Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Updates
Updates........................................................................................................................................................................................................1
Econ Low.....................................................................................................................................................................................................2
OCS – Won’t pass - Pelosi...........................................................................................................................................................................3
OCS – AT: Pelosi.........................................................................................................................................................................................4
OCS – AT: ↓ Oil...........................................................................................................................................................................................5
OCS – Pelosi Key........................................................................................................................................................................................6
OCS – Won’t Pass........................................................................................................................................................................................7
Global Warming !.........................................................................................................................................................................................8
C&T elections link.......................................................................................................................................................................................9
Auto Industry Weak...................................................................................................................................................................................10
Bioterror Now/Biodefense fails.................................................................................................................................................................11
No Bioterror – Research/Biodefense solves..............................................................................................................................................12
CA State DA Brink.....................................................................................................................................................................................13
(Solar/Wind) Tax Credits – GOP hates......................................................................................................................................................14
2NC OCS Tax Credit Tradeoff Link..........................................................................................................................................................15
AT: Prolif Deterrence (Middle East)......................................................................................................................................................16
Econ = Dead...............................................................................................................................................................................................17
Econ Low...................................................................................................................................................................................................18
Econ Collapse = Slow................................................................................................................................................................................19
Economy = Resilient .................................................................................................................................................................................20
Econ Collapse Inevitable...........................................................................................................................................................................21
Econ Low/AT: Fed.....................................................................................................................................................................................22
Econ Brink.................................................................................................................................................................................................23
Econ - Growing..........................................................................................................................................................................................24
New York Economy – Low........................................................................................................................................................................25
No Israel Strikes.........................................................................................................................................................................................26
No Strikes – Israel and US.........................................................................................................................................................................27
US opposes Israeli Strikes.........................................................................................................................................................................28
No Pol Cap.................................................................................................................................................................................................29
1
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
Econ Low
Economy declining now – unemployment and slowing trade
New York Times 8-1-08, Michael M. Grynbaum and Floyd Norris contributed reporting, More Arrows Seen Pointing to a
Recession, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/business/01econ.html
The American economy expanded more slowly than expected from April to June, the government reported Thursday, while
numbers for the last three months of 2007 were revised downward to show a contraction — the first official slide
backward since the last recession in 2001. Economists construed the tepid growth in the second quarter, combined with a
surge in claims for unemployment benefits, as a clear indication that the economy remains mired in the weeds of a
downturn. Many said the data increased the likelihood that a recession began late last year. The next major piece of data
comes Friday, when the government is to release its monthly snapshot of the job market. Analysts expect the report to show a
loss of 75,000 jobs, signifying the seventh straight month of declines. “We already knew the economy was weak, and now
you have both a negative growth number coupled with job losses,” said Dean Baker, a director of the liberal Center for
Economic and Policy Research. “There’s a lot of real bad times to come.” President Bush zeroed in on the positive growth in
the second quarter — a 1.9 percent annual rate of expansion, compared with an anticipated 2.3 percent rate. That follows
growth of 0.9 percent in the first quarter. He claimed success for the $100 billion in tax rebates sent out by the government this
year in a bid to spur spending, along with $52 billion in tax cuts for businesses. “We got some positive news today,” the
president said in West Virginia, addressing a coal industry trade association. “It’s not as good as we’d like it to be but I want to
remind you a few months ago, there were predictions, and — that the economy would shrink this quarter, not grow.” But the
snapshot of disappointing economic growth released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis on Thursday morning provided no
comfort to Wall Street, where a broad sell-off commenced. By the end of business, the Dow Jones industrial average was down
206 points to close at 11,378, a drop of nearly 2 percent. The rout may have been explained in part by significant changes the
government made to historical data on the profitability of American businesses. According to the revised numbers, corporate
profits earned in the United States by American companies rose much more swiftly than previously recorded from 2005
through 2007, making the recent decline appear much steeper. That the economy grew at all this spring is a testament to two
bright spots — increased consumer spending fueled by the tax rebates, and the continuing expansion of American exports.
Consumer spending, which amounts to 70 percent of the economy, grew at a 1.5 percent annual rate between April and June,
after growing at a meager 0.9 percent clip in the previous quarter. “Clearly the tax rebates did give some oomph to the
economy,” said Robert Barbera, chief economist at the research and trading firm ITG. Exports expanded at a 9.2 percent annual
pace in the second quarter, up from 5.1 percent in the first three months of the year. Foreign sales have been lubricated by the
weak dollar, which makes American-made goods cheaper on world markets. Adding to the improving trade picture, imports
dropped by 6.6 percent, as Americans tightened their spending. Imports are subtracted from economic growth, so the effect was
positive. Over all, trade added 2.42 percentage points to the growth rate from April to June. Without that contribution, the
economy would have contracted. But many economists are dubious that consumer spending and exports can keep growing
robustly in the face of substantial challenges that are now entrenched in the United States and are gathering force in many
other major economies. Japan and much of Europe appear headed into downturns, damping demand for American-
made products. “The trade improvement doesn’t look sustainable,” said Jan Hatzius, an economist at Goldman Sachs in
New York. “In an environment where the global economy is clearly slowing, you’re not being able to get that export
growth in future quarters.”
2
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
For weeks, pressure has been mounting in Congress to approve more domestic oil drilling, but House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi has held the line, using her power to block a vote on offshore drilling. President Bush has made almost daily calls
for Democratic leaders to take action. House GOP leaders, citing a new poll showing that a slim majority of Californians
now favor offshore drilling, issued a release today saying "even (Pelosi's) own California neighbors oppose her efforts to
block new drilling far off American coasts." GOP lawmakers are so disgruntled they're urging Bush to deny Congress its
August break by calling a special session on energy. Even some Democrats are getting antsy, fearing the party's stance
could hurt in the fall elections. But Pelosi, who has opposed offshore drilling throughout her two decades in Congress,
insists opening new areas to drilling won't lower gas prices in the short-term. She believes a vote would only help the
GOP blame Democrats for high gas prices. "I will not ... give the administration an excuse for its failure," Pelosi said at an
end-of-session roundtable interview today. Republicans have put a bull's eye on the federal moratorium on coastal drilling,
which has kept most of the East and West coasts off limits to new oil rigs since 1982. Bush announced earlier this month that
he would lift the presidential moratorium on drilling, and the GOP is now seeking to lift the congressional ban. Pelosi drew
derision from her critics for telling Politico this week that she was blocking a vote on offshore drilling because "I'm trying to
save the planet." But she elaborated on that theme today, saying she sees energy independence and fighting global warming
as "my flagship issue." She said she would use her power to resist a policy that could increase the country's oil dependency.
"I'm not going to be diverted for a political tactic from a course of action that has a big-picture view - a vision about an
energy independent future that reduces our dependence on fossil fuels ... and focuses on those renewables that are
protective of the environment," she said. Republicans are quietly gleeful at Pelosi's tactics, which have only breathed more life
into an issue the GOP is clinging to as a lifeline in an otherwise grim year for the party. Some House Republicans said today
that they will ask Bush to order a special session of Congress in August if lawmakers adjourn this week, as expected, without
voting on drilling. While a special session is unlikely, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, made clear that his party
plans to use the issue as a bludgeon against Democrats throughout the five-week August recess. "A solid majority of
Americans want us to have more drilling for more American-made energy, and they aren't going to take no for an answer,"
Boehner said today. "Speaker Pelosi, Senators (Harry) Reid and (Barack) Obama are defying the will of the American
people, and they're doing so at their own risk."
3
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
4
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
5
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
6
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
7
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
Global Warming !
Global warming will destroy us if we don’t act now
Paul Krugman, professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University, 8-1-08, Can This Planet Be Saved?, New
York Times, Op-Ed, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/opinion/01krugman.html?hp
In themselves, limits on offshore drilling are only a modest-sized issue. But the skirmish over drilling is the opening stage of
a much bigger fight over environmental policy. What’s at stake in that fight, above all, is the question of whether we’ll
take action against climate change before it’s utterly too late. It’s true that scientists don’t know exactly how much
world temperatures will rise if we persist with business as usual. But that uncertainty is actually what makes action so
urgent. While there’s a chance that we’ll act against global warming only to find that the danger was overstated, there’s also a
chance that we’ll fail to act only to find that the results of inaction were catastrophic. Which risk would you rather run?
Martin Weitzman, a Harvard economist who has been driving much of the recent high-level debate, offers some sobering
numbers. Surveying a wide range of climate models, he argues that, over all, they suggest about a 5 percent chance that world
temperatures will eventually rise by more than 10 degrees Celsius (that is, world temperatures will rise by 18 degrees
Fahrenheit). As Mr. Weitzman points out, that’s enough to “effectively destroy planet Earth as we know it.” It’s sheer
irresponsibility not to do whatever we can to eliminate that threat.
8
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
9
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
10
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
11
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
12
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
CA State DA Brink
California’s economy is on the brink
New York Times, 8-3-08, California Is Among States Struggling With Budgets,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/us/03budget.html?ref=us
Among states struggling with budget deficits brought on by a national economic slowdown and the subprime lending
crisis, California saw its problems brought into sharp relief last week. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered a
temporary pay cut to the federal minimum wage of $6.55 an hour for roughly 200,000 state workers, if the state controller
goes along with it, and the laying off of 10,000 more. Mr. Schwarzenegger, a Republican, said he would reimburse workers
for their full pay once the Legislature had finished the state budget, now several weeks overdue and about $17 billion in
the red. California is among the worst-hit states in the foreclosure crisis, and a record number of California
homeowners met with foreclosures last quarter — 121,341 defaults, up 125 percent from the second quarter of 2007,
according to DataQuick Information Systems. The state is also one of the few that require a two-thirds legislative majority
to pass a budget, which is particularly challenging with large deficits and unpopular cuts. Further, the state relies on
income taxes rather than property taxes for most of its revenues, a difficult formula in times when jobs are in short supply.
And the structure of the state’s budget, which is heavily leveraged and peppered with numerous mandatory spending
requirements approved as ballot measures by voters, makes it all the harder to balance. “Propositions have money mandates,”
said Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles and an expert on the state’s constitution. “So
much of the state is in hock, anyway.” The state has already made a 10 percent cut to its Medicaid reimbursement rate
and deferred payments to vendors. Mr. Schwarzenegger has called for 10 percent across-the-board reductions to all general
fund departments, and a sales tax increase may also be in the offing.
13
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
For the fourth time this summer Republicans stopped the Senate from taking up wide-ranging legislation that extends tax breaks
for teachers, businesses and parents and provides tax credits to an array of renewable energy entrepreneurs. Major business
groups, usual GOP allies, have implored Congress to act on the tax credits, many which expired at the end of last year or will run
out at the end of this year. But for many Republicans, it's a matter or principle and politics: many oppose what they say are new
tax increases to pay for parts of the package and nearly all say the Senate's only business now is acting on an energy bill that
promotes drilling and other measures to boost domestic oil supply. The White House, citing new taxes and other objections to the
bill, threatened a presidential veto. The vote Wednesday was 51-43, nine short of the 60 needed to begin floor debate. "All the
Republicans want to do is not pay for anything and we know the House would not accept that," said Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid, D-Nev., anticipating the defeat. But Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said his party sees a "need to dispose of the pending energy bill
to help bring down the price of gas at the pump before turning to other matters." The bill would extend some $18 billion worth of
renewable energy tax credits, helping out investors in wind and solar power, clean coal, plug-in electric vehicles and a variety of
others.
14
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
GOP is blocking tax credits on alternative energy to get oil drilling – plan eliminates it, allowing dems to
block OCS
Jim DiPeso, the policy director for Republicans for Environmental Protection, 8-3-08, Reckless and Feckless, Congress Sandbags
Renewables, http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/blogs/republican/renewable-energy-tax-incentives-55080301
Both Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress have professed their undying love for renewable energy resources. Their
affection, however, took a back seat to rock 'em, sock 'em partisan politics when the Senate failed to move legislation extending
various tax incentives for renewable resources. If the game of chicken goes on much longer, the tax incentives will expire at the
end of the year, and billions of dollars in wind, solar, and other clean energy investment capital is likely to go elsewhere, where
the politics are less toxic and the financial certainty more solid. Rather than putting money where their energy mouths are, both
parties are playing for political trophies. Reckless and feckless, that’s what they are. The reckless Republicans are blocking
important bills, such as the renewables incentives, as leverage to push for oil drilling floor votes, which polls show may play to
their advantage. The feckless Democrats are maneuvering to dodge oil drilling floor votes, which has the effect of sandbagging
important bills, such as the renewables incentives. They’re trying to run out the clock while they hope that the November election will
paint the whole town blue.
15
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
Assume, for the sake of argument, that within the next decade Iran manages to acquire a few crude nuclear weapons and that these
can be delivered by ballistic missiles within the Middle East and by clandestine means to the United States and Europe. Assume also
that Saudi Arabia and Turkey, out of fear or competitive emulation, also develop their own nuclear arsenals. How would
strategic interactions in this new world play out? During the Cold War, the small number of nuclear states meant that the
identity of any nuclear attacker would be obvious. Preparations could thus be made for retaliation, and this helped deter first
strikes. In a multipolar nuclear Middle East, however, such logic might not hold. For deterrence to work in such an
environment, there would have to be detection systems that could unambiguously determine whether a nuclear-armed ballistic
missile was launched from, say, Iran, Turkey, or Saudi Arabia. In earlier decades, the United States spent an enormous amount of
resources on over-the-horizon radars and satellites that could detect the origin of missile launches in the Soviet Union. But those
systems were optimized to monitor the Soviet Union and may not be as effective at identifying launches conducted from other
countries. It may be technically simple for the United States (or Israel or Saudi Arabia) to deploy such systems, but until they
exist and their effectiveness is demonstrated, deterrence might well be weak; it would be difficult to retaliate against a bomb that
has no clear return address. It gets worse. During the Cold War, most analysts considered it unlikely that nuclear weapons would be
used during peacetime; they worried more about the possibility of a nuclear conflict somehow emerging out of a conventional war.
That scenario would still be the most likely in a postproliferation future as well, but the frequency of conventional wars in the Middle
East would make it a less comforting prospect. If a nuclear-armed ballistic missile were launched while conventional fighting
involving non-nuclear-armed ballistic missiles was going on in the region, how confident would any government be that it could
identify the party responsible? The difficulty would be greater still if an airplane or a cruise missile were used to deliver the nuclear
weapon. One of the greatest fears about Iran's possible acquisition of nuclear weapons, moreover, is that Tehran might give
them to a terrorist group, which would dramatically increase the likelihood of their being used. Some argue that the Iranian
government would never condone such a transfer; others that it would. There is no way of knowing for sure.
16
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
Econ = Dead
The economy is dead and can’t be revived – 13 reasons
The Financial Times UK, 8-4-08, Only luck can save America's economy, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/db4d7196-61bb-11dd-
af94-000077b07658.html
The US economy may not be in recession, but this is the nearest thing. In spite of the recent fiscal stimulus, output grew less
than 2 per cent at an annual rate in the second quarter, slower than expected. That followed growth of 1 per cent in the
first quarter and a contraction (on revised numbers) of 0.2 per cent in the fourth quarter of 2007. A recession is usually
defined as two consecutive quarters of shrinking output. It has not happened yet, but it very well might in the next few quarters.
Even if it does not, that would be little consolation. Prospects for the second half of the year are poor. Some of the current
boost from the fiscal injection delivered last quarter will keep feeding through, but consumer spending, the hitherto
unstoppable engine of US growth, is stalling. The prices of food and petrol, together with still-tightening credit conditions
and a housing market that has not yet touched bottom, are weighing it down. Net exports were the main accelerator in
the second quarter - without that rise, in fact, output would have fallen, fiscal stimulus or no. But they cannot be relied on in
future because growth in Europe and elsewhere is going to be limited by, among other things, policymakers' worries about
inflation. Most forecasters are expecting a double-dip US slowdown - and the second dip could be a technical recession.
Regardless, the labour market is already behaving that way. Unemployment moved up to 5.7 per cent in July, the labour
department reported on Friday. Overtime is falling; involuntary part-time working is on the rise. Unemployment will climb
above 6 per cent next year. While it may be true that the US has seen much worse, this is no mere "mental recession". What
more can be done? The short answer is nothing. The policy options have narrowed almost to zero. The Federal Reserve
has already cut interest rates sharply - more than some think wise - and is having to assure the markets that it is keeping
an eye on inflation. In spite of the slowdown, consumer prices are rising at their fastest for almost 20 years. Crucially, this
has not embedded itself in expectations of permanently higher inflation. If that happens, and prices start pushing wages,
interest rates would have to go up. The recent poor numbers for output and jobs led markets not to expect that interest rates
will be cut further, but to hope that they will not be raised again just yet. Some fiscal room for manoeuvre would be good
right now - but precious little remains. The White House just updated its budget forecasts for next year. These pencil in a
deficit of nearly $500bn (£253bn, €321bn). This excludes roughly $80bn of war costs. It also makes incomplete allowance for
the fiscal component of the various housing-related bail-outs now in train. If Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the housing
agencies, are forced to draw on the full support that the Treasury, with the passage of the new housing bill, is empowered to
provide, add tens of billions more. A deficit of 5 per cent of gross domestic product next year is within reach. Looking farther
ahead, both presidential candidates are promising to cut taxes by thousands of billions of dollars over the next 10 years
(relative to the Bush administration's bogus baseline). Barack Obama, the Democratic contender, is calling for an additional
fiscal stimulus right now. Budget deficits should indeed rise sharply in recessions. In the US, this requires more forceful
intervention than in most European countries. Automatic fiscal stabilisers are less powerful in the US: the government is
smaller, and the tax base (lacking a value-added tax or equivalent) is less cyclically sensitive. States have to comply with
semi-binding balanced budget rules as well, which perversely tighten fiscal policy during recessions. California, in the midst
of the current slowdown, has been forced to sack thousands of workers and put state employees on the minimum wage. Even
so, further aggressive fiscal easing at the federal level would be risky. If the budget outlook starts to scare the markets
and interrupt the flow of foreign capital to the US, the dollar might fall abruptly - worsening the inflation risk and forcing
the Fed's hand on interest rates. The point at which fiscal easing becomes self-cancelling may not be far away. It is worth
remembering where the blame for this neutering of fiscal policy lies: squarely with the Bush administration. At the start of this
decade, the budget stood in surplus to the tune of 2.4 per cent of GDP. On unchanged policy, this was expected to grow to a
surplus of 4.5 per cent of GDP by 2008. This year's actual deficit of 3 per cent of GDP therefore represents a worsening of
more than 7 per cent of GDP, or roughly $1,000bn. Almost all of this deterioration is due to policy: to tax cuts, spending
increases, and their associated debt-service costs. That projected surplus was a priceless gift to the White House. It offered the
Bush administration ample scope for outlays on homeland security and other unforeseen priorities, and moderate tax cuts as
well, all within a budget balanced over the course of the business cycle. Instead, the administration knowingly opted for
outrageous fiscal excess - adding insult to injury with its phoney tax-cut sunset provisions, designed for no other purpose than
to disguise the long-term fiscal implications. Eight years on, this startling record of fiscal irresponsibility has all but taken
fiscal policy off the table as an available response to the slowdown. The US economy had better have luck on its side. Luck
is about all it has left.
17
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
Econ Low
Economy is weak – mortgage crisis, auto industry collapse
NYT, 8-4-08, VIKAS BAJAJ, Housing Lenders Fear Bigger Wave of Loan Defaults,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/04/business/04lend.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Homeowners with good credit are falling behind on their payments in growing numbers, even as the problems with mortgages
made to people with weak, or subprime, credit are showing their first, tentative signs of leveling off after two years of spiraling
defaults. The percentage of mortgages in arrears in the category of loans one rung above subprime, so-called alternative-A
mortgages, quadrupled to 12 percent in April from a year earlier. Delinquencies among prime loans, which account for most
of the $12 trillion market, doubled to 2.7 percent in that time. The mortgage troubles have been exacerbated by an
economy that is still struggling. Reports last week showed another drop in home prices, slower-than-expected economic
growth and a huge loss at General Motors. On Friday, the Labor Department reported that the unemployment rate in
July climbed to a four-year high. While it is difficult to draw precise parallels among various segments of the mortgage
market, the arc of the crisis in subprime loans suggests that the problems in the broader market may not peak for another
year or two, analysts said. Defaults are likely to accelerate because many homeowners’ monthly payments are rising rapidly.
The higher bills come as home prices continue to decline and banks tighten their lending standards, making it harder for people
to refinance loans or sell their homes. Of particular concern are “alt-A” loans, many of which were made to people with good
credit scores without proof of their income or assets. “Subprime was the tip of the iceberg,” said Thomas H. Atteberry,
president of First Pacific Advisors, a investment firm in Los Angeles that trades mortgage securities. “Prime will be far
bigger in its impact.” In a conference call with analysts last month, James Dimon, the chairman and chief executive of
JPMorgan Chase, said he expected losses on prime loans at his bank to triple in the coming months and described the
outlook for them as “terrible.”
18
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
19
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
Economy = Resilient
Even if government policies are hurting the economy, the private sector is resilient
Rodrigue Tremblay Online Journal, 8-4-08, The U.S. economy and bad government policies,
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_3575.shtml
There have been many policy missteps over the last 20 some years, and this has amounted to a mismanagement of the
U.S. economy. The result has been an unhealthy mixture of greed, shortsightedness and market manipulation. And now, all the
chickens are coming home to roost and the crisis is deepening. This does not mean that the private side of the U.S. economy
is not resilient and strong. It only means that government policies have often been misguided and have damaged the
private economy and hurt the people economically.
20
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
21
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
22
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
Econ Brink
Economy is growing and stabilizing, but faces difficulties
AFP, 8-1-08, Paulson sees US economy still growing this year, http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iE-ObRDGruw_UuQ6i4-
G8TTt_Bxw
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said Thursday he expects "moderate" growth in the US economy this year and some
stability returning to the housing market in a matter of months. The top US economic official made his comments after
data showed a 1.9 percent growth pace in the second quarter lifted by an economic stimulus plan and exports, but with
some analysts still worried about a possible recession. "While our economy faces substantial difficulties that will continue to
be a drag on growth in the short term, it is important to remember that our long-term fundamentals are strong," he said in a
Washington speech. "Recognizing the challenges ahead of us, I expect our economy to continue growing this year although
at a moderate pace. We are making progress although not in a straight line; housing continues to be at the heart of our
economic challenges and remains our most significant downside risk." Paulson was relatively upbeat on prospects for a
recovery in the battered housing market after the worst slump in decades. He said the market will be helped by the recently
enacted housing rescue package aimed at helping homeowners refinance and adding liquidity to the sector, but suggested
there appears to be some light at the end of the tunnel.
23
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
Econ - Growing
US Economy is growing
Mercopress, 8-1-08, US economy picks up but Governors give different picture,
http://www.mercopress.com/vernoticia.do?id=14123&formato=HTML
"Clearly the stimulus plan has supported the US economy during this difficult period and couldn't have been timelier," said
US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Without that extra government spending, which added almost 4% to the economy
that quarter, it is feared that growth would have been negative. Analysts are now concerned about what will happen to the US
when the benefit of the stimulus package, which gave tax rebates to 130 million households, has passed. The US Treasury
Secretary Henry Paulson said he expects the economy to continue growing this year and "to return to stronger growth
next year and beyond".
24
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
25
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
No Israel Strikes
Israel won’t strike – rhetoric is all psychological
Eli Hoffmann, Seeking Alpha Editor, 8-3-08, Don't Bet on an Iran War - Barron's, http://seekingalpha.com/article/88776-don-t-bet-
on-an-iran-war-barron-s
Despite Israel's saber-rattling, Barron's says the threat of an Israel or U.S. attack on Iran is negligible. George Friedman,
founder and head of highly-respected (and prescient) Stratfor global-intelligence company notes: The Iran-attack story
gained widespread credence after the New York Times reported June 20 that more than 100 Israeli aircraft had participated
several weeks earlier in a military exercise over the eastern Mediterranean, near Greece. The distance from Israel was roughly
900 miles, the same as that separating Israel from Iran, and the exercise was viewed as a trial run for a strike against Iran's
nuclear facilities. Just a day later, the Times of London quoted Israeli military sources who confirmed the "dress rehearsal"
nature of the exercise, while a story in the Jerusalem Post alluded to previous statements made by Israeli intelligence officials
who said Iran would cross an unspecified nuclear threshold in 2008, not 2009, as expected. The saber-rattling by unnamed
officials smacks of psychological warfare to Friedman, however -- not preparations for the real thing. "Why would Israel
telegraph its punch like that?" he asks. "Recall that when Israel took out Iraq's Osirak reactor back in 1981, it was
successful precisely because it gave no hint at all of an impending attack." An attack on Iran would essentially close the
Strait of Hormuz until the area was de-mined, which could easily drive crude prices "to more than $300 a barrel, which even
over a short period would be cataclysmic to the global economy and stock markets." Ahmadinejad has recently toned down
his anti-Western rhetoric, while the U.S. has softened its stance. Besides which, Friedman says, Iran is decades away from
developing credible nuclear weaponry - and by all measures may never get there. Lacking Western know-how, the best it can
hope for down the road would be a controlled explosion of a crude device. Barron's says cooler heads will prevail, and the
end game is closer than most imagine.
26
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
27
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
28
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
No Pol Cap
The White House wants the American public to think it's on the rebound, scoring important triumphs in Iraq and North
Korea and on domestic spying while taking tough stands on oil drilling and relief for homeowners. The White
House, the experts and the polls say, however, is wrong. President Bush hasn't begun a comeback. ''All this is pretty
much a lot of noise. He's going out with a whimper,'' said Erwin Hargrove, presidential scholar at Vanderbilt University and the author
of The Effective President. Adam Warber, professor of political science at Clemson University, had similar thoughts. ''It's very
difficult for him now. His public approval is so poor, he doesn't really have a lot of political capital,'' Warber said.
Congress is run by Democrats reluctant to give Bush any domestic victories, and his approval ratings have remained at or
near a dismal 30 percent for about a year. Bush is the nation's fifth lame duck since the 22nd Amendment limited presidents to
two terms, beginning with Harry Truman's successor in 1952. One was Richard Nixon, who resigned because of Watergate-related
scandals 19 months into his second term. The others left office with strong approval ratings. Bill Clinton's was 59 percent in
a July 2000 Gallup poll. Ronald Reagan's number when he left office was 64 percent. Dwight D. Eisenhower hit 59 percent approval
just before stepping down. Bush's achievements, which are fueling the White House PR machine, flow from his recent tendency to
compromise more on national security issues. In recent weeks Bush: • Discussed with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki what the
White House called ''a general time horizon'' for cutting the number of American troops in Iraq. Bush said he wasn't endorsing
timetables, which he has long opposed. • Took North Korea, which he once labeled part of an ''axis of evil,'' off the list of terrorism
sponsors and loosened trade sanctions after it agreed to provide details of its nuclear program. • Won congressional approval of $162
billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, though only after including new college aid for military veterans that he'd opposed. • Won
his bid to renew the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, including the controversial provision that could allow immunity for
telecommunications firms that participated in warrantless wiretaps. • Ended the executive ban on drilling off most U.S. coastlines. •
Tried to reassure the public, in his first news conference since April, that he understood their economic pain and was working to ease
it. Bush was upbeat recently as he recalled his recent string of accomplishments. 'People say, `Aw, man, you're running out of time.
Nothing's going to happen,' '' he said. He rattled off his list and looked ahead. ''What can we get done?'' he asked. ``We can get good
housing legislation done. We can get good energy legislation done. We can get trade bills done. And there's plenty of time to get action
with the United States Congress.'' But outside the White House, few were as optimistic. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
dismissed Bush's energy policies, saying, ''Really, the president's done nothing.'' His call for more drilling, Reid
said, ``underlines and underscores that the main organization he's trying to help are the oil companies.'' Congress
needs to approve any end to the drilling ban, and with Democratic leaders opposed, that's unlikely. There are more ominous signs for
Bush that his power remains diluted. This week, Congress overrode his veto of Medicare legislation, and in the House
of Representatives, Republicans, who fear a rout in November's elections, put some polite distance between
themselves and the White House. ''You want the president involved, but in the context of the election, he's not on the ballot,''
said Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., the House chief deputy Republican whip. ``Our candidates are on the ballot.'' Next week, Congress is
expected to consider help for faltering housing markets, including a rescue plan for mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Some conservative Republicans are wary, saying the bill could become costly to taxpayers. Passage is expected, but it won't come
easily. Analysts say that unless the president's approval rating jumps -- unlikely as long as the economy wobbles
and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars continue -- his clout is likely to remain diminished. ''It's not clear he's turned
anything around, so the current view of him will probably endure for a while,'' said Bruce Buchanan, professor of
government at the University of Texas.
29
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
Vice President Dick Cheney, head of the presidential task force studying our energy needs, favors building new nuclear power plants -
and he's oddly casual about it. The industry has been moribund in this country since the partial meltdown at Three Mile
Island more than two decades ago set off fierce emotional resistance to an unreliable technology capable of
accidentally spreading deadly radiation. No new plants have been ordered since then. Only 20 percent of our
electricity is generated by nuclear power. But President Bush has instructed Cheney to look into the prospect of resurrecting and
developing nuclear power as a major part of a broad new energy policy. Cheney argues that modern, improved reactors operate safely,
economically and efficiently. "It's one of the safest industries around," he says unequivocally. There remains, however, a little
problem of how to dispose of the plants' radioactive waste. Cheney concedes that issue is still unsolved. "If we're
going to go forward with nuclear power, we need to find a way to resolve it," he said Sunday in an NBC "Meet The Press" interview.
No state wants to be the repository of the more than 40,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste currently
accumulating at 103 commercial reactor sites around the country. This spent fuel is so deadly it can remain a potential threat to
public health and safety for thousands of years. A leak could silently contaminate many miles of groundwater that millions of people
depend on. In 1987, Congress designated Nevada's Yucca Mountain, 90 miles from Las Vegas, as the most likely
site to bury the dangerous stuff. But furious Nevada officials, using all their political clout, have thus far
managed to fend off final federal approval. Recently they sharply challenged the scientific integrity of a feasibility study that
found the location suitable for long-term storage. Former Sen. J. Bennett Johnston, D-La., is the author of what the state's
congressional delegation calls the "screw Nevada" bill recommending Yucca Mountain. Last December Bush, looking for a
friendly Democrat to include in his Cabinet, considered selecting Johnston, now a nuclear industry lobbyist, as secretary of
energy. But Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., publicly warned that he would rally environmental groups and other nuclear
opponents for a classic nomination fight. Reid bluntly said he would "do everything I can" to keep Johnston from the energy
post. Johnston wisely withdrew his name from contention. Former Sen. Spencer Abraham, who got the job instead, has been less
identified with Nevada's fate but is believed to back its selection for storage as an essential step toward future nuclear power
development. An alternate waste site was suggested in Utah on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation. It was
promoted as a temporary location for the waste casks for several years until the Yucca Mountain facility can be built. But Utah's
political leaders don't want their state to warehouse the waste either. Not for a day. Not for a minute. And conservative
Utah has considerable influence with Bush, who has promised to veto any legislation that allows temporary storage. "Nobody
wants this waste," acknowledges Frank Murkowski, RAlaska, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
"It is a highly politicized issue. If you throw it up in the air, it is going to come down somewhere." Two places it is
not likely to come down are Texas, Bush's home state, and Wyoming, where Cheney grew up from age 13 on. The vice president
scowled when he was asked if he would be willing to put the waste in either of those two states. He ducked the issue, echoing
Murkowski that "it will have to be put someplace." Environmentalists, already angry at Bush for permitting logging in federal
parks and other anti-conservation policy decisions, are preparing for a noisy political battle over the Bush
administration's interest in expanding nuclear power. Federal officials estimate that electricity demand will rise 45 percent
over the next two decades and require the construction of more than 1,300 new power plants, some of which may be nuclear reactors.
No specific plans, however, have yet surfaced. Cheney refused to get into the numbers game, saying only that he would like to see the
percentage of electricity produced by nuclear power "go up." The Bush administration figures that the current rush for new energy
sources will make nuclear power easier to sell a nervous public than in the past. But they may figure wrong. From time to time,
this country goes through a political spasm in which we declare an energy emergency, predicting terrible shortages if we don't
do something fast. So far, we have preferred patchwork solutions like voluntary conservation to a growing dependency
on nuclear power. It's just too scary a prospect.
30
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
The report is not without value. Though the document was hatched in secret, it could well stimulate an open debate on the
country's energy future. More specifically, it proposes some long-overdue capital spending on the country's
transmission lines and natural-gas pipeline system. In a nod to the conservationists whom Vice President Dick Cheney has
been belittling, it offers hefty tax credits for hybrid cars that run on gasoline and electricity. In addition, the report
promises to study possible increases in the fuel economy of the nation's fleet of cars and light trucks -- though nobody really
expects Mr. Bush to risk any political capital on changes that the automobile industry opposes and Congress
itself has refused to make.
31
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
Yucca – Costs PC
Repealing waste limitations on Yucca would collapse Bush’s political capital
Marianne Means, past chairman of the National Press Foundation, a founding member of the International Women's Media, April 12,
2001, Bush, Cheney Will Face Wall of Opposition If They Try To Resurrect Nuclear Power, Hearst Newspapers,
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0412-05.htm
No state wants to be the repository of the more than 40,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste currently
accumulating at 103 commercial reactor sites around the country. This spent fuel is so deadly it can remain a
potential threat to public health and safety for thousands of years. A leak could silently contaminate many miles of
groundwater that millions of people depend on. In 1987, Congress designated Nevada's Yucca Mountain, 90 miles from Las Vegas,
as the most likely site to bury the dangerous stuff. But furious Nevada officials, using all their political clout, have thus far
managed to fend off final federal approval. Recently they sharply challenged the scientific integrity of a feasibility study that
found the location suitable for long-term storage. Former Sen. J. Bennett Johnston, D-La., is the author of what the state's
congressional delegation calls the "screw Nevada" bill recommending Yucca Mountain. Last December Bush, looking for a friendly
Democrat to include in his Cabinet, considered selecting Johnston, now a nuclear industry lobbyist, as secretary of
energy. But Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., publicly warned that he would rally environmental groups and other nuclear
opponents for a classic nomination fight. Reid bluntly said he would "do everything I can" to keep Johnston
from the energy post. Johnston wisely withdrew his name from contention. Former Sen. Spencer Abraham, who got the job
instead, has been less identified with Nevada's fate but is believed to back its selection for storage as an essential step toward future
nuclear power development. An alternate waste site was suggested in Utah on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation.
It was promoted as a temporary location for the waste casks for several years until the Yucca Mountain facility can be built. But
Utah's political leaders don't want their state to warehouse the waste either. Not for a day. Not for a minute. And
conservative Utah has considerable influence with Bush, who has promised to veto any legislation that allows temporary storage.
"Nobody wants this waste," acknowledges Frank Murkowski, RAlaska, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee. "It is a highly politicized issue. If you throw it up in the air, it is going to come down somewhere."
Two places it is not likely to come down are Texas, Bush's home state, and Wyoming, where Cheney grew up from age 13 on. The
vice president scowled when he was asked if he would be willing to put the waste in either of those two states. He ducked the issue,
echoing Murkowski that "it will have to be put someplace."
32
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
Any Democrat who wanted to support Yucca would have to deal with Harry Reid, the party's Senate Majority Leader
and the responsible party for the early caucus date. He was calling Bush a liar over Yucca long before he opposed him on
Iraq. "I have spent 20 years fighting the absurd idea that massive quantities of deadly nuclear waste can be
transported across thousands of miles," Reid has said. And Bush, he told the New Yorker, "started out on a real bad foot with
me because of Yucca Mountain." The president had run promising to consider "sound science" before supporting Yucca, but now
signed off on the project rather than wait. In 2002, Reid told Bush in an Oval Office meeting: "You sold out on this." Six years later,
the next step to establishing Yucca just may play a role in the 2008 general election. It's a license application
that will fall smack in the middle of the presidential race next summer. The U.S. government will consider a 10,000-
page application and decide whether to grant permission to go ahead.
33
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid faced more pressure to ease a congressional ban on expanded
offshore drilling for oil, as both Republicans and Democrats sought to show they are responding to high energy
prices in an election year. Sen. Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said he is ready to move a bill targeting what he called "greedy
speculators," which would give the Commodity Futures Trading Commission greater authority to regulate energy futures, particularly
over-the-counter swaps markets and foreign exchanges operating in the U.S. But Republicans said they may try to block that
legislation if it doesn't include measures to allow new domestic oil production. Sen. Reid suggested Tuesday he might agree to
at least allow votes on the drilling issue. "We're happy to take a look at a number of different approaches," he said.
"If we get on to the speculation bill, we'll take a look at ways to amend that." With several polls showing a rise in
public support for more drilling offshore, Republicans are hammering away at the issue, starting with seeking to open
long-closed areas on the outer continental shelf, where the government says an estimated 18 billion barrels of oil and several trillion
cubic feet of natural gas lie undiscovered.
34
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
But changes in military technology are also shaping the challenges of the future. More accurate and longer-range
weaponry is proliferating. New reconnaissance systems promise to give commanders an unrivalled view of any future battlefield.
The tempo and range of future combat may be very different. The US remains the technological leader, but it needs to use this
advantage in new ways. Vested interests Fundamental change, though, in the Pentagon is a matter as much of culture as of
planning. Each of America's armed forces represents a huge bureaucracy of vested interests. The US needs more joint
effort between the services and less duplication. To take on such interests, President Bush has chosen a strong team, not least Defence
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, a veteran Pentagon insider. This administration is full of inside military knowledge; from Colin Powell -
a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - at the State Department, and Vice-President Dick Cheney, a former defence secretary.
Fundamental defence reform is not going to be an easy brief. It will require an extraordinary investment of
political capital. Some defence experts believe that Mr Bush may have much more success in the nuclear field, where
there may be a significant shift away from regarding Russia as the benchmark for constructing America's own nuclear forces. Painful
choices But in the conventional field, where every weapons system has its supporters in both the services and on
Capitol Hill, difficult choices will quickly become painful choices. The bottom line, as ever, is the dollar. Mr Bush has
given strong backing to missile defence, which could eat up funding. Defence reform is going to need new money. Some
$30 to $35bn in additional money may be needed in the 2002 fiscal year. But that will not be enough to bring about the military
revolution that Mr Bush has effectively promised.
George Bush released his annual budget plan today, prompting disdain from congressional Democrats who chastised the
president for again fudging the costs of the Iraq war and tax cuts in order to claim he could erase the US deficit. The
$3.1 trillion budget would increase US military spending for the 11th straight year while slicing about $200bn
from the social security and Medicare programs that aid older Americans. The budget deficit under Bush's proposal
would balloon to $410bn this year - more than twice as much as 2007 - before achieving balance in 2012. That claim of a balanced
budget hinges on only $70bn in spending on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, an estimate that even White House aides acknowledge
they will exceed during the next fiscal year. The Bush budget also fails to account for the growth of the alternative
minimum tax, which Congress must adjust every year to avoid leaving middle-class Americans with a huge tax bill. By contrast,
Bush assumes that the Democrats who control Congress would cement his legacy by permanently extending individual and corporate
tax cuts, which are likely to expire for the wealthiest taxpayers. Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid, leading a chorus of
alarm in his party, called the Bush budget "fiscally irresponsible and highly deceptive". "In the face of a
looming recession, the president's budget does nothing to strengthen our economy, and fails to respond to the
real problems facing middle-class families," the Democrat said in a statement. Barack Obama, hoping to win the Democrats'
presidential nod this spring, used the budget's rosy projection of indefinite tax cuts to hammer the Republicans' likely nominee. "The
fact that John McCain, who once opposed these tax cuts, now embraces them, tells the American people all they need to know about
the choice they face in this election," Obama said through a spokesman. The presidential budget traditionally serves as a guide for
Congress in its decisions over spending levels for government programmes. But Democrats have neither willingness nor compelling
reason to meet Bush halfway during his last year in office. The majority party is likely to set separate priorities, focusing more on
social programmes than the White House. Revealing the extent of Bush's diminished political capital, even members
of his own party gave the budget little credence. Judd Gregg, the senior Republican on the Senate budget committee,
released a statement that pointed out where the president fell short. "Any budget, to be effective, needs to address the unsustainable
growth of entitlement spending, which is the single biggest factor contributing to the long-term fiscal crisis we face," Gregg said. "A
35
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
budget also needs to honestly address the numbers contributing to its bottom line, such as fully funding the expected costs of the war
on terror."
36
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
To do that will require enormous political capital. On the verge of a spectacular victory in Iraq, Bush may have that capital
within his reach. But it ain't over till it's over, and Bush is entirely aware that while the war in Iraq rages, the
American public and American markets will be on an emotional roller coaster. But his priorities are clear. He told us,
"I'm not going to let the stock market drive the war. Tommy Franks drives the war." But if this war concludes as favorably as it
looks like it just might, then Bush is going to emerge with all the political capital he needs. And he told us that he's
committed to spending it. He told us that a president "is only here for a short while," and has to spend his political capital on "big
projects." For the economy, Bush told us that means no less than a vision to "forever change this country into 'entrepreneurial heaven.'’
37
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
There can be no one left who thinks that yesterday's elections in Iraq will have ended the political instability in the Middle East. It is
now assumed even by the US military leadership that the forces in Iraq cannot be significantly decreased for years. There is going
to be more and more political pressure to achieve energy independence rather than face the prospect of endless
military occupations of sources of oil. The closest thing to an independence plan produced by the Bush
administration or the energy industry is the hydrogen economy. The idea is to convert our vehicles, ships, and aircraft to
burn the pollution free fuel in various forms. It would solve a problem, but it could take 20 years or so.
38
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
President Bushis promoting the use of nuclear power plants to generate electricity. It seems a political choice.
Investing in nuclear power plants can be attempted only by very large corporations, of the kind that are in his
support base. They belong to a very exclusive big-money club, and there are many billions of dollars at stake. But to
belong, one also has to be willing to forget Three Mile Island, to forget market economics, nuclear proliferation, radioactive waste
and, in particular, to forget nuclear terrorism. The nuclear industry, unlike, say, the automobile industry, is not a self-
sufficient, commercial industry. From its inception in the late 1950's, the commercial nuclear power enterprise in this country
developed a dual personality, as it were. It is schizophrenic. It had to be, and is entirely dependent on agencies of the federal
government. The reason is that what makes a nuclear power plant "nuclear" is its fissionable fuel, and nuclear fuel is radioactive.
Because radioactive materials are toxic, and concerns of national security, the government today has to be a party to every phase of
nuclear power generation, from beginning to end.
39
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
Nuclear power offers a safe and economical way to meet anticipated growth in American energy demand, according to an October
2006 report by the Progressive Policy Institute, a policy arm of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). The report, "A
Progressive Energy Platform," praises nuclear power as a key weapon against asserted global climate change and air
quality concerns. "Nuclear power holds great potential to be an integral part of a diversified energy portfolio for
America," the report states. "It produces no greenhouse gas emissions, so it can help clean up the air and combat climate change."
New Technological Advances Key to the DLC's support for nuclear power are technological advances that
substantially improve on an already impressive safety and environmental record. "New plant designs promise to
produce power more safely and economically than first-generation facilities," the report explains. "For example, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) has certified three new designs that would use significantly fewer pumps, pipes, valves, and cables
than first-generation facilities. "That will reduce the plants' complexity, making them easier to inspect and maintain,"
the report continues. "From a safety perspective, the new plants rely on natural forces such as gravity, natural circulation, and
condensation, assuring safe shutdown even in the event of an accident." The report also notes further advances in nuclear plant
design. "In addition to these three new approved designs," the report adds, "at least four other designs may soon win NRC approval.
Among these is the promising modular, 'pebble bed' reactor design. As the name suggests, these smaller plants would use hundreds of
thousands of uranium pebbles rather than large cores to generate power. As researchers at MIT recently concluded, these pebbles burn
more completely than their traditional counterparts." Deregulation Needed The report stresses, however, that technological advances
such as pebble bed reactors require a great deal of time to navigate through regulatory processes and actually get built. As a result, the
report encourages Democrats to take action now to remove regulatory hurdles that slow the development and construction process. "It
will take time to bring these next-generation facilities online. Progressives should support efforts to expedite the process," the report
urges. "We certainly welcome the Progressive Policy Institute support," Nuclear Energy Institute spokesman Steve Kerekes said. "It
reflects the fact that there is considerable bipartisan support for nuclear energy and there has been such support for a long time. "We
anticipate this report will have a positive impact among Democrats and among citizens as a whole," Kerekes added. "Support for
clean, safe, and economical nuclear power continues to build all across America." Political Landscape in Flux The
DLC's support for nuclear power may undermine efforts by U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to block
completion of the Yucca Mountain storage facility for spent nuclear fuel. On December 7 Reid's clerk, Drew Wilson, told
attendees at a nuclear power conference that Reid "is not going to change" his opposition to Yucca Mountain and that he will do
whatever he can to block legislation that would assist completion of the facility. "It won't be moving for long if the majority leader is
controlling the agenda," Wilson said of any proposed Yucca Mountain legislation. While the project "is not proceeding at the pace we
would like," Kerekes said, he expects DLC support for nuclear power to minimize Reid's influence in blocking Yucca
Mountain progress. "Harry Reid has acknowledged in the past that he alone cannot kill the program," said
Kerekes. "There is broad public support for nuclear power," Kerekes continued. "And until Yucca comes online, used fuel
must be stored in many places around the country, against the wishes of citizens who desire one safe, centralized storage facility."
40
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
Nuclear – McCain
McCain and GOP control nuclear power – they support it strongly compared to Obama and dems
David Kestenbaum, Correspondent, Science Desk, July 21, 2008, NPR, Nuclear Power A Thorny Issue For Candidates,
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92690120
Nuclear power doesn't usually make for an applause line in a stump speech, but it has come up on the campaign trail. Both
Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain see it as a way to combat climate change, though they've sometimes chosen their
words with care. Of the two, McCain is the most comfortable with the topic. As a Navy pilot, he landed on aircraft
carriers, which today are essentially floating nuclear-powered cities. McCain calls nuclear "one of the cleanest,
safest and most reliable energy sources on Earth." "If we want to arrest global warming, then nuclear energy is a powerful,
powerful ally in that cause," he said in a May speech. McCain's enthusiasm for nuclear has put him in unusual territory for a
Republican: He's been praising the French, who generate 80 percent of their power from nuclear. Obama's
position is also somewhat unusual for a Democrat: He thinks nuclear power might be a good idea. The question came up during
an early Democratic primary debate. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards went first, saying he did not favor nuclear
power. Obama went next. "I actually think we should explore nuclear power as part of the mix," he said, before pivoting to solar
energy, a much safer topic.
41
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
42
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
NASA – PC links
Funding NASA costs pol cap
Andrew Lawler, senior writer with Science Magazine and Freelance Journalist, 12 December 2003, Science: Vol. 302. no. 5652, p.
1873HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT: Bush Plan for NASA: Watch This Space,
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/302/5652/1873?ck=nck
Congressional aides and other observers warn that any new mission will have to fit into an agency budget already strained by repairs
to the space shuttle, the completion of the space station, and a new series of technologically advanced planetary probes, not to mention
development of a shuttle alternative. NASA should first resolve the problems facing the shuttle and station systems,
they say. "We've gotten so far into a hole in the past 30 years, it will take a lot of money and political capital to
get us out before you go searching for something new," says George Washington University political scientist John
Logsdon, a member of the panel that reviewed the Columbia accident.
Expanding NASA costs pol cap – Columbia, war on terror, and deficits
Andrew Lawler, senior writer with Science Magazine and Freelance Journalist, 12 December 2003, Science: Vol. 302. no. 5652, p.
1873HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT: Bush Plan for NASA: Watch This Space,
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/302/5652/1873?ck=nck
U.S. space enthusiasts are blessed and cursed by President John F. Kennedy's 1961 call to go to the moon by the end of the decade.
Although his bold vision was realized, other presidents have had less luck winning support for human space flight. President Ronald
Reagan's 1984 proposal to build a space station has taken vastly more time, money, and political capital than
anticipated, and President George H. W. Bush's 1989 plan to return to the moon and land on Mars never left the ground. Now
Bush's son is pondering whether to propose a dramatic new direction for NASA in the wake of February's
Columbia accident. Sources say that a small team of senior White House and federal agency officials has finished work on a
tightly held set of options for the president. But in a Washington focused on the war against terrorism, rising federal
deficits, and the 2004 election campaign, any human space flight proposal faces skepticism--or worse. NASA
Administrator Sean O'Keefe has already battled skeptics in the Administration--and lost. White House officials say that O'Keefe
pushed this fall for a dramatic increase in the agency's $15 billion budget to begin work that would ultimately lead to human Mars
missions. But that high price tag--$5 billion annually for at least the next 4 years, according to those sources--was
rejected as unrealistic.
43
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
NASA - PC Link
Funding NASA costs political capital
Frank Sietzen Jr., UPI staff writer, 2004, NASA Faces Final Budget Debate, UPI, http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nasa-04zm.html
Washington DC (UPI) Sep 16, 2004 If NASA's battle over its fiscal year 2005 budget were a baseball game, it now
would be in bottom of the eighth inning with score tied -- and Congress at bat. Having failed to win House of
Representatives approval for funding of President Bush's ambitious plan to send astronauts back to the moon and on to Mars,
NASA now faces a similar battle next week in the Senate. There, the appropriations subcommittee that reviews the budgets of
the Veterans Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and independent agencies -- including NASA --
likewise may not approve new funds for the Bush space plan. If this happens, and Congress fails to include the $866 million
requested by the administration in its final legislation, it would effectively kill all of the new space projects the president has sought.
This latest cliff-hanger was triggered last week by tight spending limits imposed on subcommittee appropriators.
Shortfalls in the VA, housing and loan-guarantee budget areas have left the chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Kit Bond, R-Mo., with
insufficient room to cover the needs of the agencies under his purview. NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe once told United
Press International he considered these maneuvers a political game of chicken. He may well be right about that. At stake
are potential billions of dollars in development contracts for the U.S. aerospace firms that would design and
manufacture the new space vehicles, equipment, robots and launching rockets for the Bush space plan. NASA already has started the
countdown to release of a January 2005 request for proposals for the new moonship -- called the crew exploration vehicle or CEV --
as well as the booster rocket to lift it into space. Last week, the agency awarded some $27 million in study contracts to
11 firms -- including Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and smaller businesses and non-profits -- to start planning
the lunar missions and related scientific research programs. Those funds came out of unspent money remaining in fiscal
year 2004, which ends Sept. 30. If the appropriations bill actually moves to the Senate floor for a vote, it could
trigger the first serious political debate about space spending since the 1989 and 1990 fights over the International Space
Station. Those funding battles, which occurred under President George H.W. Bush, came within a single vote of
canceling the station before the administration prevailed. What was canceled, however, was another Bush 41 space
initiative -- a dream by the current president's father to send astronauts back to the moon and onward to Mars. The idea was less
detailed and developed than the project proposed by the current president, and it failed to pass either house of Congress and eventually
was abandoned. Regarding the latest funding effort, O'Keefe -- himself a former Senate staffer -- could forestall the budget ax if he
manages to prevent the appropriations bill from receiving a vote on the Senate floor and exploiting its tightly constrained calendar.
Time is running out before the pre-election congressional recess, so any unfinished business would be held over until the post-election,
lame-duck Congress returns. Such a strategy would mirror what happened in the House, where members of the coinciding
appropriations subcommittee killed Bush's new space exploration budget, but failed to move the corpse to the floor. Majority Leader,
Rep. Tom Delay, R-Texas, has vowed to block the bill from getting to the floor if it does not contain the requested money. Further
upping the ante, White House officials have let it be known the president would veto any space spending bill that excluded funds for
his new project. O'Keefe reminded senators on the appropriations subcommittee of this fact last week. O'Keefe also might have one
more budget trick up his sleeve: If either the House or the Senate fails to approve a separate space appropriations bill, he might urge
NASA's supporters in Congress to attempt to link it with other, uncompleted spending measures in a so-called omnibus bill. It might
even be possible, under this strategy, to add more funds in the House-Senate conference than either side had approved separately.
The move would be tricky, however, and it could be quite costly for O'Keefe in terms of political capital.
44
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
Blow after blow, the U.S. Senate Republican Steering Committee continues to block all legislation that benefits
Indian people. The Senate Republican Steering Committee is a small group of Senators who have been working together
to put secret "holds" on all legislation benefiting Indian tribes and Indian people. Indian Country has had strong ties to
the Republican Party through the Indian Self-Determination Policy and respect for the U.S. Constitution, which explicitly recognizes
the treaty rights, tribal sovereignty, religious freedom, and the shared values of federalism that encourage local decision-making.
Tribal leaders and the Republican Party share strong interests in law enforcement, economic development, energy, the military,
veterans, and many other issues. "At first we thought that it was coincidence that so many bills on Native issues were
being blocked by members of the Republican Steering Committee," said National Congress of American
Indians (NCAI) President Joe A. Garcia. "But it is clear now that it is not. NCAI is a non-partisan organization that has built
successful relationships on both sides of the aisle for many decades. It is a very small number of Republican Senators, but we must
address this obstructionism that stops all legislation no matter how bi-partisan and non-controversial."
45
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
AT: No spillover
Vote Switching is Real – ideology is minimal
Bond & Fleisher, Professor in Political Science - Texas A&M & Professor in Political Science - Fordham 19 96 (Jon R. and
Richard The President in Legislation) pg 54
In a previous study of presidential-congressional relations from Eisenhower to Ford, we found that ideological conflict
between the president and members of Congress was associated with lower support. In general, as ideological dif-
ferences increase, the president tends to lose support from members of both parties at about the same rate, although
support from the opposition is lower at all levels of ideological conflict (Bond and Fleisher 1980, 75). Thus ideological forces in
Congress often cause the formation of bipartisan coalitions to support or oppose the president's policy
preferences. These ideological forces help explain why majority presidents have only a limited advantage over
minority presidents in building majority support for their positions in Congress. Majority presidents inevitably experience
defections of partisans who have ideologies in conflict with theirs. Minority presidents, on the other hand, can frequently
build working majorities composed of their partisan base and like-minded members of the opposition. While political values shared
between the president and members of Congress provide an important linkage source, the effects of ideology are limited for
several reasons. First, most members of Congress are pragmatic politicians who do not have views and
preferences at the extremes of a liberal-conservative continuum. Because the typical American voter is not strongly ideological,
most representatives' electoral self-interest is probably best served by avoiding ideological extremes. As noted
above, ideology is a less important voting cue for moderates than it is for ideological extremists (Kingdon 1981,
268). Second, many votes that may be important to the president do not involve ideological issues. Distributive or
"porkbarrel" programs, for example, typically do not produce ideological divisions. Even conservatives who want to
cut domestic spending and liberals who want to reduce defense spending work to protect domestic and defense programs in their
districts. Presidents who attempt to tamper with these programs are likely to find few friends in Congress, as President Carter
discovered when he opposed several water projects in 1977, and as President Reagan discovered when he vetoed the highway bill in
1987. Finally, ideological voting blocs are relatively informal coalitions composed of individuals who have
similar values. The "conservative coalition" of Republicans and southern Democrats, for example, appears on certain votes and
sometimes has a significant influence on the outcome of floor votes (Shelley 1983; Brady and Bullock 1980; Manley 1973). But this
coalition of conservatives has no formal organization with elected leaders to serve as a communication and
information center. Although there are several ideologies.
Furthermore, surely no single issue has contributed more to the Bush administration’s ability to pursue a hard-right
agenda than the war on terror—the political capital afforded by that issue has been the main reason Bush has
been, until recently, so successful in turning the country to the right. But now that political capital has evaporated
precisely because of the Iraq War. Indeed, the most recent polls suggest that it will not be long before Bush’s approval rating on
handling terrorism dips below 40 percent, an extraordinary development. This lack of political capital means that the GOP now
has few options left with which to push its right-wing policies on a less and less interested public. That, in turn,
means that progressive policy views held by the public can more easily come to the fore and push the political
debate to the left.
46
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
No Spillover
Bush doesn’t believe capital spills over between issues
Andrew, LEE The Rose Institute of State & Local Government – Claremont McKenna College – Presented at the
Georgia Political Science Association 2005 Conference “Invest or Spend?:Political capital and Statements of
Administration Policy in the First Term of the George W. Bush Presidency,” http://a-
s.clayton.edu/trachtenberg/2005%20Proceedings%20Lee.pdf]
Instead of investing political capital, the president may spend it on an initiative. When spending political capital, the
president does not necessarily expect higher approval ratings. President Clinton’s first term actions to balance the budget
and normalize trade with China did not yield returns. In fact, balancing the budget in 1993 was a reason for the change of
congressional control from the Democrats to the Republicans (Panetta 2002, 201-02). In President Bush’s first term, he accrued a large
amount of capital from the September 11th attacks, and subsequently spent a substantial portion pursuing the Iraq war. Political
capital is not equal in all policy areas. Commenting on President Clinton’s term, President George W. Bush said, “I felt
like he tried to spend capital on issues that he didn't have any capital on at first, like health care” (quoted in
Suellentrop 2004). In spending political capital, the president diminishes his political strength by initiating or pushing a policy
proposal with no intent on return. A president can spend capital for noble goals such as a balanced budget, the end of Saddam
Hussein’s regime, or to veto legislation. The theory of political capital as it relates to SAPs is that presidents are more likely to spend
political capital through a presidential veto because they have the power to do so. In times of increased political capital, the relative
strength of SAP wording will also increase because the president has greater flexibility to take stands on particular issues. This
analysis is a case study of the first Bush term’s adherence to this hypothesis.
Presidential leadership skill operates at the margin because "members of Congress have their own political
needs and priorities, which the president, whoever he is, is mostly powerless to affect" (King 1983, 265).
In summary, the literature identifies political parties, political ideology, popularity with the public, and presidential
leadership skill as linkage agents that can serve as sources of presidential support in Congress. Each source is
characterized by inherent limitations, and there is no guarantee that the president will be able to exploit the
potential advantages to secure the votes he needs. Knowledge of the effects and limitations of the systematic forces that
influence congressional behavior provides a foundation for a theory to explain the linkage between the president and Congress.
Following is a theoretical framework built upon this knowledge.
47
Updates
DDI 2008 <KO>
Santa Claus
48