Planet Debate 2011

Politics Scenario Arpa-E

***Politics Scenario #3*** ***Politics Scenario #3***..............................................................................................................1 1NC...................................................................................................................................................2 1NC .................................................................................................................................................3 1NC...................................................................................................................................................4 2NC Impact Calculus .......................................................................................................................6 2NC Impact Calculus........................................................................................................................7 2NC Link Turns Case.......................................................................................................................8 Ext Key to Economy/Leadership...................................................................................................9 2NC Turns Competitiveness...........................................................................................................10 2NC Turns Economy......................................................................................................................11 2NC Turns California Economy.....................................................................................................12 2NC Turns Innovation....................................................................................................................13 2NC Air Pollution ..........................................................................................................................14 Clean Tech 2NC.............................................................................................................................15 Electric Weapons 2NC ..................................................................................................................16 Readiness 2NC...............................................................................................................................17 Ext Key to Readiness ..................................................................................................................18 2NC Yes Pass.................................................................................................................................19 2NC Yes Pass.................................................................................................................................20 2NC Yes Budget Compromise ......................................................................................................21 2NC Yes Budget Compromise.......................................................................................................22 AT: Shutdown Inevitable/No Solution Possible.............................................................................23 AT: Not Enough Money.................................................................................................................24 AT: Thumpers.................................................................................................................................25 2NC Capital Key............................................................................................................................26 AT: Obama Removed from Budget Fights.....................................................................................27 AT: Obama Removed from Budget Fights.....................................................................................28 AT: Market Solves..........................................................................................................................29

Planet Debate 2011 1NC No ARPA-E cuts now

Politics Scenario Arpa-E

Jeff Johnson, Chemical and Engineering News, 3/14/2011. http://pubs.acs.org/cen/government/89/8911gov1.html But Murkowski was somewhat optimistic and pointed to a recent failed congressional attempt to zero out ARPA-E for the rest of this year. The move was voted down in the House 170-262. It appears there is strong support in Congress to continue ARPA-E, she said. Reducing military presence burns political capital (insert)

Planet Debate 2011 1NC Capital is key to overcome GOP opposition cuts collapse the program

Politics Scenario Arpa-E

Coral Davenport, National Journal, 2/14/2011. http://nationaljournal.com/clean-energy-comesout-a-winner-in-obama-s-budget-20110214 Even as President Obama offers Congress a budget that would cut into dozens of government programs and trim $1.1 trillion from the federal deficit over the next decade, he will request robust increases in clean-energy spending. In total, he will ask for about $8 billion in spending on clean-energy programs across all federal agencies. That should set up a clash with congressional Republicans, who say they want clean-energy and environmental-regulation programs on the chopping block. The presidents budget request increases total
DOE spending by 11.8 percent over the level appropriated for FY 2010, to a total of $29.5 billion. Of it, $11.8 billion would be budgeted to the nuclear weapons and nonproliferation missions of the department, another $6.3 billion would be devoted to environmental cleanup and radioactive waste management,

$5.9 billion would go to basic science and the Advanced Research Projects AgencyEnergy (ARPA-E), $291 million would go to support innovative and advanced energy technology credit programs, and $4.8 billion would go to energy supply and energy efficiency programs. To lead in the global clean energy economy, we must mobilize Americas innovation machine in order to bring technologies from the laboratory to the marketplace, reads the Energy Departments budget request. The Department of Energy is on the front lines of this effort. To succeed, the Department will pursue gamechanging breakthroughs, invest in innovative technologies, and demonstrate commercially viable solutions. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., applauded the presidents request. This budget request is the third consecutive time that the president has demonstrated his commitment to energy security, U.S. technological competitiveness and nuclear weapons security imperatives, despite the tough fiscal environment we find ourselves in, Bingaman said. It merits vigorous support from anyone who cares deeply
about securing our nations energy future, boosting our economic growth and competitiveness in the world and combating nuclear weapons proliferation. To help pay for the new energy spending, Obama proposes rolling back $46.2 billion in tax breaks for the oil and

the White House should face fierce pushback from House Republicans, who deem existing clean-energy expenditures unnecessary subsidies, while defending tax breaks for the fossil-fuel industry as essential for maintaining low-cost traditional sources.
gas industry over the next 10 years. In both the spending and the rollbacks,

In the administrations favor as it makes its request is that historically, government spending on clean energy has been relatively paltry. The exception is 2009's economic stimulus law, which pumped a one-time shot of about $30 billion in spending for the industry through the economy. Obama has always made clear that he viewed the stimulus as a down payment on a long-term future of increased government investment in clean energy -- on the campaign trail, he proposed clean energy expenditures of $15 billion annually. By comparison, his request to increase the budget for DOEs Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy from $2.2 billion to $3.2 billion doesnt seem as dramatic. Still, its about a 45 percent increase for an office that has traditionally been little more than an afterthought in the Energy Departments budget, which is largely devoted to maintaining the nations arsenal of nuclear weapons. That continues to be the case. Overall, about $18 billion of Obamas Energy Department request would go toward atomic defense programs, up from $16.5 billion

. Among the clean-energy spending programs for which Obama will expend significant political capital is the little-known Advanced Research Projects AgencyEnergy, which researches cutting-edge clean-energy technologies. It was created by Congress in 2007 but has never received funding from an annual spending bill, even in a Democratic-controlled Congress. It received $400 million from the economic stimulus, but that is set to dry up this year, effectively shuttering the office. Obama has requested $650 million to keep the office running -- and indicated that he is willing to fight hard to keep the spending in place. ARPA-E is a top priority for the administration. ARPA-Es objective
in fiscal 2010

is to tap into the risk-taking American ethos and to identify and support the pioneers of the future, reads the Energy Departments budget request. The request includes a $450 million increase in funding for basic energy science research, including the creating of three new public-private Energy Innovation Hubs to focus on batteries, critical materials and smart grid technologies. It includes big boosts in funding for solar energy, which would jump 88 percent from $243 million to $457 million and wind energy, which would jump 61 percent from $79 million to $126 million.

Planet Debate 2011 1NC ARPA-E is key to hegemony

Politics Scenario Arpa-E

Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy, 3/2/2011. http://www.navy.mil/navydata/people/secnav/Mabus/Speech/ARPAe02Mar11.pdf To use your directors own words, Our dependence on fossil fuels severely threatens our national and environmental security due to our growing foreign energy independence. We as a nation need to change course with fierce urgency. Fierce urgency. Hes exactly right. Thats why what ARPA-e does is so critically important for our country, for our military, for our economy. Having an institution thats focused on finding, researching and developing the next eureka moments or the thousand more routine moments; finding technology that will change the way we work, you really cant put a value on that. The Navy and Marine Corps, the services I am privileged to lead, have always supported innovation and always led technological change. We have constantly searched for those technologies that would improve our capabilities and allow us to better defend this country.
This very week, 128 years ago, Congress authorized the ABCD ships - Atlanta, Boston, Chicago and Dolphin - the first four ships of the Navy to be constructed completely out of steel. In the 1880s, this was a pretty revolutionary concept because for most people and I probably would have been in that group in 1880 it was difficult to get past the notion that steel sinks. 2 But it was the way that we power our ships that maybe best shows the Navys willingness to innovate. In the 1850s, not long before we built the ABCD ships, the Navy changed from wind to coal. In the early part of the 20th century we changed again from coal to oil. In the 1950s, we pioneered nuclear as a manner of propulsion. In every single case, in every one of these cases, there were naysayers that said, youre trading one form of very proven energy for another form that we just dont know if its going to work. Its too expensive, its too hard, its too unproven. In fact, when we went from sail to coal, the uniformed leaders of the Navy objected saying that sail had been proven for thousands of

Every single time there were naysayers and every single time they were wrong. And I am absolutely confident that as we make our next change - as we lead again in changing the way we power our ships and our aircraft, that the naysayers who say its too expensive, the technology is just not there - they are going to be proven wrong again because every time weve changed weve made us a better Navy. Every time weve changed, weve been better able to defend the United States. I think that today were at the cusp of another one of these changes, one that will move us off of an over-reliance on a very fragile global oil infrastructure and toward alternative and renewable sources of energy. Its a move that we absolutely have to make because changing the way we produce energy, changing the way we use energy is fundamentally about improving the national security of this country. All you have to do is look at the headlines today. All you have to do is look at what is happening in the world. Our dependence on fossil fuels creates strategic operational and tactical vulnerabilities for our forces and makes them too susceptible to supply and price shocks caused by instability or natural disasters in volatile areas of the world where most of our fossil fuels are produced. Now, we would never allow these regions to
years, what were we doing? build our ships. We would never allow these folks to build our aircraft or our ground vehicles, but we give them a say on whether our ships sail, our aircraft fly or our ground vehicles work. The security and the economic costs to the Navy and Marine Corps of using fossil fuels are significant. When the price of oil goes up, the price of defending this country goes up. Every dollar that a barrel of oil goes up in price, the Navy spends $31 million more for fuel. So, if the price goes up $30 a barrel, which it has more than once in the last decade, thats a billion dollars. A billion dollars that we cant use for other things, a billion dollars that we cant budget for, a billion dollars that goes just to power the ships and aircraft and ground vehicles that we have. Now, thats sort of the strategic and economic argument for change but theres a different and more personal reason;

its the Sailors and Marines in the

field and how our dependence puts them at risk. In Afghanistan, the thing we import the most the single thing that we
spend the most effort getting to Afghanistan - is fuel. 3 And just think about getting a gallon of gasoline to a Marine front-line unit in Helmand province in Afghanistan. First youve got to put it on a ship and go across one ocean - the Pacific or the Atlantic. Then you have to take it either up through Pakistan or down through the Northern Distribution Network, through the Baltics and across Russia. And when you get to Afghanistan, you have to go across the Hindu Kush from the south or the Amu Darya River from the north. There are huge financial costs associated with it, but maybe, more important, there are huge other costs. The Army did a study that for every 24 convoys wed lose a Soldier or a Marine, killed or wounded guarding that convoy. Thats a high price to pay for fuel. And we keep those Marines, those Sailors, those Soldiers, those Airmen from doing what they were sent there to do, which is fight and engage and rebuild. So we have to find another way to do this. We have to find a different way to power the things we need to power. And its for all those reasons that, in the fall of 2009, 17 months ago, I issued five energy goals for the Department of the Navy, for the Navy and the Marine Corps. The most important one is that by no later than 2020, no less than half of all the energy that the Navy and the Marine Corps uses afloat and ashore will come from non-fossil fuel sources. Also, by that same date of 2020, at least half our bases will be net-zero in terms of energy consumption, and in a lot of cases, those bases are going to be returning power to the grid instead of pulling power off of it. I think its important though to say that were not just changing for changes sake.

Everything that were doing is to make us better fighters and to make us more secure. Every time we make a change that improves the efficiencies of our engines or our systems, 4

Planet Debate 2011

Politics Scenario Arpa-E every time we move to an alternate source of power every time we get better and we make people safer. Were already seeing the results. Right before Christmas I went to Afghanistan and one of the first
Forward Operating Bases that I flew into was Sangin. And when we flew in, there was a firefight going on about 500 yards away because some of the toughest fighting thats going on for the Marines all over Afghanistan is in Sangin. Theyre fighting almost every day. But the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines who went into Sangin as the first Marines deployed with alternate power units were also there. Now, the Marines have led in this, as they do in a lot of things, and theyve set up two experimental Forward Operating Bases - one in Quantico, Virginia and one in Twentynine Palms, California - and theyre looking for ways to get power differently in the field. When the 3 rd of the 5 th left, going to Afghanistan, they were basically given solar power systems and told, try this out; see it if helps you. And the 3 rd Battalion, 5 th Marines go in Sangin, into heavy combat, and at the same time are trying some of these alternative ways to get fuel, to get power, and some amazing things happened. Their fossil fuel usage has gone down 20 4 percent, even though they werent given a whole lot of training on the things that they were taking and even though they were in the fight. One of the larger solar systems they took is being used to power their operations center. And across the battalion operating areas, there are a lot of man-portable systems. Theyve got these flexible solar panels they roll up, stick them in the back of their pack and take to charge their radios and their small electronics. And because of doing this, a foot patrol is able to operate without 700 pounds of batteries 700 pounds that they dont have to hump over the mountains, across the rivers and into the fight in Afghanistan. Now, at sea were trying to do some of the same things. One example is the first hybrid ship, what Tom Friedman called the Prius of the seas. But if you see it, its a big-deck amphibious ship, the USS MAKIN ISLAND, the biggest amphibious type that we have. It uses a hybrid drive and uses an electric drive for speeds of under 12 knots And it comes with a lot of benefits. The first thing, on its first voyage from Pascagoula, Mississippi, my home state, around to its home port it went around South America to San Diego it saved almost $2 million in fuel. And at current fuel prices, over the lifetime of that ship, its going to save a quarter of a billion dollars in fuel. Second, the less time we have to refuel on it or any other ship, the more time we get to patrol, do what were supposed to do, giving our commanders a lot more flexibility and a lot more time on station if they need it. And, finally,

just by

reducing the frequency of refueling operations, we make our ships safer. The COLE was in
Aden to get fuel when it was attacked in 2001. But there are still a whole lot of challenges that were facing for our installations, our ships and our Forward Operating Bases. Our ships the systems that we use and the power requirements that they have are getting bigger all the time. Every system were putting on a ship now or in an aircraft is in some ways sort of a power hog. Just like the commercial world, the march of technology in the military has created an ever-increasing appetite for energy. A Marine platoon in Vietnam took two or three radios on patrol with them. A Marine platoon in Afghanistan takes 30 to 50 radios on patrol with them. On our ships, high-tech radar systems and missile defense technologies and advanced gun systems use and need a lot of energy. The ability to maintain steady, uninterrupted power, even if damaged,

becomes absolutely critical for the success of these ships. This solves global superpower conflict Khalilzad 2011, US ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and UN under Bush Jr.; Dir, Policy Planning, Dept of Defense, 1990-2; analyst, RAND Corporation, (The Economy and National Security, Natl Review Online, http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-andnational-security-zalmay-khalilzad?page=1) We face this domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth. Even though countries such as China, India, and Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their economies are growing faster than ours, and this could alter the global distribution of power. These trends could in the long term produce a multi-polar world. If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but when a new international order will emerge. The closing of the gap between the United States and its rivals could intensify geopolitical competition among major powers, increase incentives for local powers to play major powers against one another, and undercut our will to preclude or respond to international crises because of the higher risk of escalation. The stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has been the era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their competitive dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar international systems produced both world wars. American retrenchment could have devastating consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional powers could rearm in an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would be a heightened possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into allout conflict. Alternatively, in seeking to accommodate the stronger powers, weaker powers may shift their geopolitical posture away from the United States. Either way, hostile states would be emboldened to make aggressive moves in their regions. 5

Planet Debate 2011 2NC Impact Calculus DA outweighs case -

Politics Scenario Arpa-E

A) Magnitude hegemony precludes conflict, decline magnifies them, creating the only scenario for nuclear war Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND policy analyst, Spring 1995, The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2, Losing the Moment?
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the worlds major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

-Naval power averts crises prevents escalation George Friedman, President of Stratfor, 2007. The Limitations and Necessity of Naval Power, http://www.billoreilly.com/blog?action=viewBlog&blogID=79097567983522037
The argument for slashing the Navy can be tempting. But consider the counterargument. First, and most important, we must consider the crises the United States has not experienced. The presence of the U.S. Navy has shaped the ambitions of primary and secondary powers. The threshold for challenging the Navy has been so high that few have even initiated serious challenges. Those that might be trying to do so, like the Chinese, understand that it requires a substantial diversion of resources. Therefore,

the mere existence of U.S. naval power has been effective in averting crises that likely would have occurred otherwise. Reducing the power of the U.S. Navy, or fine-tuning it, would not only open the door to challenges but also eliminate a useful, if not essential, element in U.S. strategy-the ability to bring relatively rapid force to bear. There are times when the Navy's use is tactical, and times when it is strategic. At this moment in U.S. history, the role of naval power is highly strategic. The domination of the world's oceans represents the foundation stone of U.S. grand strategy. It allows the United States to take risks while minimizing consequences. It facilitates risk-taking. Above all, it eliminates the threat of sustained conventional attack against the homeland. U.S. grand strategy has worked so well that this risk appears to be a phantom.

Planet Debate 2011 2NC Impact Calculus

Politics Scenario Arpa-E

Specifically wars with Russia and China are inevitable without energy leadership Louis Klarevas, Professor, Center for Global Affairs, New York University, 2009. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/louis-klarevas/securing-american-primacy_b_393223.html
As national leaders from around the world are gathering in Copenhagen, Denmark, to attend the United Nations Climate Change Conference, the time is ripe to re-assess America's current energy policies - but within the larger framework of how a new approach on the environment will stave off global warming

. By not addressing climate change more aggressively and creatively, the United States is squandering an opportunity to secure its global primacy for the next few generations to come. To do this, though, the U.S. must rely on innovation to help the world escape the coming environmental meltdown. Developing the key technologies that will save the planet from global warming will allow the U.S. to outmaneuver potential great power rivals seeking to replace it as the international system's hegemon. But the greening of
and shore up American primacy American strategy must occur soon. The U.S., however, seems to be stuck in time, unable to move beyond oil-centric geo-politics in any meaningful way. Often, the gridlock is portrayed as a partisan difference, with Republicans resisting action and Democrats pleading for action. This, though, is an unfair characterization as there are numerous proactive Republicans and quite a few reticent Democrats. The real divide is instead one between realists and liberals. Students of realpolitik, which still heavily guides American foreign policy, largely discount environmental issues as they are not seen as advancing national interests in a way that generates relative power advantages vis--vis the other major powers in the system: Russia, China, Japan, India, and the European Union. Liberals, on the other hand, have recognized that global warming might very well become the greatest challenge ever faced by mankind. As such, their thinking often eschews narrowly defined national interests for the greater global good. This, though, ruffles elected officials whose sworn obligation is, above all, to protect and promote American national interests. What both sides need to understand is that by becoming a lean, mean, green fighting machine, the U.S. can actually bring together liberals and realists to advance a collective interest which benefits every nation, while at the same

the U.S. must re-invent itself as not just your traditional hegemon, but as history's first ever green hegemon. Hegemons are countries that dominate the
time, securing America's global primacy well into the future. To do so, international system - bailing out other countries in times of global crisis, establishing and maintaining the most important international institutions, and covering the costs that result from free-riding and cheating global obligations. Since 1945, that role has been the purview of the United States. Immediately after World War II, Europe and Asia laid in ruin, the global economy required resuscitation, the countries of the free world needed security guarantees, and the entire system longed for a multilateral forum where global concerns could be addressed. The U.S., emerging the least scathed by the systemic crisis of fascism's rise, stepped up to the challenge and established the postwar (and current) liberal order. But don't let the world "liberal" fool you. While many nations benefited from America's new-found hegemony, the U.S. was driven largely by "realist" selfish national interests. The liberal order first and foremost benefited the U.S. With the U.S. becoming bogged down in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, running a record national debt, and failing to shore up the dollar, the future of American hegemony now seems to be facing a serious contest: potential rivals - acting like sharks smelling blood in the water - wish to challenge the U.S. on a variety of fronts. This has led numerous commentators to forecast the U.S.'s imminent fall from grace. Not all hope is lost however. With the impending systemic crisis of global warming on the horizon, the U.S. again finds itself in a position to address a transnational problem in a way that

the competition for oil is fueling animosities between the major powers. The geopolitics of oil has already emboldened Russia in its 'near abroad' and China in far-off places like Africa and Latin America. As oil is a limited natural resource, a nasty zero-sum contest could be looming on the horizon for the U.S. and its major power rivals - a contest which threatens American primacy and global stability.
will benefit both the international community collectively and the U.S. selfishly. The current problem is two-fold. First,

Extinction Nick Bostrom, professor of philosophy - Oxford University, March, 2002, Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards, Journal of Evolution and Technology, p. http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the USSR. An all-out nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with consequences that might have been persistent enough to qualify as global and terminal. There was a real worry among those best acquainted with the information available at the time that a nuclear Armageddon would occur and that it might annihilate our species or permanently destroy human civilization.[4] Russia and the US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation, either accidentally or deliberately. There is also a risk that other states may one day build up large nuclear arsenals. Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between India and Pakistan for instance, is not an existential risk, since it would not destroy or thwart humankinds potential
permanently. Such a war might however be a local terminal risk for the cities most likely to be targeted. Unfortunately, we shall see that nuclear Armageddon and comet or asteroid strikes are mere preludes to the existential risks that we will encounter in the 21st century.

Planet Debate 2011 2NC Link Turns Case Link turns case backlash blocks solvency

Politics Scenario Arpa-E

William McKenzie, Dallas Morning News editorial columnist, 1/3/2011. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DNmckenzie_0104edi.State.Edition1.42fa703.html Given their clout in politics, the answer matters. It especially matters since the Senate is so evenly divided between the parties. The votes tea partiers cast could have an enormous influence on global affairs. For example, immigration policies, which actually are an international issue, won't get improved if tea partiers prefer isolationism. Before he left office, George W. Bush told a group of us from The Dallas Morning News that his immigration reforms ran into a prairie fire sparked by his party's reaction to news that Dubai owned some U.S. ports. If that same anti-foreigner element drives most tea partiers, immigration laws will not get overhauled.

Planet Debate 2011 Ext Key to Economy/Leadership ARPA-E cuts collapse the economy and leadership

Politics Scenario Arpa-E

Senator Lamar Alexander, R-TN, 3/3/2011. http://www.thestatecolumn.com/state_politics/tennessee/sen-lamar-alexander-says-gov %E2%80%99t-must-prioritize-spending-cuts/ Speaking to a broad gathering of scientists, policymakers, energy industry experts and entrepreneurs today at the ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit, U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said that research and innovation are the muscle power that grows our economy, arguing, in part, that because federal research dollars have given us the Internet, stealth technology, the GPS system, nuclear power, and other technologies, the government should continue the basic task of supporting research and development. Alexander continued: Unfortunately, though, we are going to have to cut back somewhere. Everyone knows we can no longer continue the spending spree that has characterized Washington in recent years. But we want to cut fat, not muscle and bone. . We must prioritize these spending cuts so they dont do lasting damage to American innovation, but keep our economy in fighting shape. Addressing what he called a myth the idea that America no longer has the capacity to innovate Alexander said, People now seem to accept the idea that new inventions will be developed somewhere outside the United States. But to paraphrase Mark Twain, Reports of the demise of innovation in America have been greatly exaggerated. For America to continue its longstanding role as economic world leader, we will need more Thomas Edisons, more Albert Einsteins, more Eli Whitneys, more Grace Hoppers, one of the first computer scientists, and more Bill Gates. The mission of ARPA-E the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy is to fund projects that will reduce Americas dependence on foreign energy, improve energy efficiency, and otherwise strengthen the U.S.s leadership role in advanced energy technologies. Alexander told the group that the work done by ARPA-E and the privatesector innovators represented here today will lead us into a world of improved, clean, reliable low-cost energy.

Planet Debate 2011 2NC Turns Competitiveness ARPA-e key to prevent a fast decline in competitiveness

Politics Scenario Arpa-E

Arun Majumdar, mechanical engineer and director of the Advanced Research Projects AgencyEnergy, 3/14/2011. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=arun-majumdar-interviewon-inventing-future-of-energy If you have a major hurdle, you need assurance of funding to get the brightest people to come on boardscientists and engineers working together. That's the design of a hub, like the sunlight-to-fuels hub at the Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis [at Caltech]. JCAP is trying to understand the science of how to split water. ARPAe is a different model. You're translating the science into technology and you have a quick hit. It doesn't mean that it's reaching the market right away after two or three years [of funding], it still will take scaling and all that. But at least you're trying out an idea. The National Academy report [Rising Above the Gathering Storm] that created ARPAe, the wise thought-leaders behind it felt that a place to go and try out a new, high-risk idea did not exist. [That is] what ARPAe was created for. We are saying that if energy is the next Industrial Revolution, and if we are going to be competitive in this globally competitive world and we are falling behind right nowgosh, let's go for it. You need hubs for long-term problems, and you need ARPAe to look for short-term translation of science into technology.

10

Planet Debate 2011 2NC Turns Economy

Politics Scenario Arpa-E

ARPA-E research is key to the economy comparatively the biggest internal link Jeremy Hsu, Innovation News Daily, 3/1/2011. U.S. Security Depends Upon Energy Innovation, http://www.innovationnewsdaily.com/arpae-energy-innovation-three-pillars110301html-1766/ Future U.S. security may depend upon energy innovations that reduce dependence upon foreign oil. But the former Silicon Valley entrepreneur who heads the U.S. government's advanced-energy initiative said clean-energy technologies also will represent the biggest business opportunity in the coming decades. The future of the United States depends upon three pillars: national security, economic security and environmental security, Arun Majumdar, director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, told researchers and entrepreneurs here today (March 1). All three of those pillars stand on shaky ground when the nation spends more than $300 billion per year importing more than 50 percent of its oil from foreign countries, he said. "In my lifetime, I would love to shave off a few zeros from that number," Majumdar said at the ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit. The focus of ARPA-E on funding high-risk, high-reward energy innovations has paid off in six recent projects, with a return rate of $4 in private investment for every $1 of taxpayer money spent. Yet when Majumdar asked several major CEOs, including Bill Gates of Microsoft, to comment about the role of government in funding energy innovations, all of them pushed for even more federal help to help the U.S. forge ahead. The clean-energy race could lead to new U.S. economic prosperity as well as better national security. Majumdar pointed out that many people around the world had "not yet turned on the lights" but would become new energy consumers as their income rose. "If we can enable them to turn on the right kind of lights, that's the biggest business opportunity for America," Majumdar said. "But many of the technologies have not yet been invented. The future is up for grabs."

11

Planet Debate 2011 2NC Turns California Economy

Politics Scenario Arpa-E

Key to the California economy 3 Jeff Johnson, Chemical and Engineering News, 3/14/2011. http://pubs.acs.org/cen/government/89/8911gov1.html According to Schwarzenegger, ARPA-E research and technologies are needed to transform the world of energy. The U.S., he said, must move beyond debates about global warming and instead promote clean energy development for jobs, health, energy security, and economics. Clean energy business has been good for California, he said, and it is the states fastest growing economic sector. California, he added, draws one-third of the worlds cleantech venture capital.

12

Planet Debate 2011 2NC Turns Innovation Cutting ARPA-E funding kills innovation and the economy

Politics Scenario Arpa-E

Cal Steger, Energy Collective, 2/18/2011. http://theenergycollective.com/caisteger/52087/arpa-efunding-risk-hr-1 We aggressively support efforts to dramatically and strategically boost clean energy innovation in our country and consider ARPA-E an important piece of that strategy. Reducing its funding would eliminate a critical component in our innovation infrastructure, which is already underfunded in historical terms, stifle our efforts to develop next generation technologies in America that can lead us into the global clean energy economy, eliminate current (and especially future) jobs, and ultimately weaken our efforts to improve our national energy security.

13

Planet Debate 2011 2NC Air Pollution ARPA-e solves air pollution 100,000 deaths per year

Politics Scenario Arpa-E

David Biello, Scientific American, 3/3/2011. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm? id=alternative-energy-research-saves-lives Proposals for ARPA-e in 2011 range from $50 million in a budget proposal from the House of Representatives to a $550 million request in President Obama's budget. "We will be working with Congress on the programs that are the most important for the future of the United States, and will put us in the best position for our economic prosperity," Secretary of Energy Steven Chu noted in a press conference here on March 1. "We have our own priorities, whether we get the president's budget or not." And that means taking into account the human health impacts of fossil-fuel burning as well, argued Schwarzenegger, noting that 100,000 people die prematurely each year because of smog and other air pollution, which also sends 6.5 million people to the hospital with respiratory issues. "One in six children in central California walk around with an inhaler. That's what we do to those kids," he said. "The suffering and expense of petroleum deaths needs to be recognized." In fact, regardless of funding, improving the security of U.S. energy supplyand thereby national, environmental and economic securityhas become a priority for both the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy. "You have become the sharp end of the spear," Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman told the ARPAe summit attendees. "It is the kind of innovation you are pursuing that will spell the difference between success and failure."

14

Planet Debate 2011 Clean Tech 2NC

Politics Scenario Arpa-E

Max G. Bronstein, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2011. Harnessing rivers of wind: A technology and policy assessment of high altitude wind power in the U.S., http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/wire-news-display/1379964058.html The vast majority of federal funding available for renewable energy technologies is in basic research [69]. While support for basic research can influence the development of other technologies, it seems unlikely that this policy will be able to achieve the broad deployment of renewables necessary to significantly lower carbon emissions. To date, there is only one program that is positioned to support the development and commercialization of renewable energy technologies-ARPA-E. However, ARPA-E is a very young initiative, established in 2009 and recently received its first appropriation totaling $400million. Furthermore, only four grants have been made in the area of renewable power and of those, just one was germane to wind energy [70]. This program has the potential to be a major player in assisting with the development of renewables with commercial potential, but future funding for the program is uncertain and its current appropriation is diminutive.

15

Planet Debate 2011 Electric Weapons 2NC ARPA-E is key to electric weapons deployment tech already exists

Politics Scenario Arpa-E

Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy, 3/2/2011. http://www.navy.mil/navydata/people/secnav/Mabus/Speech/ARPAe02Mar11.pdf

And its for these reasons and addressing these challenges with the underlying goal, again, of making us better fighters, that today, on

a partnership between DoD and ARPA-e on two energy storage initiatives that, once they are successful, will improve the way our military uses energy. The first initiative is a program that will develop and build hybrid energy storage modules to provide long endurance, high-energy density materials in a small, modular and
behalf of the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy, I am very happy to announce easily scalable package. The programs goals are to extend current levels of fuel duration by up to 30 percent while concurrently providing for batteries that rapidly charge and discharge big amounts of energy. The applications of this technology can be incredible. Right now a lot of the power that the Marines in Sangin are generating is going to waste. If their equipment is not hooked up to the chargers, energy is just being made and doing nothing. But with this hybrid energy storage module, well be able to store that energy for use at almost any time and do so by building expeditionary, tactical energy distribution networks from individual modules.

This

means fewer Marines guarding convoys, less money, less effort getting fuel to the battlefield. On the seas in the maritime environment, hybrid energy storage modules can provide us with efficient and stable power for our weapons systems and in case of battle damage, they will give us the time we need to get those systems repaired, to get them back online and keep fighting. Theyre also a critical step toward solving one of the shipboard integration challenges associated with the development of electric weapons - things like rail guns, things like directed energy weapons. These require huge amounts of power which have to be rapidly discharged to make them work right. Right now were working on doing that repeatedly and reliably, and energy storage is a big part of that solution. This allows conflict resolution with zero casualties Robert McGinnis, director of the Navys directed energy and electric weapons program office, 2004. http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/may_04_10.php Once operational, however, directed energy weapons could make a real difference for the Navy. McGinnis noted that, despite the range and line-of-sight limitations that make them unsuited for long-range strike, lasers deliver very fine beams that can be precisely controlled. Lasers could be called upon in cases with a high probability of collateral damage, for example, if a small enemy vessel attempts to hide among friendly vessels or other non-combatants. With the potential to cause horrific damage against a target exposed to full power emissions, directed energy weapons could also emit power on low settings to drive targets away from a conflict area, with no loss of life. The military likes having the option that does not cause collateral damage. That lets us engage units that are close to friendly forces and where we dont have to kill, but can simply make the enemy go away, McGinnis said.

16

Planet Debate 2011 Readiness 2NC ARPA-E funding key to battery innovation key to readiness

Politics Scenario Arpa-E

Jeremy Hsu, senior writer at Innovation News Daily, 3/2/2011. http://www.technewsdaily.com/arpae-navy-defense-energy-storage-2257/ But much of the green energy the Marines are now producing from renewable sources goes to waste because they don't have batteries with enough storage capacity. Possible solutions may stem from a request that Secretary of the Navy Raymond Mabus announced during his keynote speech today (March 2) at the ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit here: a request for
$50 million to fund a pair of energy-storage projects. Spin Your Meter BackwardPower Your Home with the Sun $0 Down. Affordable Monthly Payment www.SolarCity.com/FreeSolarQuote Fiber Optic Pocket GuideFind And Fix Cable Failure Issues. Free Test & Troubleshooting Guide. FlukeNetworks.com/FiberGuide "What we don't have, and what we need, is the ability to store the energy we create," Mabus said. The Department of Defense has teamed up with Department of Energy's ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy) on two energy storage projects that could change that scenario for the U.S. military, according to Mabus. The joint partnership is requesting $25 million for each of the efforts. One project aims to create hybrid energy-storage modules. Such modules would

represent the future of batteries, using lightweight materials capable of storing high amounts of energy. Ideally they could be combined with one another to suit the energy needs of Marine bases and Navy ships alike, Mabus said. "A lot of energy that Marines are generating in Sangin is going to waste," Mabus explained."With this hybrid storage module, we're able to store that energy for use at almost any time." A second project would try to improve energy storage in military power grids, with a focus on boosting energy
reliability and preventing any unwanted disruptions of the energy supply. The Navy has already set the goal of getting half its bases to zero energy consumption by 2020, and perhaps even returning power to the grid rather than pulling power off, by using renewable energy sources. "We're not just changing for change sake," Mabus told summit attendees. "Everything we're doing is to make us better fighters." Energy

storage has proven a necessity on the battlefield. Whereas a Marine platoon took just two or three radios on patrol during the Vietnam War, a similar platoon in Afghanistan takes 30 to 50 radios. Similarly, new weapons such as the Navy's rail gun require huge amounts of electricity drawn from military power grids or portable energy-storage systems. The $25 million going to each new project is about the cost of a single H-1 "Huey" helicopter, Mabus pointed out. "The change that the $25 million can generate can multiply that one helicopter hundreds and thousands of times," he said. That prevents war SPENCER 2000 (Jack, Policy Analyst for Defense and National Security Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation, The Facts about military readiness, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #1394, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2000/09/bg1394-the-facts-about-military-readiness) Military readiness is vital because declines in America's military readiness signal to the rest of the world that the United States is not prepared to defend its interests. Therefore, potentially hostile nations will be more likely to lash out against American allies and interests, inevitably leading to U.S. involvement in combat. A high state of military readiness is more likely to deter potentially hostile nations from acting aggressively in regions of vital national interest, thereby preserving peace.

17

Planet Debate 2011 Ext Key to Readiness

Politics Scenario Arpa-E

ARPA-E is vital to our national security military collapse is inevitable without it The agency is also viewed as essential to national security, according to Representative Steve Israel (D-New York), speaking at the conference. "Here's our defense paradigm: we are borrowing energy from China to fund defense budgets, to buy oil from the Persian Gulf, to fuel our weapons systems, to protect us from China and the Persian Gulf," Israel said. "We are reliant on our adversaries for our national security," and investment in new energy technologies is crucial to changing this, he said. Secretary of the Navy Raymond Mabus said at the same conference that dependence on oil makes the military "too susceptible to supply and price shocks," and that the need to protect supply lines for transporting fuel results in large numbers of casualties. Mabus has set a goal for the Navy and the Marines to meet half their energy requirements with nonfossil fuels by 2020. At the conference, he announced a partnership between the Department of Defense and ARPA-E on two projects. One seeks to improve energy storage systems for soldiers in the field and for electrical systems on ships; DOD and ARPA-E have each requested $25 million for 2012 for this project. The military will also work with an existing grid storage program at ARPA-E to increase the supply of electricity at military bases.

18

Planet Debate 2011 2NC Yes Pass ARPA-E funding wont get cut now

Politics Scenario Arpa-E

Clint Wheelock, Reuters, 3/9/2011. ARPA-E comes out swinging, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/09/idUS54068071520110309 Last week, I attended the ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit, held just outside Washington, D.C. With more than 2,000 attendees, the event was significantly larger than I expected. Equally impressive was the level of enthusiasm and dynamism present at the summit. The commitment and unity of purpose demonstrated by ARPA-E's leaders and supporters are especially important right now as the program stares down the barrel of potentially massive budget cuts. In fact, there is some question about whether ARPA-E will continue to be funded at all. There's little doubt that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will see significant budget cuts, whatever the Congressional compromise on the present federal budget debate might be. Many in Congress view the DOE's initiatives as a liberal, environmentally friendly manifestation of the Obama agenda. As a result of the current political environment, many of these programs face the chopping block. That said, ARPA-E came out swinging at its summit last week. This initiative, borne out of the controversial American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), has shown itself to be a fighter. Several noteworthy power players, including Energy Secretary Steven Chu and bipartisan luminaries such as California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, have demonstrated strong support for the ARPA-E program. The Department of Defense (DOD) is also signaling solid backing for ARPA-E, arguing that technologies coming out of the program could have significant national security benefits. Because of this support, not to mention the inherent benefits of ARPA-E, we at Pike Research believe that the program has positioned itself very well to be a survivor in the new Congressional budget. On a broader level, it holds the potential to become a champion of the emerging clean energy industry.

19

Planet Debate 2011 2NC Yes Pass DOD support but it doesnt take out the link

Politics Scenario Arpa-E

Katherine Tweed, Green Tech Grid, 3/2/2011. http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/arpa-e-and-dod-advance-partnership/ At the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy Innovation Summit on Wednesday, Representative Steve Israel (D-NY) joked that he would be brief in his remarks because the lights are going to go off in about 10 minutes. Although the conference, which drew more than 2,000 attendees, wasnt held in a government building, that doesnt mean that the research arm of the U.S. Department of Energy isnt threatened by the budget cuts being debated in Congress. But unlike so many other areas of federal investment, ARPA-E has friends in the right places: the Department of Defense. Just after Rep. Israel spoke of the need for innovation in fuels and storage, U.S. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced a partnership between his department and the DOE in two areas of energy storage. Less than two years after Secretary Steven Chu announced $400 million in funding opportunities for ARPA-E, the agency is leveraging its role in national security to keep the money flowing during tough times. Bipartisan support the House budget contains increases now Kevin Bullis, Technology Review, 3/3/2011. http://mobile.technologyreview.com/energy/32450/ Two years after it was created the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPAE) is receiving support within Congress as a way to address concerns about energy security, the economy, and national security. While Congress contemplates major cuts in many programs, Republicans and Democrats in the House have voted to increase funding for the agency above current levels. The increase is only a 10th of what President Obama asked for in his 2012 budget for ARPA-E, but it is a marked exception to the spending reductions in the rest of the bill. ARPA-E is meant to fund risky energy-research projectsones that are unlikely to get initial funding any other way but have the potential to have a big impact. For example, they might seek to make solar power as cheap as fossil-fuel-based power or to give electric vehicles a range and a cost comparable to those of gasoline-powered cars. Despite substantial bipartisan support for the agency when it was created, ARPA-E received no funding until April 2009, when it was awarded $400 million as part of the Recovery Act. It has yet to receive any substantial funding under the regular budget. But now a House continuing resolution bill for keeping the government running this year, which features large cuts in discretionary spending, includes $50 million for the agency. Cuts are inevitable but ARPA-E is off the chopping block now Kevin Bullis, Technology Review, 3/3/2011. http://mobile.technologyreview.com/energy/32450/ Support for ARPA-E also stems from a bipartisan belief that investments in energy research are good for the economy, particularly in the longer term. "We have to cut back somewhere," said Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee) at the ARPA-E conference. "But we want to cut fat, not muscle and bone. Research and innovation are the muscle power that grows our economies. We need to set priorities so that we don't do damage to the economy."

20

Planet Debate 2011 2NC Yes Budget Compromise Yes budget compromise GOP is backing off demands and party leader

Politics Scenario Arpa-E

Thomas Ferraro, Reuters, 3/23/2011. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/23/us-usacongress-spending-idUSTRE72M31D20110323 Republicans and President Barack Obama's Democrats, facing huge economic stakes, may soon reach a budget deal for this fiscal year after weeks of half measures to avert a government shutdown. Worried about the fragile U.S. recovery and their own political well-being, members on both sides seem willing to resolve a gap between them on how much needs to be cut from federal spending this fiscal year to rein in the budget deficit. "Chances of a deal seem reasonably good," a senior congressional aide said, adding that talks may deepen when they move from staff level to the involvement of party leadership in the Senate and House of Representatives as early as next week. The aide said at least some House Republicans may back off demands for deeper cuts this year after House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan unveils plans next week for additional reductions in fiscal 2012.

21

Planet Debate 2011 2NC Yes Budget Compromise

Politics Scenario Arpa-E

Budget compromise now - bipartisan support for a deal, and vote on April 8th John Shaw, IMarket News, 3/18/2011. http://imarketnews.com/node/28027 As it pertains to the 2011 fiscal year budget, there is an overwhelming bipartisan consensus on only one thing: that it is time to bring months of fiscal positioning and posturing to an end. The White House and Congress, Democrats and Republicans, agree that it's time to negotiate a final agreement on the FY'11 budget. Both the House and Senate passed this
week a stop-gap spending bill that will fund the government until April 8. The stop-gap bill, largely drafted by House Republicans, includes $6 billion in spending cuts. These cuts are acceptable to congressional Democrats and the White House. The 2011 fiscal year began on Oct. 1 and the federal government has run on five short-term funding bills. The stop-gap that passed this week is the sixth short-term spending measure.

There have been growing calls from the White House and Congress to make this the last temporary spending bill for FY'11. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday that he's begun negotiations with House Speaker John Boehner in an attempt to reach an agreement on the fiscal year 2011 budget. At a briefing, Reid said he has had "very good conversations" with Boehner on how to complete work on the FY'11 budget. He said their two staffs had a 90 minute meeting Wednesday. "We're doing just fine," he
said when asked to characterize the talks with Boehner. Reid offered no specifics, but did say he is pushing hard to expand the talks beyond the current focus on the non-defense discretionary budget for FY'11. "We can't balance the budget with 12% of the budget," he said, referring to the size of the non-defense discretionary budget. "We believe that to get to a number that can resolve this issue, there's going to be some mandatories," Reid said, referring to entitlement programs. Reid said he's urging Boehner to expand the talks beyond the FY'11 discretionary budget to include both entitlements and revenues. Sen. Chuck Schumer, the third ranking Senate Democrat, also said that the talks should expand, declaring "it's a pretty universal feeling on our side that you have to go beyond domestic discretionary (spending) to get to a number that would be compromise number." Schumer called on Republicans to drop a number of policy riders that they have placed on their version of the FY'11 budget. Boehner continues to say that expanding the talks into entitlements and revenues would "muddle" the needed focus on cutting spending in FY'11. The Speaker has also made the point that the issue that needs to be resolved is the FY'11 discretionary budget and that it is both unnecessary and unwise to bring in other fiscal issues. He said that after the FY'11 budget has been concluded, a broader fiscal debate will naturally occur over the FY'12 budget which will be a multi-year plan that

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers said this week that he is confident that a final accord on the FY'11 budget will be ready by April 8. "We will have the final bill in time to meet the April 8 deadline," he said.
will include entitlements and revenues as well as discretionary programs.

22

Planet Debate 2011 AT: Shutdown Inevitable/No Solution Possible

Politics Scenario Arpa-E

Lifting the payroll-tax cap will get bipartisan support but partisan battles derail the compromise Ezra Klein, Washington Post, 3/17/2011. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezraklein/post/wonkbook_how_to_lift_the_debt_ceiling_and_save_social_security_in_one_easy_step /2011/03/10/ABG57Yj_blog.html?wprss=rss_homepage
About half of the Senates Republicans have signed a letter opposing any effort to lift the debt ceiling that doesnt include entitlement cuts. In response, a group of Senate Democrats are trying to pass a measure forcing any cuts to Social Security to pass a two-thirds vote in the Senate.

Bitter partisan warfare over the debt ceiling is not exactly an appealing prospect. But perhaps it can be avoided. According to a Washington Post-ABC poll thatll be released later today (you can download the data here), theres actually a possible fix that would avoid cutting Social Security, fulfill Republican desires to balance the programs finances and is even popular with the public. According to the survey, more than 80 percent of Americans believe
the system is in crisis. And, in a reversal of recent results on this issue, Republicans are more trusted to handle it than Democrats: 44 percent of respondents favored the GOP, while only 42 percent favored President Obama (this is primarily due to Democrats trusting Obama at a low rate on this issue). But when it came to solutions, most cuts were opposed by a majority of Americans. Almost 60 percent were against raising the retirement age and almost 70 percent were against cutting scheduled benefits.

The only fix that garnered majority support was lifting the payroll-tax cap so that all income, rather than just the first $107,000, got taxed. Thats a reform, Im confident to say, that the Senates liberals would have less trouble swallowing, and according to the Congressional Budget Office, it would wipe out virtually all of Social Securitys shortfall. So if this is just about balancing Social Securitys books, it shouldnt be too difficult. We can pass the reform and raise the debt ceiling with no problem. Huzzah! On the other hand, if were in one of those conversations where were
pretending to talk about balancing the countrys books but were actually only talking about cutting spending and revenues are off the table, well, thatll be harder.

23

Planet Debate 2011 AT: Not Enough Money

Politics Scenario Arpa-E

ARPA-E only needs narrow infusions to start innovation this will attract private capital necessary for R&D The New Republic 2/8/2011. http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-avenue/83029/arpa-e%E2%80%99senergy-innovation-what-would-thomas-edison-think In 2007, the America Competes Act created a new agency called ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects-Energy) in order to fund and foster breakthrough energy technologies. Since then, one of us, Mark Muro, has consistently endorsed the agencys vision and strategy. Staffed on a temporary basis by scientists with extraordinary talent for both invention and commercialization, ARPA-E functions like a venture-capital firm with a public-goods focus. This allows it to fund research and development projects for which the potential benefits to humankind, the U.S. energy system, and commercial gains are large notwithstanding significant technological risk. If a narrow infusion of public funding allows a company to work out the technical and commercial applications of its scientific ideas, the company can pass through the valley of death, or at least one of them, and start raising private money and moving toward growth. Will things actually play out as designed now that ARPA-E is up and running and has made its first grants? Well, the answer seems to be an emphatic yes, on the evidence of a recent story in New York Times. In the last 18 months, six of the 37 initial projects ARPA-E funded in late 2009 have attracted private money. To be sure, none of the carbon storage grantees attracted outside investment. But sun and wind power and battery technologies developed in Massachusetts and California and elsewhere did lure investors, with the ratio of private sector investment to public spending averaging roughly four to one. Other companies that may require longer periods of R&D could still be just as successful, if not more so, although with a new bout of fiscal anxiety convulsing the capital ARPA-Es funding is in jeopardy.

24

Planet Debate 2011 AT: Thumpers No thumpers budget first

Politics Scenario Arpa-E

Reuters 3/21/2011. http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2011/03/21/as-for-elizabeth-warrenbarney-frank-says-lets-fight/ The ever-perspicacious Massachusetts lawmaker realizes Obama is not likely to pick a partisan fight in Congress as the president undertakes the delicate task of finding bipartisan balance on tender issues like the budget and the debt ceiling. Clean tech battles are first theyre at the forefront of the budget fight Nino Marchetti, Earth Techling, 2/12/2011. Budget brawl looms over clean-tech future, http://www.earthtechling.com/2011/02/budget-brawl-looms-over-cleantech-future/ With clean energy and related cleantech development being one of the Presidents top agenda items, and with the GOP-controlled House feeling it has a mandate they get our nations fiscal house in order, a federal budget battle over how much funding goes into this area and what might have to be given up in order to get it looms big time over the nations capital.

25

Planet Debate 2011 2NC Capital Key Capital key to winning budget fights

Politics Scenario Arpa-E

Roger Altman, chairman of Evercore Partners and was deputy US Treasury secretary under President Clinton, 2010. Americas Disastrous Debt is Obamas Biggest Test, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/11302d5a-4c14-11df-a217-00144feab49a.html#axzz1CxQQ6B8G It will be political and financial factors that determine which of three budget paths America now follows. The first is the ideal. Next year, leaders adopt the necessary spending and tax changes,
together with budget rules to enforce them, to reach, for example, a truly balanced budget by 2020. President Bill Clinton achieved a comparable legislative outcome in his first term. But America is more polarised today, especially over taxes. The second possible course is the opposite: government paralysis and 10 years of fiscal erosion. Debt reaches 90 per cent of GDP. Interest rates go much higher, but the world's capital markets finance these needs without serious instability. History suggests a third outcome is the likely one: one imposed by global markets. Yes, there may be calm in currency and credit markets over the next year or two. But the chances that they would accept such a long-term fiscal slide are low. Here, the 1979 dollar crash is instructive. The Iranian oil embargo, stagflation and a weakening dollar were roiling markets. Amid this nervousness, President Jimmy Carter submitted his budget, incorporating a larger than expected deficit. This triggered a further, panicky fall in the dollar that destabilised markets. This forced Mr Carter to resubmit a tighter budget and the Fed to raise interest rates. Both actions harmed the economy and severely injured his presidency. America's addiction to debt poses a similar threat now. To avoid an imposed and ugly

solution, Mr Obama will have to invest all his political capital in a budget agreement next year. He will be advised that cutting spending and raising taxes is too risky for his 2012 re-election. But the alternative could be much worse.

26

Planet Debate 2011 AT: Obama Removed from Budget Fights

Politics Scenario Arpa-E

Their ev is all about continuing resolutions Obama has saved himself for the real budget fight which is next David Hawkings, Ozark Area Community Action Corporation, 3/17/2011. http://www.oacaccaa.org/oacac/?q=node/47 Which is why the odds are in favor of a deal that the two top leaders of Congress will reach more or less by themselves with some behind-the-scenes input from the White House but without any investment of personal political capital by Obama, who seems ready to brush-off the growing bipartisan congressional criticism about his disengagement on the short-term budget battle. Instead, the president is going to delegate Biden as his surrogate this time, and then put some of his own presidential skin in the game when it comes time to tackle the bugger budget impasse as soon as this round is over . (For his part, the vice president has put his weight emphatically behind maintaining the government subsidies for Planned Parenthood.) STORM'S A COMIN': That really big budget fight is really just around the corner. Budget Chairman Paul Ryan plans to roll out the House GOP budget the week of April 4, and hes promised it will include measures to rein in the cost of Medicaid, slow the growth of Medicaid and do something (like raising the retirement age a year or two over the next two decades) to control Social Securitys costs. And unless Obama embraces some of those concepts right away (if not the details), the Republcians stand ready to hold the debt limit hostage. John Cornyn is suggesting that fellow Senate Republicans would allow only short-term increases in the debt limit maybe a week or two at a time in order to keep the pressure on Obama and Democrats to curb entitlements. Strong leadership is needed now to advance possible solutions to ensure that our entitlement programs can serve both current and future generations. Without action to begin addressing the deficit, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for us to support a further increase in the debt ceiling, 23 GOP senators told Obama in a separate letter yesterday.

27

Planet Debate 2011 AT: Obama Removed from Budget Fights Obama is spending capital on the budget

Politics Scenario Arpa-E

Greg Sargent, Washington Post, 3/9/2011. Can Obamas Political Operation Make a Difference in Budget Fight? http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plumline/2011/03/can_obamas_political_operation.html In this context, it's worth noting that Obama's political operation does seem to be trying to insert itself into the budget battle. Organizing for America is out with a new email to supporters promising a hard line against GOP cuts and vowing to rally supporters behind the idea that our economic recovery is at stake: President Obama is calling on both sides to come to the table and reach a reasonable solution -- a plan that builds for the future while eliminating wasteful spending in the present. A plan where cutting spending is done judiciously -- not recklessly. A plan with investments that create jobs -- not cuts that eliminate them... So we're standing with President Obama in a very public way -- with an open letter calling on Republicans to work with him and Democrats in Congress to pass a commonsense budget that works for the American people. Supporters will hand-deliver the petition, with your signature, to House Republicans -- making sure our combined voices ring loud and clear... President Obama knows that this must be a shared sacrifice, and that some cuts must be made -- and he stands ready to work together to find a commonsense solution. But the current Republican plan would knock this country down just as we've begun to stand back up. This email, by the way, is the first to go out from new DNC executive director Patrick Gaspard. Will this kind of thing make a difference? The problem for Dems has been that no one really has had a clear sense of what their bottom line is in the budget fight. We haven't had a clear sense of what priorities Dems will go to the map for and what they view as expendable. We haven't had a clear sense of what Dems are for, so all Organizing for America can do for the time being is attack the GOP plan as too extreme. That's beginning to change, however. Dems today laid out a clearer and broader road map, one calling for tax hikes on the rich, and cuts to unnecessary subsidies, to be part of the discussions. As Dems bring more specificity to their vision, Dems hope it will be easier to rally troops behind it. There will come a point in the negotiations where Dems will have a specific negotiating position from which they will be refusing to retreat. In theory, anyway. That's where OFA comes in -- it will crank into gear in order to create a show of public support for that firm position. Or so Dems hope.

28

Planet Debate 2011 AT: Market Solves

Politics Scenario Arpa-E

ARPA-E specifically targets marketable products that cant attract capital this is key to growth Greg Marx, Remapping Debate, 1/25/2011. http://www.remappingdebate.org/article/gop-studygroup-slash-catalyst-research-industry-innovation The research areas supported by ARPA-E were selected following consultation with outside scientists about where government support could play a role in transitioning technologies from basic research to the marketplace, Allen said. In that way, ARPA-E and other applied research projects may bolster the economy by directing resources to valuable technologies that the private sector cant, or wouldnt, research on its own. Not having some of these ideas in the pipeline five years down the road could depress economic growth in that time frame, said Clemins of AAAS.

29