, Maj. Gen. Evan Gaddis, commanding general of the Army, reports that only 14 percent are the high quality, fully qualified and available prospects all military services want to recruit.67 The Pentagon could solve its recruiting problems tomorrow if it simply lowered its standards. In fact, last year the Navy discussed a modest relaxation of standards that would help it meet its need for general detail sailors, who perform largely unskilled tasks.68 In January Navy Secretary Richard Danzig decided to increase from 5 to 10 percent the number of recruits who possess a GED instead of a high school diploma. In response to his services recruiting difficulties this year, Army Secretary Caldera has made a similar proposal. He complains that the strict high school graduation requirement has put us in a box that is really hurting our ability to recruit.69 Although no doubt exists that higher quality is desirablebrighter recruits with more education perform better and are more likely to finish their toursthe Pentagons specific goals are arbitrary. Two years ago the Army reduced its objective for high school diploma graduates from 95 to 90 percent. Lt. Gen. Frederick Vollrath, the Armys deputy chief of staff for personnel, acknowledged that the former standard was not based on any absolute analytical requirement in order to sustain the force.70 According to Vollrath, the recruiting command had set the higher goal because it thought that goal was achievable. As a result,

despite its current problems, the AVF remains a far higher quality force than the military of the draft era. On the important measures of high school graduation and scores on the Armed Forces Qualifying Test (AFQT), todays military is far superior. The percentage of high-quality enlisteesthat is, those with high school degrees and above-average scores on the AFQTjumped 50 percent between 1973 and 1997.71 Indeed, the AVF is providing the best military personnel that America has ever had. (See Appendix, Tables 24.) For that reason, few leaders in the armed services would like to return to conscription. Gordon Sullivan, former Army chief of staff and current president of the Association of the United States Army, states, Military commanders prefer high-quality volunteers to mixed-quality draftees.72 Retired Lt. Gen. Al Lenhardt, formerly the Armys chief recruiter, emphasizes that conscription would yield a poorer-quality force.73 Retired Maj. Gen. Ted Stroup, former Army deputy chief of staff for personnel, says that a draft might deliver the required quantity, but you wouldnt get the quality or the staying power that you also need.74 The Pentagon observes: Periodically, there are laments from some outside the Defense establishment regarding the absence of the draft. If only the draft were operating again, the nostalgic arguments go, representation would be assured, declining propensity would be countered, women would not be needed to substitute for men, and all would be well. These assumptions turn out to be more wishful thinking than iron-clad reality.75 The AVF attracts superior personnel for two important reasons. First, the services can choose not to accept people who are not high school graduates and so-called Category Ivs and Vs, people who score well below average on the AFQT. As the Department of Defense puts it, Non-graduates and persons with lower aptitude scores would be more vulnerable to Uncle Sams draft call than they would be to todays invitation to enlist. Moreover, a volunteer military draws in people who want to be there instead of dragooning people who do not, thereby creating a dramatically more positive dynamic. Thus, the military can discharge soldiers who abuse drugs, perform poorly, or are not otherwise suited to service life.77 In contrast, the services must retain draftees at all cost, lest indiscipline become a means of escape.78 All phases of military life are transformed for the better when the armed forces are made up of people who join voluntarily and desire to succeed. Career retention has long been a Pentagon concern.79 However, conscription would actually exacerbate that problem. A draft brings in untrained first termers, not experienced pilots. And conscripts, who dont want to be in uniform, reenlist in far lower numbers than do volunteers. Only 10 percent of first termers stayed in the military when service was mandatory compared with about 50 percent today under the AVF. Moreover, the increased difficulties in working with recalcitrant soldiers who have been drafted means even experienced noncommissioned officers are less likely to remain. For instance, retention of those personnel in their fourth year of service doubled between FY71 and FY77.80 The mean length of service jumped from about 70 months in 1973 to 90 months in 1997.81 Thus, Francis Rush, acting assistant secretary of defense for force management policy, reports, A force composed of volunteers is more stable and career-oriented, thereby leading to improved experience and performance, with lower training and turnover costs than we would find with a draft.82 A return to conscription would yield a less-experienced, less-stable, and less-efficient military. Inducement, not coercion, is the answer to sagging retention. Studies consistently indicate that the most effective remedy is improved compensation.83

GDI Scholars

123 Politics

Roe doesnt matter to abortions

Even without Roe, states will still keep abortion legal D.F.B. Tucker, Political Science at University of Melbourne, The Rehnquist Court and Civil Rights, 1995, p. 1011. The political judgments that I attribute to conservative constitutional theorists seem sound. In the case of abortion, supposing that Roe v. Wade were to be overruled, state governments will be very reluctant to prosecute and punish doctors and women who violate laws prohibiting abortions. They will know that society has changed dramatically over the past twenty years and that opinion polls show that most people are much less influenced by religious beliefs than was the case even in the recent past. Politicians will know that moves, on their part, to forbid abortions by means of the criminal law will generate enormous protest. This pressure would probably ensure that most laws forbidding abortions are changed, ignored or found to be unenforceable.32 Certainly the federal government would provide support for women who would need financial help to pay their physician and many ways (using public and private funding) would be found to facilitate any travel that may be required to ensure that every woman in the United States can get an abortion if she wishes it. More significant, the state and federal legislators who seek to please religious groups who oppose abortion may choose to put more of their energy into achieving practical goals. Instead of working to overrule Roe v. Wade (hoping that this will never happen), conservative politicians might actually reach a compromise with those who are pro-choice in order to help pregnant women secure financial and other forms of assistance. This may provide vitally needed resources for women who are reluctant to continue with their pregnancy because of financial problems or those who contemplate handing the baby over for adoption. Instead of the zero sum outcome that judicial resolution of the abortion problem seems to have generated in the United States both sides would gain through this kind of compromise.

GDI Scholars

124 Politics

Roe good (Backally abortions)

Overturning Roe would kill millions in backally abortions Associated Press, January 23, 1995, By CASSANDRA BURRELL
Norma McCorvey, the Jane Roe in Roe vs. Wade, held a news conference in Los Angeles to decry recent violence. Before Roe vs. Wade, "We lost millions of women to back-alley abortionists who either left them to die from bleeding to death, or injured them to the point of leaving them childless forever, " said McCorvey, an abortion clinic worker in Dallas.

GDI Scholars

125 Politics

Roe good (Turns are NU: abortions still happen)

Prohibiting abortion doesnt stop it Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, January 23, 2002
It bears noting here that globally, 26 million women have legal abortions each year, and 20 million have abortions in countries where the procedure is restricted or prohibited by law, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. Even in the 55 countries where abortion is permitted on broad grounds, there are many restrictions. In the U.S., laws have created outright bans on abortion, put mandatory delays on obtaining the procedure, denied women insurance coverage, and required adolescents to seek parental consent. Think about that. Despite the restrictions, all these millions of women around the world have abortions every year -- and it's not because they are ethically ignorant, morally bankrupt or spiritually misguided. It's because reproductive decisions have always been intensely personal matters that are central to the well-being of women and their families. No amount of hell-fire, finger-wagging or demagoguery is going to change that.

GDI Scholars

126 Politics

Roe good (AT: Kills innocent babies)

The life begins at conception argument is absurd Henry Morgentaler. President of the Humanist Association of Canada, Summer 1996, The moral case for
abortion. Free Inquiry, v16 n3 p17(5) Let us briefly examine this idea. At the moment of conception the sperm and the ovum unite, creating one cell. To proclaim that this one cell is already a full human being and should be treated as such is so patently absurd that it is almost difficult to refute. It is as if someone claimed that one brick is already a house and should be treated with the same respect a full house deserves. Even if you have a hundred bricks, or two hundred bricks, it is not yet a house. For it to be a house it needs walls, plumbing, electricity, and a functional organization. The same is true for a developing embryo. In order for it to be a human being it needs an internal organization, organs, and especially a human brain to be considered fully human. This entity is the result of sexual intercourse, where procreation is often not the goal, and whether it is called a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus, it does not have all the attributes of a human being and thus cannot properly be considered one. If abortion is always viewed as "intentional murder," why isn't miscarriage viewed in similar terms? After all, almost half of all embryos are spontaneously shed in what is called "miscarriage" or "spontaneous abortion." If spontaneous abortions are an "act of God," to use the common religious expression, is it not strange that God has so little concern for fetal life that He allows so much of it to go to waste without intervening? Is it not possible to then conclude that God does not mind or object to spontaneous abortions? Why is it that the Catholic church has no ritual to mark the abortion of so much fetal life when it occurs spontaneously, yet becomes so vociferous and condemnatory when it is a conscious decision by a woman or couple? I believe that an early embryo may be called a potential human being. But remember that every woman has the potential to create twenty-five human beings in her lifetime. The idea that any woman who becomes pregnant as a result of non-procreative sexual intercourse must continue with her pregnancy does not take into consideration the fact that there is a tremendous discrepancy between the enormous potential of human fertility and the real-life ability of women and couples to provide all that is necessary to bring up children properly. The morality of any act cannot be divorced from the foreseeable consequences of that act. Should a girl of twelve or a woman of forty-five, or any woman for that matter, be forced to continue a pregnancy or be saddled with bringing up a child for eighteen years without any regard for the consequences, without any regard for the expressed will or desire of that woman, or of the couple?

A fetus is no more life than sperm Foster Digby, professor of philosophy at New England College in New Hampshire, Summer 1996, Abortion is
the issue from hell, Free Inquiry, v16 n3 p24 And then there's the most common argument of all, embodied in the strident accusation that abortion is the killing of a new human life. This untutored, mystical view of reproductive biology assumes there is some sort of instantaneous event, like a pistol shot at a race, that starts human life. But the fact is the sperm, the egg, and the womb are all alive and very much human before the process of conception, which is just a continuation of life. Biologically, there simply is no isolable instant at which new life occurs; there is only the continual process of life, within which every identifiable phase is just as new as any other, and none is, strictly speaking, isolable from an ongoing process that has no fathomable beginning or end. Just as our labels for time - seconds, minutes, hours - don't represent discrete temporal segments, the label "conception" does not label a discrete event. None of the purportedly secular arguments against abortion rights that I've heard even approach being logically and scientifically cogent. Such attempts have attained occasional rhetorical effectiveness only when interlarded with words like "unborn children," "innocent babies," and "murder" (with utter disregard for the conventional meanings of these words).

GDI Scholars

127 Politics

Roe good (Feminism/War)

Legal abortion is necessary to treat women as humans, and eliminating war Henry Morgentaler. President of the Humanist Association of Canada, Summer 1996, The moral case for
abortion. Free Inquiry, v16 n3 p17(5) The right to legal abortion is a relatively new achievement, only about twenty-five years old in most countries. It is part of the growing movement of women toward emancipation, toward achieving equal status with men, toward being recognized as full, responsible, equal members of society. We are living in an era where women, especially in the Western world, are being recognized as equal, where the enormous human potential of womankind is finally being acknowledged and accepted as a valuable reservoir of talent. However, women cannot achieve their full potential unless they have freedom to control their bodies, to control their reproductive capacity. Unless they have access to safe abortions to correct the vagaries of biological accidents, they cannot pursue careers, they cannot be equal to men, they cannot avail themselves of the various opportunities theoretically open to all members of our species. The emancipation of women is not possible without reproductive freedom. The full acceptance of women might have the enormous consequence of humanizing our species, possibly eliminating war and conflict, and adding a new dimension to the adventure of mankind.

Roe is key to blocking the oppression of women Foster Digby, professor of philosophy at New England College in New Hampshire, Abortion is the issue from hell, Free Inquiry, Summer 1996 v16 n3 p24
As someone who was raised one, I am familiar with the religious ideology that supports anti-choice zealotry among fundamentalists (and, to some extent, Catholics). Of course, functionally, abortion restrictions clearly contribute toward maintaining the definition of women as mothers, which facilitates their exclusion from roles that would give them political and economic power; thus, laws against abortion are part of the fabric of women's oppression. But even on the religious right, the oppression of women as ideology is no longer acceptable. Nor is it needed when religious ideology can do the same work - and more effectively, especially if a subterranean sympathy for crucial elements of that ideology deters abortion rights advocates from critically examining it.

GDI Scholars

128 Politics

Roe good (Court Legitimacy) [1/2]

Overturning Roe destroys court legitimacy Justice O'Connor, et al. (Justice Kennedy, And Justice Souter), Planned Parenthood V. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, June 29, 1992
Thus, the Court's legitimacy depends on making legally principled decisions under circumstances in which their principled character is sufficiently plausible to be accepted by the Nation. The need for principled action to be perceived as such is implicated to some degree whenever this, or any other appellate court, overrules a prior case. This is not to say, of course, that this Court cannot give a perfectly satisfactory explanation in most cases. People understand that some of the Constitution's language is hard to fathom and that the Court's Justices are sometimes able to perceive significant facts or to understand principles of law that eluded their predecessors and that justify departures from existing decisions. However upsetting it may be [**2815] to those most directly affected when one judicially derived rule replaces another, the country can accept some correction of error without necessarily questioning the legitimacy of the Court. In two circumstances, however, [***708] the Court would almost certainly fail to receive the benefit of the doubt in overruling prior cases. There is, first, a point beyond which frequent overruling would overtax the country's belief in the Court's good faith. Despite the variety of reasons that may inform and justify a decision to overrule, we cannot forget that such a decision is usually perceived (and perceived correctly) as, at the least, a statement that a prior decision was wrong. There is a limit to the amount of error that can plausibly be imputed to prior Courts. If that limit should be exceeded, disturbance of prior rulings would be taken as evidence that justifiable reexamination of principle had given way to drives for particular results in the short term. The legitimacy of the Court would fade with the frequency of its vacillation. That first circumstance can be described as hypothetical; the second is to the point here and now. Where, in the performance of its judicial duties, the Court decides a case in such a way as to resolve the sort of intensely divisive controversy reflected in Roe and those rare, comparable cases, its [*867] decision has a dimension that the resolution of the normal case does not carry. It is the dimension present whenever the Court's interpretation of the Constitution calls the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution. The Court is not asked to do this very often, having thus addressed the Nation only twice in our lifetime, in the decisions of Brown and Roe. But when the Court does act in this way, its decision requires an equally rare precedential force to counter the inevitable efforts to overturn it and to thwart its implementation. Some of those efforts may be mere unprincipled emotional reactions; others may proceed from principles worthy of profound respect. But whatever the premises of opposition may be, only the most convincing justification under accepted standards of precedent could suffice to demonstrate that a later decision overruling the first was anything but a surrender to political pressure, and an unjustified repudiation of the principle on which the Court staked its authority in the first instance. So to overrule under fire in the absence of the most compelling reason to reexamine a watershed decision would subvert the Court's legitimacy beyond any serious question. Cf. Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 300, 99 L. Ed. 1083, 75 S. Ct. 753 (1955) (Brown II) ("It should go without saying that the vitality of the constitutional principles [announced in Brown I,] cannot be allowed to yield simply because of disagreement with them").

GDI Scholars

129 Politics

Roe good (Court Legitimacy) [2/2]

Loss of legitimacy leads to civil war Tom Tyler, Professor of Psychology at UC Berkeley, and Gregory Mitchell, Clerk to Judge Thomas A. Wiseman, Jr., Middle District of Tennessee, Duke Law Journal, February, 1994, 43 Duke L.J. 703
If people are able to agree about a common procedure for resolving conflict, they are more willing to accept outcomes with which they disagree. Hence, institutions which follow fair procedures are more authoritative. Because American society has a long history of social and political stability, concerns about the effectiveness of government institutions seem remote. It is difficult to imagine the United States engaged in serious social conflict, because a common governmental authority cannot influence all social groups. Hence, the problems of Bosnia or the former Soviet Union seem "foreign" to American society. n255 There is evidence, however, suggesting that these issues may be of increasing centrality in the future. n255 Of course, such problems are not unknown in American history, the Civil War being the prime example. One concern is with increasing social and financial inequality among Americans. Predictions for the future suggest increasing individual, as well as ethnic, disparities in wealth. n256 Such disparities are at the root of judgments of relative deprivation that can lead to feelings of government illegitimacy and collective disorder, as in the recent Los Angeles riots. America is increasingly becoming an economically polarized society, and this polarization will heighten social conflict. Another concern is with the increasingly multiethnic nature of American society. Demographic projections suggest that American society will become increasingly heterogeneous, leading to increased value divergence among social groups. n257 This increasing ethnic and cultural diversity also will intensify conflict over what social policy should be. Finally, the political and social institutions that have traditionally mediated n256 See Lynn Karoly, The Widening Income and Wage Gap Between Rich and Poor, in Urban America 55 (James Steinberg et al. eds., 1992). n257 See William B. Johnston & Arnold Packer, Workfare 2000: Work & Workers for the 21st Century 89-94 (1987). [*790] conflicts among American citizens are generally declining in their legitimacy. Not only political authorities but business and religious authorities as well have become less respected and are less likely to be deferred to when value conflicts must be resolved. n258 n258 See Seymour M. Lipset & William Schneider, The Confidence Gap: Business, Labor, and Government in the Public Mind (1983). How can increasingly intense social conflicts be resolved by increasingly illegitimate legal and political authorities? The findings of this study provide support for one mechanism: the identification and development of institutional procedures for governing that are generally regarded as fair. In other words, these findings point to a mechanism--procedural fairness--that works even in the face of the emotional divisiveness of an issue like abortion.

GDI Scholars

130 Politics

Roe good (Warfare)

Legal abortion stops violence and war Henry Morgentaler. President of the Humanist Association of Canada, The moral case for abortion. Free Inquiry, Summer 1996 v16 n3 p17(5)
I wish to conclude on a personal note. Over the years many people have asked me: "Why did you decide to expose yourself to so much stress and danger in a controversial cause, and why do you persist in doing so?" The answer, after a great deal of reflecting upon it, is the following: I am a survivor of the Nazi Holocaust, that orgy of cruelty and inhumanity of man to man. As such, I have personally experienced suffering, oppression, and justice inflicted by men beholden to an inhuman, dogmatic, irrational ideology. To relieve suffering, to diminish oppression and injustice, is very important to me. Reproductive freedom and good access to medical abortion means that women can give life to wanted babies at a time when they can provide love, care, and nurturing. Well-loved children grow into adults who do not build concentration camps, do not rape, and do not murder. They are likely to enjoy life, to love and care for each other and the larger society. By fighting for reproductive freedom, I am contributing to a more caring and loving society based on the ideals of peace, justice and freedom, and devoted to the full realization of human potential. Having known myself the depth of human depravity and cruelty, I wish to do whatever I can to replace hate with love, cruelty with kindness, and irrationality with reason.

GDI Scholars

131 Politics

Abortion bad (Nuclear War/Militarism)

Overturning Roe prevents nuclear war U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1983, The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response, , accessed February 25, 2002. 285. No society can live in peace with itself, or with the world, without a full awareness of the worth and dignity of every human person, and of the sacredness of all human life (Jas. 4:1-2). When we accept violence in any form as commonplace, our sensitivities become dulled. When we accept violence, war itself can be taken for granted. Violence has many faces: oppression of the poor, deprivation of basic human rights, economic exploitation, sexual exploitation and pornography, neglect or abuse of the aged and the helpless, and innumerable other acts of inhumanity. Abortion in particular blunts a sense of the sacredness of human life. In a society where the innocent unborn are killed wantonly, how can we expect people to feel righteous revulsion at the act or threat of killing noncombatants in war? 286. We are well aware of the differences involved in the taking of human life in warfare and the taking of human life through abortion. As we have discussed throughout this document, even justifiable defense against aggression may result in the indirect or unintended loss of innocent human lives. This is tragic, but may conceivably be proportionate to the values defended. Nothing, however, can justify direct attack on innocent human life, in or out of warfare. Abortion is precisely such an attack. 287. We know that millions of men and women of good will, of all religious persuasions, join us in our commitment to try to reduce the horrors of war, and particularly to assure that nuclear weapons will never again be used, by any nation, anywhere, for any reason. Millions join us in our "no" to nuclear war, in the certainty that nuclear war would inevitably result in the killing of millions of innocent human beings, directly or indirectly. Yet many part ways with us in our efforts to reduce the horror of abortion and our "no" to war on innocent human life in the womb, killed not indirectly, but directly. 288. We must ask how long a nation willing to extend a constitutional guarantee to the "right" to kill defenseless human beings by abortion is likely to refrain from adopting strategic warfare policies deliberately designed to kill millions of defenseless human beings, if adopting them should come to seem "expedient." Since 1973, approximately 15 million abortions have been performed in the United States, symptoms of a kind of disease of the human spirit. And we now find ourselves seriously discussing the pros and cons of such questions as infanticide, euthanasia, and the involvement of physicians in carrying out the death penalty. Those who would celebrate such a national disaster can only have blinded themselves to its reality. 289. Pope Paul VI was resolutely clear: If you wish peace, defend life.[118] We plead with all who would work to end the scourge of war to begin by defending life at its most defenseless, the life of the unborn.

GDI Scholars

132 Politics

Abortion bad (Militarism)

Abortion allows the logic of militarism and stops resistance to mass slaughter Barbara Newman, Reprinted from The American Feminist, Summer 1994,, February 20, 2002. As a pacifist in the great tradition of American feminism - from the anti-war suffragists of the World War I era to Dorothy Day of the Catholic Worker movement - I oppose abortion because I know it is wrong to take human life with weapons. If it is wrong to kill with guns, bombs, or poison, with the electric chair or the noose, it is most tragically wrong to kill with the physician's tools. American culture, as we all know, promotes and glamorizes violence: our entertainment industry produces the most violent films in the world. Our right to own guns is considered sacred, while the homicide rate continues to soar. Capital punishment is on the increase, althought its lack of deterrent value has been proven many times. And blatant militarism has once again become chic. As H. Rap Brown said in 1966, "Violence is as American as cherry pie," and it always has been. It is little wonder that the violence of abortion is so easily acceptable to many. The analogy between abortion and war is all too real. In each case, the violent society takes refuge in euphemism to legitimize its evil, to pretend that either the killing isn't killing or the people aren't people. The 1991 Persian Gulf war, so quickly forgotten, didn't have body counts or even "casualties"; it had "collateral damage." The people on the receiving end of our "smart bombs" were not killed; they were "taken out," as we "softened their positions" by means of "surgical strikes." Likewise, we pretend that abortion does not kill babies. It "removes pregnancy tissue" or "corrects contraceptive failure." And if even the word "abortion" is too candid, we have the "D & C" or "the procedure." In a saline abortion, the woman does not give birth to a dead infant, she "passes the fetus." It does not matter whether we dehumanize the enemy by killing hundreds of unseen civilians with remote-control bombers, or by aborting a parade of nameless infants on a clinic assembly line. Whatever we may pretend in order to hide from the slaughter, the killing is killing and the people are people. Against all the apologies for death, we must stand in undeceived resistance. Euphemism kills. Sadly, once we have accepted an ideology that legitimizes violence, whether it is the rhetoric of "victory" or of "choice," our hearts are hardened and we begin to not see the realities that lurk behind those noble-sounding names. At the same time, we become all too ready to glorify the technology that seems to promise a quick fix for difficult human problems. We should know by now that war never settles political or ethnic or economic conflicts; it leaves only an ever- increasing legacy of bitterness and destruction. Abortion, too, only seems to "solve a problem." Its legacy also is oppression and trauma -- not only for the aborted infants, but also for women. It is tragic to see how this act, which is actually a symptom of social conflict, has been successfully sold to the public as a solution for it. The feminist pro-life position recognizes that abortion is a matter not only of individual, but also of social choice. As Faye Kunce of the Seamless Garment Network has said, we are called upon not so much to make abortion illegal as to "create a world where abortion is unthinkable." To achieve this goal, we must look beyond individuals and their rights toward the creation of a new community, in which all of us collectively take responsibility for the weakest among us -the profoundly disabled and chronically ill, the abandoned elderly, the mentally handicapped, and children of all races, as well as the unborn. According to pediatrician Consuelo Sague, while abortion is now protected as a constitutional right, "no one in this country can even claim a constitutional right to prenatal care - or even a roof over an infant's head."

GDI Scholars

133 Politics

Abortion bad (Feminism)

Legal abortion endorses patriarchal violence Anne M. Maloney, Professor of Philosophy at St. Catherine's College, St. Paul. Fall 1990, Reprinted from
SisterLife,, accessed February 20, 2002. Abortion, if it is an act of control, is a violent act of control. When a woman is pregnant, be it six days or six months, her body has become inextricably wedded to the body of another living being; the only way out of that relationship for a woman who does not want to be pregnant is a violent one, an act that destroys the fetus and invades the body (and often the mind) of his or her mother. Traditionally, it has always been women who have realized that violence solves nothing and usually begets more violence, that violent solutions often wound the perpetrator as well as the victim. That is why women have historically been opposed to war, to capital punishment, to the rape and destruction of the environment. Why should women's traditional (and quite wise) abhorrence of violence stop at the threshold of their own bodies? In the male-dominated world we have all inhabited for the past 2500
years, unfortunately power (thus, "control") has been accorded only to those strong enough to seize it, or at least demand it. Furthermore, it has historically been those in power who have set the standard for who gets to "count" as persons. For far too many of those 2500 years, it has been men who have been in power and women who have not "counted." It is, therefore, particularly chilling to read arguments such as those of theologian Marjorie Reilly MaGuire, who says that in order for a fetus to count as valuable, the pregnant woman must confer value upon it; as she puts it: "The personhood (of the fetus) begins when the bearer of life, the mother, makes a covenant of love with the developing life within her to bring it to birth.... The moment when personhood begins, then, is the moment when the mother accepts the pregnancy." The fetus, according to such argumentation, is a person if and only if the pregnant woman decides to invest it with value. How, we ask, does this differ from the long entrenched patriarchal ideal that it is the powerful who determine the value of other human life? The notions of control and power at work in the abortion ethic, then, are the ones that surely ought to give any feminist pause. It is indeed unconsciable that women have,

for so many thousands of years, been dominated and victimized by men, whose hold on power was reinforced by the patriarchal structure of society. Thus, it is especially disorienting to hear the argument that the only road away from such victimization is to victimize, in turn, another group of human beings--their completely powerless and voiceless offspring. Their very powerlessness makes them the ideal victims: the question which all women must ask themselves is whether the path away
from victimization really lies in joining the victimizers, whether the road to freedom must really be littered with the dead bodies of their unborn children. In the "March on Washington" in the spring of 1989, women of all colors and walks of life forcefully proclaimed their commitment to the tenet that women will never be truly free or equal to men until they can walk away from their sexual encounters just as men have always been able to do. The feminists who were not marching that day wonder whether the March on Washington was not a march down the wrong road, a road fraught with danger. Men and women are different, not just in their biological characteristics, but in their sexual natures as well. There are exceptions, of course, but throughout history men have traditionally approached sex differently than women have. No one can deny that women have always had a higher biological investment in sexual union; abortion seeks to undo that tie. Is the ideal to be pursued a world wherein sex can (and often will be) commitment-free? Leaving abortion aside for just a moment, even most forms of contraception invade the woman's body, not the man's--and in more cases than we want to admit, scar and irrevocably damage those bodies. (Even condoms, the one "male" form of contraception, usually end up being the woman's responsibility--survey after survey shows that it is invariably women, not men, who are responsible for purchasing condoms.) One of the points on which all feminists agree is that women need to build their self-confidence and selfesteem. In a sexist culture, this can be hard to do. As Carol Heilbrun pointed out in a talk given to the Modern Language Association, a man's traditional experience of selfhood can be summed up in a line from the poet Walt Whitman: "I celebrate myself and sing myself, and what I assume you shall assume," whereas poet Emily Dickinson best sums up how women, for too long, experienced selfhood: "I'm nobody." Does abortion build a woman's self-esteem? The point is to question whether abortion on demand can ever bring about the feminine perspective being valued as much as the male, or whether, in fact, abortion ultimately robs women of their self-confidence and self-esteem. Those who

acquiesce to the conviction that pregnancy is a form of enslavement and child-bearing a burden, are adding weight to, not destroying, the yoke of patriarchy. They are letting men be the arbiters of what is valuable, and fighting hard for the "right" to have their own bodies invaded and their children destroyed so that they can get it. What feminists, all feminists, should be doing is working to achieve a world in which the power to bear children is viewed as a gift to be protected rather than a burden to be relieved. That means working for fundamental changes in the structure of society, including, but not limited to, far greater flexibility in the workplace for both mothers and fathers, better preand postnatal care for impoverished women, and much more stringent enforcement of male responsibility for child support. Such changes would be a true feminization of society. They will occur only when we insist upon them, however, and abortion on demand precludes such insistence. When abortion is easily accessible, society no longer has to take pregnancy seriously. Once a woman decides to continue her pregnancy, society is under no obligation to help her: it is, after all, her choice, her responsibility. In militating for the right to abortion on demand, abortion advocates are trying to win their game on the same old gameboard--the patriarchal worldview that denigrates what is unique to women as unimportant, trivial, not to be taken seriously. They are embracing a kind of freedom that uses the female body as an object to be invaded and, if need be, subdued. Feminists who are pro-life see that this can lead only to disaster for women and for their unborn children--yet our voices still go unheard and unheeded.

GDI Scholars

134 Politics

Abortion bad (Dehumanization)

Abortion rhetoric uses the logic of dehumanization to justify killing Jesse Jackson; Right to Life News, January 1977, , accessed February 23, 2002. Another area that concerns me greatly, namely because I know how it has been used with regard to race, is the psycholinguistics involved in this whole issue of abortion. If something can be dehumanized through the rhetoric used to describe it, then the major battle has been won. So when American soldiers can drop bombs on Vietnam and melt the faces and hands of children into a hunk of rolling protoplasm and in their minds say they have not maimed or killed a fellow human being something terribly wrong and sick has gone on in that mind. That is why the Constitution called us three-fifths human and then whites further dehumanized us by calling us "niggers." It was part of the dehumanizing process. The first step was to distort the image of us as human beings in. order to justify that which they wanted to do and not even feel like they had done anything wrong. Those advocates of taking. life prior to birth do not call it killing or murder; they call it abortion. They further never talk about aborting a baby because that would imply something human. Rather they talk about aborting the fetus. Fetus sounds less than human and therefore can be justified.

GDI Scholars

135 Politics

Roe bad (Human Rights Credibility)

Roe undermines U.S. human rights credibility Peter E. Quint, Jacob A. France Professor of Constitutional Law, University of Maryland. Texas International Law Journal, 2001, 36 Tex. Int'l L.J. 605
Moreover, in another area in which the United States stands pretty much alone, the constitutional law of abortion in several countries limits a woman's abortion rights more narrowly than the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade n30 and later cases would allow. Indeed this limitation of women's rights is often explained in terms of the protection of the human rights (the right to life) of the fetus - a view that was expressly rejected by the United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. n31 So, in this area, we may be faced with pressures favoring a new form of "selective incorporation." This would no longer be the "selective incorporation" of federal constitutional guarantees against the quasi-separate sovereignties of the states (an issue that attracted considerable constitutional debate at the time that Hans Baade, as well as some others of us here, began thinking about these problems). Rather, we might be faced by the "selective incorporation" of the human rights principles of the international community in the process of determining the "sovereign" constitutional law of the United States. Such a development would most likely take place through "cautious [evolution]," a process that Hans Baade has described - in a different context - as "one of the hallmarks of the common-law method." n32 To go further and discuss whether or not this "selective [*610] incorporation" could be undertaken in accordance with "neutral principles" would lead us into uncharted territory - and would unduly expand the limits of these celebratory remarks. So let me simply conclude by underscoring my conviction that, in any event, we in the United States - as our colleagues in other countries of the world - will be increasingly required to confront, and I hope to welcome, the impact of comparative and international law on our human rights jurisprudence in the years to come.

GDI Scholars

136 Politics

Abortion bad (AT: Back ally abortions kill)

Back ally abortions would kill fewer than 200 people per year Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke, WHY CAN'T WE LOVE THEM BOTH CHAPTER 21 MATERNAL DEATHS AND LONG TERM COMPLICATIONS, 1998, %20Back%20Alley, accessed February 21, 2002. Even so, the situation today is better than the "5,000 to 10,000 women who died annually in the U.S.A. from back-alley abortions," isnt it? These figures, often cited by pro-abortionists, are simply false. During the debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate on the Hatch-Eagleton Pro-Life Amendment in 1983, the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics provided the data on such deaths. Its reports showed that you must go back to the pre-Penicillin era to find more than 1,000 maternal deaths per year from illegal and legal abortions combined. The precipitous drop in maternal deaths in the 1950s and 60s occurred while abortions were still illegal. Before the first state legalized abortions in 1966, the total deaths were down to 120 per year. By 1972, before the Supreme Court legalized abortion in all 50 states, it was down to 39 per year in the entire U.S. Since legalization, the slow decline has continued, so that now the only difference is that more mothers are dying from legal, rather than illegal abortions. U.S. BUREAU OF VITAL STATISTICS CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL Reported Maternal Deaths from YEAR Illegal Abortion in U.S.

1940 1950 1960 1966 1970 1972 1977 1981

1,679 316 289 120 First State Legalized in 1967 128 39 Supreme Court Decision in 1973 21 8
Taken from U.S. Senate graph

GDI Scholars

137 Politics

Kerry multilateralism/soft power

Kerry would boost multilateralism and soft power The Nation, 8-2-04
But as even Ralph Nader sometimes acknowledges, for all Kerry's temporizing and backsliding, Bush's extremist agenda insures that the differences between Bush/Cheney and Kerry/Edwards are stark--and for progressives, compelling. Though Kerry voted to give Bush the authority to make war in Iraq, and has failed to call for an end to the US occupation, he challenges the pre-emptive war doctrine of the Bush Administration and promises a foreign policy that will be tempered by alliances, international cooperation and the rule of law. He offers Americans an administration that surely would be more effective in isolating and pursuing terrorists abroad, more able to revive America's influence and enlist its allies, and more willing to address the broader threats to US security--from catastrophic climate change to the trade in loose nukes.

GDI Scholars

138 Politics

Kerry hurts federalism

Kerry would crush states rights The Nation, 8-2-04
On social policy, Kerry is a lifelong liberal, defending the advances made by the civilizing movements of recent decades--on civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, the environment. On his watch, the courts won't be packed with zealots of the right-wing Federalist Society, intent on resuscitating states' rights and limiting the power of the government to protect citizens, consumers and the environment.

GDI Scholars

139 Politics

Bush re-election causes ANWR drilling Magnani, 2004 (Meica Magnani. February 13, 2004. The John Hopkins News Letter. Long standing in headlines, it sits in the middle of a very lengthy dispute. Against the public's wishes and ignoring the failure of bills to drill, Bush has already has budget projections that include 2.4 billion dollars in revenues from oil lease sales in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge in the year 2006. Kerry, Edwards and Lieberman all have been strong leaders in working to secure the wilderness as a refuge while the other Democratic candidates state opposition to the drilling.

Bush winning means we drill ANWR Garnett News Service, May 30, 2004
But Bush's focus is on increasing U.S. energy supplies by opening more federal lands to oil and gas drilling. That would create more energy jobs and help U.S. manufacturers by lowering their fuel bills, according to the Bush campaign. His administration already has opened up federal lands in the West for more oil and natural gas drilling and supports opening up Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. ``It would certainly send a strong signal to OPEC,'' Catanzaro said. Experts estimate the refuge could produce enough oil to satisfy U.S. demand for six months to two years. Kerry last year vowed to block the proposal because of the environmental harm drilling would cause.

Bush would push to Drill ANWR Kerry Wont Christian Science Monitor, March 25, 2004
He's not hard-core about it. He favors oil drilling in some areas, just not in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He's pushed for stiffer fuel-efficiency standards for motor vehicles, but he welcomes some market-based solutions. He notes flaws in the Kyoto Protocol. But the League of Conservation Voters gives Kerry a 96 percent lifetime voting record on the environment, one of the highest in Congress. And his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, is very involved in the environmental movement, giving large sums to green groups. Among activists, there's no doubt who's the greener candidate. They point to what they say is a long list of industry representatives holding senior positions in the Agriculture and Interior Departments - the two federal agencies that oversee hundreds of millions of acres of public land. They note that Bush reversed a campaign pledge to regulate industrial carbon dioxide, pushed to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, and favors a "Healthy Forest Initiative" that critics say is a giveaway to the timber industry in the name of wildfire prevention.

Bush will push ANWR in 2005 The Oil Daily, February 3, 2004 (p. Lexis Nexis)
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration's fiscal 2005 budget offers no new initiatives for tackling domestic energy production and conservation in significant way, as a looming deficit forced the White House to recommend to Congress small or zero increases in funding for oil and gas programs. Despite opposition and repeated rejection of its budget proposal in Congress, however, the administration maintains its unswerving faith in opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), and assumes $ 2.4 billion in revenue through leasing in 2006.