Thursday file 3-13

Thursday file 3-13 1

***NEG***................................................................................................................... 6
Min wage.................................................................................................................... 7
1nc econ................................................................................................................ 8
2nc - short o/v........................................................................................................ 11
1nc poverty......................................................................................................... 12
UQ.......................................................................................................................... 15
2nc wall............................................................................................................. 16
Ext public support............................................................................................. 18
Ext Obama pushing........................................................................................... 19
Ext GOP support................................................................................................ 20
Top of tha docket.................................................................................................. 21
a/t ACA thumper.................................................................................................. 22
a/t Hagel thumper................................................................................................ 24
i/l section................................................................................................................ 25
pc Key.................................................................................................................. 26
a/t winners win..................................................................................................... 28
pocaps real.......................................................................................................... 29
a/t Hirsch............................................................................................................. 30
Impacts.................................................................................................................. 31
K2 econ................................................................................................................ 32
2nc a/t cuts bad................................................................................................ 33
a/t hurts jobs........................................................................................................ 35
Ext - data............................................................................................................. 37
Global econ internal............................................................................................. 38
Growth Turns terror.............................................................................................. 39
Growth turns democracy...................................................................................... 40
CIR............................................................................................................................ 41
1nc will pass...................................................................................................... 42
2nc its a priority............................................................................................... 44
Iran........................................................................................................................... 45
1nc UQ.............................................................................................................. 46
2nc Obama still key........................................................................................... 47
2nc lobbyists pushing........................................................................................ 48
***Aff Answers.......................................................................................................... 49
PC Low.................................................................................................................... 50
A2 Top of the Docket.............................................................................................. 52
Winners Win........................................................................................................... 53
A2: Minimum Wage................................................................................................ 54
Wont Pass........................................................................................................... 55
Hurts Econ........................................................................................................... 56
A2: Solves Poverty............................................................................................... 57
A2: Hagel Budget................................................................................................... 58
Wont Pass........................................................................................................... 59
Doesnt Solve....................................................................................................... 60
A2: CIR................................................................................................................... 61
Wont Pass........................................................................................................... 62
PC Not Key........................................................................................................... 63

Doesnt Solve Econ.............................................................................................. 64

***OLD THURS FILES................................................................................................ 65
Thursday File 3-6.................................................................................................... 66
Negative................................................................................................................. 67
Ukraine IMF Package 1NC.................................................................................... 68
Yes Passage.......................................................................................................... 70
Pol Cap Key.......................................................................................................... 72
Ukraine- IMF Reform Package Key........................................................................73
AFF......................................................................................................................... 76
No IMF Reform..................................................................................................... 77
IMF Reform Not key.............................................................................................. 81
No Immigration Reform........................................................................................ 82
Executive Powers Solve....................................................................................... 84
No Trade Deal...................................................................................................... 85
No Tax Reform...................................................................................................... 86
No Iran Sanctions................................................................................................. 87
No Minimum Wage............................................................................................... 89
Yes GOP Midterms................................................................................................ 91
Healthcare Thumper............................................................................................ 92
Economy Thumper............................................................................................... 93
Immigration Reform Thumper.............................................................................. 94
Democrats Not Mobilized for Midterms................................................................95
Ukraine Thumper................................................................................................. 97
Yes Dems Midterms.............................................................................................. 98
Thursday File 2-27.................................................................................................. 101
NEGIran Sanctions............................................................................................... 102
Top Level.............................................................................................................. 103
1NC DA.............................................................................................................. 104
2NC OV.............................................................................................................. 107
2NC Credibility................................................................................................... 108
Uniqueness........................................................................................................... 110
2NC UQ.............................................................................................................. 111
AT: UQ Overwhelms............................................................................................ 113
AT: Veto.............................................................................................................. 117
AT: Reid Blocks................................................................................................... 119
AT: Fights Now.................................................................................................... 123
AT: Thumper Generic....................................................................................... 124
AT: Thumper Defense...................................................................................... 126
Internals............................................................................................................... 127
2NC PC Key........................................................................................................ 128
AT: Winners Win................................................................................................. 130
Impacts................................................................................................................ 131
2NC Iran Prolif.................................................................................................... 132
2NC North Korea................................................................................................ 138
AT: No Deal Collapse.......................................................................................... 141
AT: Cant Trust Iran............................................................................................. 142
AT: Sanction Key to Iranian Compliance.............................................................143
AT: Talks Fail....................................................................................................... 144
AT: Sanctions Good............................................................................................ 145
AT: No Strikes..................................................................................................... 150

AT: Waivers......................................................................................................... 154

NEGOther Bills..................................................................................................... 155
Immigration.......................................................................................................... 156
Will Pass............................................................................................................. 157
Minimum Wage.................................................................................................... 159
Will Pass............................................................................................................. 160
Ukraine................................................................................................................. 161
Wont Pass......................................................................................................... 162
AFFSpecifics........................................................................................................ 163
Immigration.......................................................................................................... 164
Wont Pass......................................................................................................... 165
Iran....................................................................................................................... 166
Reid Blocks......................................................................................................... 167
2AC Deal Fails.................................................................................................... 169
1AR Deal Fails Ext............................................................................................ 170
1AR Deal Fails AT: Press TV..............................................................................171
2AC No Prolif...................................................................................................... 172
2AC No Impact................................................................................................... 173
2AC No Strikes................................................................................................... 175
1AR No Strikes Ext........................................................................................... 176
1AR No Strikes AT: Kristol................................................................................ 178
Minimum Wage.................................................................................................... 179
Wont Pass......................................................................................................... 180
2AC Raise Bad.................................................................................................... 181
1AR Raise Bad Ext........................................................................................... 182
1AR Raise Bad Statistics..................................................................................184
TPA....................................................................................................................... 185
Wont Pass......................................................................................................... 186
Obama Not Pushing........................................................................................... 187
AT: Key to Trade.................................................................................................. 189
AFFGeneric.......................................................................................................... 192
Thumpers............................................................................................................. 193
Defense Budget................................................................................................. 194
Tax Reform......................................................................................................... 195
Winners Win......................................................................................................... 196
2AC W/W............................................................................................................ 197
1AR W/W Ext................................................................................................... 199
1AR W/W Foreign Policy................................................................................... 201
1AR W/W Bargaining....................................................................................... 202
Confrontation Good.............................................................................................. 203
2AC Fights Good................................................................................................. 204
1AR Fights Good Ext........................................................................................ 205
1AR Fights Good Inevitable.............................................................................207
PC Fails................................................................................................................. 208
2AC PC Fails....................................................................................................... 209
1AR PC Fails Ext............................................................................................... 210
1AR PC Fails AT: SOTU..................................................................................... 212
1AR PC Fails AT: PC Solves...............................................................................213
Misc Updates.......................................................................................................... 215
Midterms.............................................................................................................. 216

GOP Lose / Dems Win........................................................................................ 217

GOP Win / Dems Lose........................................................................................ 218
Thursday File 2-20-14 [Old].................................................................................... 220
*****General......................................................................................................... 221
2ac Iran Thumper............................................................................................... 222
2ac Immigration/Minimum Wage Thumper........................................................223
2ac No Pass Election Year................................................................................ 224
*****Immigration.................................................................................................. 225
***Neg.................................................................................................................. 226
Yes Pass............................................................................................................. 227
Yes Obama Push................................................................................................. 228
at: xo.................................................................................................................. 230
***Aff.................................................................................................................... 231
2ac No Pass........................................................................................................ 232
1ar No Pass -- Elections...................................................................................... 233
1ar No Pass Path to Citizenship.......................................................................235
1ar No Pass at: House Dems Force Vote..........................................................238
*****Iran............................................................................................................... 239
***Neg.................................................................................................................. 240
1nc..................................................................................................................... 241
No Pass.............................................................................................................. 242
Sanctions Kill Diplomacy.................................................................................... 243
***Aff.................................................................................................................... 244
2ac Must Have................................................................................................... 245
2ac UQ Overwhelms the Link............................................................................. 247
1ar UQ Overwhelms the Link.............................................................................249
1ar No Vote........................................................................................................ 251
2ac Diplomacy Fails/Sanctions Inevitable..........................................................252
1ar Diplomacy Fails/Sanctions Inevitable...........................................................253
*****TPA............................................................................................................... 254
***Neg.................................................................................................................. 255
1nc Econ............................................................................................................ 256
1nc Asia Pivot.................................................................................................... 259
2nc UQ Wall....................................................................................................... 262
2nc Thumpers.................................................................................................... 264
Yes Pass at: Reid.............................................................................................. 265
Yes Pass at: Pelosi............................................................................................ 267
Yes Pass at: Biden............................................................................................ 269
Yes Pass PC Key............................................................................................... 270
Yes Pass PC Controls UQ..................................................................................275
Yes Pass at: no push........................................................................................ 277
Yes Pass at: TPP............................................................................................... 279
2nc at: Minimum Wage Thumper.......................................................................280
2nc at: Iran Thumper......................................................................................... 281
2nc at: No Impact to TPA.................................................................................... 282
2nc TPA k2 Econ................................................................................................. 283
2nc Impact Decline = War...............................................................................286
2nc Internal Link Trade.................................................................................... 289
2nc Asia Pivot Extension.................................................................................... 290
2nc Asia Pivot Impact China War/Asian Stability.............................................295

2nc Asia Pivot Impact Allied Prolif...................................................................298

AT: Not Reverse Causal...................................................................................... 299
1nc EU soft power.............................................................................................. 302
Territorial Disputes............................................................................................. 304
Trade Impact Quick.......................................................................................... 306
1nc War.............................................................................................................. 307
The rise in.......................................................................................................... 308
Turns Case Escalation...................................................................................... 309
Turns Case Norms............................................................................................ 310
Turns Case Terrorism....................................................................................... 311
***Aff.................................................................................................................... 312
2ac No Pass........................................................................................................ 313
1ar No Pass........................................................................................................ 315
1ar No Pass Reid/Pelosi.................................................................................... 317
1ar No Pass No Vote........................................................................................ 319
1ar No Pass Europe......................................................................................... 321
2ac Thumpers.................................................................................................... 322
1ar Thumpers.................................................................................................... 323
1ar No Push/PC Fails........................................................................................... 324
1ar No I/L........................................................................................................... 326
2ac No Impact Trade........................................................................................ 329
2ac Asia Pivot..................................................................................................... 331
2ac China War.................................................................................................... 333
AT Solves Credibility........................................................................................... 334
Asia Prolif Inev................................................................................................... 335

***NEG***

Min wage

1nc econ

Minimum wage increase will pass now because of white house focus and
Obamas PC. Its key to swinging support from small businesses
Olson 3/10/14
(Minimum wage campaign gains White House, small biz support March 10, 2014 Elizabeth G. Olson is a cnn white
house correspondent http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2014/03/10/minimum-wage-increase/)kk

The push to increase the federal minimum wage is gathering steam as the
White House puts the issue front and center in the run-up to the fall elections.
And

supporters are positioning a wage bump as the best way to combat income

inequality . Last week, backers released a national poll of small business owners that
found that 57% support the Obama Administration's proposal to raise the minimum wage to
$10.10 per hour and index it to rise annually with the cost of living. The proposal would raise the current federal
minimum of $7.25 over two-and-a-half years to $10.10. The last increase went into effect in 2009, although a
number of states have set their own wage floors. The poll, commissioned by the Small Business Majority, an
advocacy group for small businesses, found that a majority of small business owners believe that a hike in the
minimum wage would encourage consumer spending and generate greater economic growth. "Small

businesses see firsthand how low wages at corporate chains like McDonald's (MCD) or
Wal-Mart (WMT) drain local communities of the spending power needed to sustain
consumer demand," said Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project, on a
conference call announcing the poll results. The poll gathered responses from 500 owners of small businesses with
fewer than 100 employees. Forty-seven percent of the business owners identified as Republicans, 35% as

The poll's release came on the heels of

President Obama's trip to Connecticut to campaign for a higher federal wage base.
At a stop in New Britain, he said that "nobody who works full-time should ever have to
raise a family in poverty." Last month, Obama issued an executive order to raise the minimum wage for
Democrats, and the rest as independent or other.

federal contract workers on new projects to $10.10, to take effect in 2015. That follows steps by 22 states and the
District of Columbia to lift their minimum wages to between $7.40 and $9.32 per hour. Congress, however, has to
approve any increase in the overall federal minimum wage, an action that Republicans have staunchly opposed on
grounds it would lead to layoffs and decreased hiring. Both sides are still debating a report last month by the
Congressional Budget Office, which found that a $10.10 minimum wage could lop off as many as 500,000 jobs
nationwide. The White House has strongly disputed that conclusion. Low-wage positions have made up a large
portion of the new jobs created in recent years, and those positions saw bigger declines in real wages during the
recovery than higher-wage occupations. Labor and other groups have tried to draw attention to that trend, which
shows little sign of changing, in the past year. The restaurant industry has been hit with demonstrations and
accusations that their low-wage workers must rely on federal benefits like food stamps and Medicaid just to get by.
Slightly more than 20% of the nation's workforce would be affected by a proposed hike in the minimum wage, it is

The U.S. Senate is expected to vote on a minimum wage measure in the

coming weeks. In addition to indexing the hourly wage to inflation, the proposal would increase the minimum
estimated.

wage for tipped employees to 70% of the full minimum wage. Combining those groups means an estimated 28
million low-wage workers would benefit from such an increase, according to estimates from the Economic Policy
Institute. The Small Business Majority poll found that 54% of small business owners believe that raising the
minimum wage would help low-income workers afford basic expenses like food and housing, reducing the need for
workers to tap into public safety net programs. Nearly two-thirds of those who responded had identified as owners
of retail or restaurant businesses, two industries that have fought against raising the hourly wage. Zach Davis, coowner of the Penney Ice Creamery in Santa Cruz, Calif., said raising the minimum wage nationally would not only
give workers more money to spend, but also level the playing field for businesses. "Food service turnover is an
issue, and a federal minimum wage would help bring those costs in line with what businesses elsewhere pay," he
said, during the conference call. Pro-wage increase organizations have been highlighting studies that bolster the
case for a higher wage floor. The Center for Economic and Policy Research, for example, said its review of research
over the past two decades shows that raising the minimum wage did not adversely impact employment. The Small
Business Majority poll focused on small business owners because "opponents of minimum wage increases typically
hold up small businesses to justify their position," said Owens of the National Employment Law Project. " This

poll
makes clear that small businesses are on the same page as the American people on
the benefits of higher wages for millions of low-paid workers ."

**Link card about PC

And, the economy is on the brink minimum wage increase would be a
shot in the arm for growth.
Galbraith 2012
(How to Save the Global Economy: Raise the Minimum Wage. A Lot. James Kenneth Galbraith is an American
economist who writes frequently for mainstream and liberal publications on economic topics. JANUARY 3, 2012
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/03/7_raise_the_minimum_wage_a_lot )kk

Americans can't spend, their government won't spend, and the tax cuts of both
George W. Bush and Barack Obama are set to expire soon. The U.S. Congress can't pass an
infrastructure bank, and the country can't fix the banking system or the foreclosure mess . Everything is
blocked up. Is there anything we can do that would make a difference? Yes. Raise
the U.S. minimum wage. By a lot -- let's say, to $12 an hour, from the current rate of $7.25. Ron Unz,

publisher of the American Conservative, put this idea in my head, and the more I think about it, the better it seems.
Unz was writing in the context of the politics of immigration; he's worried that the U.S. government's current
strategy of walls and deportations is alienating Hispanics from the Republican Party and will eventually destroy the

high minimum wage would

be a self-enforcing deterrent against abusive employers seeking cut-rate help. Jobs for
the undocumented would dry up. Those who hold onto their jobs -- the vast majority of low-wage
workers and especially those with U.S. citizenship, English fluency, experience, and skills -- would gain a big
advantage. Correct again, and this time I do care. The plan isn't just good for Republicans -- it's good for
the economy. What would workers do with the raise? They'd spend it, creating jobs
for other workers. They'd pay down their mortgages and car loans, getting
themselves out of debt. They'd pay more taxes -- on sales and property, mostly -- thereby
relieving the fiscal crises of states and localities. More teachers, police, and firefighters would keep
their jobs. Would this hurt competitiveness? Not at all. That's an issue for
manufactured goods and traded services like insurance and banking, sectors in
which everyone already earns far more than $12 an hour. The jobs we're talking about are in
GOP. This seems correct, though I don't much care. But then Unz argues that a

non-traded services like checkout clerks, haircutters, domestic help, and food-service workers -- you can't run a
deep fryer in Terre Haute from Bangalore. Would prices go up? Some would. But rich people can afford it -- and

workers would have extra income to pay the higher prices, so most of them would
come out ahead. Women in particular would benefit because they tend to work for
lower wages. With more family income, some people would choose to retire, go back to school, or have
children, making it easier for others who need jobs to find them. Working families would have more time for
community life, including politics; Americans would start to reclaim the middle-class political organization that they
once had. Because payroll- and income-tax revenues would rise, the federal deficit would come down. Social

Most of all, a big jump in the minimum wage would be a

reparation. It would be a payback to those who have suffered from the economic
crisis: the working population. It would be an act of justice.
Security worries would fade.

Growth averts great power nuclear war

Mead 9

[Walter Russell, Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, New Republic, February 4,
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2]

the current
crisis could join the Great Depression in the list of economic events that changed
history, even if the recessions in the West are relatively short and mild. The United States should stand ready to
If current market turmoil seriously damaged the performance and prospects of India and China,

assist Chinese and Indian financial authorities on an emergency basis--and work very hard to help both countries

economic downturn. It may test the political will of the

Obama administration, but the United States must avoid a protectionist response to
the economic slowdown. U.S. moves to limit market access for Chinese and Indian producers could poison
escape or at least weather any

For billions of people in nuclear-armed countries to emerge

from this crisis believing either that the United States was indifferent to their wellbeing or that it had profited from their distress could damage U.S. foreign policy far
more severely than any mistake made by George W. Bush . It's not just the great powers whose
relations for years.

trajectories have been affected by the crash. Lesser powers like Saudi Arabia and Iran also face new constraints. The crisis has strengthened the U.S.
position in the Middle East as falling oil prices reduce Iranian influence and increase the dependence of the oil sheikdoms on U.S. protection. Success in
Iraq--however late, however undeserved, however limited--had already improved the Obama administration's prospects for addressing regional crises.
Now, the collapse in oil prices has put the Iranian regime on the defensive. The annual inflation rate rose above 29 percent last September, up from about
17 percent in 2007, according to Iran's Bank Markazi. Economists forecast that Iran's real GDP growth will drop markedly in the coming months as
stagnating oil revenues and the continued global economic downturn force the government to rein in its expansionary fiscal policy. All this has weakened
Ahmadinejad at home and Iran abroad. Iranian officials must balance the relative merits of support for allies like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria against
domestic needs, while international sanctions and other diplomatic sticks have been made more painful and Western carrots (like trade opportunities)
have become more attractive. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and other oil states have become more dependent on the United States for protection against Iran,
and they have fewer resources to fund religious extremism as they use diminished oil revenues to support basic domestic spending and development
goals. None of this makes the Middle East an easy target for U.S. diplomacy, but thanks in part to the economic crisis, the incoming administration has the
chance to try some new ideas and to enter negotiations with Iran (and Syria) from a position of enhanced strength. Every crisis is different, but there seem
to be reasons why, over time, financial crises on balance reinforce rather than undermine the world position of the leading capitalist countries. Since
capitalism first emerged in early modern Europe, the ability to exploit the advantages of rapid economic development has been a key factor in
international competition. Countries that can encourage--or at least allow and sustain--the change, dislocation, upheaval, and pain that capitalism often
involves, while providing their tumultuous market societies with appropriate regulatory and legal frameworks, grow swiftly. They produce cutting-edge
technologies that translate into military and economic power. They are able to invest in education, making their workforces ever more productive. They
typically develop liberal political institutions and cultural norms that value, or at least tolerate, dissent and that allow people of different political and
religious viewpoints to collaborate on a vast social project of modernization--and to maintain political stability in the face of accelerating social and
economic change. The vast productive capacity of leading capitalist powers gives them the ability to project influence around the world and, to some
degree, to remake the world to suit their own interests and preferences. This is what the United Kingdom and the United States have done in past
centuries, and what other capitalist powers like France, Germany, and Japan have done to a lesser extent. In these countries, the social forces that support
the idea of a competitive market economy within an appropriately liberal legal and political framework are relatively strong. But, in many other countries
where capitalism rubs people the wrong way, this is not the case. On either side of the Atlantic, for example, the Latin world is often drawn to anticapitalist movements and rulers on both the right and the left. Russia, too, has never really taken to capitalism and liberal society--whether during the
time of the czars, the commissars, or the post-cold war leaders who so signally failed to build a stable, open system of liberal democratic capitalism even
as many former Warsaw Pact nations were making rapid transitions. Partly as a result of these internal cultural pressures, and partly because, in much of
the world, capitalism has appeared as an unwelcome interloper, imposed by foreign forces and shaped to fit foreign rather than domestic interests and
preferences, many countries are only half-heartedly capitalist. When crisis strikes, they are quick to decide that capitalism is a failure and look for
alternatives. So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that have tried them in a progressively worse
position, farther behind the front-runners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind that of the
Baltic states and Central Europe. Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals who want to
develop a liberal capitalist society integrated into the world. Crisis can also strengthen the hand of religious extremists, populist radicals, or authoritarian
traditionalists who are determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies and banks based in these societies
are often less established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than more established firms in wealthier societies. As a result,
developing countries and countries where capitalism has relatively recent and shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when
crisis strikes--as, inevitably, it does. And, consequently, financial crises often reinforce rather than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth.
This may be happening yet again. None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial crises
actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part of

The wars of the League of

Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American
Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars
is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed
life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war.

wars . Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned
German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis
turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow ,
Karachi, Beijing , or New Delhi to be born? The U nited S tates may not, yet,
decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still
have to fight .

2nc - short o/v

The economy is in a special place on the KNIFES EDGE and needs a boost
to go in the right direction
Mead 9 the terminal impact is great power war growth maintains
goodwill between the nuclear states and abrupt decline historically
prompts conflict like World War II
Galbraith 12 indicates growth is steady but frail economic momentum is
building but subject to a quick crash without added GDP, which minimum
wage increase provides
* * * Insert growth turns the case impacts cards * *

1nc poverty

Minimum wage increase will pass now because of white house focus and
Obamas PC. Its key to swinging support from small businesses
Olson 3/10/14
(Minimum wage campaign gains White House, small biz support March 10, 2014 Elizabeth G. Olson is a cnn white
house correspondent http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2014/03/10/minimum-wage-increase/)kk

The push to increase the federal minimum wage is gathering steam as the
White House puts the issue front and center in the run-up to the fall elections.
And

supporters are positioning a wage bump as the best way to combat income

inequality . Last week, backers released a national poll of small business owners that
found that 57% support the Obama Administration's proposal to raise the minimum wage to
$10.10 per hour and index it to rise annually with the cost of living. The proposal would raise the current federal
minimum of $7.25 over two-and-a-half years to $10.10. The last increase went into effect in 2009, although a
number of states have set their own wage floors. The poll, commissioned by the Small Business Majority, an
advocacy group for small businesses, found that a majority of small business owners believe that a hike in the
minimum wage would encourage consumer spending and generate greater economic growth. "Small

businesses see firsthand how low wages at corporate chains like McDonald's (MCD) or
Wal-Mart (WMT) drain local communities of the spending power needed to sustain
consumer demand," said Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project, on a
conference call announcing the poll results. The poll gathered responses from 500 owners of small businesses with
fewer than 100 employees. Forty-seven percent of the business owners identified as Republicans, 35% as

The poll's release came on the heels of

President Obama's trip to Connecticut to campaign for a higher federal wage base.
At a stop in New Britain, he said that "nobody who works full-time should ever have to
raise a family in poverty." Last month, Obama issued an executive order to raise the minimum wage for
Democrats, and the rest as independent or other.

federal contract workers on new projects to $10.10, to take effect in 2015. That follows steps by 22 states and the
District of Columbia to lift their minimum wages to between $7.40 and $9.32 per hour. Congress, however, has to
approve any increase in the overall federal minimum wage, an action that Republicans have staunchly opposed on
grounds it would lead to layoffs and decreased hiring. Both sides are still debating a report last month by the
Congressional Budget Office, which found that a $10.10 minimum wage could lop off as many as 500,000 jobs
nationwide. The White House has strongly disputed that conclusion. Low-wage positions have made up a large
portion of the new jobs created in recent years, and those positions saw bigger declines in real wages during the
recovery than higher-wage occupations. Labor and other groups have tried to draw attention to that trend, which
shows little sign of changing, in the past year. The restaurant industry has been hit with demonstrations and
accusations that their low-wage workers must rely on federal benefits like food stamps and Medicaid just to get by.
Slightly more than 20% of the nation's workforce would be affected by a proposed hike in the minimum wage, it is

The U.S. Senate is expected to vote on a minimum wage measure in the

coming weeks. In addition to indexing the hourly wage to inflation, the proposal would increase the minimum
estimated.

wage for tipped employees to 70% of the full minimum wage. Combining those groups means an estimated 28
million low-wage workers would benefit from such an increase, according to estimates from the Economic Policy
Institute. The Small Business Majority poll found that 54% of small business owners believe that raising the
minimum wage would help low-income workers afford basic expenses like food and housing, reducing the need for
workers to tap into public safety net programs. Nearly two-thirds of those who responded had identified as owners
of retail or restaurant businesses, two industries that have fought against raising the hourly wage. Zach Davis, coowner of the Penney Ice Creamery in Santa Cruz, Calif., said raising the minimum wage nationally would not only
give workers more money to spend, but also level the playing field for businesses. "Food service turnover is an
issue, and a federal minimum wage would help bring those costs in line with what businesses elsewhere pay," he
said, during the conference call. Pro-wage increase organizations have been highlighting studies that bolster the
case for a higher wage floor. The Center for Economic and Policy Research, for example, said its review of research
over the past two decades shows that raising the minimum wage did not adversely impact employment. The Small
Business Majority poll focused on small business owners because "opponents of minimum wage increases typically
hold up small businesses to justify their position," said Owens of the National Employment Law Project. " This

poll
makes clear that small businesses are on the same page as the American people on
the benefits of higher wages for millions of low-paid workers ."

**Link card about PC

Raising the minimum wage solves poverty
Chapman & Ettlinger 2004
[Jeff Chapman and Michael Ettlinger, Economic Analysts for the Economic Policy Institute. 8/6/04. The Who and
Why of Minimum Wage: Raising the Wage Floor is an essential part of the strategy to support working families.
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/issuebrief201/ Accessed: 6/22/09]

Seven years of federal inaction have allowed rising inflation to eat away at the
buying power of the minimum wage. Moreover, the last three years have seen a slack
labor market that has produced stagnant wages and incomes. It is not surprising,
therefore, to hear calls for restoration of the value of the minimum wage , a crucial 65year-old bulwark for decent wages. While federal efforts have repeatedly been blocked since Congress last raised
the minimum wage in 1996-97, the number of states with minimum wages set above the federal level has risen
from five in 1997 to 13 in 2004 (counting Washington, D.C.). Several other states, including New York, Minnesota,

the most common

arguments against raising the minimum wage were that doing so would hurt the
economy as a whole and harm the employment prospects of low-wage workers. But as mounting
economic evidence refutes those claims, minimum wage opponents have been
turning to another argumentnamely, that the minimum wage doesn't actually help people in need and
Nevada, and Florida, are taking serious looks at raising their minimum as well. In the pas t,

that increasing the minimum wage benefits the better-off rather than those with low incomes. Those taking this

for increased government spending on social programs for lowincome workers as a preferable alternative.1 Is the minimum wage a poorly targeted anti-poverty
position have called

tool that mainly benefits the well-off and does little for those with low incomes? After all, although counter-intuitive,
it is certainly possible for the minimum wage to benefit the scion of a wealthy family living off trust funds at night

The
minimum wage is an effective tool for targeting families and households that rely
heavily on low-wage work to maintain a decent standard of living :
but flipping burgers for minimum wage by day. In reality, however, these cases are extremely rare.

Thats the biggest impact probability and magnitude

Gilligan 96
[James, Professor of Psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School, Director of the Center for the Study of Violence, and
a member of the Academic Advisory Council of the National Campaign Against Youth Violence, Violence: Our
Deadly Epidemic and its Causes, p. 191-196]

The deadliest form of violence is poverty. You cannot work for one day with the violent people who

fill our prisons and mental hospitals for the criminally insane without being forcible and constantly reminded of the
extreme poverty and discrimination that characterizes their lives. Hearing about their lives, and about their families

you are forced to recognize the truth in Gandhis observation that the
deadliest form of violence is poverty. Not a day goes by without realizing that trying
to understand them and their violent behavior in purely individual terms is
impossible and wrong-headed. Any theory of violence, especially a psychological
theory, that evolves from the experience of men in maximum security prisons and
hospitals for the criminally insane must begin with the recognition that these
institutions are only microcosms. They are not where the major violence in our
society takes place, and the perpetrators who fill them are far from being the main
causes of most violent deaths. Any approach to a theory of violence needs to begin
with a look at the structural violence in this country. Focusing merely on those relatively few men who
and friends,

commit what we define as murder could distract us from examining and learning from those structural causes of
violent death that are for more significant from a numerical or public health, or human, standpoint. By structural
violence I mean the increased rates of death, and disability suffered by those who occupy the bottom rungs of
society, as contrasted with the relatively low death rates experienced by those who are above them. Those excess
deaths (or at least a demonstrably large proportion of them) are a function of class structure; and that structure
itself is a product of societys collective human choices, concerning how to distribute the collective wealth of the

society. These are not acts of God. I am contrasting structural with behavioral violence, by which I mean the
non-natural deaths and injuries that are caused by specific behavioral actions of individuals against individuals,
such as the deaths we attribute to homicide, suicide, soldiers in warfare, capital punishment, and so on. Structural
violence differs from behavior violence in at least three major respects. * The

lethal effects of structural

operate continuously, rather than sporadically, whereas murders, suicides, executions, wars,
and other forms of behavior violence occur one at a time. *Structural violence operates more
violence

or less independently of individual acts; independent of individuals and groups (politicians, political parties, voters)
whose decisions may nevertheless have lethal consequences for others. *Structural violence is normally invisible,
because it may appear to have had other (natural or violent) causes. [CONTINUED] The finding that structural
violence causes far more deaths than behavioral violence does is not limited to this country. Kohler and Alcock
attempted to arrive at the number of excess deaths caused by socioeconomic inequities on a worldwide basis.
Sweden was their model of the nation that had come closest to eliminating structural violence. It had the least
inequity in income and living standards, and the lowest discrepancies in death rates and life expectancy; and the
highest overall life expectancy of the world. When they compared the life expectancies of those living in the other
socioeconomic systems against Sweden, they found that 18 million deaths a year could be attributed to the
structural violence to which the citizens of all the other nations were being subjected. During the past decade, the

The 14 to 19
million deaths a year caused by structural violence compare with about 100,000
deaths per year from armed conflict. Comparing this frequency of deaths from structural violence to
discrepancies between the rich and poor nations have increased dramatically and alarmingly.

the frequency of those caused by major military and political violence, such as World War II (an estimated 49 million
military and civilian deaths, including those by genocide or about eight million per year, 1939-1945), the
Indonesian massacre of 1965-66 (perhaps 575,000 deaths), the Vietnam war (possibly two million, 1954-1973),

and even a hypothetical nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. (232 million), it is clear that
even war cannot begin to compare with structural violence, which continues year after
year. In other words, every fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would
be killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period . This is, in effect, the equivalent of an
ongoing, unending, and accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide, perpetrated
on the weak and poor every year of every decade , throughout the world. Structural
violence is also the main cause of behavioral violence on a socially and
epidemiologically significant scale (from homicide and suicide to war and genocide ).
The question as to which of the two forms of violence structural or behavioral is more important, dangerous, or
lethal is moot, for they are inextricably related to each other, as cause to effect.

UQ

2nc wall
Extend Olsen minimum wage will pass now. Two reasons
(a) Obamas controlling the issue hes using his pc to make a vote come
as soon as possible, and to marshal as many votes as are needed.
(b) Business backing recent poll proves big and small businesses are
latching onto the proposal, which swings both dems and the GOP towards
the bill to get votes.
PC controls the uniqueness debate his focus is working now to swing
votes
AP 3/5
(In populist appeal, Obama spotlights minimum wage Associated Press, Published:
March 5 http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/in-connecticut-obama-tospotlight-minimum-wage/2014/03/05/6ca1af48-a43e-11e3-b86538b254d92063_story.html)kk
Mounting a show of support from like-minded governors , President Barack Obama put a
spotlight Wednesday on a minimum wage push that Democrats hope will
appeal to economically squeezed voters in Novembers midterm elections. Standing at the

center of a packed college gymnasium, Obama said raising hourly wages to $10.10 would pull millions of Americans
out of poverty. Although one of Obamas top priorities, the proposal is more likely to serve as a rallying cry for

In a nod to
staunch Republican opposition, Obama urged Americans to demand answers from
their lawmakers about whether they support raising stagnant wages . If they dont, why
Democrats in the approaching election than to be adopted by Congress in the foreseeable future.

not? Ask them to reconsider. Ask them to side with the majority of Americans, Obama said. Instead of saying no
for once, say yes. The backdrop as Obama rallied a crowd of 3,000 at Central Connecticut State
University: Four northeastern governors from Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont and Rhode Island who

More than 20 states have increased their state-level minimum

wages, said Labor Secretary Tom Perez, including six in the year since Obama first called for a federal increase.
Democrats believe the push will bolster a populist message about
expanding opportunity that they believe offers their best shot at fending off
Republicans this November. As if to underscore how politically charged the issue has already become,
support Obamas proposal.

Republicans seized on Obamas appearance to accuse him of threatening to obliterate badly needed jobs.
Republicans cite a study from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimating the proposal would cut
employment by roughly 500,000 jobs. The White House disputes that finding, while embracing another finding from
the same report that says more than

16.5 million people would see higher earnings by 2016.

Massive dem support because of midterms theyre swaying republicans

too.
Napach 3/10
(Get ready for a bigger push in Washington to raise the minimum wage By Bernice Napach, yahoo finance
correspondent, March 10, 2014 http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/get-ready-for-a-bigger-push-inwashington-to-raise-the-minimum-wage-212832347.html)kk
Cities and states have taken the lead on raising the minimum wage in the absence of Congressional action, but

Democrats are expected to make this an issue in this year's midterm elections. And
if more Democrats are elected to Congress, the federal government could potentially
increase the floor on wages. "Democrats really see this as a winning issue " in the
November midterm elections, says Steven Greenhouse, labor and workplace reporter at The New York
Times. They "are trying to hit this hard...as a way to erase losses" associated with
Obamacare," Greenhouse tells The Daily Ticker. Democrats also see raising the minimum wage "as an important
way to lift the wages of millions of American workers," says Greenhouse. The current federal minimum wage is
$7.25 an hour -- which, after adjusting for inflation, is about 30% less than it was 46 years ago.

President

Obama and many Democrats want to raise the minimum to $10.10 an hour by 2016, which
would boost the earnings of some 16 million Americans. The Congressional Budget Office says the wage hike would
reduce poverty for 900,000 Americans but also eliminate 500,000 jobs -- a conclusion that Republicans are using to
argue against the hike. Given that opposition, President Obama decided to institute the wage hike for federal
contractors by executive order, effective next January. Eighteen states have instituted a minimum wage that's
higher than the national minimum. Washington leads with $9.32 an hour and SeaTac, a city south of Seattle, has the
highest minimum wage in the country at $15 an hour. Greenhouse says he's interviewed many minimum wage
workers who say they can't support themselves, no less their families, making just $8 or $9 an hour. And many of
those workers are household breadwinners who are educated and not the teenager flipping hamburgers in a
summer job, which has been the conventional image of minimum wage workers. "More educated workers are
making just $7, $8 or $9 dollars and hour," says Greenhouse. Many have finished high schhool and a growing
percentage have some college credit. But is raising the minmum wage the best way to support those workers?

Some economists argue that increasing the earned income tax credit
would be more effective
" Republicans

because it would shift the burden from employers to the government.

really don't want to do it because that would cost the

govenrment billions of dollars," says Greenhouse. "That is a heavier political lift than raising the minimum
wage," which is why Democrats are focusing on minimum wage , says Greenhouse.
A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that 63% of Americans support raising the
minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. Seventy-seven percent of Democrats supported that level, while 47% of
Republicans did. Support overall declined above $10.10 an hour.

Ext public support

Massive public support for the legislation means it will get a midterm
focus
Goldman 3/11

(Americans Split on Obama as 69% Back Minimum Wage Hike Julianna Goldman is a reporter for Bloomberg
Television and serves as chief White House correspondent for Bloomberg News, Mar 11, 2014
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-12/americans-split-on-obama-as-69-back-minimum-wage-hike.html)kk
President Barack

Obama is rebounding from record-low approval ratings as he remedies

the botched

rollout of his health-care website and moves past the budget standoffs of the last several
years. Less than eight months before the November midterm elections, Americans are evenly split, with 48 percent
approving of Obamas job performance, up from 42 percent in December -- the biggest positive change of his
presidency, according to a Bloomberg National Poll. Hes also registering an improved favorability rating at 49
percent, the highest since last June. Even so, majorities still disapprove of Obamas performance across a broad
spectrum of issues. They include the economy, a top issue for voters this year, which may threaten his partys
chances for retaining control of the U.S. Senate. Republicans need a net gain of six seats in Novembers elections to
retake control of the chamber. The

six-point increase in Obamas approval rating puts him

back in the territory he typically occupies, said Ann Selzer, founder of Des Moines, Iowa-based
Selzer & Co., which conducted the March 7-10 poll of 1,001 U.S. adults that has a margin of error of plus or minus
3.1 percentage points. He had a post-election bump in December of 2012 and February 2013 and then a steady

The survey is an early test of how Americans are responding to the central
themes Obama unveiled in his State of the Union address, including expanding
economic opportunity, upward mobility and raising wages. Those issues also will be central
themes for Democrats in this years elections. Sixty-nine percent of Americans , including 45 percent of
Republicans, support the presidents call to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 over
decline.

the next three years. Twenty-eight percent of poll respondents oppose such action.

Ext Obama pushing

Obama is pushing the wage increase and its working now
Boyer 3/8

(Obama continues push for minimum wage hike that CBO says will cost 500K jobs, Dave Boyer is a White House
correspondent for The Washington Times. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/8/obama-continuespush-minimum-wage-hike-cbo-says-wi/)kk

Obama said Saturday that congressional Republicans are out of step with
Americans on raising the federal minimum wage. A clear majority of Americans
support raising the minimum wage, because we believe that nobody who works fulltime should have to live in poverty, Mr. Obama said in his weekly address. About half of all
Republicans support raising the minimum wage, too. Its just too bad they dont serve in
President

Congress. The president said GOP lawmakers dont want to vote on a Democratic proposal to raise the minimum
wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10. Some [lawmakers] even want to get rid of it completely seriously, Mr.
Obama said. Mr. Obama, who is vacationing with his family this weekend in an exclusive private resort in the
Florida Keys, said a boost in the minimum wage would give pay raises to 28 million Americans. The

American

people are way ahead of Congress on this issue, and weve just got to let Congress know that,
he said. Its time for ten-ten. Its time to give America a raise. Earlier in the week, Mr. Obama
traveled to Connecticut for a campaign-style event with four Democratic governors
from New England to call for a hike in the minimum wage . The president noted that some
businesses like Costco and the Gap are not waiting for Congress to act, raising the wage for their own employees.

Ext GOP support

GOP support has existed in the past Obama just has to reactivate it
Freidman 3/6
(House Speaker John Boehner balks at President Obama's push to raise the minimum wage Dan Freidman,
correspondent for NY daily. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/house-speaker-john-boehner-balkspresident-obama-call-wage-increase-article-1.1712385#ixzz2voE0sw6q)kk

Boehner is balking at President Obamas call to raise the minimum wage, but
members of his own party favored a hike eight years ago. Nobody working full-time
should have to live in poverty, 26 Republicans wrote Boehner in 2006, urging a
hike in the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25. Liberal activist Ralph Nader referenced their stance in a
House Speaker John

letter Wednesday to Boehner. None of the six Reps. Pete King (R-L.I.), Michael Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.), Chris

I would consider an
increase, but it must coincide with a reduction of the burdens placed on employers
and small businesses, King said.
Smith (R-N.J.) Shelly Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) or Fred Upton (R-Mich.) back a wage hike now.

Top of tha docket

Extend Olson as long as Obama can focus his pc on it, it will stay the top
issue. That ev also says that business support groups are pushing it to the
top
And, Its the top issue for both parties because it appeals to swing voters
during the midterms
Wolfgang 2/15

(Obama eyes $10.10 minimum wage; GOP focuses on those with zero insurance after Obamacare Ben Wolfgang
covers the White House for The Washington Times. Before joining the Times in March 2011, Ben spent four years
as a political reporter at the Republican-Herald http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/15/obama-eyes1010-minimum-wage-gop-focuses-those-zer/#ixzz2val2fUn6 )kk

Saturday brought more evidence of how differently President Obama and congressional
Republicans will approach this crucial election year, with the White House turning
attention to its economic and income-equality agenda while the GOP remains focused on the healthcare reform law and its fallout across the country. In his weekly address, the president again pushed for a
minimum wage hike from $7.25 to $10.10 for all Americans and highlighted the fact
that he recently implemented such a pay raise for federal contractors through
executive action. But Rep. Tom Rooney, a Florida Republican who gave this weeks GOP address, didnt mention the
presidents minimum-wage push or any related issue, choosing instead to focus entirely on Obamacare. The minimum
wage increase for all Americans is a key piece of what Mr. Obama has dubbed the
opportunity agenda, and unlike other parts of that agenda, it must go through Congress. Raising the
minimum wage wouldnt just raise their wages its effect would lift wages for
about 28 million Americans, the president said. It would lift millions of Americans out of poverty and help millions
more work their way out of poverty without requiring a single dollar in new taxes or spending. It will give more
businesses more customers with more money to spend, and that means growing the economy for
everyone. You deserve to know where the people who represent you stand on this. If they dont support raising the federal minimum

Mr. Obama and fellow Democrats on the ballot this

year want to make the minimum wage, and the broader issue of growing income
inequality between the rich and poor in America, a top issue heading into the
wage to $10.10 an hour, ask them why not?

fall.

a/t ACA thumper

GOP is folding Obama-care now they realize opposition is
counterproductive
Easley 3/11

(A Major Victory for Obama: House Republicans Introduce 3 Bills That Improve Obamacare By: Jason is the head
writer at politicusUSA Tuesday, March, 11th, 2014 http://www.politicususa.com/2014/03/11/major-victory-obamahouse-repubicans-introduce-3-bills-improve-obamacare.html)kk

In what is a major victory for the president, House Republicans will vote on three
bills next week that correct small issues and unintended consequences in the ACA. Politico (via
Slate) has the details: House Republican leaders are planning to bring up three changes to Obamacare next week
but unlike dozens of prior bills, these are more minor measures that are not expected to be controversial. All
three bills essentially fix drafting errors, perceived oversights or unintended consequences in the presidents
Affordable Care Act. They have bipartisan support and are scheduled to be considered under a suspension of the
rules, which limits debate and requires support from two-thirds of House members a signal that leaders of both
parties do not expect any heated debate. They hold some political significance, however, because they allow
Republicans to push back against the Democrats talking point that the GOP is only interested in holding votes to

They also represent the reality that Obamacare is now fully

implemented and not fixing errors could be more damaging to opponents
pick at Obamacares flaws.

than being perceived as trying to make Obamacare work better . What makes
this news all the juicier is that Boehner and company introduced these bills last Friday while conservatives were
distracted by CPAC. The right wingers were screaming about repeal from across the river the Republican leadership
was submitting legislation that improves the law. On at least fifty previous occasions, Republicans tried to pass off
attempts to repeal the law as improvements. In this case, Republicans are actually doing their jobs. The answer to

The popularity of
repeal has sunk to a record low. The vast majority of Americans say that they want
to keep and improve the law. The biggest problem for Republicans is that their just say no to Obamacare
why the House Republicans are trying to improve the ACA can be found the polling.

position was destined to erode away. The name Obamacare isnt popular, but much of what the law contains is. As
the ACA is fully implemented, more people are seeing the benefits, the repeal position is becoming unsustainable.
House Republicans have finally caught on that should they continue to say no, they will be rejecting some very
popular elements of the law. This move by the House leadership is evidence that repeal movement is all, but,
dead. Repeal Obamacare has joined Roe v Wade as nothing more than a conservative campaign slogan that will be
used in future elections to encourage the Republican faithful to get out and vote. Speaker Boehner and the House
Republican leadership have a loyal group of a few dozen Republicans, who combined Nancy Pelosis Democrats,
make up a big enough coalition to pass these bills. Republicans will hypocritically continue to rant and rave publicly
about how Obamacare must die while trying to slip legislation under the radar that fixes some of the unintended
consequences caused by the law. House Republican leaders are quietly surrendering on the ACA. There will be
plenty more wasteful show votes to repeal Obamacare, but thats just a bit of theater for the folks back home.

In order for Republicans to take credit

for fixing the law, they are doing something that many thought they would never
do. They are acknowledging the legitimacy of the ACA . Its all but over .
Boehner, Cantor, and the gang are throwing up the white flag.

These small pieces of legislation mark a major shift, and a big win for President
Obama .
Support is statistically up
Sargent 3/11
(Poll: Only Republicans and conservatives say Obamacare is too liberal BY GREG SARGENT, head writer for the
plum line, contributor to WSJ March 11 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/03/11/poll-onlyrepublicans-and-conservatives-say-obamacare-is-too-liberal/ )kk
CNN polls on Obamacare take the added step of asking why people disapprove of the law. Result: CNN polls offer a
more nuanced view of public opinion on health care than some others do. Todays CNN poll finds that 39 percent of
Americans favor Obamacare, while 57 percent oppose it. Thats awful, right? But it turns out only 39 percent oppose
the law because its too liberal, while 12 percent say it isnt liberal enough. Thats a total of 51 percent who

it turns out that

Republicans and conservatives are the only groups who oppose Obamacare as too
liberal. A breakdown: * 67 percent of Republicans, and 60 percent of conservatives, say the law is too liberal. By
favor the law or dont think it goes far enough. And if you peek into the internals,

contrast * Among moderates, only 38 percent say its too liberal, while 43 percent favor it and another 9 percent

say its not liberal enough a total of 52 percent. Breakdown: 38 say its too liberal; 52 percent favor it or say its
not liberal enough. * Among independents, only 43 percent say its too liberal, while 30 percent favor it and
another 14 percent say its not liberal enough a total of 44 percent. Breakdown: 43-44. * Older people are said
to fear or dislike Obamacare, but among people who are 50 and up, only 39 percent say its too liberal, while 39
percent favor it and another 11 percent say its not liberal enough a total of 50 percent. Breakdown: 39-50. *
Whites are said to lean Republican, but among them, 46 percent say Obamacare is too liberal, while 34 percent
favor it and another12 percent say its not liberal enough a total of 46. Breakdown: 46-46. This may help explain
why repeal remains unpopular. This is admittedly speculative, but it seems plausible that those who say the law
isnt liberal enough are saying they want the health system reformed but are not convinced, for a variety of
reasons, among them the daily barrage of negative attacks on the law, that Obamacare will get the job done. In
other words, theres real generalized disapproval of the law here, and no one is saying this isnt problematic for
Dems, but these probably arent folks who dont want reform at all or want to go back to the old system. By
contrast, Republicans and conservatives who say Obamacare is too liberal perhaps see efforts to reform the system
along the lines of the Affordable Care Act as unacceptable government overreach, full stop. At the same time,
though, Republican candidates and lawmakers seem increasingly aware that their repeal stance is no longer
tenable, particularly as enrollment continues to mount and repeal is becoming increasingly synonymous with taking
insurance away from millions of people and replacing it with nothing.

Republican candidates and

officials cant fully embrace repeal, but they cant embrace alternatives
such as the Burr-Hatch plan, either . Witness North Carolina GOP Senate candidate Thom Tillis struggle
to articulate his repeal stance, or Michigan GOP Senate candidate Terri Lynn Lands vague embrace of the Medicaid

House Republicans appear uncertain how to

proceed, lurching back and forth between votes designed to make them look like
constructive legislators on health care and votes designed to pander to the repealobsessed base. Of course, all these nuances in national opinion may not mean much for vulnerable red state
expansion. Meanwhile, asDylan Scott points out,

Dems, since they are, after all, running for reelection in red states. And the 2014 fundamentals are stacked pretty

Republicans might be able to muddle through to a majority on a

vague repeal and replace message. But there are eight months to go in this
heavily against Dems. So

election, and enrollment is only going to continue going up , not down.

a/t Hagel thumper

Hagel is obviously pushing it Obama will steer clear
Jaffe 3/5

(Defense Secretary Hagel defends the Pentagons proposed budget and cuts Greg Jaffe, Published: March 5
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/defense-secretary-hagel-defends-the-pentagons-proposedbudget-and-cuts/2014/03/05/c5c9a002-a480-11e3-84d4-e59b1709222c_story.html)kk

Hagel on Wednesday defended the Pentagons proposed budget

from criticism by Senate Republicans who said that steep cuts envisioned in the plan would leave the United
Defense Secretary Chuck

States vulnerable in an increasingly chaotic world. The Obama administration plans to slash defense spending to
about $495 billion in 2015, or about $113 billion less than the levels contemplated in last years budget proposal.
The results of these cuts have been devastating to our national security, said Sen. James M. Inhofe (Okla.), the
ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee. The cuts are the product of a bipartisan budget deal
that enacts discretionary spending caps that arent especially popular with the Pentagon or lawmakers of either

Hagel described the big reductions in spending as necessary to protect training

budgets for the current force and to preserve money set aside to buy new planes,
ships and ground combat vehicles. We will continue investing in high-end ground capabilities to keep
party.

our soldiers the most advanced on Earth, he said in testimony before the Senate panel. Gen. Martin Dempsey, the
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that even with the cuts, the military would still be able to carry out its
missions around the globe, albeit with increased risk. The cuts will hit ground forces especially hard, scaling back
the Army to about 440,000 troops, its smallest size in 74 years. Only a few areas, such as Special Operations and
cyber forces, will see modest increases under the budget proposal. The Republican criticism of the spending plan
was muted somewhat because both parties had signed off on the current budget caps. You come here with a

McCain also noted

that the challenges the Pentagon faces have been bred by sequestration, the law
that put in place the initial automatic spending caps. The Obama administrations long-term
budget that constrains us in a way that is unprecedented, said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

budget plan seeks to increase Pentagon spending by as much as $35 billion beyond the current caps in 2016 and an
additional $80 billion from 2017 to 2020. The future increases in spending are likely to face stiff resistance from
budget hawks in both parties. I think [the increases] are wishful thinking, said Todd Harrison, an analyst with the

Hagel emphasized that without the

extra spending, starting in 2016, the militarys ability to execute the administrations
strategy would be seriously jeopardized and put at risk Americas traditional role as a guarantor
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington.

of global security, and ultimately our own security.

i/l section

pc Key
Obamas push and PC behind the scenes is key to get it done
Condon 3/5

(Amid GOP resistance, Obama to again push for minimum wage hike Stephanie Condon is a political reporter for
CBSNews.com ,http://www.cbsnews.com/news/amid-gop-resistance-obama-to-again-push-for-minimum-wagehike/)kk

Obama on Wednesday will travel to Connecticut to call for an increase of the

federal minimum wage, part of the Democrats' 2014 economic agenda that remains stalled in Congress.
The president will be joined by a group of Democratic, northeastern governors who
back the effort, including Dannel Malloy of Connecticut, Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, Peter Shumlin of
President

Vermont and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. Last week, Malloy went to bat for the White House after Republican
Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana slammed the president's proposal to raise the minimum wage. "What I worry about
is this president and the White House seems to be waving the white flag of surrender...the Obama economy is now
the minimum wage economy," Jindal said outside of the White House after a group of governors met with the
president. Standing next to Jindal, Malloy called the comments "insane." On a conference call with reporters over
the weekend, Malloy said the opposition to the proposal was partisan. "In the past we've seen wage increases

Given the GOP resistance, the president and his

party have made the minimum wage a prime issue ahead of the midterm elections.
"It is time to give America a raise , or elect more Democrats who will do it," Mr. Obama said last week at
under Republican administrations," he noted.

a meeting of the Democratic National Committee. "The American people are way ahead of Congress on this," the
president added. "A majority of Americans support raising the minimum wage. But Republicans in Congress,
surprisingly enough, oppose raising the minimum wage." Mr. Obama is calling on Congress to pass Democratic
legislation to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10.10 an hour. At its current level, the
minimum wage is in real terms worth about 20 percent less than it was when Ronald Reagan took office. Last
month, in the absence of legislation to raise the minimum wage, Mr. Obamasigned an executive order requiring
federal contractors to pay their employees at least $10.10 an hour. "I'm going to do what I can; Congress should do
what it needs to do," he said before signing the order. "I will not give up on this fight no matter how long it takes."

The Democratic-led Senate will take it up in late March at

Democrats, meanwhile, are still
trying to push through a retroactive extension of emergency benefits for the longterm unemployed. The Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) program expired in December,
It's unclear exactly how long it will take.

the earliest, while the GOP-led House so far has no plans to vote on it.

immediately leaving 1.3 million Americans without benefits. Since then, about 72,000 more people have lost
benefits each week, bringing the number of long-term unemployed Americans without government assistance to

The Senate has unsuccessfully tried multiple times this year to

extend the EUC program, failing even though a handful of Republicans have signed
on to the effort. Lawmakers leading the effort are now trying to build a new
compromise -- a six-month extension of the program that would be applied retroactively to December 28, when
two million this week.

the benefits expired. The measure would be paid for with savings from the farm bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid, D-Nev., placed the bill on the Senate calendar Tuesday evening, which is the first step toward bringing it up for
a vote. Senate leaders still need to resolve whether amendments will be allowed to the legislation -- a sticking point

"If we are not able to offer amendments, then there is now

way that this is ever going to pass," Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, one of the Republicans working with
that killed the effort last month.

Democrats on the issue, told CBS News. "It's just not right. Many of us think that there needs to significant

Collins said she drafted an amendment that would give states the option of
linking the benefits to a training or volunteering requirement. She also said that many Republicans
reforms."

don't consider the farm bill a realistic cost offset.

And, its key to getting the GOP on board

Pengelly 3/8
(Obama urges Congress to increase minimum wage to $10.10 an hour Martin is the Guardian US weekend editor,
based in New York. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/08/obama-congress-increase-minimum-wage)kk

Barack Obama on Saturday used his weekly address to appeal for progress on
raising the federal minimum wage. The president is seeking, against Congressional
opposition, to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 an hour.

Obamas address came a day after new figures showed that the US added 175,000
jobs in February, a larger rise than had been expected, but also that the
unemployment rate rose to 6.7%.
With the 2014 midterm elections in mind, Democrats and Republicans are targeting
those who are not doing so well out of the general if slow national economic
recovery.
Citing a number of large and small businesses he said had raised wage payments
voluntarily and without waiting for Congress to make up its mind including two
giants, Gap and Costco Obama said: I agree with these business owners, which is
why I issued an executive order requiring federal contractors to pay their employees
a fair wage of at least $10.10 an hour.
Its good for our bottom line. And working Americans have struggled through
stagnant wages for far too long.
In the Republican response to Obamas address, Senator Rob Portman of Ohio
criticised the presidents proposed 2015 budget, saying it would tax and spend too
much.
On Tuesday, a White House statement said the budget invests in infrastructure, job
training, and preschool; cuts taxes for working Americans while closing tax
loopholes enjoyed by the wealthy and well-connected; and reduces the deficit.
Obamas budget stands little chance of passing Congress.
Portman went on to promote the Republican seven-point Jobs for America plan,
which he said starts by getting government out of the way where we need to,
whether its healthcare, regulations or taxation. He also echoed recent Republican
rhetoric when he emphasised his partysconcern for the less well-off.
The wealthy are doing just fine in the Obama economy, Portman said, adding that
fewer people working, smaller middle-class paychecks, bigger government, neverending deficits and record debt piled on our kids and grandkids had become the
new normal.
Obama addressed the same theme, saying: A clear majority of Americans support
raising the minimum wage, because we believe that nobody who works full-time
should have to live in poverty. About half of all Republicans support raising the
minimum wage, too.

a/t winners win

This just isnt true for Obama the GOP will spin everything he does as a
loss, which saps pocap. Thats the 1nc link card
Congress doesnt care if the President is a winner constitutional duties
and constituents overwhelm.
Norman Thomas and Joseph Pika) 1997 The Politics of the Presidency p. 226
A strategy of confrontation is unlikely to result in sustained congressional
responsiveness to presidential initiatives. Congress has constitutional prerogatives
and constituency bases of support that enable it to resist presidential domination .
The imperatives for cooperation between the two branches are so great that most presidents try to avoid
confrontations with Congress and enter them only when the constitutional integrity of the presidency is at
issue.

Management of political capital is the only path for Obamas agenda

winners dont win in the 2nd term
Viser 13
Matt Viser, January 20, 2013. President Obama still talks of change in 2d term, Boston Globe,
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2013/01/20/president-obama-will-use-first-term-lessons-and-campaigntactics-tackle-challenges-next-four-years/zjys4IsoEhJH9gbTtS2AFP/story.html

the mood in advance of President Obamas second

inaugural is rooted more in reality and a sense of limits . The talk in the nations capital is no
Four years after that day of history,

longer about grand ideas, or sweeping generational change. Its about whether the government will be able to pay

although Obama sought to be a postpartisan president, his tenure

is increasingly being marked by bruising partisan battles. At the White House,
however, the belief is that this is not just a second inaugural but a second act, with
a changed man in the lead who has been shaped by his first term , emboldened by
the lessons learned, who is seeking new ways to gain ground with or without the
support of the opposition party. One thing we learned in the first term, especially
the first two years, was it became a very inside Washington game to pass
its bills next month. And

these things , Jim Messina, who managed Obamas 2012 campaign and was previously Obamas deputy
chief of staff, said in an interview. But we need to remember how we won this and that is by bringing the country

Obamas second-term power is different. It is no longer driven by the blunt

political instrument of his first two years in office , when his party controlled both chambers of
Congress and could pass legislation without a single Republican vote. Now, Obama must rely on a more
subtle art of politics and persuasion, spoken with the confidence of a man reelected by millions of
together.

Americans. He feels emboldened, aides say, to take on some of the nations hardest targets gun control,
announced last week; immigration reform; the deficit; climate change. And, to make his case, he has ahead of him
the bully pulpit of his inaugural address on Monday and, three weeks later, the State of the Union.

Capital is finite and the link outweighs any loss saps

Silber 7 [Marissa Silber, Political Science PhD Student at the University of Florida, Prepared for delivery at the
2007 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 30th-September 2nd, 2007, WHAT
MAKES A PRESIDENT QUACK? UNDERSTANDING LAME DUCK STATUS THROUGH THE EYES OF THE MEDIA AND
POLITICIANS,
http://convention3.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/1/0/8/9/p210893_index.html]

If a President
expends political capital on his agenda, can it be replaced ? Light suggests that capital
declines over time public approval consistently falls: midterm losses occur (31). Capital can be rebuilt,
but only to a limited extent. The decline of capital makes it difficult to access
information, recruit more expertise and maintain energy. If a lame duck President
can be defined by a loss of political capital , this paper helps determine if such capital can be
Important to the discussion of political capital is whether or not it can be replenished over a term.

replenished or if a lame duck

President must be developed.

can accomplish little. Before determining this, a definition of a lame duck

pocaps real
Generic pocaps not real wont cut the mustard with our scenario its all
about whether Obama can credibly convince the GOP to cave on CIR and
other losses like the plan damage that. You should prize the specific link
analysis of the 1nc over generic Hirsch cards.
Political Capital is real- empirics are on our side

Mandel 12
Seth Mandel is Assistant Editor of Commentary magazine. He was a 2011 National Security Fellow at the Foundation
for Defense of Democracies. Prior to that, Mandel was Managing Editor of The Jewish State, The Jewish Journal, and
The Speaker, where he won Investigative Reporting awards for his coverage of the Second Lebanon War and the
Iranian nuclear program, as well as Column Writing and Editorial Writing awards for his coverage of the Middle East.
His work has also been published by National Review, the Weekly Standard, the Washington Times, and many other
publications. 3-23-2012 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/03/23/presidential-persuasion-commander-inchief-obama-reagan-clinton/

I want to offer Klein one more note of optimism. He writes: Back-room bargains and
quiet negotiations do not, however, present an inspiring vision of the Presidency. And they fail, too. Boehner
and Obama spent much of last summer sitting in a room together, but, ultimately,
the Speaker didnt make a private deal with the President for the same reason that Republican
legislators dont swoon over a public speech by him: he is the leader of the Democratic Party, and if he wins
they lose. This suggests that, as the two parties become more sharply divided, it may become increasingly
difficult for a President to governand theres little that he can do about it. I disagree. The details of the
deal matter, not just the party lines about the dispute . There is no way the
backroom negotiations Clinton conducted with Gingrich over social security reform
could have been possible if we had prime ministers , instead of presidents. The president
possesses political capital Congress doesnt. History tells us there are effective ways to use
that capital. One lesson: quiet action on domestic policy, visible and audible leadership
on national security.

a/t Hirsch
Hirsh concedes political capital matters
Hirsh 13
Michael, chief correspondent, Theres No Such Thing as Political Capital, 2/7/13,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-political-capital20130207

The point is not that political capital is a meaningless term . Often it is a

synonym for mandate or momentum in the aftermath of a decisive electionand just about every politician
ever elected has tried to claim more of a mandate than he actually has. Certainly, Obama can say that because he
was elected and Romney wasnt, he has a better claim on the countrys mood and direction.

Many pundits

still defend political capital as a useful metaphor at least. Its an unquantifiable but
meaningful concept , says Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. You cant really look
at a president and say hes got 37 ounces of political capital. But the fact is,

its a concept that

matters , if you have popularity and some momentum on your side .

Impacts

K2 econ
Raising minimum wages grows econ by giving low-wage workers more
money.
Fiscal Policy Institute-06 [Fiscal Policy Institute, an organization dedicated towards examining and
researching the effects and dynamics of economic policies, 3/30/06. States with Minimum Wages above the Federal Level
have had Faster Small Business and Retail Job Growth http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/FPISmallBusinessMinWage.pdf Accessed
6/23/09

The simplistic introductory economics prediction that an increase in the minimum

wage will result in job loss clearly is not supporte d by the actual job growth record.
Rather, faced with an increase in the minimum wage, small businesses may have benefited from
some combination of higher productivity through improved worker retention and
savings on recruitment and training. There may also be a Henry Ford effect at work: if you pay
workers more, they can buy more, boosting the overall economy , especially among small
retail businesses.

2nc a/t cuts bad

Their arguments arent statistically sound a high wage is better on every
measure
Holland 3/7
(All of the Arguments Against Raising the Minimum Wage Have Fallen Apart March 7, 2014 Joshua Holland is a
senior digital producer for BillMoyers.com. Hes the author of The Fifteen Biggest Lies About the Economy (and
Everything Else the Right Doesnt Want You to Know about Taxes, Jobs and Corporate America) (Wiley: 2010), and
host of Politics and Reality Radio. http://billmoyers.com/2014/03/07/all-of-the-arguments-against-raising-theminimum-wage-have-fallen-apart/)kk

Conservatives should be on the front line of the battle to raise the minimum wage.
Work is supposed to make one independent, but with the inflation-adjusted federal
minimum down by a third from its peak, low-wage workers depend on billions of
dollars in public assistance just to make ends meet. Just this week, Rachel West and
Michael Reich released a study conducted for the Center for American Progress that
found raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would save taxpayers $4.6
billion in spending on food stamps.
And even if you break your back working in todays low-wage economy, its
exceedingly difficult to raise yourself up by the bootstraps; its all but impossible to
put yourself through school or save enough money to start a business if youre
making anything close to $7.25 an hour.
But those predisposed to defending the interests of corporate America including
retailers and fast-food restaurants oppose any increase. Thats tough given that
73 percent of Americans including 53 percent of registered Republicans favor
hiking the minimum to $10.10 per hour, according to a Pew poll conducted in
January.
So those opposed to giving low-income workers a raise offer a number of claims
suggesting it would be a supposedly bad idea. Unfortunately for their cause, all of
their arguments fall apart under close scrutiny. Here are the ones deployed most
frequently.
Its a monstrous job-killer
Big business conservatives crowed when a recent report by the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) projected that a hike to $10.10 might cost the economy
500,000 jobs never mind that it would have raised the incomes of around 17
million Americans. But a number of economists disputed the CBO finding. One of
them, John Schmitt from the Center for Economic and Policy Research, studied years
of research on the question, and found that the weight of that evidence points to
little or no employment response to modest increases in the minimum wage .
We also have real-world experience with higher minimums. In 1998, the citizens of
Washington State voted to raise theirs and then link future increases to the rate of
inflation. Today, at $9.32, the Evergreen State has the highest minimum wage in the
country not far from the $10.10 per hour proposed by Barack Obama. At the time
it was passed, opponents promised it would kill jobs and ultimately hurt the workers
it was designed to help.
But it didnt turn out that way. This week, Bloombergs Victoria Stilwell, Peter
Robison and William Selway reported: In the 15 years that followed job growth
continued at an average 0.8 percent annual pace, 0.3 percentage point above the
national rate. Payrolls at Washingtons restaurants and bars, portrayed as
particularly vulnerable to higher wage costs, expanded by 21 percent. Poverty has
trailed the U.S. level for at least seven years.
It will hurt mom-and-pop businesses

Another argument is that it would disproportionately hurt small businesses giving

the Wal-Marts of the world an unfair advantage over mom and pop. But a poll of 500
small business owners from across the country released on Thursday undermines
that talking point. The survey, conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research for
Small Business Majority, found that small business owners support a hike to $10.10
per hour by a 57-43 margin. Eighty-two percent of those surveyed say they already
pay their employees more than the minimum and 52 percent agreed that if the
wage floor is raised, people will have a higher percentage of their income to spend
on goods and services and small businesses will be able to grow and hire new
workers.
Major costs will be passed along to consumers
Opponents also claim that higher wages would mean significantly higher prices and
that those cost increases would effectively eat up whatever extra earnings lowwage workers ended up taking home. But a 2011 study conducted by Ken Jacobs
and Dave Graham-Squire at the UC-Berkeley Center for Labor Research and
Education and Stephanie Luce at CUNYs Murphy Institute for Worker Education and
Labor Studies estimated that raising the minimum wage to $12 per hour two
bucks more than whats currently on the table would increase the cost of an
average shopping trip to Wal-Mart by just 46 cents or around $12 per year.
And another paper published last September by economists Jeannette Wicks Lim
and Robert Pollin estimated that a hike to $10.50 an hour would likely result in the
price of a Big Mac increasing by only a dime, from $4.50 to $4.60, on average.
If the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation since its inception in 1968, it
would now stand at $10.74 per hour. With the share of our nations output going to
workers wages at an all-time low and inequality on the rise its easy to
understand why the idea of raising it to $10.10 is so popular. And despite
opponents dire warnings, theres really no good reason that we shouldnt do so .

a/t hurts jobs

Best studies show that youre wrong it actually increases jobs and serve
as a check on bad employer practices.
Portero 2013
(No, Raising the Minimum Wage Will Not Lead To Massive Job Losses Ashley covers U.S. politics for the
International Business Times, with a focus on civil liberties, women's issues and campaign finance, February 13
2013 http://www.ibtimes.com/no-raising-minimum-wage-will-not-lead-massive-job-losses-1083496)kk

Most Americans can probably say they aspire to earn far more than $9 an hour. But,
in the wake of President Barack Obamas proposal to boost the federal minimum
wage from $7.25 to the still paltry $9, several Republican lawmakers are insisting
that mandatory wage raises for those low-skilled workers could paradoxically
increase poverty across the United States.
"We know our economy is stronger when we reward an honest day's work with
honest wages," Obama said during his State of the Union speech Tuesday night.
"But today, a full-time worker making the minimum wage earns $14,500 a year.
Even with the tax relief we've put in place, a family with two kids that earns the
minimum wage still lives below the poverty line. That's wrong."
The proposal was just one component of Obamas economic-focused speech, where
he called on creating ladders of opportunities into the middle class as a means of
raising Americans out of poverty. The White House plan, which would raise the
federal minimum wage by increments until 2015, predicts it would benefit more
than 15 million workers. Still, at the end of the day those full-time workers would
only be taking home $18,720, before taxes.
Jobs, Jobs, Jobs: Is The American Economic Recovery For Real?
Fourth Quarter US GDP Falls 0.1% - First Decline Since Second Quarter 2009
Raising the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation would be one step toward
easing the burden on the working poor, according to the Obama administration. But
top Republicans, such as House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., have already clearly expressed their opposition to the
plan, relying on the age-old argument that businesses will hire less if they are
forced to pay more even an extra $1.75 per hour.
History, however, indicates otherwise . While some studies, such as a 2010
report in the Review of Economics and Statistics, found no detectable employment
losses from the kind of minimum wage increases we have seen in the United
States, those wage increases still benefit those who are currently employed. For
instance, the Center for American Progress reports a small pay bump could
ultimately pay for itself by boosting worker productivity and reducing turnover and
vacancies.
Economists have evaluated the impact of minimum wage increases practically
since the inception of the wage floor in the 1930s. At this point , it is fair to say
that the debate over the purported job-loss effect is a debate over
whether this effect is slightly below zero, or at zero , reported the Economic
Policy Institute back in 1999, when Congress was debating raising the minimum
wage to $6.15 an hour.
Another widely cited study by economists David Card and Alan Krueger found that a
higher minimum wage can boost job creation for low-skilled professions ,
while the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development recently

reported an increase could help reduce, however minutely, the rate of income
inequality in the U.S. by pushing up the incomes of the poor.
That could even fortify the economy , according to the Federal Reserve Bank of
Chicago, which reports that, for every $1 increase in the minimum wage, spending
by households with minimum wage workers increased by $700 per quarter.
The state of Washington has the highest minimum wage in the country at $9.19 an
hour. Nineteen states have a set wage higher than the federal level, while four have
set it below the $7.25 federal standard. Georgia and Wyoming currently have the
lowest minimum wages, at $5.15 per hour.
The United States has one of the lowest minimum wages among developed
countries, according to the International Labor Organizations most recent Global
Wage Report. With a minimum wage at below 40 percent of the average national
salary, only Japan and Spain pay their lowest-rung workers less.
Even if it did there wouldnt be an impact extend galbraith. People would
have more money to cover for the losses in the economy

Ext - data
Empirical data from the 97 wage increase also proves you wrong
Economic Policy Institute 2008

[An organization that focuses on the general economy and the effects that policy has on it, August 2008. EPI Issue
Guide: Minimum Wage. http://epi.3cdn.net/1010456170680f8fc7_lem6b99v9.pdf Accessed 6/27/09]

A 1998 EPI study failed to find any systematic, significant job loss associated with
the 1996-97 minimum wage increase. In fact, following the most recent increase in
the minimum wage in 1996- 97, the low-wage labor market performed better

than it had in decades (e.g., lower unemployment rates, increased average

hourly wages, increased family income, decreased poverty rates).
Studies of the 1990-91 federal minimum wage increase, as well as studies by David
Card and Alan Krueger of several state minimum wage increases, also found no
measurable negative impact on employment. New economic models that look
specifically at low-wage labor markets help explain why there is little evidence of
job loss associated with minimum wage increases. These models recognize that
employers may be able to absorb some of the costs of a wage increase through
higher productivity, Minimum Wage Issue Guide: Facts at a Glance lower recruiting
and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale. A recent
Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) study of state minimum wages found no evidence of
negative employment effects on small businesses

Global econ internal

US is key to the global economy
Caploe, 09

(David, PhD in International political economy from Princeton, Focus still on America to lead global recovery, The
Straits Times, 8/2/12)
IN THE aftermath of the G-20 summit, most observers seem to have missed perhaps the most crucial statement of the entire event,
made by United States President Barack Obama at his pre-conference meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown: 'The

world has become accustomed to the US being a voracious consumer market, the engine that
drives a lot of economic growth worldwide,' he said. 'If there is going to be renewed growth, it just can't be the US as the
engine.' While superficially sensible, this view is deeply problematic. To begin with, it ignores the fact that the global economy has in
fact been 'America-centred'

for more than 60 years. Countries - China, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Korea, Mexico and

so on - either sell to the US or they sell to countries that sell to the US . This system has generally
been advantageous for all concerned. America gained certain historically unprecedented benefits, but the system also enabled
participating countries - first in Western Europe and Japan, and later, many in the Third World - to achieve undreamt-of prosperity. At

this deep inter-connection between the US and the rest of the world also explains how the
collapse of a relatively small sector of the US economy - 'sub-prime' housing, logarithmically exponentialised by Wall
Street's ingenious chicanery - has cascaded into the worst global economic crisis since the Great
Depression. To put it simply, Mr Obama doesn't seem to understand that there is no other engine for the world economy - and
the same time,

hasn't been for the last six decades. If the US does not drive global economic growth, growth is not going to happen. Thus, US
policies to deal with the current crisis are critical not just domestically, but also to the entire world. Consequently, it is a matter of
global concern that the Obama administration seems to be following Japan's 'model' from the 1990s: allowing major banks to avoid
declaring massive losses openly and transparently, and so perpetuating 'zombie' banks - technically alive but in reality dead. As
analysts like Nobel laureates Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman have pointed out, the administration's unwillingness to confront US
banks is the main reason why they are continuing their increasingly inexplicable credit freeze, thus ravaging the American and
global economies. Team Obama seems reluctant to acknowledge the extent to which its policies at home are failing not just there
but around the world as well. Which raises the question: If the US can't or won't or doesn't want to be the global economic engine,
which country will? The obvious answer is China. But that is unrealistic for three reasons. First,

China's economic

health is more tied to America's than practically any other country in the world. Indeed, the reason China
has so many dollars to invest everywhere - whether in US Treasury bonds or in Africa - is precisely that it has structured its own
economy to complement America's. The only way China can serve as the engine of the global economy is if the US starts pulling it
first. Second, the US-centred system began at a time when its domestic demand far outstripped that of the rest of the world. The
fundamental source of its economic power is its ability to act as the global consumer of last resort. China, however, is a poor
country, with low per capita income, even though it will soon pass Japan as the world's second largest economy. There are real
possibilities for growth in China's domestic demand. But given its structure as an export-oriented economy, it is doubtful if even a
successful Chinese stimulus plan can pull the rest of the world along unless and until China can start selling again to the US on a
massive scale. Finally, the key 'system' issue for China - or for the European Union - in thinking about becoming the engine of the
world economy - is monetary: What are the implications of having your domestic currency become the global reserve currency? This
is an extremely complex issue that the US has struggled with, not always successfully, from 1959 to the present. Without going into
detail, it can safely be said that though having the US dollar as the world's medium of exchange has given the
US some tremendous advantages, it has also created huge problems, both for America and the global economic system. The
Chinese leadership is certainly familiar with this history. It will try to avoid the yuan becoming an international medium of exchange
until it feels much more confident in its ability to handle the manifold currency problems that the US has grappled with for decades.
Given all this, the US

will remain the engine of global economic recovery for the foreseeable

future , even though other countries must certainly help.

Growth Turns terror

Growth turns terrorism
Schaefer 2001
(Brett D., Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs in the Center for International Trade and Economics at The Heritage Foundation, Heritage
Foundation Backgrounder #1508, Expand Freedom to Counter Terrorism, December 6,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/BG1508.cfm)

For America and its allies to win the

war and sustain this victory, they must adopt a strategy that attacks the incentives
for terrorism. This strategy must be centered on the promotion of economic
freedom. As noted by U.S. Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick: [Terrorists] stand for intolerance and abhor
openness. They fear foreign ideas, religions, and cultures. They see the modern
world as a threat, not an opportunity. They leave people in poverty and half of humankind, women, in subjugation. Their
strategy is to terrorize and paralyze, not to debate and create. The international market economy...offers an
antidote to this violent rejectionism. Trade is about more than economic efficiency;
it reflects a system of values: openness, peaceful exchange, opportunity,
inclusiveness and integration, mutual gains through interchange, freedom of choice,
appreciation of differences, governance through agreed rules, and a hope for
betterment for all peoples and lands.... Just as our Cold War strategy recognized the
interconnection of security and economics, so must America's strategy against
terrorism.11
The conflict in Afghanistan is merely the most immediate phase of the war on terrorism.

Growth solves future terror attacks

Drew Schaub 04, Department of Political Science, Penn State, 2004, JOURNAL OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION, Vol. 48 No. 2, April 2004 230-258,
http://jcr.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/48/2/230?
maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=1097450117566_125&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=20&minscore=5000&journalcode=spj
cr (HARVUN3864)
The indirect, negative effects of the globalization variables, as hypothesized in hypotheses 2 and 3, receive support in model 1. A countrys GDP per

As a country
becomes more developed, the number of transnational terrorist incidents decreases
within its borders. In addition, the average level of development of the countrys top export destination countries, measured by their
average GDP per capita, is also statistically significant and negative. Consistent with hypothesis 3, as the level of development in
a countrys economic partner countries improves, the number of transnational
terrorist incidents decreases within the country. This implies that growing economic
integration between the country and its economic partners can help to remove
some incentive for foreign terrorists from those partner countries to attack targets
within this country. Based on the coefficients of model 1, a 1%increase in the GDP per capita of a country decreases the expected number
of transnational terrorist incidents within the country by 19.3%, holding all other variables constant. A 1% increase in the average
GDP per capita of the countrys top eight export destination countries decreases the
expected number of transnational terrorist incidents within this country by 47.5%,
holding other variables constant. Although the globalization variables have no direct positive effect, their indirect
negative effect through influencing economic development appears large and
important.
capita, measuring its own level of development, is statistically significant and negative, consistent with hypothesis 2.

Growth turns democracy

Economic decline causes multiple sites of state failure and democratic
backsliding
Ferguson 9
Niall ,Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 87 Issue 7/8, July/aug 9)

Will this financial crisis make the world more dangerous as well as poorer? The
answer is almost certainly yes. Apart from the usual trouble spots -- Afghanistan, Congo,
Gaza, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Somalia, and Sudan -- expect new outbreaks of
instability in countries we thought had made it to democracy. In Asia, Thailand may be
the most vulnerable. At the end of 2007 it reverted to democracy after a spell of military rule that was supposed to crack down on
corruption. Within a year's time the country was in chaos, with protesters blocking Bangkok's streets and the state banning the People's Power Party. In
April 2009 the capital descended into anarchy as rival yellow-shirted and red-shirted political factions battled with the military. Expect similar
scenes in other emerging markets. Trouble has already begun in Georgia and
Moldova. Then there's Ukraine, where economic collapse threatens to trigger political disintegration. While President Viktor
Yushchenko leans toward Europe, his ally-turned-rival Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko favors a Russian orientation. Their differences reflect a widening
gap between the country's predominantly Ukrainian west and predominantly Russian east. Meanwhile, in Moscow, Putin talks menacingly of "ridding the
Ukrainian people of all sorts of swindlers and bribe-takers." The Crimean peninsula, with its ethnic Russian majority, is the part of the "Near Abroad" (the

January's wrangle over gas supplies to Western Europe may

have been the first phase of a Russian bid to destabilize, if not to break up, Ukraine. The
world's increasing instability makes the U nited S tates seem more attractive not
only as a safe haven but also as a global policeman. Many people spent the years from
2001 to 2008 complaining about U.S. interventions overseas. But if the financial
crisis turns up the heat in old hot spots and creates new ones at either end of
Eurasia, the world may spend the next eight years wishing for more, not fewer, U.S.
interventions.
former Soviet Union) that Putin most covets.

CIR

1nc will pass

CIR is still likely statistical support
Wolgin 3/4

(Immigration Polling Roundup: Americans of All Political Stripes Want Congress to Pass Immigration Reform Philip E.
Wolgin is a Senior Policy Analyst on the Immigration Policy team at the Center for American Progress. Evelyn Galvan
is an intern with the Immigration Policy team.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2014/03/04/85102/immigration-polling-roundupamericans-of-all-political-stripes-want-congress-to-pass-immigration-reform/)kk

House Republican leaders put out a set of standards that laid out
their principles for immigration reform , including, for the first time, an endorsement of legalization for
Just under a month ago,

the 11.7 million unauthorized immigrants living in the country. But the principles stopped short of offering a full

How do the American people

feel about immigration reform and a pathway to legal status only ? Despite the many ways
to phrase the question, five recent polls from January and February illustrate clearly that
the public strongly supports immigration reform that includes a pathway
pathway to citizenship, instead coming out in favor of legal status only.

to citizenship , rejects approaches that would continue to give unauthorized immigrants second-class
status, and will be disappointed if immigration reform fails to pass this year. Here are the five most recent polls on

Dealing with unauthorized immigrants already in the country

trumps border security (February 2014) Gallups most recent polling on immigration found that more
immigration. 1. Gallup:

Americans believe that dealing with unauthorized immigrants living in the United States is more important than
securing the nations borders. While Americans are almost split on the two issues, with 44 percent in favor of first
dealing with the unauthorized and 43 percent in favor of first securing the border, the survey shows a big shift from

by 10
percentage points53 percent to 43 percent. Digging into the data illustrates that support for securing the
just a few years ago. In 2011, Gallup found that Americans favored securing the border first

border first has declined among both Republicans and Democrats. Support among Republicans, for example,
decreased from 68 percent in 2011 to only 56 percent in 2014; while among Democrats, it has dropped from 42
percent to 31 percent. Still, it is important to note that legal status and border security can occur on parallel tracks,
as in the Senate immigration reform bill, which makes unprecedented investments in border security and
enforcement while providing a pathway to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants. This polling follows attempts by
members of both parties to provide a pathway to legal status for unauthorized immigrants, either through the
Senate-passed immigration reform plan or theRepublican principles released in January. 2. CNN/ORC International:

Legalizing unauthorized immigrants is our first immigration priority, and Americans

support a full pathway to citizenship (February 2014) Just more than half of all Americans in a
CNN/ORC International poll argued that the first priority on immigration should be providing a pathway to legal
status for unauthorized immigrants living in the country, while only 41 percent believed that stopping unauthorized
immigration should be the top priority. These results stand in sharp relief to similar polling done in 2011 and before,
when a majority of Americans believed that stopping unauthorized immigration should come before allowing
unauthorized immigrants access to legal status. As CNN Polling Director Keating Holland argued, The Republicans
insistence that border security be the primary focus of U.S. immigration policy may have been a popular stand in
2011, but not necessarily in 2014. Overall, 8 out of 10 Americans believed that unauthorized immigrants who
have been in the country for years and are employed, speak English, and would pay back taxes should be allowed
to become citizens, while nearly two-thirds of those polled stated that they would oppose a bill that only granted
legal status but no way to achieve citizenship. Both of these results were more or less consistent regardless of
whether the respondent was a Democrat, a Republican, or an independent. It is clear from the poll that the
American public supports a full pathway to citizenship, not the granting of merely second-class legal status. 3.

74 percent of voters will be disappointed if Congress

does not pass immigration reform (February 2014) A new poll by Democratic polling firm Global
Global Strategy Group/Basswood Research:

Strategy Group and Republican firm Basswood Research found that nearly 79 percent of all Americans want
immigration reform, and nearly three out of four Americans will be disappointed if Congress fails to act. Despite
members of Congress saying that immigration reform can wait, it is clear that voters disagree. More importantly,
Americans are strongly in favor of the main components of immigration reform: Two-thirds of all Americans support
a pathway to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants, including a majority of Republican voters. When it comes to
DREAMersyoung unauthorized immigrantsnearly 9 out of 10 voters support allowing them to become citizens.
Other major provisions of immigration reformincluding securing the border, creating a new merit-based
immigration visa, and mandating electronic employment verificationall have around 80 percent approval rates.

The majority of Americans favor the pathway to citizenship and

soundly reject legal-status-only approaches (January 2014) In a CBS News poll, a majority of
4. CBS News:

Americans54 percentfelt that unauthorized immigrants should be allowed to become citizens. Importantly, while

most Americans are in favor of the pathway to citizenship, they strongly reject approaches that would leave
unauthorized immigrants with second-class status: Only 12 percent of respondents believed that unauthorized
immigrants should receive legal status but not be able to become citizens. Two-thirds of Democrats supported the
pathway to citizenship, while only 43 percent of Republicans did. However, a smaller percentage of Republicans9
percentthan any other group supported a legal-status-only approach to immigration reform. This final result
should give pause to congressional leadership as they propose, as Republicans did with their immigration principles,
legalization without citizenship for unauthorized immigrants. 5. Fox News: More than two-thirds of Americans
support the pathway to citizenship and reject mass deportation (January 2014) When asked, Which of the
following comes closest to your view about what government policy should be toward undocumented immigrants
currently in the United States?, 68 percentof Americans favored a pathway to citizenship for unauthorized
immigrants in the country if they meet requirements such as paying back taxes and passing background checks.
Support for requiring all unauthorized immigrants to be sent back to their home countries stood at only 15 percent.
Support for the pathway to citizenship has increased slightly, by 2 percent, since May 2013, while support for
sending unauthorized immigrants home has dropped 5 percent. Conclusion Just one week after releasing the
House Republican principles, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) fanned the flames of his own party, stating that
members could not move forward on immigration because they lacked trust that President Barack Obama will
enforce the laws. But these argumentsand those voices in the Republican Party urging a delay in immigration
reform until next year, at the earliestdo not actually challenge the substance of reform proposals, or even the
substance of the Republicans own principles regarding immigration reform. Instead, they tacitly accept the premise
that immigration reform should happen without actually moving it forward. As Greg Sargent of The Washington
Post points out, GOP stalling on immigration is not about distrust of Obama. From the polling above, it is clear

Americans support immigration reform, including the

pathway to citizenship, and will be disappointed if Congress fails to pass legislation
this year. The window for acting on immigration reform is open through 2014, the public
supports it, and now is the time for the House to step up and pass it.
that it is not about public opinion either.

2nc its a priority

Its a top priority now focus because of midterms
Kelly 3/10

(Immigration reform could play a key role in Senate races Erin Kelly Gannett Washington Bureau, Mon Mar 10,
2014 http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20140309immigration-reform-senate-races.html)kk

Immigration reform could play a key role this year in about a half-dozen Senate
races from Colorado to South Carolina. The outcome of those races will help decide
which party controls the Senate and whether that chamber will be willing
to take up immigration reform again if the House fails to pass it in this session of Congress.
Democrats now have 53 seats in the Senate and the support of two independents who nearly always

vote with them. Republicans hold 45 seats. The Senate last year passed a sweeping, bipartisan bill that included
provisions to beef up security at the southwest border while also offering a pathway to citizenship for many of the

If the House doesn't act before the current twoyear session of Congress ends in January, the Senate immigration bill will expire and
efforts to enact reform will have to begin again . Two of the Republicans who voted for the
nation's 12 million undocumented immigrants.

comprehensive bill last summer -- Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee -- are
facing primary challenges from tea party candidates who have denounced the senators' support for reform. Graham
may be a bigger target because he was one of the bipartisan "Gang of Eight" senators who helped craft the Senate
bill. In Georgia, where the retirement of Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss has left an open seat, GOP candidates
are battling each other over who is the biggest opponent of the Senate bill. The three House members running in
the primary are all on record as favoring the deportation of "dreamers" -- young immigrants brought to the United
States as children. At the same time, Democratic Sens. Mark Udall of Colorado, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mary
Landrieu of Louisiana are facing strong competition from Republicans who oppose a pathway to citizenship for
undocumented immigrants. All of the Senate Democrats voted for the bill last summer. The Colorado race that pits
Udall against Republican Rep. Cory Gardner could be the biggest test of all for the power of immigration reform to
sway voters, said Jennifer Duffy, who analyzes Senate races as senior editor for the non-partisan Cook Political
Report. Gardner has denounced the Senate bill that Udall supported as "amnesty for illegal immigrants" and said it
will only encourage more illegal immigration. Gardner also has opposed the Dream Act, which would allow some
immigrants brought to the United States as children to become citizens. He voted for a bill by Rep. Steve King, RIowa, to cut off funding for an Obama administration program that stopped the deportation of the young
immigrants. "I

can see immigration playing a major role in Colorado ," Duffy said.
" Democrats will certainly use it to try to turn out Hispanic voters, and
Democrats have done well in the state in recent elections . But it's far from a
done deal for Udall. Colorado isn't a solid Democratic state. I can see room for a Republican to win."

Iran

1nc UQ
GOP is trying to revive the bill but democratic focus is still key to hold it
down
Sorcher 2/27

(Big Democratic Donors Urge Congress to Back Off Iran Sanctions Sara Sorcher is National Journal's national
security correspondent. http://www.nationaljournal.com/defense/big-democratic-donors-urge-congress-to-back-offiran-sanctions-20140227)kk

Dozens of major Democratic donors are urging congressional leaders to oppose any
new sanctions or legislation that could jeopardize ongoing negotiations between world powers and Iran. The
letter, signed by 82 donors, the majority of them Jewish, could be a boon for President
Obama's diplomatic efforts,

which resulted in a controversial deal that curbed major aspects of

Iran's nuclear program temporarily as negotiations to reach a permanent deal continue. Obama has promised to

Republicans are trying anyway to revive a sanctions bill by

Sens. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., which had 59 cosponsors. In the coming days, key
speakers, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, are expected to press Congress to
keep the financial noose tight around Iran at a conference held by the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee, Washington's best-known pro-Israel lobby. The
donors' letter may help weaken some of that momentum. "Although success in achieving a
veto new sanctions, but

final agreement is far from guaranteed, Congress should allow these fragile negotiations to proceed without making
threats that could derail them or tying the hands of the negotiators by imposing unrealistic terms for a final
agreement," the donors wrote Thursday to senior Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Majority
Whip Dick Durbin, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, and House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer. National
Journal previously reported that diplomacy with Iran's new president, Hassan Rouhani, and the growth of alternative

The new
push from Democratic donorsincluding Ben Cohen, formerly of Vermont-based Ben & Jerry's ice cream;
pro-Israel groups make it easier for lawmakers to oppose Iran sanctions than it has been in years past.

Victor Kovner, a fixture in the Democratic fundraising world since the Clinton administration; and former Sierra Club
Foundation President Guy Saperstein could

go a long way toward convincing Democrats

that supporting their president's interim agreement with Iran is a politically tenable
option. "This is the political center of gravity of the Democratic Party telling Congress there is no political need

to do what the organizations pushing hawkish actions on Iran want you to do," a lobbyist arguing against new Iran
sanctions said under condition of anonymity. Praising the agreement between six world powers and Iran in
November as a "first step" toward a comprehensive agreement to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons,
the donors echoed Obama's State of the Union claims that Iran has begun to freeze, and roll back, parts of its
program under stringent international monitoring for the first time in a decade. The donors insist that lawmakers
should be aware of Iran's threats that new sanctionseven if they did not take effect immediatelywould be seen
as a violation of the interim agreement and could rupture negotiations. "Passing such legislation would likely lead to
an immediate and substantial lessening of economic pressure on Iran because other countries, like China, Russia,
the European Union, Japan, South Korea, India and Turkey might cease implementing sanctions on the ground that
the U.S. had undermined negotiations," the letter said. Congress could always pass new sanctions if Iran violated
the agreement, the donors said. However, for their part, Netanyahu and pro-Israel groups in the U.S. supporting
Israeli leadership on this issue want to keep the pressure tight during the interim deal, which does not fully
dismantle Tehran's nuclear program. The donors also take what is sure to be a controversial stand on uranium
enrichment. Some members of Congress are insisting that Iran give up enriching uranium, even to low levels,
which the Islamic Republic has already decried as a deal-breaker. Putting such a provision into law would threaten
talks by "tying the hands" of both U.S. negotiators and Rouhani, "who could not feasibly finalize a deal that zeroes
out domestic enrichment," the letter said. "Like sanctions, such a legislative poison pill would only serve to erode
the prospects for diplomatic success," the letter continued. "Even if congressional action took the form of a
nonbinding resolution, or if the president vetoed such legislation, its initial passage would strengthen the hand of
Iranian hard-liners arguing against negotiations on the ground that Congress will not accept any deal reached at the
negotiating table." Diplomacy's failure now, the donors continued, would either lead to military action or Iran
getting a nuclear weapon. "We

urge you to oppose risky congressional action that, if taken,

may lead you to wake up the next morning knowing the result has been to take the
diplomatic option off the table," they wrote.

2nc Obama still key

Obamas efforts are key to stopping the bill
Reuters 3/4
(U.S. senator still believes in new Iran sanctions bill Reuters, March 4, 2014
http://news.yahoo.com/u-senator-still-believes-iran-sanctions-bill163117789.html)kk
U.S. Senator Robert Menendez said on Tuesday he still sees his legislation to impose new
sanctions on Iran as the best way to ensure that Iran does not develop a nuclear
weapon and prevent military action over its nuclear program. In a speech to the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC,
Menendez, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, expressed deep skepticism
about Iran's intentions in current negotiations with world powers. "I don't believe we will have sufficient time to
effectively impose new sanctions before Iran could produce a nuclear weapon, leaving the West with only two
options, a nuclear armed Iran or a military action," Menendez said. "I believe that we can prevent those being the
only two options by the legislation that we have proposed with Senator (Mark) Kirk," he said, to loud applause.
Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, and Kirk, an Illinois Republican, were lead authors of a bill to impose new

Obama's
administration lobbied hard against the bill, saying that it would endanger the
delicate talks with Iran. The measure stalled in the Senate and hasn't been
sanctions on Iran if international negotiations on a nuclear agreement falter. President Barack

brought to the floor for a vote, but Menendez has said he is prepared to
push for one when the time is right. "It is clear that only intense, punishing economic pressure
influences Iranian leaders," he said.

2nc lobbyists pushing

Israel lobby is forcing the issue forward
Rozen 2/28

(AIPAC expected to lobby for Iran sanctions bill that Obama has vowed to veto Posted on February 28, 2014 by
Laura Rozen http://backchannel.al-monitor.com/index.php/2014/02/7826/aipac-expected-to-lobby-for-iransanctions-bill-opposed-by-white-house/#ixzz2vfiZcRBc)kk
As Senate Democrats and Republicans traded blame Thursday over blocked veterans benefits legislation to which
Republicans had tried to attach an Iran sanctions amendment, the pro-Israel lobby group the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee (AIPAC) faced questions about its position on the matter just days before its big annual policy
conference here. The Republicans are trying to mislead the American public by saying that a bipartisan majority
supports moving forward with new sanctions right now, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) said in a
statement Thursday. In fact, many Senators.as well as Israels strongest supporter, AIPACagree that now is not
the right time to bring a sanctions package to the floor. AIPAC

was unequivocal in its request for a

delay on additional sanctions, Reids statement continued. This is what AIPAC said: Stopping the
Iranian nuclear program should rest on bipartisan support and there should not be
a vote at this time on the measure. An AIPAC official, speaking to reporters at a lunch at
Mortons restaurant Thursday, said AIPAC members would next week lobby for more
Senate co-sponsors for the Kirk-Menendez Iran sanctions bill (S1881), sources at the lunch told
Al-Monitor on condition they not be identified since the lunch was off the record. President Obama has vowed to
veto the measure, which was shelved last month after gaining 59 co-sponsors, short of the 67 needed to override a
presidential veto. (The

House passed a version of the measure overwhelmingly last

summer [.pdf], before an interim Iran nuclear deal was reached in November; a separate House Iran sanctions
push was shelved in January.) AIPAC lobbyists may urge Democrats to co-sponsor the bill by arguing, We dont
support a vote, but why not cosponsor? a Hill staffer, speaking not for attribution, suggested Thursday. They
burned their fingers very badly on S1881, Douglas Bloomfield, a former AIPAC official and columnist told Al-Monitor
in an interview Thursday, referring to AIPAC. And I think they are trying now to put some balm on it. But they still
havent given up on pushing it. AIPAC officials, writing in the New York Times last week, were vague about when
they would push to bring the bill to a vote, Bloomfield noted. We support the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act,
sponsored by the Senate Foreign Relations Committees chairman, Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New
Jersey, and by Senator Mark Kirk, Republican of Illinois, AIPAC officials Michael Kassen and Lee Rosenberg write in a
February 22, 2014 New York Times op-ed. Earlier this month, we agreed with Mr. Menendez on delaying a vote in
the Senate, but we remain committed to the bills passage. I think they are torn , Bloomfield said, by the
desire to maintain bipartisan appeal in Congress and among its membership, while at the same time, he said,
they

are under pressure from what has become their Republican base on

the Hill and they also have big money people .

***Aff Answers

PC Low

The Democrats are out of political capitalthe ACA is unpopular, growth is

stagnant, and the debt ceiling deal is a liability
Fox 14
[Lauren Fox is a political reporter for U.S. News & World Report. Democrats May
Have Won the Debt Ceiling, But Not Political Capital. U.S. News & World Report. 12
February 2014. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/02/12/democrats-mayhave-won-the-debt-ceiling-but-not-political-capital]
Republican leaders stepped up to move the presidents request forward and ensure
efficiency in an era of divided government this time, but dont expect it to last. even
though Democrats have a long list of agenda items they would like to tackle before
the midterm election. The wish list includes: increasing the minimum wage to
$10.10, extending long-term unemployment insurance and sending a
comprehensive immigration bill to the presidents desk before November. But even
after Democrats managed to pass a debt ceiling bill without any policy
strings attached, they arent in a stronger position to lobby for their
legislation . Congress remains in an election cycle, which typically slows
the body's appetite for passing new laws and hinders bipartisan
cooperation. House aides confirmed Boehner wont be adopting the debt ceiling
strategy to pass a comprehensive immigration bill anytime soon. This doesnt
create any real political capital for Democrats, says Sarah Binder, a
congressional expert at the Brookings Institution. It simply needed to be
done. If anything, the lack of drama over the debt ceiling could be a
political liability for Democrats. With the debt ceiling vote out of the way,
Republicans have more room to attack Democrats on the campaign trail
for their support of the unpopular Affordable Care Act and stagnant
growth in the economy. This was the last deadline bill, the last drop dead bill.
Now we can focus on whatever bills Republicans want to bring up, says Rep. Peter
King, R-N.Y. King argues that by forcing Democrats to put up the majority of
the votes, some of the tea party Republicans are the ones who are
walking away with the political capital . They avoided the calamity of a
debt default without being held accountable for raising the debt ceiling in
primaries back home. While Boehner gave many Republicans the option to tie the
debt ceiling vote to a policy item, Republicans didn't want to vote for anything that
forced them to vote in support of increasing the country's borrowing limit.
Obamas minimum wage push already drained his political capital
Kearney 3/1
[Timothy F. Kearney, Ph.D., is the chair of the Department of Business at
Misericordia University in Dallas Township and a contributing columnist to
TimesLeader.com. The minimum-wage surrender. Times Leader. 1 March 2014.
http://www.timesleader.com/news/business/1216514/The-minimum-wage-surrender]
Rather than promote an agenda to grow our national economy, the Obama
Administration has decided the most productive use of its political capital
is to push for a higher minimum wage. The president proposed raising the

minimum wage to $9 per hour in his 2013 State of The Union Address.
That proposal went nowhere. Twelve months later, the administration is
stumping for an increase to $10.10 an hour. This proposal could share the
same fate. After pouring over available research, the non-partisan
Congressional Budget Office has estimated some 500,000 workers could
lose their jobs if the minimum wage was increased. The logic is simple: For a
business to employ a worker, it has to earn at least as much as the minimum-wage
rate. Otherwise, the worker cuts into the business profits and he or she will not be
retained. Many low-skilled workers today are not generating enough
productivity to be able to earn the 30-percent increase in their wages that
President Obama is proposing. Boiled down to its essence, an increase in
the minimum wage is a difficult trade-off: Some workers will lose their jobs
entirely for the benefit of those who will enjoy a raise at least in the
short run. The workers who will lose their jobs are among the least experienced
and hence least skilled in the economy. For them, an increase in the minimum wage
will push them from their places on the first rungs of the ladder of opportunity. And
this paradox the redistribution of income among workers at the bottom of the
economic ladder is at the heart of the administrations pessimistic policy.
President Obama and his team are essentially waving the flag of surrender
on delivering growth and opportunity for people all along the career
ladder. The presidents stated agenda of a higher minimum wage and extending
unemployment benefits is an admission that they do not have a plan to generate
jobs and income, just to redistribute it.

A2 Top of the Docket

The disad doesnt pass the Make Sense Testfive other bills are top of
the dockettheres no reason our plan would uniquely affect the passage
of ________________
GovTrack 3/13 [GovTrack.us. Bills and Resolutions. Accessed 13 March 2014.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/]
Coming Up This Week
5 bills and resolutions are on the House and Senate calendars for the
coming days. Once bills are scheduled for floor action, they typically have enough
support to pass.
H.R. 4160: Keep the Promise to Seniors Act of 2014 The House Majority
Leader indicated the bill would be considered in the week ahead on Mar 07, 2014.
H.R. 4015: SGR Repeal and Medicare Provider Payment Modernization Act
of 2014 The House Majority Leader indicated the bill would be considered in the
week ahead on Mar 07, 2014. H.R. 4138: ENFORCE the Law Act of 2014 The
House Majority Leader indicated the bill would be considered in the week ahead on
Mar 06, 2014. H.R. 3973: Faithful Execution of the Law Act of 2014 The
House Majority Leader indicated the bill would be considered in the week ahead on
Mar 06, 2014. H.R. 3189: Water Rights Protection Act The House Majority
Leader indicated the bill would be considered in the week ahead on Mar 06, 2014.

Winners Win

Winners win and PC is a useless concept

Hirsh 13
Michael, chief correspondent for National Journal; citing Ornstein, a political
scientist and scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and Bensel, govt prof at
Cornell, "There's No Such Thing as Political Capital", 2/7,
www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-political-capital20130207
But the abrupt emergence of the immigration and gun-control issues illustrates how
suddenly shifts in mood can occur and how political interests can align in new ways just as suddenly. Indeed,
the pseudo-concept of political capital masks a larger truth about Washington that is
kindergarten simple: You just dont know what you can do until you try. Or as Ornstein
himself once wrote years ago, Winning wins . In theory, and in practice, depending on
Obamas handling of any particular issue, even in a polarized time, he could still deliver on a lot
of his second-term goals, depending on his skill and the breaks. Unforeseen catalysts
can appear, like Newtown. Epiphanies can dawn, such as when many Republican Party leaders suddenly woke up in panic to
the huge disparity in the Hispanic vote. Some political scientists who study the elusive calculus of how to pass legislation
and run successful presidencies say that political capital is, at best, an empty concept, and that
almost nothing in the academic literature successfully quantifies or even defines it. It
can refer to a very abstract thing, like a presidents popularity, but theres no
mechanism there. That makes it kind of useless , says Richard Bensel, a government
professor at Cornell University. Even Ornstein concedes that the calculus is far more complex than
the term suggests. Winning on one issue often changes the calculation for
the next issue; there is never any known amount of capital . The idea here is, if an
issue comes up where the conventional wisdom is that president is not going to get
what he wants, and he gets it, then each time that happens, it changes the calculus
of the other actors Ornstein says. If they think hes going to win, they may change
positions to get on the winning side. Its a bandwagon effect .

A2: Minimum Wage

Wont Pass
No minimum wage increaseempirical failure and CBO studies prove
Kearney 3/1 [Timothy F. Kearney, Ph.D., is the chair of the Department of Business
at Misericordia University in Dallas Township and a contributing columnist to
TimesLeader.com. The minimum-wage surrender. Times Leader. 1 March 2014.
http://www.timesleader.com/news/business/1216514/The-minimum-wage-surrender]
Rather than promote an agenda to grow our national economy, the Obama
Administration has decided the most productive use of its political capital is to push
for a higher minimum wage. The president proposed raising the minimum
wage to $9 per hour in his 2013 State of The Union Address. That proposal
went nowhere. Twelve months later, the administration is stumping for an
increase to $10.10 an hour. This proposal could share the same fate . After
pouring over available research, the non-partisan Congressional Budget
Office has estimated some 500,000 workers could lose their jobs if the
minimum wage was increased. The logic is simple: For a business to employ a
worker, it has to earn at least as much as the minimum-wage rate. Otherwise, the
worker cuts into the business profits and he or she will not be retained. Many lowskilled workers today are not generating enough productivity to be able to
earn the 30-percent increase in their wages that President Obama is
proposing. Boiled down to its essence, an increase in the minimum wage
is a difficult trade-off: Some workers will lose their jobs entirely for the
benefit of those who will enjoy a raise at least in the short run. The
workers who will lose their jobs are among the least experienced and hence least
skilled in the economy. For them, an increase in the minimum wage will push them
from their places on the first rungs of the ladder of opportunity. And this paradox
the redistribution of income among workers at the bottom of the economic ladder
is at the heart of the administrations pessimistic policy. President Obama and
his team are essentially waving the flag of surrender on delivering growth
and opportunity for people all along the career ladder. The presidents stated
agenda of a higher minimum wage and extending unemployment benefits is an
admission that they do not have a plan to generate jobs and income, just to
redistribute it.

Hurts Econ
The most accurate macroeconomic models prove a minimum wage hike
would kill GDP and jobs in the long-term
Sherk and Ligon 13 [James Sherk is the Senior Policy Analyst in Labor Economics
at The Heritage Foundation, and John Ligon researches dynamic economic modeling
of federal public policy at The Heritage Foundation. Unprecedented Minimum-Wage
Hike Would Hurt Jobs and the Economy. The Heritage Foundation. 5 December
2013. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/12/unprecedented-minimumwage-hike-would-hurt-jobs-and-the-economy]
Proponents of minimum-wage increases argue that increasing minimumwage workers pay would boost their spending and stimulate the
economy, offsetting potential job losses.[13] Macroeconomic modeling
does not support these claims. The Heritage Foundation used the IHS
Global Insight macroeconomic modelwhich many financial institutions,
manufacturers, and government agencies use to make economic forecasts
to estimate the consequences of increasing the minimum wage. The
Global Insight modeling accounts for minimum-wage workers higher pay,
employer reactions to higher labor costs, and price increases passed onto
consumers. The model shows that increasing the minimum wage would
hurt the economy on netreal GDP would decline by $42 billion in 2017
relative to the baseline. Moreover, by 2017 the legislation would reduce
employment by 287,000 jobs annually.[14]
Raising the minimum wage costs hundreds of thousands of jobs and hurts
those in poverty
Williams 3/10 [Armstrong Williams is an author and political commentator who has
a nationally syndicated TV show and radio program. Minimum Wage Hike Will Hurt
the Poor. Newsmax. 10 March 2014.
http://www.newsmax.com/armstrongwilliams/minimum-wage-poorcbo/2014/03/10/id/557021/]
Just a few short weeks ago, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office decidedly
set forth a verdict on the effects of a minimum wage increase. CBO concluded
that an increase in the minimum wage does more harm to the low-income
individuals it is attempting to help. This conclusion shouldnt surprise
anyone. There has been a long and old consensus that a 10 percent
increase in the minimum wage would lower employment for low-skilled
workers by 1-3 percent. The logic behind this economic truth is simple:
Increasing the cost of low-skill labor leads to a decrease in businesses
demand for their service. This economic truth can be observed while buying
tickets to a basketball game on the Internet. As game day approaches, more and
more people desire a ticket to the game, so the price of that ticket increases. CBO
concluded what the majority of economists already knew. On the positive
side of an increase in the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10, 900,000
Americans would be lifted from poverty. On the negative side of the
equation, 500,000 Americans would lose their jobs. CBOs report flies in the
face of what President Obama has touted repeatedly. This past December, Obama
gave a speech in Washington, D.C., stating, We all know the arguments that have
been used against a higher minimum wage. Some say it actually hurts low-wage
workers businesses will be less likely to hire them. But theres no solid evidence

that a higher minimum wage costs jobs. Well Mr. President, here is your solid
evidence straight from the Congressional Budget Office. But I digress . . . In
essence, an increase in the minimum wage results in the redistribution of
incomes from the very poor that either lose their jobs or want to get a job,
to the working poor who will get a slight pay increase .

A2: Solves Poverty

Raising the minimum wage would have little to no effect on povertyless
than a quarter of minimum wage workers live at or below the poverty line
Sherk and Takala 3/4
[James Sherk and Rudy Takala; Sherk is the Senior Policy Analyst in Labor Economics
at The Heritage Foundation. Minimum Wage Benefits Suburban Teenagers, Not
Single Parents. The Foundry. 4 March 2014.
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/03/04/minimum-wage-benefits-suburban-teenagersnot-single-parents/]
President Obama argued in his State of the Union address that no one who works
full-time should have to live in poverty. That is a noble goal, but it has little to do
with the minimum wage rate. Only 2.9 percent of U.S. employees work for the
federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Very few of those fit the stereotype
the President painted. Less than a quarter of minimum wage workers live at
or below the poverty line , while two-thirds come from families above 150
percent of the poverty line. In fact, the average family income of a
minimum wage worker exceeds $53,000 a year. How do workers making
$7.25 per hour live in families making over $50,000 a year? Because most of
them are not the primary income earner in their familiesmany are
students. Over half of minimum wage workers are under 25, and better
than three-fifths of those report being enrolled in school. Two-thirds of
minimum wage employees work part time.
The largest proximate cause of poverty isnt low wages, its a total
absence of available workwe need jobs, not higher wages. Additionally,
raising the minimum wage discourages companies from hiring
inexperienced workers, which re-entrenches poverty
Sherk 13
[James Sherk is the Senior Policy Analyst in Labor Economics at The Heritage
Foundation. Who Earns the Minimum Wage? Suburban Teenagers, Not Single
Parents. The Heritage Foundation. 28 February 2013.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/who-earns-the-minimum-wagesuburban-teenagers-not-single-parents]
Many advocates of higher minimum wages argue that the minimum wage needs to
rise to help low-income single parents attempting to survive on just a minimumwage job. Minimum-wage workers, however, do not fit this stereotype. Just 4
percent of minimum-wage workers are single parents working full-time,
compared to 5.6 percent of all U.S. workers.[7] Minimum-wage earners are
actually less likely to be single parents working full-time than is the average
American worker.
Higher minimum wages do not address the main reason that most poor
families live below the poverty line. Contrary to what many assume, low
wages are not their primary problem, because most poor Americans do not
work for the minimum wage. The problem is that most poor Americans do
not work at all .
As the table demonstrates, two-thirds of individuals living below the
poverty line did not work, and less than one in 10 worked full-time year-

round. Families are poor not because they earn low wages but because
they do not have full-time jobs. Raising the minimum wage does not
address this problem.
Worse, making it more expensive to hire inexperienced workers leads
businesses to hire fewer of them. This makes it harder for low-income
families to gain the experience and skills necessary to rise out of poverty .
[8] This is one reason why studies consistently find that higher minimum
wages do not reduce poverty rates.[9]

A2: Hagel Budget

Wont Pass
Hagels budget wont passHagel admits its an uphill battle, hes up
against two other budgets, and theres no guarantee of Republican
support
Pincus 2/26
[Walter Pincus is a Pulitzer Prize-winning national security journalist for The
Washington Post. Hagel is trying to get ahead of the tough defense budget
battles. The Washington Post. 26 February 2014.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/hagel-is-trying-to-getahead-of-the-tough-defense-budget-battles/2014/02/26/44529e8a-9e44-11e3-b8d894577ff66b28_story.html]
While the main target is Congress, Hagel hopes to generate early support by
explaining his proposals to the troops, service families and national security experts
before they get distorted during the expected debate. Its going to be a tough
sell, he told a group of former Pentagon officials and journalists at a
Tuesday morning session at the Pentagon. He knows that budget hawks
now battle defense hawks on Capitol Hill and theres no guarantee that all
Republicans will support Pentagon spending as they did when he was a
senator. For the new times, therell be three 2015 defense budgets.
President Obama will send up one based on numbers in the 2013
agreement between Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Sen. Patty Murray (DWash.). That one allows $496 billion for core defense spending but is about $45
billion below what Obama projected last year would be needed. To close the gap,
Obama has another proposal: an Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative with
$26 billion for defense and $30 billion for other spending. He will propose a package
of spending and tax reforms to pay for it. The third defense budget, assembled
by Hagels team, will show what fiscal 2015 and future years would look
like under sequester levels, because, the secretary said, sequestrationlevel cuts remain the law ... for fiscal year 2016 and beyond if Congress
doesnt act. Fox noted that it would require defense cuts from earlier projects of
more than $50 billion annually through 2021.

Doesnt Solve
Hagels budget doesnt solve fiscal woes or troop morale, and it guts
military readiness
Innes 3/11 [Wendy Innes has been a freelance defense/politics journalist for
several years. 2015 Budget, Hagel Deliver Slap in the Face to Service Members.
IVN.us. 11 March 2014. http://ivn.us/2014/03/11/2015-budget-hagel-deliver-slapface-service-members/]
In essence, the elimination of commissary subsidies means that nearly all
the money currently provided to keep costs low will be gone . This will
cause prices to have to increase dramatically in order to stay in business,
eventually leading to the shutdown of commissaries when they cant
compete with retailers like Walmart. In addition, the DoD is manipulating
Tricare benefits for active duty family members and retirees. They would see higher
deductibles and cost share payments and would be pressured even more so than
they are currently to use Tricare Prime the military equivalent of an HMO. The
problem is that this is the plan that offers members the least choice in
their care. Sure the care is free, but beneficiaries often have long wait
times to see providers only to be given substandard care. All of this
doesnt add up to high morale and good retention numbers of high quality
troops, but that doesnt seem to be something that the DoD is worried
about. In fact, it could work in their favor. It was also announced that the DoD
plans to cut some 80,000 troops from the ranks of the Army, reducing it to
its lowest level since World War II. The Marine Corps would also lose
8,000-10,000 troops, though if sequestration returns, that number would
increase. Yet, the defense department maintains that these cuts will not affect
readiness or security. And while the DoD is cutting compensation to the
troops and scuttling the force, they are dumping money into ineffective
programs. The very popular A-10 aircraft would be retired in favor of the F35, an
aircraft that has yet to prove itself, has already overrun its budget by $163 billion,
and is said to be virtually useless without the F22 for support purposes, according to
General Michael Hostage, head of air combat command for the Air Force.

A2: CIR

Wont Pass
CIR wont pass under Obama because the GOP doesnt trust himeven if it
does pass, spotty enforcement guts solvency
Rubio 3/12 [Marco Rubio, in an interview with Peter Cook of Bloomberg. Rubio:
Immigration Reform Unlikely Under Obama. 12 March 2014.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/03/12/rubio_immigration_reform_unlikel
y_under_obama.html]
COOK: Do you think it happens this year, and do you have any regrets at all that
you were playing point man, for lack of a better term?
RUBIO: No, I don't have any regrets. My only regret on immigration reform is
we couldn't arrive at a solution that brought on board more people, so
that we could actually get it done. I think it's going to be very difficult
now to do anything comprehensive in Washington. People don't like to
hear this, but it's true given the lack of trust in this president that
particularly Republicans have. The argument that we continue to hear is, you're
going to go ahead and do the legalization, but that's going to be linked to
enforcement, but then the president is going to pick and choose which
parts of the enforcement he moves forward on and which ones he doesn't,
and we're going to end up with all of the legalization and only half or none
of the enforcement.
CIR wont passthe GOP is too intent on trying to play up the Obama is a
tyrant story to trust him with the enforcement of major legislation
Drum 3/4 [Kevin Drum is a political writer for Mother Jones. Immigration Reform Is
Dead Because of Bizarro Obama. Mother Jones. 4 March 2014.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/03/immigration-reform-deadbecause-bizarro-obama]
John Boehner says he really, truly wants to pass an immigration reform bill, but he
can only do it if President Obama gives him more help. Steve Benen isn't buying it:
To a very real extent, Obama has already done what hes supposed to do: hes
helped create an environment conducive to success. The president and his team
have cultivated public demand for immigration reform and helped assemble a broad
coalition business leaders, labor, immigrant advocates, the faith community to
work towards a common goal. But thats apparently not what Boehner is talking
about. Rather, according to the Speaker, immigration reform cant pass
because House Republicans dont trust the president to faithfully execute
the laws of the United States. Whats Obama supposed to do about this? I
told the president Ill leave that to him, Boehner told the Enquirer . I
think that translates as "nothing is going to happen." Boehner's excuse,
however, isn't that tea party Republicans are obsessed about amnesty and
fences and reconquista and all that. His excuse is that Obama has been so
brazenly lawless that Republicans simply can't trust him to enforce
whatever law they pass. This is all part of the surreal "Obama the tyrant"
schtick that's swamped the Republican Party lately. Every executive order,
every new agency interpretation of a rule, every Justice Department or IRS
memothey're all evidence that Obama is turning America into a New
World gulag. Never mind that these are all routine things that every president
engages in. Never mind that they just as routinely get resolved in court and Obama

will win some and lose some. Never mind any of that. Obama is an Alinskyite despot
who is slowly but steadily sweeping away the last vestiges of democracy in this
once great nation.

PC Not Key
Political capital is not key to CIR
Greg Sargent 13
("Syria won't make GOP's immigration problem go "poof" and disappear ; Syria or
no Syria, Republicans will still pay the same price among Latinos if they kill
reform," 9/12, Washington Post, Factiva)
But when it comes to immigration -- as with this fall's fiscal fights -- that question is largely
irrelevant. Obama's "standing" or "strength" with regard to Congress won't play
any significant role in determining whether immigration reform happens. That, too, is a
question that turns only on whether Republicans resolve their differences over it. Immigration reform's
fate, at bottom, rests solely on whether Republicans decide it needs to pass for the long
term good of the party. Either they will decide killing reform is too risky , because it will lock in
anti-GOP hostility among Latinos for a generation or more. Or they will decide passing reform won't
do enough to win over Latinos, given their disagreement with the GOP on other issues, and that the
downsides of alienating the base aren't worth the potential upsides. Neither the fact that
Congress is distracted by Syria, nor Obama's short term dip in popularity
or standing or whatever you want to call it, will have anything whatsoever to do with
that decision.

Nor will Latino reaction to the GOP's eventual decision. Does anyone imagine that if

Republicans kill reform, Latinos will somehow see the Syria debate -- or, even more ludicrously, Beltwaygenerated ideas about Obama's "standing" -- as mitigating factors?

Doesnt Solve Econ

Economic benefits are overstated
Mike Flynn 13
(Breitbart reporter, July 13, "White House Oversells Economic Benefits of
Immigration Reform," www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/13/whitehouse-oversells-economic-benefits-of-immigration-reform)

On Saturday, President Obama used his weekly radio address to tout the economic benefits of passing the Senate
immigration reform bill. On Wednesday, the White House issued a report saying the immigration reform bill would
both trim the deficit and boost the economy over the next two decades. Even accepting the Administration's
numbers at face-value, the report shows how little would be gained economically from reform in the
long-term. In the short-term, however, there are some very real costs ignored by the White House. The White
House report draws heavily from a CBO analysis on the economic impact of the Senate bill, released in mid-June.
The CBO estimates that, under the Senate bill, in 20 years, the nation's GDP would be $1.4 trillion higher than it
otherwise would be if the bill didn't pass. The Administration claims the bill will grow the economy by 5.4% in that
time-frame. Which sounds impressive, until one realizes that we are talking about a 20 year window here. An

incremental growth of 5% over two decades isn't exactly an economic bonanza.

In that time-span the US economy will generate $300-500 trillion in total economic impact. An extra few trillion is

economic benefits the CBO estimates will accrue

only begin at least a decade after enactment. Through 2031, Gross National
Product, which measures the output of US residents and firms, would be lower than it
at the margins or the margins. Worse, the

otherwise would be. In ten years, the per capita GNP would be almost 1% lower than without the Senate bill.

The

average wages of American workers would be lower than

they otherwise would be through at least the first 10 years of the law's enactment.
The unemployment rate would also rise for the first decade, due to a large
increase in the labor force. Supporters and opponents of immigration reform both overstate its
economic impact. In a nation of more than 300 million people and a $16 trillion economy, any economic
impact is going to be felt at the margins. The CBO, however, finds that, for at least a decade, the
CBO analysis also shows that

economic effects of the Senate bill are negative at the margins. After 2 decades, the CBO says the effects become
A decade of relatively worse economic performance to secure
marginally better performance 20 years from now is not a n obviously good
bargain. One can make many argument in favor of immigration reform. Economic growth, however, seems a

positive at the margin.

very weak one.

***OLD THURS FILES

Thursday File 3-6

Negative

Ukraine IMF Package 1NC

Ukraine IMF assistance with IMF Reform will pass now- international crisis gave it political boost

Reuters, 3-4 (U.S. uses Ukraine to push for IMF voting reforms, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/04/usukraine-crisis-usa-imf-idUSBREA231QE20140304)
The United States on Tuesday sought to use the crisis in Ukraine as leverage in its effort to convince Congress to
approve a long-sought measure to increase the International Monetary Fund's financial power. Treasury Secretary
Jack Lew said Ukraine would be able to borrow more money and avert a potential default if U.S. lawmakers signed
off on the measure, which would double the IMF's resources and give countries in crisis access to a bigger pool of
potential aid. The Obama administration on Tuesday tucked a request for a shift in IMF funding into the president's
proposed budget for the 2015 fiscal year, which begins October 1. For about a year, the administration has been
pushing Congress to approve a shift of some $63 billion from an IMF crisis fund to its general accounts in
order to maintain Washington's influence at the global lender, and to make good on an international commitment
made in 2010. "We are working with Congress to approve the 2010 IMF quota legislation, which would support the
IMF's capacity to lend additional resources to Ukraine, while also helping to preserve continued U.S. leadership
within this important institution," Lew said in a statement on Tuesday. Congress must sign off on the IMF funding
to complete the 2010 reforms, which give emerging markets a greater say. The reform of the IMF's voting shares,
known as quotas, cannot proceed without the United States, which holds the only controlling share of IMF votes.
The quotas determine how much each country contributes to the IMF and how much it may borrow. Ukraine's
quota at the IMF is now about $2.1 billion but that would increase to $3.1 billion once the 2010 reforms go through,
meaning Kiev would be able to borrow more IMF money. The White House sought to tuck the IMF legislation into
a proposed $1 trillion federal spending bill in January but U.S. lawmakers failed to include it in the final version.
The administration's requests have been met with skepticism from some Republicans, who see them as tantamount
to approving fresh funding in a tight budget environment. Some lawmakers have also raised concerns about how
well the IMF was helping struggling economies in Europe and the risks attached to IMF loans. But the IMF's
importance may be getting a boost now that Ukraine is in a political and economic crisis after the ouster of its
president and Russian intervention in the Crimea region. The United States has pledged economic and technical
assistance to Kiev but said its support should go alongside an IMF program, which is seen as critical to shore up
Ukraine's collapsing finances and get its economy on the right track. Ukraine has asked the IMF for at least $15
billion to avert bankruptcy.

Political capital is key to getting IMF Reform through- its key to maintaining U.S.
leadership
Kann, 2-2014 (Robert Kahn is the Steven A. Tananbaum senior fellow for international economics at the Council
on Foreign Relations (CFR) in Washington, D.C. Dr. Kahn has held positions in the public and private sectors, with
an expertise in macroeconomic policy, finance and crisis resolution, Global Economics Monthly: February 2014,
http://www.cfr.org/economics/global-economics-monthly-february-2014/p32318)
Failure of the legislation does not turn off the lights at the IMF. The Fund currently has a lending capacity of around
$400 billion, as a result of special lines (known as New Arrangements to Borrow, or NAB) agreed on in 2009, which
could be renewed in event of another crisis. For the foreseeable future, there is no alternative institution to which
countries in crisis can turn. However, the failure to pass legislation increases the risk that China and other rising
powers will turn away from the IMF and look elsewhere in the event of crisis, creating new institutions or
strengthening existing ones (such as the Chiang Mai Initiative, which creates a network of swap lines among Asian
countries). The risk is not imminent, but it is a long-run challenge to U.S. influence and effective global
governance. Beyond the specific economics, a strengthened IMF enhances global crisis resolution capacity,
improving the global financial and trade systems and boosting U.S. influence abroad. U.S. status as a leader of
IMF reform is also seriously tarnished.
There are other pieces of must-pass legislation coming up, and the Obama administration should commit to
reintroducing the IMF legislation and spending the political capital to get it done. A strong bipartisan push is
needed to get this legislation across the finish line.

This causes Russian aggression- Ukraine crisis is key

Delamaide, 3-5 (Darrell, Capitol dysfunction threatens U.S. national security,

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/capitol-dysfunction-threatens-us-national-security-2014-03-05)
In a volatile situation, with the West confronting an erratic and unpredictable Russia under Vladimir Putin, the U.S.
and its allies need that panoply of crisis-management institutions from NATO to the International Monetary
Fund in full working order.
Washington is responding on several fronts, but already the need to provide financial aid for the shaky provisional
government installed in the wake of violent protests in Ukraine has exposed a vulnerability that didnt need to be
there the failure of the U.S. Congress to approve increases in IMF lending volumes under an agreement dating
back to 2010.
Treasury Secretary Jack Lew on Tuesday once again called upon Congress to approve the quota reform package at
the IMF, which among other things would increase Ukraines quota and thus its entitlement to IMF aid.
The IMF will be at the center of an international assistance package and is best placed to support Ukraines
implementation of robust and market-oriented reforms, Lew said in his statement. He emphasized that approval of
the quota legislation would help to preserve continued U.S. leadership within this important institution.
Accustomed as we are to the unnecessary domestic hardships imposed by a resolutely dysfunctional Congress, the
gaps we now face in our nations biggest national security test since the end of the Cold War adds a new dimension
to congressional malfeasance.
Whatever disagreement there is among policy makers about tactics, few question that a failure of the West to support
Ukraine at this critical juncture would embolden an aggressive Russia, posing a direct threat to European security
and global peace.
The U.S. itself is throwing in $1 billion of loan guarantees as immediate aid to Ukraine, in addition to providing
technical assistance advisers to help them manage the economic challenge and keep corruption from siphoning
off the aid that has real value.
But it is the IMF, in conjunction with countries in Europe and elsewhere, that must supply the bulk of the $15 billion
in assistance that the new government in Kiev has said is necessary to avoid bankruptcy.
The U.S. is keen to have the enforcement mechanisms of the IMF because the last round of aid to Ukraine did not
bring the necessary reforms, paving the way for the current crisis.
The IMF quota reform, which gives a bigger say to emerging-market economies, is a legitimate subject for debate,
but debate of the issues is not what goes on in the U.S. Congress.
What goes on in the Capitol is political posturing, scorched-earth tactical maneuvering, votes to make political
statements that can serve in campaign ads rather than to pass legislation, and out-of-control egos that make the
public welfare the lowest priority.
This is bad enough when it deprives long-term unemployed of vitally needed assistance, or children of food, or the
poor of medical care. But now it also hampers the ability of the government to respond to a serious national security
threat.

Global nuclear war

Press TV, 3-6 (Ukraine crisis may set off nuclear powers war: Analyst,
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/03/02/352953/cold-war-can-go-nuclearhot-on-ukraine/)
A potential military confrontation between Kiev and Moscow over the turmoil in Ukraine could drag worlds
nuclear powers into a war, a political analyst tells Press TV.
If Ukraine develops an administration that is in fact anti-Russian then this can very easily go from a cold war to
something a little bit more hot but its a war between nuclear powers, Bill Jones, with Executive Intelligence
Review newsmagazine from Washington, said in an interview with Press TV on Sunday.
The analyst argued that Russian citizens and the Russian-speaking citizens in Ukraines semi-autonomous Crimea
region feel threatened by the new administration in Kiev, giving Russia a responsibility to come to their rescue.
Given the fact that much of ... [Ukraine] opposition consists of openly fascist parties .....So, it does seem that the
Russians have justification in measures that are being taken, the analyst added.
Hundreds of Russian troops are reportedly heading towards the autonomous region of Crimea in southern Ukraine as
the political crisis continues in the former Soviet state.
According to recent reports, Kiev has also called up all military reservists in preparation for a possible military
conflict in the region.

Yes Passage
Bipartisan support and top House Republicans will speed up voting on the bill by next week
Reuters, 3-5 (U.S. lawmakers divided on Russia sanctions, eye vote on Ukraine aid,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/05/us-ukraine-crisis-usa-congress-idUSBREA242H820140305)
(Reuters) - In a rare show of support for President Barack Obama, Republican leaders in the U.S. House of
Representatives said on Wednesday they would work with the White House to address the crisis in Ukraine and vote
on legislation offering financial aid soon.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said the Republican-led House will consider a $1 billion loan guarantee package
for Ukraine and look at measures to "put significant pressure onRussia to stop the flagrant aggression to its neighbor
in Ukraine."
"The world community should stand united against this invasion, America should be leading and we'll vote soon on
legislation to aid the Ukrainian people," Cantor told reporters.
House Speaker John Boehner also said that the House will work in a bipartisan way with Obama, a Democrat.
A bill to assist Ukraine, backed by both Republicans and Democrats, is also making its way through the U.S. Senate.
That legislation could be introduced as soon as this week, with a vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as
early as March 11, said an aide to Senator Bob Corker, the top Republican on the committee.
Senators have been discussing ways to aid Ukraine's new government and isolate Russia. Among other things, the
Senate legislation would also authorize funds to provide at least $1 billion in loan guarantees to support
Ukraine's economy.
But the Republican leadership also had some harsh criticism of Obama's foreign policy.
"With regard to Ukraine, the steps that have not been taken over the last three or four years, (by Obama) frankly,
allowed Putin to believe that he could do what he's doing without any reaction from us. But given where we are,
we're here, in a bipartisan way, trying to work with the president, to strengthen his hand," Boehner said.
He said this includes the loan guarantee bill as well as consideration of a "toolbox" of sanctions authority that is
similar to those used against Iran in recent years to persuade it to rein in its nuclear ambitions.
Boehner also criticized Obama for failing to approve liquefied natural gas exports, which could help lessen the
dependence of European allies on Russian gas.
But since 2011, the U.S. Department of Energy has approved six proposals to export liquidnatural gas, most recently
on February 11. Supporters of U.S. energy exports have pounced on the crisis in Ukraine to pressure the Obama
approval to speed approvals of LNG.
Cantor said it was important that the costs of the Ukraine loan guarantee be offset with other savings, but the House
will proceed to a vote on the measure without a cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office to move it
quickly.
Bipartisan support
The Star, 3-5 (U.S. seeks to link IMF quota reforms to Ukraine package,
http://www.thestar.com.my/News/World/2014/03/05/US-seeks-to-link-IMF-quota-reforms-to-Ukraine-package/)
The United States on Tuesday asked Congress to include a long-sought measure to increase the International
Monetary Fund's financial power to a package of economic aid to Ukraine.
Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee are preparing legislation to provide at least
$1 billion in loan guarantees to support Ukraine's economy.
The U.S. Treasury Department is asking Congress to also include legislation that would double the IMF's resources
and thereby allow countries like Ukraine access to a bigger pool of potential aid.

Negotiating powers is key to get the Ukraine-IMF package

Businessweek, 3-4 (Sandrine Rostello, U.S. Said to Seek IMF Resource Boost in Ukraine Aid Package,
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-03-04/u-dot-s-dot-said-to-seek-imf-resource-boost-in-ukraine-aidpackage-1)
The Treasury has been seeking for months to boost the U.S. quota at the Washington-based IMF by shifting about
$63 billion from an existing credit line. The U.S. is facing pressure from other nations to meet international
obligations before a meeting of IMF member countries next month in Washington, said Edwin Truman, who was an
assistant Treasury secretary for international affairs in the Clinton administration.

The Ukraine crisis shows that when you have a problem anywhere in the world, this is a tool for the U.S. to
respond, said Truman, now a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington.
Adding IMF legislation to Ukraine aid would be something that could be negotiable, he said.

Pol Cap Key

Political capital is key to getting IMF Reform through- its key to maintaining U.S.
leadership
Kann, 2-2014 (Robert Kahn is the Steven A. Tananbaum senior fellow for international economics at the Council
on Foreign Relations (CFR) in Washington, D.C. Dr. Kahn has held positions in the public and private sectors, with
an expertise in macroeconomic policy, finance and crisis resolution, Global Economics Monthly: February 2014,
http://www.cfr.org/economics/global-economics-monthly-february-2014/p32318)
Failure of the legislation does not turn off the lights at the IMF. The Fund currently has a lending capacity of around
$400 billion, as a result of special lines (known as New Arrangements to Borrow, or NAB) agreed on in 2009, which
could be renewed in event of another crisis. For the foreseeable future, there is no alternative institution to which
countries in crisis can turn. However, the failure to pass legislation increases the risk that China and other rising
powers will turn away from the IMF and look elsewhere in the event of crisis, creating new institutions or
strengthening existing ones (such as the Chiang Mai Initiative, which creates a network of swap lines among Asian
countries). The risk is not imminent, but it is a long-run challenge to U.S. influence and effective global
governance. Beyond the specific economics, a strengthened IMF enhances global crisis resolution capacity,
improving the global financial and trade systems and boosting U.S. influence abroad. U.S. status as a leader of
IMF reform is also seriously tarnished.
There are other pieces of must-pass legislation coming up, and the Obama administration should commit to
reintroducing the IMF legislation and spending the political capital to get it done. A strong bipartisan push is
needed to get this legislation across the finish line.

Ukraine- IMF Reform Package Key

Kann, 2-2014 (Robert Kahn is the Steven A. Tananbaum senior fellow for international economics at the
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in Washington, D.C. Dr. Kahn has held positions in the public and private
sectors, with an expertise in macroeconomic policy, finance and crisis resolution, Global Economics Monthly:
February 2014, http://www.cfr.org/economics/global-economics-monthly-february-2014/p32318)
Bottom Line: A truce has been declared in our long-lasting fiscal wars, reducing market uncertainty while
deferring the long-term entitlement and revenue debate. But Congress still matters for economic policy, and
its recent failure to pass International Monetary Fund (IMF) reform legislation undermines U.S. authority
abroad while weakening the global capacity to respond to crises.
One of the most striking elements of last week's State of the Union address was the scant reference to the fiscal
deficit. A bitter war has been waged over the last three years, with multiple fiscal cliffs, threats of shutdowns (and
one real partial shutdown), and enough drama around the debt limit to badly unsettle money markets. Now, the
deficit is old news, barely even drawing a Republican comment.
At the same time, the dysfunctional relationship between Congress and the Obama administration was on full
display recently with the Hill's failure to approve an IMF-reform package that would strengthen the institution and
U.S. influence on international economic issues. Fortunately, Congress will have other chances to get this right by
attaching the legislation to must-pass bills, but success will require a stronger political effort from the
administration, backed by a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers and business leaders.
A Changing Political Landscape
In a speech that he gave in December on income inequality, President Barack Obama declared: "When it comes to
our budget, we should not be stuck in a stale debate from two years ago or three years ago A relentlessly growing
deficit of opportunity is a bigger threat to our future than our rapidly shrinking fiscal deficit."
This shift in priorities was reflected in the recent passage of the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill for fiscal year
2014. For the first time in several years, the government was funded without a last-minute cliffhanger or partial
government shutdown, which hopefully heralds a period where fiscal policy risk is not a major driver of market
volatility and drag on confidence.
December's bipartisan agreement on an omnibus spending deal marked the start of the truce, but fundamental
changes took place as a result of the government shutdown in October 2013, the debt limit showdown, and its
aftermath. Economists had argued for some time that confrontations over spending and the debt limit were damaging
the economy, but it took a political disaster for politicians to buy into the need for a truce. The next big test will be
the debt limit extension. Reflecting the lessened desire for confrontation, it now seems likely that Republicans will
not ask for spending cuts equal to the debt limit increase, and will look for small, less consequential concessions.
The Obama adminstration claims that a debt limit increase will be needed by late February, but, as I have argued in
the past, if the deficit numbers are good, the Treasury may not even need a debt ceiling increase until June or July.
Economic drivers are also constructive for fiscal policy going forward, which is reflected in the substantial
improvement in the fiscal deficit. Figure 1 shows that the deficit has fallen more sharply than anticipated in recent
years, the fastest rate of decline since World War II. It is now easily financeable at low interest rates and consistent
with a forecast for above-trend growth in 2014. Debt has stabilized at around 70 percent of gross domestic product
(GDP), and the near-term outlook for the debt has improved with the surprisingly low rate of health care costs. Is
that decline permanent? We don't know, but the critical point is that neither the deficit nor the debt looks likely to be
a pressing political issue for the next few years. Over the medium term, nearly everyone believes that, as interest
rates normalize and the population ages, the deficit and debt will rise and again become pressing policy issues. But
that is a problem for another day, and it is hard to imagine that day will come before the 2016 elections.
Less Fiscal Risk for Markets, Less Legislation
Fiscal policy is unlikely to be a source of volatility for markets over the next several years. In the context of a
monetary policy that appears to be on a slow, steady path toward exiting the extraordinary stimulus measures of the
last several years, macro policy will be less of a source of market risk.
At the same time, the reduced urgency of fiscal policy makes fiscal bargainsgrand or blandfar less likely. Any
new congressional fiscal initiative will need to be paid for, and the pressure to cut these deals will only diminish
further as elections approach. Any must-pass legislationsuch as a farm or transport billwill likely be fiscally

neutral. Some sort of bipartisan effort on tax reform may still be in play, motivated by the focus on income
inequality, but continued Republican opposition to tax hikes would seem to make meaningful reform unlikely.
In that context, fiscal policy news will come mainly from the announcement of administrative measures that can be
put into effect without the approval of Congress. In the State of the Union address, the president mentioned the
minimum wage, an area where the administration can take a signfiicant steps without congressional approval. There
could be further administrative moves in the areas of education, climate change, and efforts to accelerate
restructurings of underwater mortgages. All could be material changes in their sectors, but these measures are
unlikely to move the dial in terms of their overall effect on growth.
The critical question from a macroeconomic perspective will be whether this reduction in policy uncertainty leads to
a pick-up in investment as firms and individuals feel more confident about future prospects. Some recent analysis
suggests the uncertainty premium could be on the order of 0.5 to 0.75 percent of GDP. Critics contend that other
government policies, such as the Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank financial reform, will still be meaningful
sources of uncertainty.
The IMF Failure
The limits of our legislative capabilities were on display last month. For all the positives in January's budget
agreement, from an international perspective the bill severely disappoints. Left out at the last minute was important
IMF reform legislation. Failing to include this package of reforms, agreed to by the Group of Twenty (G20) leaders
at the Seoul economic summit in 2010, is a blow to U.S. credibility around the world, and calls into question the
ability of the IMF to provide leadership in crisis. Ted Truman has a good blog post on the issue. As he notes, the
2010 Seoul agreement included a doubling of the permanent lending capacity of the IMF and changes in how the
Fund's executive board operates that would allow a greater role for rising powers (most importantly
China). Politico has a blow-by-blow description of why the legislation was dropped from the omnibus bill. In the
end, Republican opposition was reflected in demands for concessions from the Obama administration on unrelated
issues of abortion and the tax treatment of advocacy groups. From a congressional perspective, the budgetary cost of
the IMF measure was small$315 millionbut the mere fact that an appropriation was needed brought forward
opposition from those in Congress unhappy with the IMF's role as a lender of last resort in crises over many
decades. Without U.S. congressional ratification, the governance and funding changes can't be completed.

New Republic, 3-6 (Republicans Are Playing Politics While Ukraine Faces Default,
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116894/republicans-are-blocking-imf-reforms-help-ukraine)
Republicans are tripping over themselves to propose ideas to hit Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. But at the same
time, they are limiting Ukraines ability to borrow money from the International Monetary Fund. That makes it more
likely Ukraine will default on its debt, which could destabilize the country and invite exactly what the Republicans
want to prevent: further Russian aggression.
Back in 2010, the G20 countries agreed to reforms of the IMF that would double the financial commitment each
country makes to the fund (and how much they can borrow) and give emerging countries a larger representation on
the executive board. For the United States, this means almost nothing. We already give a little over $65 billion to the
main fund. These reforms require the U.S. to transfer $63 billion from a supplemental IMF fund, which would be
reduced as part of these reforms, to the main fund, but it "would not increase total U.S. commitments to the IMF," a
Congressional Research Service report found. (The U.S. has more control of the money in the supplemental fund,
but the Congressional Research Service also notes that quota commitments are considered "very safe" and that "the
United States has never lost money on its quota commitments.")
But despite the almost non-existent impact the reforms would have on the U.S., they have gotten caught up in
Washington politics. The Obama administration did not make them a top priority until after his reelection, but has
included them in its budget this year and last year. In January, the White House fought to include them in the
omnibus spending bill. But Mitch McConnell decided to use them as a bargaining chip and demanded that the
Treasury Department block new IRS rules that would curb politically active nonprofits. The administration refused,
and the reforms are still languishing in Congress.
Why is this important? The reforms would allow Ukraine to borrow approximately 60 percent more (from $1 billion
to $1.6 billion) from the IMFs emergency fund. Thats money that Ukraine can use to pay off its debts and avoid a
default. In certain scenarios, the IMF makes exceptions and allows countries to access additional funds, as it did
with Greece and Ireland after the financial crisis. But theres no guarantee it would do so with Ukraine. By blocking
the passage of the IMF reforms, Republicans are actively making it harder for Ukraine to pay back its loans.

The U.S.s refusal to pass the reformswhich 130 countries have already approvedonly hurts our credibility.
Given the broad constituency of nations that want to help Ukraine, this wont stop the IMF from offering a loan. But
its a bit rich for the U.S. to call for IMF help when it refuses to pass basic reforms that would have no material
effect on the United States and that most of the world has already approved.
The rest of the world is furious at us, Ted Truman, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International
Economics and the assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury for International Affairs from 1998 to 2001, said. For us
to say, We just stiffed you in January and now were turning around to try to ask you to be part of the team helping
Ukraine, we look silly.
It does undermine our credibility and leadership, he added. We look like were giving with our right hand and
taking with our left hand.

AFF

No IMF Reform
House republicans will block IMF Reform
Businessweek, 3-4 (Sandrine Rostello, U.S. Said to Seek IMF Resource Boost in Ukraine Aid Package,
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-03-04/u-dot-s-dot-said-to-seek-imf-resource-boost-in-ukraine-aidpackage-1)
The Obama administration will seek to include legislation increasing International Monetary Fund resources in an
aid package the U.S. is preparing for Ukraine, according to a Treasury Department official.
The Treasury is pushing for the measure to support the IMF at a time when Group of Seven officials want the lender
to take a leading role in helping bolster the fledgling Ukrainian government, according to the official, who asked not
to be named because discussions are private. It would make good on a 2010 international agreement to boost the
U.S.s share, or quota, at the fund and raise the amount of money Ukraine can borrow from the global lender.
We are working with Congress to approve the 2010 IMF quota legislation, which would support the IMFs capacity
to lend additional resources to Ukraine, Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew said in a statement today that pledges $1
billion in loan guarantees to the country.
The administration now needs to gain support from House Republicans, who in January refused to include the IMF
measure in a spending bill. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor already indicated an unwillingness to support a
Ukrainian aid measure that included IMF quota changes.
Divisive Provisions
I believe there is bipartisan support for such assistance, but we must make sure it is done responsibly and
any legislation is not delayed by adding divisive provisions, he said in a statement yesterday.
The divisive provisions would include IMF funding, according to a Republican leadership aide who asked for
anonymity to comment on private discussions.
Ukraine finds itself at the center of the worst standoff between Russia and the West since the end of the Cold War.
An IMF team of economists today in Kiev started assessing the countrys needs to prepare an assistance package for
the transition government.
The U.S. is delaying implementation of a 2010 agreement by all IMF member countries to double the funds lending
capacity to about $733 billion. The package would also give emerging markets such as China more clout at the
institution, which was set up at the end of World War II to help ensure the stability of the global monetary system.

Too important of a bargaining chip- House republicans reject it

WSJ, 3-4 (Ukraine Aid Package Resurrects Debate Over IMF Funding,
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/03/04/ukraine-aid-package-resurrects-debate-over-imf-funding/)
Ukraines crisis may have bolstered the White Houses argument for congressional approval of major changes at the
International Monetary Fund. But top Republicans arent buying it.
The Obama administration says congressional ratification of changes to the IMFs structure and finances would
significantly boost the amount cash of Kiev can borrow from the IMF. While Republicans largely back U.S. aid for
Ukraine, senior GOP lawmakers are balking at including the IMF changes in a financing package for the former
Soviet state.
I believe there is bipartisan support for such assistance, but we must make sure it is done responsibly and any
legislation is not delayed by adding divisive provisions, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.) said.
Ukraines economy is months away from default following years of mismanagement by former governments.
Locked in a geopolitical chess match between Russia and the West, the countrys political crisis is accelerating the
economys demise.
Washington aims to supplement an IMF bailout for the pro-western government in Ukraine with its own financing
package. One option IMF and Western officials are considering includes short-term credit lines to buy time for
politically tough negotiations over a large-scale bailout.
By passing the IMF reforms, the U.S. Treasury Department estimates Ukraine could tap $1.6 billion from the IMF,
far more than the $1 billion in short-term emergency loans it would receive under the existing IMF governance and
financial structure.

Congressional approval is the last hurdle to completing the 2010 IMF reform agreement inked by members of the
institution. It was designed to boost the funds lending capacity and give developing countries more power at the
IMF in proportion to their economic heft. The IMF says the hike in the funds financial firepower is needed to match
the expanding global economy. The U.S. and other countries argue the governance changes are necessary to ensure
the worlds economic adviser and last-chance lender retains its credibility and legitimacy.
But many powerful Republicans, especially in the House of Representatives, oppose the changes and have
successfully blocked the measures in recent years. The IMF reform issue was one of a host of measures used as a
bargaining chip in recent battles with Democrats on health care and the budget. The administration is hoping
resistance to the IMF reforms might have waned since the broader spending battle subsided.
Multiple reasons it will be blocked by Republicans
New Republic, 3-6 (Republicans Are Playing Politics While Ukraine Faces Default,
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116894/republicans-are-blocking-imf-reforms-help-ukraine)
With Congress ready to bring up legislation for a $1 billion loan that Secretary of State John Kerry pledged to
Ukraine on Tuesday, the administration and IMF are hoping to use that bill as a vehicle for the IMF reforms. But
dont get too excited. Despite the fact that the reforms do not increase U.S. financial obligations to the IMF, the
Congressional Budget Office has scored it as increasing the deficit by $315 million for technical reasons. That
means it requires appropriations and Jennifer Hing, the communications director for the House Appropriations
Committee, tells me that the reforms will not be included in the legislation.
Some Republicans don't consider the cost of the reforms trivial. "We dont believe this is just a book-keeping entry,"
California Congressman John Campbell told Treasury Secretary Jack Lew in January, according to Politico. "This
puts the $63 billion significantly at risk, whereas currently it is not." Others don't like the IMF and refuse to vote for
anything that does not cut U.S. to it. And some, like McConnell, simply see the reforms as a way to get something
from Obama in returnUkraine's financial stability be damned.

House aids have said it wont pass

Reuters, 3-5 (Exclusive: Russia wants IMF to move ahead on reforms without U.S. sources,
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/thomson-reuters/140306/exclusive-russia-wants-imf-move-aheadreforms-without-us-sour-0)
WASHINGTON/MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian officials are pushing for the International Monetary Fund to move
ahead with planned reforms without the United States, which could mean the loss of the U.S. veto over major
decisions at the global lender, sources said.
Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov brought up the idea at a meeting of top finance officials from the Group of
20 nations in Sydney late last month, two G20 sources told Reuters this week.
The failure of the U.S. Congress to approve IMF funding has held up reforms agreed in 2010 that would double the
Fund's resources and give more say to emerging markets like China.
The United States is the only country that holds a controlling share of IMF votes, meaning its approval is necessary
for any major decision to go forward.
Moving ahead on reforms without Washington would likely require complicated changes to the IMF's rules. But the
discussions show the level of frustration within the G20 with the Obama administration's inability to win the needed
congressional support.
A third source would not confirm it was Russia that brought up the issue, but said the G20 generally agreed to give
the United States until the April meetings of the IMF and World Bank before taking more aggressive measures, a
point confirmed by one of the other sources. All three sources spoke on condition of anonymity.
"It was agreed that in the absence of progress by the United States on the 2010 package by the April meeting of the
IMF and G20, that there will be formulated a list of 'bad options,' which will allow to move forward in this matter,
excluding the opinions of the United States," the third source said.
For a year, the Obama administration has been trying to get Congress to approve a shift of some $63 billion from an
IMF crisis fund to its general accounts in order to make good on its 2010 commitment.
The U.S. Treasury is now seeking to attach the funding to a financial aid package for Ukraine that is under
consideration in Congress. It argues the reforms would allow crisis-hit countries like Ukraine to borrow more money
from the IMF.

"It is imperative that we secure passage of IMF legislation now so we can show support for the IMF in this critical
moment and preserve our leading influential voice in the institution," Treasury Secretary Jack Lew told lawmakers
on Thursday during a hearing in the U.S. House of Representatives.
The Ukraine bill may be the administration's best chance of passing the IMF funding shift this year, analysts say.
But a senior House Republican aide said on Wednesday that the House assistance package for Ukraine would not
include IMF funding. The Senate said it was still deciding whether to include the IMF in its version of the bill.

No chance of conference on it

Reuters, 3-5 (U.S. aid bill for Ukraine will not include IMF funding: aide,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/05/us-ukraine-crisis-usa-imf-idUSBREA2427A20140305)
A financial aid package for Ukraine that the U.S. House of Representatives plans to vote on soon will not include
funding for the International Monetary Fund, a senior House Republican aide said on Wednesday.
For a year now, the Obama administration has been pushing Congress to approve a shift of some $63 billion from an
IMF crisis fund to its general accounts to make good on an international commitment made in 2010.
U.S. failure to approve the funding has held up reforms to the global lender that would double its resources and give
more say to emerging markets.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Treasury asked Congress to include the IMF funding measure in legislation that would provide
at least $1 billion in loan guarantees to support Ukraine'seconomy. It said the reforms would allow crisis-hit
countries like Ukraine to borrow more money from the IMF.
U.S. aid to Kiev would go alongside support from the IMF, a lender of last resort to cash-strapped countries that is
seen as critical to shoring up Ukraine's collapsing finances. An IMF team is in Kiev this week to discuss a possible
aid program.
But even as U.S. lawmakers have urged the IMF to support Ukraine, some have questioned broader contributions to
the fund. Some House Republicans have raised concerns about the fund's lending to richer European nations and the
possibility of losses on IMF loans.
A Democratic aide in the Senate said that chamber was still deciding whether to include the IMF funding in their
version of the Ukraine package, but its absence from any House legislation would dim prospects that it would find
its way into a final compromise bill.

No go on the House side

Reuters, 3-4 (Ukraine could borrow more if IMF reforms passed: U.S.,
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-03-04/news/sns-rt-us-ukraine-crisis-usa-aid-20140304_1_imf-crisis-fundimf-reforms-imf-program)
Edwin Truman, a senior Treasury official under former President Bill Clinton, said several other IMF funding
requests were approved in Congress during a period of crisis, such as the global financial crisis in 2009.
"It doesn't mean you wait until it's raining before you repair the roof," said Truman, now a senior fellow at the
Peterson Institute for International Economics. "But that tends to be what we do, for better or worse."
An aide to Senator Bob Corker, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is writing the
Ukraine aid legislation, said the IMF proposal was on the table.
However, U.S. support for the IMF has been a contentious issue in the Republican-led House of Representatives,
and it is unclear whether it would be willing to take up the measure.
A senior Senate Republican aide said an IMF package would be a "no go" in the House.
The United States has pledged economic and technical assistance to Kiev, saying its support should be in tandem
with an IMF program. Ukraine has asked the IMF for at least $15 billion to avert bankruptcy and is struggling to
cope with a military intervention by Russia in Crimea.

Many powerful Republicans block

WSJ, 3-4 (Ukraine Aid Package Resurrects Debate Over IMF Funding,
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/03/04/ukraine-aid-package-resurrects-debate-over-imf-funding/)
Congressional approval is the last hurdle to completing the 2010 IMF reform agreement inked by members of the
institution. It was designed to boost the funds lending capacity and give developing countries more power at the
IMF in proportion to their economic heft. The IMF says the hike in the funds financial firepower is needed to match

the expanding global economy. The U.S. and other countries argue the governance changes are necessary to ensure
the worlds economic adviser and last-chance lender retains its credibility and legitimacy.
But many powerful Republicans, especially in the House of Representatives, oppose the changes and have
successfully blocked the measures in recent years. The IMF reform issue was one of a host of measures used as a
bargaining chip in recent battles with Democrats on health care and the budget. The administration is hoping
resistance to the IMF reforms might have waned since the broader spending battle subsided.
Enough influential Republicans may still object on principle to the administrations effort.
Lawmakers such as Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington state, chairman of the House Republican
Conference, question the efficacy of the funds lending and whether the IMF needs any more cash.
Rep. John Campbell (R., Calif.), chairman of the House subcommittee oversees the IMF, said lawmakers have a
number of objections.
Mr. Campbell said lawmakers may resurrect an effort to repeal $100 billion in emergency cash the U.S. loaned the
IMF in 2009 to boost its lending capacity in the depths of the financial crisis.
I think we need to claw back the [emergency] funds and this agreement, he said.

IMF Reform Not key

IMF reform not key to Ukraine crisis
CFR, 3-5 (Ben Steill and Dinah Walker, Lew Does Not Need IMF Reform to Aid Ukraine,
http://blogs.cfr.org/geographics/2014/03/05/ukraineaid/)
The new provisional government in Ukraine is seeking $15 billion in assistance from the International Monetary
Fund. This would represent 700% of the countrys quota with the Fund, added on top of the loans it has already
outstanding, amounting to 214% of its quota.
The Fund allows members to borrow up to 200% of their quota annually and 600% cumulatively through stand-by
and extended arrangements, so Ukraine is clearly seeking well in excess of this. U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew
has called on Congress to back IMF quota reform, which would support the IMFs capacity to lend additional
resources to Ukraine.
We wholeheartedly back the IMF reform the administration seeks, but it is neither necessary nor desirable for Lew
to ratchet up this fight with Congress now.
The IMF already has criteria for allowing member countries to borrow beyond the normal access limits. And
indeed, as shown in the graphic above, Greece, Portugal, and Ireland are already doing so.
Lew knows this. Since Ukraine should also meet the criteria for above-quota borrowing, it is imprudent of him
openly to question the IMFs capacity to aid Ukraine as a pretext for shunting Republicans into action on broader
IMF reform.

No Immigration Reform
No chance of immigration reform
Llorente, 3-4 (Mark Zuckerberg Lobby Group On Immigration Reform: GOP, 'We've Waited Long Enough'
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2014/03/04/mark-zuckerberg-lobby-group-on-immigration-reform-gopweve-waited-long-enough/)
The prognosis for passage of a comprehensive immigration reform bill was looking grimmer and grimmer this year
as GOP leaders in the House said its members were simply too distrustful of President Barack Obama to approve
of such a sweeping measure.
The final nail in the reform coffin seemed to be hammered in by no less than the House speaker himself, Rep. John
Boehner of Ohio.

Midterm elections block reform

Llorente, 3-4 (Mark Zuckerberg Lobby Group On Immigration Reform: GOP, 'We've Waited Long Enough'
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2014/03/04/mark-zuckerberg-lobby-group-on-immigration-reform-gopweve-waited-long-enough/)
The commercial comes as rank-and-file House Republicans are reluctant to tackle the divisive issue in the months
leading up to the midterm congressional elections, wary that a high-profile fight will undercut their upbeat prospects
for increasing their majority in the House and seizing control of the Senate.
House GOP leaders unveiled a set of principles on immigration in January, but the optimism among advocates was
dashed when Boehner blamed GOP distrust of President Barack Obama for the House's inability to move forward on
legislation.
The new commercial is slated to run in all 50 states at a cost of $500,000. Council for American Job Growth, an
affiliate of the group FWD.us, is sponsoring the ad. Zuckerberg launched the advocacy group FWD.us with the
support of Silicon Valley titans such as Bill Gates and Sean Parker and the organization has been one of the most
active on the immigration issue.
"The future of this country, our country, is tied to immigration reform," says the spot, which warns of stagnant job
growth and loss of tax revenue if Congress fails to act. The role of the likes of Zuckerberg, who has identified
himself in the past as Republican-leaning, and other business heavy hitters insinuates an important dimension in to
the immigration reform debate, observers say. If reform is going to have any chance, it will require center right
GOP-aligned groups like tech interests, agriculture interests, the business community to step up and put real
pressure on Republicans to act, said an editorial in The Washington Post. Earlier this year, the advocacy group
Fast for Families Across America launched a campaign that entails visits to more than 100 congressional districts.
Last week, the group embarked on a two-bus nationwide tour. It involves stopping at more than 75 districts with
daily events calling for congressional action on immigration reform. The two buses are expected to meet in
Washington D.C. in April. Fast for Families gained national attention in November when its leaders held a hunger
strike on the National Mall for 22 days, during which they camped out in white tents. An unusual coalition of
business groups, labor and religious organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the nation's
Catholic bishops, has pressed for immigration legislation with little signs of progress in the House. The Senate
passed a comprehensive bill last June that would provide a pathway to citizenship for the estimated 11 million
immigrants living in the country illegally, tighten border security and add new visa and workplace enforcement
programs.
The legislation has stalled in the House where Republicans have rejected a comprehensive approach in favor of
piecemeal legislation. The House, however, hasn't voted on any of the individual bills passed by the Judiciary
Committee last year.

No Immigration reform- Obamas influence hurts its chances

UPI, 3-2 (Marcella Kreiter, The Issue: Year of action? Doubtful.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/03/02/The-Issue-Year-of-action-Doubtful/UPI-41181393752540/)
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., possible 2016 presidential hopeful, said in a CNN interview comprehensive immigration
reform is unlikely.
"Here is the predicament that we're in. [Immigration reform] requires the government to enforce the law so that we
don't have this problem again," Rubio said.

"And because this president has unilaterally decided which parts of the law he is going to enforce and which parts he
will waive or ignore, he has made it difficult -- not just on immigration but on anything that requires trust that the
federal government will enforce the law.
"So, the single biggest impediment to immigration reform today is not Republicans. It's Barack Obama."

False hope on immigration reform- Boehner has backtracked

LatinoPost, 3-6 (Immigration Reform News 2014: House GOP to Eliminate ICE Position That Protects Immigrants
in Detention, Deportation, http://www.latinopost.com/articles/4700/20140306/immigration-reform-news-2014house-gop-to-eliminate-ice-position-that-protects-immigrants-detention-deportation.htm)
The House Judiciary Committee immigration bill comes just weeks after GOP leaders gave false hope towards
moving forward on an overhaul of immigration reform. In January, for the first time it seemed like the GOP leaders
were planning to take action on immigration when House Speaker John Boehner released a set of principles that
offered undocumented residents a pathway to legalization.
However, less than a week later, the GOP backpedaled on the party's commitment to fixing the broken immigration
system while Boehner reasoned that reform would not take place in 2014 because President Obama can't be trusted
to enforce a new immigration law.

House republicans are only advancing anti-immigration laws

Latin Times, 3-5 (Immigration Reform 2014: House GOP Leaders Moving Bill To Axe Immigrant-Outreach
Job, http://www.latintimes.com/immigration-reform-2014-house-gop-leaders-moving-bill-axe-immigrant-outreachjob-157520)
House Republicans are moving on immigration after all. Its just not exactly what Democrats and immigrant
advocates had in mind. On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee marked up three bills with implications for
an issue on which GOP leaders in the chamber have indicated theyve given up on trying to push a broad series of
reforms this year. One would authorize the House to file a lawsuit against the president or any other official any
time the chamber adopted a resolution accusing them of failing to faithfully uphold the law a charge commonly
leveled by House Republicans at Obama and top immigration officials in part because of memos which set
prosecution priorities, including one which gave some Dreamers protection from deportation.
Another, the Immigration Compliance Enforcement (ICE) Act, would axe the job of one Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) official: Andrew Lorenzen-Strait, currently the deputy assistant director of custody programs
and community outreach, formerly the agencys public advocate. Many immigrant advocates didnt think that
position was anything more than a sympathetic face but no real power to represent immigrants interests at an
otherwise villainous agency. It didnt last long anyway: a March 2013 federal appropriations bill eliminated it just
over a year after its creation. But ICE kept Lorenzen-Strait on in the community outreach position, outraging
conservatives like ICE Act sponsor Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.), who charges the agency with simply creating an
identical job with a different title. The bill considered on Wednesday by the House Judiciary Committee would
prevent the government from funding either of those jobs, or any other like it.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, Frank Sharry, the executive director of Americas Voice, the nations largest
immigrant-advocacy group, blasted House leadership for inexplicably taking out time on Blacks bill while
refusing to bring a broader package of reforms to the House floor for a vote. For all the talk of wanting to do
immigration reform, the facts are as disturbing as they are stubborn, said Sharry. The only vote allowed by House
leadership on immigration this Congress was on a nasty measure put forth by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) to defund the
DACA program and subject DREAMers to deportation.

Executive Powers Solve

Obama will use executive powers to halt deportations
The Hill, 3-6 (Dems to Obama: Slow the deportations, http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/200066-dems-toobama-slow-the-deportations)
President Obama is coming under increasing pressure to slow deportations of illegal immigrants, while Congress
remains stymied on immigration reform legislation.
Pressure is now coming from the Senate, where three senior members of the Democratic caucus say Obama should
halt deportations of illegal immigrants who are immediately related to citizens or permanent legal residents.
ADVERTISEMENT
Sen. Robert Menendez (N.J.), the only Hispanic member of the Senate Democratic caucus, led the charge this week,
when he called on Obama Tuesday to take executive action to stop deportation of illegal immigrants with strong
family ties to the United States.
On Wednesday, Sens. Dick Durbin (Ill.), the second-ranking member of the Senate Democratic leadership, and Tom
Harkin (D-Iowa) backed Menendez.
While we continue waiting for the House of Representatives to wake up and move on immigration reform
legislation, I urge the president to take action today and halt needless deportations that are splitting apart our
families and communities, Menendez said at the National Council of La Razas 2014 Capital Awards dinner.
Menendez is an influential voice on immigration reform within the Senate Democratic caucus, and he co-authored
the comprehensive reform bill Senate Democrats voted for unanimously last year.
When asked if he backs Menendez, Durbin said, I do.
Durbin, another co-author of the Senate bill, said the plight of illegal immigrants facing deportation is
heartbreaking.
Having sat there at those detention facilities and seen the crying mothers and babies of these people who are good,
hardworking individuals deported strictly because of an immigration violation no criminal violation it is
heartbreaking, he said. I want to see it come to an end.
Durbin added the best solution to the problem would be if Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) scheduled a vote on the
Senate bill.
When told that Menendezs proposal to halt deportations would be limited to illegal immigrants who are the
immediate family of citizens and permanent residents, Harkin said, I agree with him, then.
Menendez has also proposed exempting the immediate family of illegal immigrants who came to the nation as
children. Those people, known as Dreamers have been allowed to stay in the country by the Obama
administration.
Hispanic advocacy groups and other activists have voiced frustration over the pace of deportations under Obama,
who relied on Hispanic voters to win reelection in 2012. Rep. Luiz Gutirrez (D-Ill.) has led the charge in the
House.
Janet Murgua, the president of the National Council of La Raza, on Tuesday called Obama the deporter in chief.
In November, Obama was heckled by Ju Hong, an activist who yelled at him, use your executive power to halt
deportations, while they were both standing on a stage at an immigration reform rally in San Francisco.

No Trade Deal
Reid blocks any trade deals reaching the floor
UPI, 3-2 (Marcella Kreiter, The Issue: Year of action? Doubtful.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/03/02/The-Issue-Year-of-action-Doubtful/UPI-41181393752540/)
Reid put the kibosh on that weeks ago.
"Everyone would be well-advised to not push this right now," Reid said. He said everyone knows how he feels on
the issue.
Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, in Washington for the National Governors Association meeting, said on CBS'
"Face the Nation" there's a "disconnect" between "the ideologues that have taken over the once-proud party
of Abraham Lincoln and made it impossible for our Congress to do things that the vast majority of us, Democrats
and Republicans throughout the country, agree make sense, like pay the country's bills, pass comprehensive
immigration reform, do the common sense things.
"I mean, shutting our country down does not help job growth. Selling America short does not help us build a better
future for our kids. And these are the things that the Tea Party Republicans have brought to our Congress and made
it very difficult for Mr. Boehner and other Republicans even to enact the sort of reasonable compromise that all of us
took for granted in years past."
Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said, however, the gridlock in Washington actually is the fault of Obama and Reid, DNev.
"Senator Reid is unwilling for his majority members to be in a position to take tough votes," Corker told a breakfast
sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor. "This president is afraid to stretch his base. That's why we haven't had
the ability to solve the major problems of the day."

No Tax Reform
McConnell and House republicans block any tax reform

UPI, 3-2 (Marcella Kreiter, The Issue: Year of action? Doubtful.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/03/02/The-Issue-Year-of-action-Doubtful/UPI-41181393752540/)
"I don't see how we can," McConnell said during a media availability, citing Majority Leader Harry Reid's plan for
what McConnell said was $1 trillion in new revenue as a condition for achieving comprehensive tax reform,
invoking the ghosts of Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill who worked out the last great tax overhaul.
McConnell is holding out for a Republican takeover of the Senate come November before getting anything
substantive done.
"Now, if we had a new Republican Senate next year, coupled with a Republican House, I think we could have at
least a congressional agreement that this is about getting rates down, and making America more competitive. You
know, not about giving the government even more revenue. So I -- I have no hope for that happening this year," he
said.
To be fair, Rep. David Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, released a tax reform
measure that lowers tax rates and simplifies the tax code.
Boehner, however, said the measure was just "the beginning of a conversation," not a bill that could be enacted.
Boehner told a subsequent news conference Republicans plan to lead, offering alternative visions for the country but
shied away from predicting votes on any major issues.

No Iran Sanctions
Dems will sign the Iran letter for political cover instead of sanctions
The Times of Israel, 3-2 ( REBECCA SHIMONI STOIL, AIPAC offers Senate Democrats a way out on Iran,
http://www.timesofisrael.com/aipac-offers-senate-democrats-a-way-out-on-iran/)
WASHINGTON When some 10,000 AIPAC lobbyists hit Capitol Hill on Tuesday, pushing Senators to commit to
supporting the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2013 will officially be at the top of their list.
Lobbyists will also urge senators to sign a letter spearheaded by one of the bills sponsors, Sen. Robert Menendez
(D-NJ) along with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) which covers some of the same ground as the bill,
delineating a set of terms for a final agreement with Iran and stressing Congresss role, particularly if an acceptable
deal requires sanctions relief or if a breakdown in talks requires additional sanctions legislation.
The letter could provide a solution for Democratic senators, who have faced massive pressure from the Obama
administration not to sign on to the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act. The bill, sponsored by Menendez and Illinois
Republican Mark Kirk, would threaten additional sanctions against Iran should the current talks fail, or should a sixmonth interim nuclear deal signed in November expire without the six world powers reaching an agreement with
Iran on the dismantlement of its alleged nuclear weapons program.
The administration has argued that the threat of additional sanctions will push Iran away from the negotiations table,
but AIPAC Executive Director Howard Kohr told the organizations supporters on Sunday morning that he believes
that the prospect of more sanctions pressure will aid, not hinder, US efforts to reach a diplomatic solution.
This bill would present Iran with a menu of consequences, including new sanctions, if the talks fail, Kohr told
attendees at the AIPAC Policy Conferences opening plenary session. We need Congress to keep the pressure on, to
keep this issue in the public eye. Lets be clear about our expectations: Congress cannot negotiate, but it can set clear
boundaries.
Reid wont let up for a vote
WSJ, 3-5 (Wall Street Journal, Messrs. Rivkin and Casey served in the Justice Department during the Reagan and
George H.W. Bush administrations. They are partners in the Washington, D.C., office of Baker Hostetler LLP. Mr.
Rivkin is also a senior adviser to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303775504579394843027192308?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http
%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303775504579394843027192308.html)
Despite strong bipartisan opposition in Congress to a deficient nuclear deal with Iran, the administration has so far
been able to keep lawmakers, and especially the Senate, at arm's length because Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid has prevented any Iran-related bills from a vote. But there are other ways for Congress, and especially the
Senate, to make its voice heard.

AIPACs base is splintered- wont push for the bill. Defeats any chance of passage.
Times of Israel, 3-5 (AIPAC, the latest victim of Washington partisanship, http://www.timesofisrael.com/aipacthe-latest-victim-of-washington-partisanship/)
AIPAC has spent months pushing a bill to allow President Barack Obama to further increase US sanctions on Iran if
the P5+1 nuclear talks fail. It won signatures from over half the Senate before the White House announced its
opposition to the bill out of a concern that any new sanctions threat could derail nuclear negotiations with Tehran.
The White House was adamant; AIPAC buckled. It didnt abandon the bill, but it agreed to delay its own push for its
passage. Continuing to push the bill would have meant going to battle against the very same president AIPAC hopes
will be ready to implement new sanctions if talks falter.
But as soon as AIPAC agreed to the presidents demand to delay the bill, it encountered unexpected opposition from
another quarter Republican senators who insisted on continuing to push for sanctions, against the wishes of the
White House and even the bills initiators.
AIPAC was forced, in the wake of Democratic opposition, to retreat for the moment on the Iran sanctions bill the
group had been pushing for months, noted Eli Lake in the Daily Beast. Then, nearly every Republican in the
Senate ignored AIPACs call for a retreat on the bill, and decided to keep on pushing for a vote on it, anyway.
The result was an embarrassing spectacle.
Somehow, on the issue arguably of most importance to both the Israeli government and Americas pro-Israel
community Iran and its nuclear ambitions AIPAC didnt merely fail to deliver. It alienated its most ardent
supporters, and helped turn what was a bipartisan effort to keep Iran in check into just another political squabble.

The lobby that everybody in Washington publicly backs somehow managed to piss off just about everyone, Lake
wrote.
Even Israel was disappointed.
Sen. Bob Corker [Republican from Tennessee], the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
said he had a very direct conversation with Ron Dermer, Israels ambassador to the United States, on the sanctions
bill early last month. AIPAC and Israel are in different places on this issue, Corker said of his conversation with
Dermer, who he said supported the sanctions bill now and not at a later date, Lake wrote.
The image is not a pretty one: AIPAC pushing legislation unwanted by the White House, pulling back under
administration pressure but to Israels dismay, then facing blowback from Republicans all the more eager to advance
the bill because it had come to represent for them what they saw as the administrations weakness in the Iran talks.
Many observers, including some of AIPACs most ardent supporters, agreed the organization had stumbled badly.
Others wondered openly if the stumble was part of a broader diminution.
Vote on sanctions bill got delayed- AIPAC divisions
Politico, 3-1 (GOP eyes AIPAC summit for Iran push, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/gop-aipac-summitiran-104124.html)
Republicans believe a new push from AIPAC could help change the minds of Democrats who are deferring to
President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who believe a sanctions vote would
destroy delicate ongoing diplomatic talks with Iran. But they might be disappointed: Despite supporting the bills
goals, AIPAC appears to oppose an immediate vote on sanctions given the lack of Democratic support.
Our view is that we strongly support the legislation. We believe that it should be voted on when it would have the
broadest bipartisan support, an AIPAC source said. We thought there shouldnt be an immediate vote [in order] to
build support.
That stance has Republicans scratching their heads, given that AIPAC could very well help build that bipartisan
support by taking a harder line. Several GOP senators said in interviews this week they hear a more urgent tone from
AIPACs local branches than from the national organization.
I was puzzled by the statement they put out a few weeks ago saying that they no longer thought now was the time
to vote. Im not sure that reflects their membership, said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). I certainly think their
membership does [want a vote]. Thats my impression from the meetings that Ive had.
They are a very powerful and influential organization, said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) Sometimes, theres been
a disconnect between their leadership here in Washington and their rank-and-file.
The rank and file of AIPAC and just the average person who follows this has got to be very worried about the
Senates inaction, said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).
A senior Senate aide closely following the issue said theres an incredible amount of tension between local
AIPAC chapters itching for quick movement on sanctions and a D.C. apparatus that understands the delicate
politics of the issue.

No Minimum Wage
Senate republicans block minimum wage hikes
UPI, 3-2 (Marcella Kreiter, The Issue: Year of action? Doubtful.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/03/02/The-Issue-Year-of-action-Doubtful/UPI-41181393752540/)
"The last thing we need to be doing right now in our country, is passing legislation that destroys even more jobs,"
McConnell said in reference to Obama's proposal to boost the minimum wage to $10.10. "This is a tepid recovery at
best, the worst recovery after a deep recession since World War II. Goodness gracious, we ought to be trying to
create jobs by doing things like approving the Keystone Pipeline, for example, rather than passing legislation that
destroys jobs."
House republicans will block especially in a midterm year
NYT, 3-5 (With Eye on Midterms, Obama Pushes Rise in Minimum Wage,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/06/us/politics/obama-presses-case-for-higher-minimum-wage.html?_r=0)
Last month, through an executive order, Mr. Obama raised the minimum wage for federal workers on new contracts
to $10.10, effective in 2015. But raising the overall federal minimum wage would require Congressional
action, a far-fetched prospect in a Republican-controlled House during an election year. Republicans say
lifting the wage would cost jobs, pointing to a report last month by the Congressional Budget Office, which
asserted that raising the federal minimum to $10.10 an hour would result in a loss of 500,000 jobs. A smaller
increase, it said, would cost fewer jobs

House republicans would block any measure

Daily News, 3-6 (House Speaker John Boehner balks at President Obama's push to raise the minimum wage
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/house-speaker-john-boehner-balks-president-obama-call-wageincrease-article-1.1712385#ixzz2vD9pBat7)
House Speaker John Boehner is balking at President Obamas call to raise the minimum wage, but members of his
own party favored a hike eight years ago.
Nobody working full-time should have to live in poverty, 26 Republicans wrote Boehner in 2006, urging a hike in
the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25. Liberal activist Ralph Nader referenced their stance in a letter
Wednesday to Boehner.
None of the six Reps. Pete King (R-L.I.), Michael Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.), Chris Smith (RN.J.) Shelly Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) or Fred Upton (R-Mich.) back a wage hike now.
I would consider an increase, but it must coincide with a reduction of the burdens placed on employers and small
businesses, King said.

Minimum wage vote is just political messaging in part by Democrats for the midterms
elections
The Washington Times, 3-5 (Undaunted, Obama continues minimum-wage push,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/5/undaunted-obama-continues-minimum-wage-push/?page=1)
Even with dissension in his own ranks and in the face of a damning report showing the economic damage of a higher
minimum wage, President Obama on Wednesday continued to push the issue and made clear itll be a political
weapon for Democrats heading into the fall midterm elections.
Speaking at a campaign-style rally at Central Connecticut State University, the president mocked Republicans who
oppose raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10, saying the move is just common sense.
This should not be hard, youd think. Nearly three in four Americans support raising the minimum wage, the
president said, referring to polling data showing Americans back the idea when asked a generic question about it.
The problem is that Republicans in Congress oppose raising the minimum wage, he continued. Now, I dont
know if thats just because I proposed it. Maybe I should say I oppose the minimum wage. Theyd be for it. Its
possible.
But some Democrats also arent on board. Sen. Mark Pryor, Arkansas Democrat, believes the proposed hike is too
much and said that a smaller raise would be better for the economy. Sen. Mary Landrieu, a Louisiana Democrat up
for re-election this year, also hasnt come out in support of the idea.

Democrats also are struggling to explain away a recent Congressional Budget Office report showing as many as
500,000 Americans could be pushed out of the workforce if the wage is raised to $10.10.
Despite that, the White House and its allies in Congress wont budge. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada
Democrat, has said he wont entertain a smaller increase.
Late last month, Mr. Reid delayed a planned vote on the measure.
Some analysts say Mr. Obamas and Democrats insistence on the $10.10 figure and an apparent unwillingness to
negotiate and possibly settle on a smaller increase is, at its core, a political tactic.
At the end of the day, I think its more proof they dont have an interest in passing this thing. They just have an
interest in messaging on it this year. They my be able to peel some people off [to support] a dollar increase in the
minimum wage. But they dont want to do that. They want to keep it around, said Michael Saltsman, research
director at the Employment Policies Institute, a nonprofit economic think tank.
While the CBO brought with it some bad news for supporters of a minimum-wage hike, it also contained bright
spots for the president and his allies.
The report found that raising the rate to $10.10 would bring about 900,000 families out of poverty, and Mr. Obama
is relying on that narrative to sell the idea to the American people.
Nobody who works full time should ever have to raise a family in poverty. That violated a basic sense of who we
are, the president said. Thats why its time to give America a raise. Now is the time.
Even as Mr. Obama spoke, leading Republicans fired back by touting the CBO report.
There are some inconvenient facts that the White House doesnt like to acknowledge. Thats because, in short, this
plan is a job killer, said Brendan Buck, spokesman for House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.

House republicans block because it would dissuade business from hiring people
USA Today, 3-5 (Obama stumps for minimum wage,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/03/05/obama-minimum-wage-central-connecticut-stateuniversity/6084117/)
President Obama followed up the release of his proposed budget by making another plea Wednesday for an increase
in the minimum wage.
"This is good for business -- it is good for America," Obama said during a campaign-style speech at Central
Connecticut State University in New Britain, Conn.
Obama, who signed an executive order this year raising the minimum wage for federal contract workers, called on
Congress to follow through for all workers nationwide. He backs a plan that would escalate the minimum wage from
$7.25 an hour to $10.10 an hour.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and other Republicans say a minimum wage hike would dissuade businesses
from hiring more people.
The higher minimum wage would "destroy jobs for people who need them the most," said Boehner spokesman
Brendan Buck. "When folks are still struggling to find work in this economy, why would we make that any harder?"
Obama mocked the Republicans for opposing his plan, suggesting that some do so because he supports it.
"Maybe I should say I oppose raising the minimum wage and they'd be for it," Obama said.

Yes GOP Midterms

GOP is favored to win in the midterms also no internal link policies arent translating to
votes
Washington Post, 3-3 (Poll: Democrats advantage on key issues is not translating to a midterm-election edge,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-democrats-advantage-on-key-issues-is-not-translating-to-a-midtermelection-edge/2014/03/03/455ae6ea-a306-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html)
The American people trust Democrats more than Republicans on some of the key issues of the day, but that has not
translated into any political advantage in the battle for control of the House and Senate in this years midterm
elections, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Midterm elections generally favor the party that does not hold the White House, which gives the GOP a head start
this year. Political handicappers rate Republicans as favorites to maintain their House majority and say the GOP has
a legitimate opportunity to gain the six seats it needs to take control of the Senate.
The Post-ABC survey affirms those projections, showing Republicans in a stronger position than Democrats in the
states with Senate races this fall and more than holding their own in the battle for control of the House. In the 34
states with Senate races, 50 percent of voters say they favor Republicans and 42 percent favor Democrats.
That is the case despite the Republican Partys poor image nationally and its deficit on some important issues. About
two in three Americans say the GOP is out of touch with the concerns of most people in the United States today.
Fewer than six in 10 Republicans say their party is in touch with the public, while four in 10 say the party is out of
touch. But that is significantly better than last year, in the wake of Republicans 2012 presidential election defeat.
Then, just four in 10 said they were in touch, while almost half said they were not.
The public is evenly divided on whether President Obama and the Democrats share the concerns of average
Americans. The fact that neither could muster a clear majority is one sign of the publics unhappiness with elected
officials.

Healthcare Thumper
Healthcare trumps the link
Washington Post, 3-3 (Poll: Democrats advantage on key issues is not translating to a midterm-election edge,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-democrats-advantage-on-key-issues-is-not-translating-to-a-midtermelection-edge/2014/03/03/455ae6ea-a306-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html)
Republicans are making opposition to the health-care law central to their political messaging this year. The survey
found that 36 percent say they are less likely to support a candidate who favors the law, while 34 percent say they
are more likely to support such a candidate.
Partisan differences are clear on this question. Among Republicans, 70 percent say they are less likely to support a
candidate backing the law, while among Democrats, 57 percent say they are more likely to vote for someone who
favors the law. Independents split nearly evenly, with 30 percent saying support for the law is a positive factor and
35 percent saying its a negative one.

Healthcare will dominate Republican air waves

CNN, 3-4 (Eight things to watch in the eight months till Election Day,
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/04/politics/eight-months-till-election/)
6. The issues: The national health care law is the President's signature domestic achievement. The Affordable Care
Act, better known as Obamacare, was a major issue in 2010 and 2012 and will be so again in 2014.
While the Obamacare website suffered a disastrous rollout starting in October, things have improved. Major flaws
with HealthCare.gov were addressed and enrollment has made major gains.
But the controversy over canceled policies because of Obamacare played into Republican hands. And Obama's
inaccurate pledge that "If you like your insurance, you can keep it" under the new health care law is a line that has
dominated GOP attack ads this cycle. Republicans have pledged to keep the campaign focus on the health care law
even if it starts to gain traction with the public.
Why?
Because midterms are smaller than presidential elections and are often all about getting out base voters, and the
GOP base hates Obamacare.

Economy Thumper
The Economy trumps all other issues
CNN, 3-4 (Eight things to watch in the eight months till Election Day,
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/04/politics/eight-months-till-election/)
While congressional Republicans focus on health care, the White House and Democrats in Congress are shining
their spotlight on raising the minimum wage and extending long-term unemployment benefits. Both measures face
difficult paths to becoming law, thanks to pushback from Republicans.
But regardless of what happens, Democrats think they have a winning issue that can deflect from the damage done
by Obamacare woes. Expect a continued push by the White House, congressional Democrats, labor groups and
progressive organizations to raise the federal minimum wage and proposals to boost the level in some crucial states
this year, as part of the party's effort to emphasize income inequality.
"The economy is stronger than it's been in a very long time," Obama touted at a news conference at the end of last
year.
By many metrics, he's right. The stock market's above 16,000, unemployment's at a five-year low, auto sales are at a
seven-year high and the housing sector, which dragged the country into recession five years ago, is rebounding.
But many people just don't feel that good about things. National polling indicates most people don't feel nearly as
optimistic about the economy and their personal plight.
The economy remains the top issue on the minds of voters. Economic realities, as well as perceptions, will influence
voters in 2014.

Immigration Reform Thumper

Immigration reform thumps the election link
Washington Post, 3-3 (Poll: Democrats advantage on key issues is not translating to a midterm-election edge,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-democrats-advantage-on-key-issues-is-not-translating-to-a-midtermelection-edge/2014/03/03/455ae6ea-a306-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html)
Immigration reform, which remains stalled in Congress, is a divisive issue. Among those for whom it matters,
38 percent say they are less likely to vote for someone who favors a path to citizenship, while 30 percent say they
would be more likely. This negative tilt contrasts sharply with numerous polls showing support for a path to legal
status for undocumented immigrants.
One aspect of this years elections is the number of tea party challengers who are taking on Republican incumbents,
including half a dozen sitting GOP senators. By a narrow margin (47 to 41 percent), Republicans and GOP-leaning
independents see this as a bad thing rather than a good thing.
But six in 10 Republicans who call themselves very conservative say such contests are a good thing, as do just
more than half of tea party supporters. Conservative Republicans are narrowly supportive, 47 percent to 43 percent.

Democrats Not Mobilized for Midterms

Democrats arent mobilizing or campaigning for the midterm elections- only focus on
Presidential
Cizilla, 2-26 (Chris Cillizza writes The Fix, a politics blog for the Washington Post. He also covers the White
House for the newspaper and website. Chris has appeared as a guest on NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, Fox News
Channel and CNN to talk politics. He lives in Virginia with his wife and sons.,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-is-right-democrats-meh-attitude-toward-midterms-is-a-majorproblem/2014/02/23/ad5a3ed0-9c94-11e3-ad71-e03637a299c0_story.html)
Obama is exactly right. His party from the donor community to the activists gets very excited about
presidential elections but tends to lose interest (at least when compared with Republicans) in midterm elections. Put
another way: Democrats love the Super Bowl; they are less attracted to the mid-season game between two teams
they probably havent heard of. (Browns-Vikings ... its fantastic!)
Young people a key pillar of the Obama coalition tend to stray from politics during midterms. Attempts by
Democratic operatives in past midterm elections to build outside organizations to battle conservative groups on the
airwaves fizzled for lack of interest. And so on and so forth.
That lack of focus/interest has hurt Democrats nationally far more than the average person or even the average
political junkie understands. The 2010 election is a perfect example of this reality. While most people focus on
the 63-seat Republican gain that brought the GOP control of the House, what often gets lost is the remarkable
turnover in governorships and state legislatures.
Republicans picked up eight governorships in 2010 including those in critical swing states such as Pennsylvania,
Ohio and Michigan. They also held on to the governorship in Florida. The change at the state legislative level was
even more striking and arguably more impactful.
Before the 2010 election, Democrats held full control in 27 state legislatures while Republicans controlled 14, and
eight had split control. (Nebraska has a unicameral legislature.) After the 2010 election, Republicans enjoyed full
control in 25 state legislatures, compared with 16 for Democrats. Eight remained split. State legislatures that moved
to full Republican control in 2010 included those in large and electorally critical states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, Michigan and North Carolina.
Tim Storey, who focuses on state legislative races for the National Conference of State Legislatures wrote in the
aftermath of the 2010 midterms that Republicans have added over 675 seats to their ranks in this election,
dramatically surpassing 1994 gains. ... The success by Republicans at the state level could give the GOP a dramatic
advantage in the redistricting cycle that will start in just a few short months.
Boy, was Storey right. Republican gains in 2010 led to a redistricting process nationwide in 2011 that entrenched the
Republican House majority, making it very difficult though not impossible for Democrats to recapture the
chamber any time soon.
And the impact of the 2010 midterm elections at the gubernatorial and state legislative level also had considerable
policy consequences. The most high-profile of those was Gov. Scott Walkers successful fight to outlaw collective
bargaining for public-sector unions in Wisconsin. More abortion restrictions were passed in state legislatures
between 2011 and 2013 than in the entire previous decade. In the first six months of 2011 alone, six states passed
stricter voter ID laws. You get the idea.

Republicans have solid political infrastructure in midterm elections and that trumps

Cizilla, 2-26 (Chris Cillizza writes The Fix, a politics blog for the Washington Post. He also covers the White
House for the newspaper and website. Chris has appeared as a guest on NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, Fox News
Channel and CNN to talk politics. He lives in Virginia with his wife and sons.,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-is-right-democrats-meh-attitude-toward-midterms-is-a-majorproblem/2014/02/23/ad5a3ed0-9c94-11e3-ad71-e03637a299c0_story.html)
There is some evidence that Democratic donors have woken up. The Senate Majority PAC, a Democratic-aligned
super PAC designed to run ads in Senate races, collected almost $9 million in 2013. House Majority PAC, a mirror
group for House races, raised almost $8 million.
And, because Democrats were so badly swamped in 2010 at the state and local level, the party does have ample
opportunity to makes gains with GOP-controlled governorships in Pennsylvania and Florida in deep trouble.
Democrats also see opportunities to win back the governors mansions in Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin, although

all three are uphill fights. Forty-six states will hold state legislative elections for 91 chambers, with traditional swing
states such as Iowa, Colorado and Nevada likely to hold pitched battles for control this November.
The massive number of contests coupled with the long-lasting importance of winning them as demonstrated by
GOP gains in 2010 make the November election important for more than just who controls the U.S. House and
Senate.
Still, most Democratic strategists including the current occupant of the White House acknowledge that state
and local contests, particularly in a midterm election, are the one place where the Republican infrastructure (funders
+ organizations + activists) trumps their own. And thats a major problem for the party.

Ukraine Thumper
Ukraine will hurt Obama in the midterm elections
WTAQ, 3-3 (Obama's caution on Ukraine may loom over midterm election,
http://wtaq.com/news/articles/2014/mar/04/obamas-caution-on-ukraine-may-loom-over-midterm-election/)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With Russia's incursion into Ukraine reviving Cold War-style tensions, President
Barack Obama is at risk of suffering a blow to his credibility at a time when he can least afford it: as he tries to
convince voters to stick with his fellow Democrats in congressional elections that will help shape his legacy.
For five years, Obama has practiced a cautious approach to foreign policy crises, prizing sober diplomacy and the
search for consensus over brinkmanship, in prolonged conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But the deliberative style that Obama's team sees as a statesmanlike attitude in tune with Americans' war-weariness,
was described as dithering in the crisis over Syria, where the United States long discussed military action without
committing.
Facing his toughest test yet in Ukraine, Obama is once again finding himself portrayed as a weak leader,
outmaneuvered by a wily, opportunistic Russian President Vladimir Putin intent on reviving the United States'
nemesis.
His popularity has already been suffering because of the disastrous roll out of his signature healthcare plan last
October and the U.S. economy's slow recovery from recession.
Now, Republicans are using Ukraine as further ammunition against him ahead of the November elections.
The Ukraine crisis, said Republican Senator John McCain in a speech on Monday, is "the ultimate result of a
feckless foreign policy where nobody believes in America's strengths anymore."
It's not only Republicans who are giving less than rave reviews to Obama's strategy. The Washington Post's lead
editorial on Monday was about Obama and Ukraine and was entitled "The risks of wishful thinking."
"For five years President Obama has led a foreign policy based more on how he thinks the world should operate than
on reality," it said.
Obama seemed to have been caught off-guard by Putin's seizure of the Crimea region of southern Ukraine. He is
now scrambling to put together a package of economic sanctions aimed at isolating Russia.
Targeted asset freezes against key Russian officials are a possibility. A G8 summit that Obama and allies are to
attend in Sochi, Russia, in June is on hold.
"Obviously, the facts on the ground in Crimea are deeply troubling and Russia has a large army that borders
Ukraine. But what is also true is that over time this will be a costly proposition for Russia," Obama said on Monday.
This will not be enough to satisfy critics who fear Putin is taking a step toward restoring the old Soviet Union that he
served as a KGB colonel. Putin's adventure in Ukraine, they say, is the final proof that Obama's policy of resetting
U.S. relations with Russia in a search for common ground is dead.
For Obama, the Ukraine crisis is a dramatic diversion from attempts to stay focused largely on domestic affairs in a
congressional election year that may represent his last best chance for legacy-building achievements before
Americans look past him and focus on the 2016 presidential campaign.
The president and fellow Democrats are struggling to hang on to control of the Senate and build up their numbers in
the Republican-controlled House of Representatives in November elections.
In addition to using the Ukraine crisis as another cudgel against Democrats in this year's congressional elections,
Republicans also see it a possible line of attack in the 2016 presidential race. Some potential Republican White
House hopefuls, such as Florida Senator Marco Rubio, have been pushing a more assertive foreign-policy approach.

Yes Dems Midterms

Democrats will regain edge- healthcare issues have stabilized
Washington Post, 3-3 (Poll: Democrats advantage on key issues is not translating to a midterm-election edge,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-democrats-advantage-on-key-issues-is-not-translating-to-a-midtermelection-edge/2014/03/03/455ae6ea-a306-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html)
The poll shows broad dissatisfaction with Washington politicians. Just 22 percent say they are inclined to reelect
their representatives in Congress. Almost seven in 10 Americans (68 percent) say they are inclined to look around
for someone new this fall, the highest percentage recorded in a Post-ABC poll.
That does not mean the fall elections will mean defeat for significant numbers of House members, given the high
reelection rates for incumbents and the polarized voting patterns of recent years. But it does underscore how little
the public values their officeholders, whose historically low ratings have persisted.
With President Obama and Congress at loggerheads on major issues and little prospect for legislative action on
major initiatives, the presidents approval ratings have shown little change since earlier this year. His overall rating
is still a net negative, with 46 percent saying they approve of the job he is doing and 50 percent disapproving, the
same as in January.
Majorities of Americans continue to disapprove of the presidents handling of the economy and of the
implementation of his signature health-care law. But after a noticeable decline late last year after the botched rollout
of the Affordable Care Act, attitudes about his handling of the law have stabilized over the first months of this year.
Despite the problems with the health-care laws implementation, Democrats maintain an edge over Republicans on
which party Americans trust to deal with the issue, by a margin of 44 percent to 36 percent. Democrats hold
advantages of the same size on energy and immigration. On helping the middle class, the Democrats have a 13-point
advantage over the Republicans.
The public rates the two parties about evenly on handling the economy, dealing with taxes and managing the federal
budget deficit. Earlier this year, Republicans had a 10-point edge on the deficit, but that has narrowed to two points.
Attitudes about the economy remain overwhelmingly negative, with 72 percent rating the economy as not so good
or poor.
A majority (56 percent) say that, based on personal experience, the economy has begun to recover. But only
18 percent say it is a strong recovery. Four in 10 call the recovery weak, and the rest say it has not begun.
Republicans hold the advantage in the race for control of the House for several reasons. District boundaries now
give the GOP a built-in edge, and fewer seats are truly competitive. All but about two-dozen House districts are
occupied by someone from the same party as the presidential candidate who carried the district in 2012, which
makes it harder for the opposing party to pick them off.
The survey found an almost even split on voting intentions for the House, with 46 percent of registered voters saying
they would vote for the Democrat and 45 percent saying they would support the Republican. In January, it was 46 to
45 the other way.

Healthcare will rebound in the Democrats favor- Republicans control a small edge but
news cycles will change
NYT, 3-5 (Republicans Place the Wrong Bet, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/06/opinion/blow-republicansplace-the-wrong-bet.html?hp&rref=opinion)
Republicans may have bet too heavily on the wrong issue going into the midterm elections. When the health care
laws website wasnt working, the law itself was at its most unpopular and its most newsworthy, and the presidents
poll numbers were cratering, many Republicans made the calculation that they could ride the wave of woe to an
overwhelming electoral victory in November.
But betting on stasis is stupid. Things change. The White House called in the geek squad, and they fixed the site.
Last week, the White House also announced that four million people have now enrolled in the health care program.
The presidents poll numbers have stabilized, albeit in negative territory. The news winds shifted. And Democrats
have found an issue that they can campaign on and that America likes helping the working class through things
like raising the minimum wage.

A Washington Post/ABC News poll released Wednesday found that 50 percent of respondents would be more likely
to vote for a congressional candidate who supports increasing the minimum wage, as opposed to 19 percent who
said that they were less likely. Twenty-eight percent said that it wouldnt make a difference.
A closer look at the numbers reveals that 72 percent of Democrats and 50 percent of the all-important independents
would be more likely to vote for candidates who support the increase.
The same poll found that 34 percent of respondents are more likely to vote for candidates who support the federal
health care law, while 36 percent are less likely to vote for them and 27 percent said it wouldnt make a
difference. Seventy percent of Republicans were less likely to vote for a candidate who supported the law, while
only 35 percent of independents are less likely to vote for a candidate who supports it.
The strength in these numbers is obviously on the side of what the Democrats are for, rather than what the
Republicans are against. This is by no means the determining factor for the midterms, but the sense of impending
doom among Democrats is beginning to ease. To be sure, there are still issues. The health care law remains
unpopular, and Obama keeps adjusting the rules that govern it. It remains unclear whether the program will sign up
enough young, healthy people to make it work as desired. As CNN put it: For months, administration officials
embraced CBO estimates anticipating that 18- to 34-year-olds would comprise roughly 40 percent of the total. The
current number is about 27 percent.
And as The New York Times pointed out last week, polls show that Republicans maintain a small electoral edge.
But small is the operative word here. As the paper pointed out, 42 percent say they will back Republicans in
November, and 39 percent indicate that they will back Democrats, a difference within the polls margin of sampling
error. So now we have Republicans desperately searching for a fallback.

Thursday File 2-27

NEGIran Sanctions

Top Level

1NC DA
Sanctions wont passObamas pressure key to stop the bill
Kredo 2/25 [Adam, Award-Winning Senior Writer for the Washington Free Beacon, 2014, Iran Sanctions
Back on Senates Agenda, http://freebeacon.com/iran-sanctions-back-on-senates-agenda/]

A new measure to level harsh sanctions on Iran reappeared in the Senate

on Tuesday when Republicans proposed an amendment to a new bill aimed at replacing retirement benefits for
veterans.

Bipartisan efforts to pass new sanctions in the Senate effectively died last
month after the White House and its allies launched a full court press to kill
the bill , which had garnered the backing of 59 senators.
the sanctions bill came back into play on Tuesday when Sens. Mitch
McConnell (R., Ky.) and Richard Burr (R., N.C.) revealed a new plan to restore federal
benefits to veterans whose benefits had been cut in December.
The Burr plan is being offered as an alternative to a similar Democratic bill
However,

aimed at restoring and expanding veterans benefits. Republicans have balked at the bill due to Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reids (D., Nev.) efforts to stymie debate and stop the GOP from offering amendments.

The language in the Burr amendment is essentially the same as the bill
originally proposed by Sens. Robert Menendez (D., N.J.) and Mark Kirk (R., Ill.), according to a copy
obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

the Iran sanctions amendment

belongs in the veterans bill due to its widespread supportand to counter
Burr explained on the Senate floor Tuesday afternoon that

Reids bid to shut down debate on the widely supported measures.

I think weve had four votes on Republican amendments since July, Burr said. And to suggest that Irans not
important is in fact a blind eye on the world.
I

have in my bill a piece of legislation thats cosponsored by 59 senators ,

bipartisan , the Iran sanctions bill, he said. Why? Because its the only way we can get
this to the floor, because were denied any other attempt to do it. This is

something thats important to the American [people], its important to our friends and our allies around the world.

Im sure it will dominate part of the debate.

McConnell, the Senate minority leader, also criticized Reid for his efforts to silence the
Republican minority on issues such as veterans benefits and Iran.
And

Let me just say weve been trying for months to get a debate and a vote on the Iran sanctions bill offered by
Sens. Menendez and Kirk, he said. That will be a part of the Burr alternative. And well be discussing at length on
the floor why we should go forward with that legislation and why we ought to get a vote on it because this is a very
time-sensitive matter.
Reid played a key role in killing the Kirk-Menendez bill last month.
As majority leader, Reid has unilateral control over deciding which measures come to the floor for a vote. Under
pressure from the White House, Reid never permitted the Iran sanctions bill to see an up-or-down vote.
McConnell lashed out at Reid at the time in comments made to the Free Beacon.
Sen.

Reids refusal

to allow a vote on this important, commonsense proposal

becomes harder

to explain with each passing day , McConnell said. Its also a perfect illustration
of how his unilateral approach to running the Senate doesnt just prevent
Republicans from pursuing legislation but Democrats too.

[Insert Link]
Failure to stop sanctions greenlights Israel strikes
Merry 14 [Robert, Political Editor for the National Interest and Author of Several Books on American History
and Foreign Policy January 1, Obama May Buck the Israel Lobby on Iran,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/31/merry-obama-may-buck-the-israel-lobby-on-iran/]
Presidential press secretary Jay Carney uttered 10 words the other day that represent a major presidential challenge

Referring to Senate legislation

designed to force President Obama to expand economic sanctions on Iran under
conditions the president opposes, Mr. Carney said: If it were to pass, the president would veto
it.
to the American Israel lobby and its friends on Capitol Hill.

For years, there has been an assumption in Washington that you cant buck the powerful Israel lobby, particularly
the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, whose positions are nearly identical with the stated aims of
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Mr. Netanyahu doesnt like Mr. Obamas recent overture to Iran, and
neither does AIPAC. The result is the Senate legislation, which is similar to a measure already passed by the House.

Obama has announced that he is prepared to buck the

Israel lobby and may even welcome the opportunity. It isnt fair to suggest that everyone who thinks Mr.
With the veto threat, Mr.

Obamas overtures to Iran are ill-conceived or counterproductive is simply following the Israeli lobbys talking

Israels supporters in this country are a major reason for the viability of
the sanctions legislation the president is threatening to veto.
It is nearly impossible to avoid the conclusion that the Senate legislation is designed to
sabotage Mr. Obamas delicate negotiations with Iran (with the involvement also of the
points, but

five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany) over Irans nuclear program. The aim is to get
Iran to forswear any acquisition of nuclear weapons in exchange for the reduction or elimination of current
sanctions. Iran insists it has a right to enrich uranium at very small amounts, for peaceful purposes, and Mr. Obama
seems willing to accept that Iranian position in the interest of a comprehensive agreement.
However, the Senate measure, sponsored by Sens. Robert Menendez, New Jersey Democrat; Charles E. Schumer,
New York Democrat; and Mark Kirk, Illinois Republican, would impose potent new sanctions if the final agreement
accords Iran the right of peaceful enrichment. That probably would destroy Mr. Obamas ability to reach an

Rouhani already is under pressure from his

countrys hard-liners to abandon his own willingness to seek a deal. The
Menendez-Schumer-Kirk measure would undercut him and put the hardliners back in control.
Further, the legislation contains language that would commit the U nited States to
military action on behalf of Israel if Israel initiates action against Iran . This
agreement. Iranian President Hasan

language is cleverly worded, suggesting U.S. action should be triggered only if Israel acted in its legitimate selfdefense and acknowledging the law of the United States and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to
authorize the use of military force, but the language is stunning in its brazenness and represents, in the view of
Andrew Sullivan, the prominent blogger, an appalling new low in the Israeli governments grip on the U.S.
Congress.
While noting the language would seem to be nonbinding, Mr. Sullivan adds that its basically

endorsing
the principle of handing over American foreign policy on a matter as grave as war and
peace to a foreign government, acting against international law, thousands of miles away.
That brings us back to Mr. Obamas veto threat. The American people have made clear through polls and abundant
expression (especially during Mr. Obamas flirtation earlier this year with military action against Bashar Assads
Syrian regime) that they are sick and weary of American military adventures in the Middle East. They dont think
the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been worth the price, and they dont want their country to engage in any other
such wars.

the brewing confrontation between Mr. Obama and the Israel lobby
comes down to war and peace. Mr. Obamas delicate negotiations with
Iran, whatever their outcome, are designed to avert another U.S. war in the Middle
East. The Menendez-Schumer-Kirk initiative is designed to kill that effort and cedes to
Thats what

Israel Americas war-making decision in matters involving Iran, which further

increases the prospects for war. Its not even an argument about whether the United States
should come to Israels aid if our ally is under attack, but whether the decision to do so and when that might be
necessary should be made in Jerusalem or Washington.

2014 will mark the 100th anniversary of beginning of World War I, a conflict triggered by entangling alliances that
essentially gave the rulers of the Hapsburg Empire power that forced nation after nation into a war they didnt want
and cost the world as many as 20 million lives. Historians have warned since of the danger of nations delegating
the power to take their people into war to other nations with very different interests.

AIPACs political power is substantial, but this is Washington power, the product of substantial
campaign contributions and threats posed to re-election prospects. According to the Center for Responsive Politics
Open Secrets website, Sens. Kirk, Menendez and Schumer each receives hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in
pro-Israel PAC money and each of their states includes concentrations of pro-Israel voters who help elect and reelect them.

AIPACs Washington power will collide with the countrys clear

powerful political sentiment against further U.S. adventurism in the
Middle East, particularly one as fraught with as much danger and unintended consequence as a war with
Iran. If the issue gets joined, as it appears that it will, Mr. Obama will see that it gets
joined as a matter of war and peace . If the Menendez-Schumer-Kirk
legislation clears Congress and faces a presidential veto, the war-andpeace issue could galvanize the American people as seldom before.
If that happens, the strongly held opinions of a democratic public are liable to
overwhelm the mechanisms of Washington power, and the vaunted influence
of the Israel lobby may be seen as being not quite what it has been
cracked up to be.
Elsewhere in the country,
and

Global war
Reuveny 10 [Rafael, Professor in Political Economy at the University of Indiana, PhD in Economic and
Political Science from the University of Indiana, August 9, Guest Opinion: Unilateral Strike on Iran Could Trigger
World Depression, http://www.indiana.edu/~spea/news/speaking_out/reuveny_on_unilateral_strike_Iran.shtml]

strike on Irans nuclear facilities would likely have dire consequences,

including a regional war , global economic collapse and a major power
A unilateral Israeli

clash . For an Israeli campaign to succeed, it must be quick and decisive. This requires an attack that would be
so overwhelming that Iran would not dare to respond in full force. Such an outcome is extremely unlikely since the
locations of some of Irans nuclear facilities are not fully known and known facilities
are buried deep underground. All of these widely spread facilities are shielded by elaborate air
defense systems constructed not only by the Iranians, but also the Chinese and, likely, the
Russians as well. By now, Iran has also built redundant command and control systems and
nuclear facilities, developed early-warning systems, acquired ballistic and cruise missiles and
upgraded and enlarged its armed forces . Because Iran is well-prepared, a single, conventional Israeli
strike or even numerous strikes could not destroy all of its capabilities, giving Iran time to respond. A regional

Iran has a second-strike capability

comprised of a coalition of Iranian, Syrian, Lebanese, Hezbollah, Hamas, and, perhaps,
Turkish forces. Internal pressure might compel Jordan, Egypt, and the Palestinian
Authority to join the assault, turning a bad situation into a regional war. During the 1973 Arab-Israeli War,
war Unlike Iraq, whose nuclear program Israel destroyed in 1981,

at the apex of its power, Israel was saved from defeat by President Nixons shipment of weapons and planes. Today,
Israels numerical inferiority is greater, and it faces more determined and better-equipped opponents. Despite
Israels touted defense systems, Iranian

likely wreak havoc

on its enemy,

coalition missiles, armed forces, and terrorist attacks would

leading to a prolonged tit-for-tat . In the absence of

massive U.S. assistance, Israels military resources may quickly dwindle, forcing it to use its alleged nuclear
weapons, as it had reportedly almost done in 1973. An Israeli nuclear attack would likely destroy most of Irans

coalition could still attack neighboring oil facilities, unleash

global terrorism, plant mines in the Persian Gulf and impair maritime trade in the
Mediterranean, Red Sea and Indian Ocean. Middle Eastern oil shipments would likely
slow to a trickle as production declines due to the war and insurance companies decide to drop their
risky Middle Eastern clients. Iran and Venezuela would likely stop selling oil to the United States
and Europe. The world economy would head into a tailspin; international acrimony would rise;
capabilities, but a crippled Iran and its

Iraqi and Afghani citizens might fully turn on the United States, immediately requiring the
deployment of more American troops. Russia, China, Venezuela, and maybe Brazil
and

and Turkey

all of which essentially support Iran could be tempted to

form an alliance and

openly challenge the U.S. hegemony . Replaying Nixons nightmare Russia and China
might

rearm

their injured

Iranian protege overnight, just as Nixon rearmed Israel, and threaten to

intervene , just as the U.S.S.R. threatened

to join Egypt and Syria

in 1973. President

Obamas response would likely put U.S. forces on nuclear alert , replaying Nixons
nightmarish scenario.

2NC OV
Disad outweighs

Israel strikes draw in Russia, China, Venezuela, Brazil, and Turkey and goes nuclear
empirics prove high risk of escalation

Also, faster
Talks are on the brink now and our link is based on Israels response to diplomatic
progress none of their impacts are perception based

2NC Credibility
Leverett 11/10 [Flynt, Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation and Professor at the Pennsylvania
State University School of International Affairs, 2013, Nuclear Negotiations and Americas Moment of Truth about
Iran, http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/?q=node/13358]

An Iran deal is vital to Americas global standing

Americas Iran policy is at a crossroads. Washington can abandon its

counterproductive insistence on Middle Eastern hegemony, negotiate
a nuclear deal grounded in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and get serious about working
with Tehran to broker a settlement to the Syrian conflict. In the process, the United States would greatly

Alternatively, America can

continue on its present path, leading ultimately to strategic
irrelevance in one of the worlds most vital regionswith negative
improve its ability to shape important outcomes there.

implications for its standing in Asia as well. U.S. policy is at this juncture because
the costs of Washingtons post-Cold War drive to dominate the Middle East have risen perilously high.
President Obamas self-inflicted debacle over his plan to attack Syria after chemical weapons were used
there in August showed that America can no longer credibly threaten the effective use of force to impose its
preferences in the region. While Obama still insists all options are on the table for Iran, the reality is that,
if Washington is to deal efficaciously with the nuclear issue, it will be through diplomacy. In this context, last
months Geneva meeting between Iran and the P5+1 brought Americas political class to a strategic and
political moment of truth. Can American elites turn away from a self-damaging quest for Middle Eastern
hegemony by coming to terms with an independent regional power? Or are they so enthralled with an
increasingly surreal notion of America as hegemon that, to preserve U.S. leadership, they will pursue a

The proposal for resolving the

nuclear issue that Irans foreign minister, Javad Zarif, presented in Geneva
course further eviscerating its strategic position?

seeks answers to these questions. It operationalizes the approach advocated by Hassan Rohani and other
Iranian leaders for over a decade: greater transparency on Irans nuclear activities in return for recognizing
its rights as a sovereign NPT signatoryespecially to enrich uranium under international safeguardsand
removal of sanctions. For years, the Bush and Obama administrations rejected this approach. Now Obama

provides greater transparency on

Tehrans nuclear activities in two crucial respects. First, it gives greater visibility on the
must at least consider it. The Iranian package

conduct of Irans nuclear program. Iran has reportedly offered to comply voluntarily for some months with
the Additional Protocol (AP) to the NPTwhich it has signed but not yet ratified and which authorizes more
proactive and intrusive inspectionsto encourage diplomatic progress. Tehran would ratify the APthereby
committing to its permanent implementationas part of a final deal. Second, the package aims to validate
Irans declarations that its enrichment infrastructure is not meant to produce weapons-grade fissile
material. Iran would stop enriching at the near-20 percent level of fissile-isotope purity needed to fuel the
Tehran Research Reactor and cap enrichment at levels suitable for fueling power reactors. Similarly, Iran is
open to capping the number of centrifuges it would installat least for some yearsat its enrichment sites
in Natanz and Fordo. Based on conversations with Iranian officials and political figures in New York in
September (during Rohani and Zarifs visit to the UN General Assembly) and in Tehran last month, it is also
possible to identify items that the Iranian proposal almost certainly does not include. Supreme Leader

Khamenei has reportedly given President Rohani and his

diplomats flexibility in negotiating a settlement but he has also directed that
Ayatollah Seyed Ali

they not compromise Irans sovereignty. Thus, the Islamic Republic will not acquiesce to American (and
Israeli) demands to suspend enrichment, shut its enrichment site at Fordo, stop a heavy-water reactor
under construction at Arak, and ship its current enriched uranium stockpile abroad. On one level, the Iranian
package is crafted to resolve the nuclear issue based on the NPT, within a year. Irans nuclear rights would
be respected; transparency measures would reduce the proliferation risks of its enrichment activities below
what Washington tolerates elsewhere. On another level, though,

the package means to test

Americas willingness and capability to resolve the issue on this

basis. It tests this not just for Tehrans edification, but also for that of
other P5+1 states, especially China and Russia , and of rising powers like India and South Korea.
America can fail the Iranian test in two ways. First, the Obama administrationreflecting Americas political
class more broadlymay prove unwilling to acknowledge Irans nuclear rights in a straightforward way,

There
are powerful constituenciese.g., the Israel lobby, neoconservative
Republicans, their Democratic fellow travelers, and U.S.-based Iran experts
that oppose any deal recognizing Irans nuclear rights. They understand that
acknowledging these rights would also mean accepting the Islamic Republic as an
enduring entity representing legitimate national interests; to do so, America would have to
abandon its post-Cold War pretensions to Middle Eastern hegemony.
Those pretensions have proven dangerously corrosive of Americas
ability to accomplish important objectives in the Middle East, and of
its global standing. Just witness the profoundly self-damaging consequences of Americas
insisting on terms for a deal that effectively suborn these rights and violate Iranian sovereignty.

invasion and occupation of Iraq, and how badly the global war on terror has eviscerated the perceived
legitimacy of American purposes in the Muslim world. But, as the drama over Obamas call for military
action against Syria indicates, Americas political class remains deeply attached to imperial pretenseeven
as the American public turns away from it. If Washington could accept the Islamic Republic as a legitimate
regional power, it could work with Tehran and others on a political solution to the Syrian conflict. Instead,
Washington reiterates hubristic demands that President Bashar al-Assad step down before a political
process starts, and relies on a Saudi-funded Syrian opposition increasingly dominated by al-Qaida-like

If Obama does not conclude a deal recognizing Irans nuclear

rights, it will confirm suspicions already held by many Iranian elites
including Ayatollah Khameneiand in Beijing and Moscow about Americas real
extremists.

Uniqueness

2NC UQ
No sanctions now

Pressures been successful but needs to be sustained to prevent skeptics from

forcing a vote thats Kredo

Link frames uniqueness

The stronger the presidency, the more likely he is to win the fight over diplomacy
with Iran

GOP renewed a push and democrats are back on board

Zengerle and Cowan 2/26 [Patricia and Richard, Politics Reporters for Reuters, 2014, U.S.
Lawmakers Seek to Revive Stalled Iran Sanctions Bill, http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/02/25/usa-iran-sanctionsidINDEEA1O0I020140225]

Republican U.S. senators sought to revive a bill on Tuesday that would impose new
sanctions on Iran despite President Barack Obama's insistence that the measure
would endanger delicate negotiations seeking to curb Tehran's nuclear program.
Senator Mitch McConnell, the party's leader in the Senate, told reporters Republicans
wanted to include the sanctions package as an amendment to a bill
expanding healthcare and education programs for veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"We've been trying for months to get a debate and a vote on the Kirk-Menendez sanctions bill," McConnell told

calling the sanctions bill a "very time-sensitive matter."

Fifty-nine of the 100 U.S. senators, including 16 of Obama's fellow
reporters on Tuesday,

Democrats , co-sponsored a bill introduced in December that would impose

new sanctions on Iran if international negotiations on a nuclear agreement falter.
The lead authors of the bill were New Jersey Democrat Robert Menendez, chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Republican Illinois Senator Mark Kirk.
Supporters insist the new sanctions package would help push Iran during the negotiations. But Obama
promised a veto , saying a vote on new sanctions violated terms of an
interim agreement in which Iran slowed its nuclear program in exchange for some relief from existing
sanctions.

Iran has also warned that it would walk away from the ongoing negotiations on a
comprehensive nuclear agreement if the bill became law.

Obamas holding off the GOP but pressures increasing

Wroughton and Mohammed 2/26 [Lesley and Arshad, Reporters for Reuters, 2014, Kerry:
U.S. must pursue Iran talks before considering going to war, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/26/us-usairan-kerry-idUSBREA1P25220140226]
"I happen to believe as a matter of leadership, and I learnt this pretty hard from Vietnam, before you send young
people to war you ought to find out if there is a better alternative," said Kerry, who served in the Vietnam War as a
young U.S. naval officer.
"That is an obligation we have as leaders to exhaust all the remedies available to you before you ask people to give
up their lives and that is what we are doing" with Iran, he added.

Obama administration is under pressure from Republican lawmakers

threatening to revive a bill that would impose new sanctions on Iran, a move the
White House is warning could interfere with delicate nuclear talks to find a lasting
The

agreement. Iran denies allegations by the United States and some of its allies that it is seeking to develop the
capacity to build nuclear weapons.

Pressure from lawmakers may increase with signs that easing of sanctions
pressure on Tehran has boosted oil export.

Obamas lobbying to hold off sanctions

Cockerham 2/26 [Sean, Independent Writer, 2014, Republicans Push for Tougher Iran Sanctions
Despite Nuclear Talks, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/02/26/219434/republicans-push-for-tougher-iran.html]

Republicans are attempting to resurrect a bill to tighten sanctions on Iran

in spite of the president saying it would threaten negotiations to curb Irans
Senate

nuclear program.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch

McConnell, R-Kentucky, called

Wednesday

for a vote on the

stalled bill.
Lets hold Iran accountable. Lets do the right thing, approve this legislation, and send it to the presidents desk,
McConnell said on the floor of the Senate.

Obama has threatened to veto the bill, insisting it could threaten efforts to rein in Irans
nuclear program. A six-month deal to essentially freeze Iranians nuclear activities in return for a modest easing of
sanctions expires on July 20. Obama said he hopes to use the time to negotiate a long term deal.

Senators from both parties, distrustful of Irans intentions, originally signed on to a bill to
impose new sanctions on Iran.
But Democrats largely dropped the idea after Obama lobbied them to do so.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, is not interested in allowing a vote on the sanctions bill.
Reids spokesman, Adam Jentleson, accused the Republicans Wednesday of using the issue for partisan political
gain.
Jentleson also pointed to opposition to a Iran sanctions vote by the nations most influential pro-Israel lobbying
group. The hawkish American Israel Public Affairs Committee is urging the Senate to hold off on action as diplomatic
efforts for a long term deal come together.

McConnell said Wednesday that the bill is needed to put

teeth into the diplomatic talks. He said the new sanctions wouldnt take effect unless the
Republican leader

negotiations fall apart.

There

is no excuse for muzzling the Congress on an issue of this

importance to our own national security, to the security of Israel, our closest ally in the Middle East, and to
international security, he said.

Republicans, frustrated over the bills lack of progress, are attempting to include the new
Iran sanctions into a measure expanding benefits for veterans.

GOP will force a vote now

Everett 2/25 [Burgess, Staff Writer for Politico, 2014, Senate GOP Demands Iran Sanctions Vote,
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/iran-sanctions-vote-senate-republicans-103941.html]
Senate

Republicans are demanding a vote on new Iran sanctions as part of an

unrelated bill.

miffed that they didnt get an Iran vote as part of a 2013 defense bill,
the GOP has rolled sanctions language authored by Sens. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and Mark Kirk
(R-Ill.) into its alternative to the Democratic veterans benefits bill written by Sen.
Still

Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

By calling for the Senate to vote on a substitute written by Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.),
Republicans are hoping to force Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) into holding a
vote that he has repeatedly spurned in recent months.
Weve been trying for months to get a debate and a vote on the Kirk-Menendez Iran sanctions bill, Senate

McConnell told reporters Tuesday. Well be discussing it at

length on the floor on why we should go forward with that legislation and why we
ought to get a vote on it , because its a very time sensitive matter.
Minority Leader Mitch

Momentum for Iran sanctions now

Wilner 2/26 [Michael, Washington Bureau Chief for the Jerusalem Post, 2014, Partisan Tactics in the US
Mark New Effort to Pass Iran Nuclear Sanctions Bill, http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Partisan-tactics-in-the-USmark-new-effort-to-pass-Iran-nuclear-sanctions-bill-343656]

Republicans in the US Senate are trying to revive a stalled bill that would
trigger new sanctions tools against Iran should negotiations over their nuclear program fail this
year.
With a majority of members now against a vote on sanctions while talks between Iran and world powers are still
underway,

Republicans are now attempting to add the text of the bill as an

amendment to unrelated legislation.

On Wednesday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) said he hoped to attach the
sanctions language to a bill expanding healthcare and education programs
for veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And on Tuesday, a similar suggestion was
made by Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) regarding a bill reforming military practice on sexual assault.

AT: UQ Overwhelms
Prefer conclusive evidence

Obama has been able to hold off votes through lobbying and credibility

Proves a risk of the link

In the status quo itll work out only a weakening of Obama risks destroying the
deal

Obama is selling the Iranian deal now stars are aligned

needs to hold off congress from more action
Parsi 2/18 [Trita, President of the National Iranian American Council, 2014, US-Iran deal: Compromise is
Key, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/02/us-iran-deal-compromise-key-201421845935181913.html]

As a new phase of nuclear talks begins between Iran and the five permanent members of the
UN Security Council plus Germany (P5+1) in Vienna on February 18, one thing is clear: From here onwards,

diplomacy depends primarily on the ability of the presidents of Iran and the US
to absorb and sell compromise.
The stars could not be better aligned for a US-Iran breakthrough.
Regional developments - from the instability following the Arab spring to the civil war in Syria - have
significantly increased the cost of continued conflict , as has the escalation
of the nuclear issue with steadily growing Iranian capabilities and ever tightening economic sanctions.
Domestically, developments are also favourable for a deal. Iran's hardliners
and proponents of a narrative of resistance have been put on the defensive by Hassan Rouhani's
election victory in June 2013. And Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has thus far firmly backed
Rouhani's negotiation strategy.

In Washington, proponents of Israeli Prime Miinister Benjamin Netanyahu's line have

suffered several defeats over the past year, from the nomination of Senator Chuck Hagel for Secretary
of Defense, to the call for military action in Syria, to the failure to pass new sanctions on Iran, rendering
their influence less decisive. All three defeats were, in no small part, due to the mobilisation of prodiplomacy groups in the US. Timing-wise, striking a deal during Rouhani's first year and during Obama's last years
in office is also ideal.

That doesn't mean, however, that negotiations will be easy. On the contrary,
the hard part begins now.
In the interim deal, the main concessions exchanged were increased transparency and inspections of Iran's nuclear
facilities, halting the expansion of the enrichment program, and ending it at the 20 percent level. In return, Iran
would get Western acceptance of enrichment on Iranian soil, and agreement that Iran eventually will enjoy all rights
granted by the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), as well as some minor sanctions relief.

Obama will face severe difficulties offering relief on key

sanctions such as those on oil and banking, since these are controlled by
Going forward,

Congress.

Obamas quashed momentum but majoritys still there

Crabtree 2/5 [Susan, White House Correspondent for the Washington Examiner, 2014, Bob Corker: New
Iran Sanctions Bill has Lost Momentum, http://washingtonexaminer.com/bob-corker-new-iran-sanctions-bill-has-lostmomentum/article/2543495]
Sen. Bob

Corker, R-Tenn., says the Obama administration has successfully quashed

momentum for a new Iran sanctions bill

that had picked up support in January.

It's pretty evident that the sanctions piece the momentum has changed, he told the Washington Examiner
Tuesday.

He noted that

the measure could gain traction again

if Iran fails to comply with the terms of

its deal with the U.S. and other world powers to roll back parts of its nuclear program.
Corker was referring to a bill sponsored by Sens. Bob Menendez, D-N.J. and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., that would have allowed

the measure
had attracted 59 co-sponsors - 14 of them Democrats - and Senate aides said they
believed the bill would garner a veto-proof majority if allowed a vote on
the chamber floor.
Since that time, the Obama administration has led a campaign to prevent the bill from
reaching the floor, saying any new sanctions action in Congress would derail the
interim six-month deal with Iran, which lifts some sanctions in return for freezing aspects of Tehran's nuclear
the diplomatic process to play out for a year before imposing new sanctions. In early January,

program.
After President Obama repeated his opposition to the bill in his State of the Union address last week, Sen. Joe
Manchin, a conservative Democrat from West Virginia, pulled his support.
Corker has been pushing a potential compromise that would involve passing a bill that details what the Obama
administration hopes to gain in a more comprehensive agreement with Iran. In recent weeks, however, he said he

the administration is dead-set against any congressional effort

to define the final endgame with Tehran.
has found that

Fights not over yet

Jahanpour 2/5 [Farhang, TFF Associate and Fellow of The Royal Asiatic Society, Former Professor and
Dean of the Faculty of Foreign Languages at the University of Isfahan and a Former Senior Research Fellow at
Harvard University, 2014, IRAN-P5+1 DEAL: Positive Steps But Hawks Try To Derail It,
http://www.payvand.com/news/14/feb/1044.html]

Obama bluntly pointed out

that if the hawks in Congress pushed for a bill to impose new sanctions on Iran he
would veto that bill. This brave and almost unprecedented move by President
Obama has silenced, at least for the time being , the opposition to the Joint Plan of
In his State of the Union Address on 28th February, President Barack

Action that was agreed by Iran and the P5+1 (the five permanent Security Council members plus Germany) last
November. This was a major setback for AIPAC and other pro-Israeli lobbies that had mobilized all their forces to
block the deal.

In fact, some of the Democratic Senators that had sponsored the bill to
impose additional sanctions on Iran have already distanced themselves from it. Furthermore, at

least seventy Members of Congress are organizing a letter to the President supporting U.S.-Iran diplomacy and
opposing new sanctions. (1)
NEW ROUND OF TALKS
Meanwhile, 20th January marked an historic turn in the Iranian nuclear dispute with the West, when both Iran and
the West began to implement the terms of the agreement. The IAEA director general Yukiya Amano has said that he
could report that practical measures are being implemented as planned by Iran, and that there would be new
negotiations over the next phase on 8th February. Iran also has agreed to a new round of negotiations on 18th
February with the P5+1. (2)
For his part, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has said: What I can promise is that we will go to
those negotiations with the political will and good faith to reach an agreement, because it would be foolish for us to
only bargain for six months - that would be [a] disaster for everybody.
HAWKS CONTINUE TO OPPOSE THE DEAL
However,

despite all these positive steps, it is premature to imagine that the

battle is over and that the hawks have stopped trying to undermine the
deal. Many rightwing politicians and commentators are already waiting for
the failure of the talks and the outbreak of another disastrous war in the Middle East. Arguing in favor of

imposing more sanctions, the rightwing columnist Jennifer Rubin wrote: It is either sanctions or Israel that will
prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. (3)
The hawkish former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton gloomily predicted the failure of the talks and added:
Well see soon enough what happens when the ship sinks. According to Jennifer Rubin: Unfortunately, that
sinking ship is either Irans attainment of nuclear arms capability or war in which Israel is forced to defend itself and
the West.

New conference means flare-up likely

Collinson 1/29 [Stephen, News Person, 2014, Obama Repels New Iran Sanctions Push... For Now,
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-repels-iran-sanctions-push-now-032127269.html]

Obama appears to have prevailed, for now, in a

campaign to stop Congress from imposing new sanctions on Iran he fears could
derail nuclear diplomacy. Several Democratic senators who previously backed a bipartisan sanctions bill
publicly stepped back after Obama threatened a veto during his State of
Washington (AFP) - President Barack

the Union

address Tuesday. Several

sources familiar with behind-the-scenes

maneuvring say a number of other Democratic senators signed up for more sanctions
had privately recoiled from a damaging vote against their own president .
According to some counts in recent weeks, the measure had 59 likely
votes, including 16 Democrats, and was even approaching a two-thirds
veto-proof majority in the 100-seat Senate.
appear to have checked that momentum.

But

latest developments

"I am strongly supporting the bill but I think a vote

is unnecessary right now as long as there's visible and meaningful progress" in the Iran negotiations, Senator
Richard Blumenthal told AFP, after expressing reservations earlier this month. Democratic Senator Chris Coons
made a similar declaration at a post-State of the Union event hosted by Politico. "Now is not the time for a vote on
an Iran sanctions bill," he said. Another Democratic Senator, Joe Manchin, hopes Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
will not bring it up. "I did not sign it with the intention that it would ever be voted upon or used upon while we're
negotiating," Manchin told MSNBC television. "I signed it because I wanted to make sure the president had a
hammer if he needed it and showed him how determined we were to do it and use it if we had to."

The White

House mounted an intense campaign against a bill it feared would undermine Tehran's
negotiators with conservatives back home or prompt them to ditch diplomacy. Obama aides infuriated pro-sanctions
senators by warning the measure could box America into a march to war to halt Tehran's nuclear program if
diplomacy died. The campaign included a letter to Reid from Democratic committee chairs urging a vote be put off.
Another letter was orchestrated from a group of distinguished foreign policy experts. Multi-faith groups weighed in
and coordinated calls from constituents backing Obama on nuclear diplomacy poured into offices of key Democrats.
The campaign appears for now to have overpowered the pro-sanctions push by hawkish senators and the Israel
lobby, whose doubts on the Iran nuclear deal mirror those of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Senator
Johnny Isakson, a Republican co-sponsor of the legislation, said: "It looks like we're kind of frozen in place."

Those behind the anti-sanctions campaign though privately concede they

may have won a battle, not a war. 'A crucial victory' The push for new sanctions
will flare again ahead of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's
(AIPAC) annual conference in March, which Netanyahu is expected to address. It could also recur
if the talks with Iran on a final pact extend past the six-month window set by the interim deal. But for now, groups
that supported the push against sanctions are jubilant. "This is a major victory, a crucial victory for the American
public who don't want to see a war," said Kate Gould of the Friends Committee on National Legislation. But she
warned: " There'll

be other efforts to try and sabotage the process ."

PC key to convert skeptics

Crittenden 2/4 [Michael, Staff Writer for the Wall Street Journal, 2014, Congress Eases Standoff With
White House Over Iran Sanctions,
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304851104579363372176271460]
The

Obama administration appeared to be prevailing in its effort to persuade

lawmakers to give U.S. diplomacy with Iran a chance, but faced continued
skepticism from senators at a hearing Tuesday.
Senior aides said pressure on Senate leaders to allow a vote on new sanctions has
eased in recent weeks, as lawmakers gauge the effectiveness of an interim deal reached in November
between Iran and world powers.

Democrats and
Republicans alike said the stakes were high if talks fail.
"If these negotiations fail, there are two grim alternatives, a nuclear Iran, or
war, or perhaps both," said Sen. Richard Durbin (D., Ill.), a Senate Foreign Relations
Committee member.
The White House and lawmakers have wrestled over the issue for months.
Many in Congress support new sanctions, while the administration insists such a step would
But while many lawmakers said they were willing to give diplomacy time to work,

disrupt high-level negotiations with Tehran. A six-month deal provides Iran with relief from international sanctions in
exchange for enhanced inspections and Tehran's agreement to halt or roll back parts of its nuclear program.

Menendez (D., N.J.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations

Committee, argued the agreement provides Iran with economic benefits
that outpace what Western governments have received in return. He said he
Sen. Robert

remained concerned Iran would never agree to fully put aside its nuclear ambitions.
"I am convinced that we should only relieve pressure on Iran in return for verifiable concessions that will
fundamentally dismantle Iran's nuclear program," Mr. Menendez said.

State Department official argued that any move by the U.S. to impose new
sanctions would risk unraveling the international talks. "It is crucial we give diplomacy a
A top

chance to succeed," Wendy Sherman, the State Department undersecretary of political affairs, told the Foreign
Relations panel.
President Barack

Obama

and his administration have

urged lawmakers to hold off on

additional actions. Mr. Obama vowed in his State of the Union address to veto any bill
"that threatens to derail these talks. "
Lawmakers have bristled at some of the White House criticism , particularly
the suggestion that those seeking more sanctions were in favor of war. Sen.
Timothy Kaine (D., Va.), addressing those complaints Tuesday, said that those who support new sanctions "are not
pro-war and those that oppose it are not soft on Iran or anti-Israel."

Sanctions bill is alive but stalled increased executive

pressure
Delmore 2/5 [Erin, Staff Writer for MSNBC News, 2014, Democrats split over Syria, Iran,
http://www.msnbc.com/all/democrats-split-over-syria-iran]

Over strong objections from the president, 16 Senate Democrats support a

bill that would impose new sanctions on Iran should the country fail to reach a permanent agreement
with international negotiators to roll back its nuclear program. Those senators, along with 43
Republicans, argue that tough sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table in the first place and further
pressure would flex American muscle in the 6-month talks toward crafting a permanent solution. The bill
drew support from Sens. Chuck Schumer , D-N.Y, and Harry Reid , D-Nev., both close allies of
Obamas but also leading supporters of policies favoring Israel. The A merican Israel
Public Affairs Committee, Americas most powerful pro-Israel advocacy group, has lobbied members
of Congress from both parties to support the sanctions.
Other Democrats are siding with the Obama administration, which argues that imposing new
sanctions damaged good-faith negotiations while empowering Irans
hard-liners rooting for the talks to fail. (A National Security Council spokeswoman charged last
month that the sanctions bill could end negotiations and bring the U.S. closer to war.)

The Senate bill has been losing steam ever since the White House
ratcheted up pressure on Senate Democrats to abandon it. Introduced in December by
Democrat Robert Menendez, D-N.J. and Sen. Mark Kirk. R-Ill., the legislation was backed by 59
members but now Senate leaders say they will hold off bringing the legislation to a vote until the six-month
negotiation process ends.
Adam Sharon, a spokesman for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which Menendez chairs, said the New
Jersey Senator stands behind the bill that bears his name.

Menendez and 58 other senators support the bill , Sharon said. Its his bill, three or four
in place is an
extremely effective and necessary tool when negotiating with the Iranians that we need to have to
senators say they wouldnt call for a vote now. His position has been, having a bill, having this

avoid Iran crossing the nuclear threshold. He stands behind this bill and the whole essence of the bill is to have
sanctions in waiting, but you have to move on them now to make it happen.

The movement is still alive in the House with enough votes to pass,
despite a letter signed by at least 70 Democrats opposing the measure, and a
letter of criticism by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Obama reiterated in last weeks State of the Union
address a promise to veto any attempt to impose new sanctions on Iran.

AT: Veto
Still triggers the impact

Perception of sanctions passing sends a signal greenlighting Israel strikes

GOP hawks will override the vetoexecutive credibility holds

them off
Ditz 2/25 [Jason, Independent Journalist, 2014, Senate GOP Aims to Force Vote on Iran Sanctions,
http://news.antiwar.com/2014/02/25/senate-gop-aims-to-force-vote-on-iran-sanctions/]

hawks among the Senate GOP are

trying to force a vote on Iran sanctions by slipping the text of their proposed sanctions into
Though most of the momentum for a vote died weeks ago,
an unrelated bill.

McConnell (R KY) insisted that imposing sanctions on Iran was a very

time sensitive matter. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D NV) had said he was open to relevant
Sen. Mitch

amendments to the veterans benefits bill, though he

didnt

explicitly

rule out a vote on the

sanctions.
The sanctions would deliberately violate the interim nuclear deal with Iran,
killing the interim deal as well as ongoing negotiations on a permanent settlement. The bill
has been regularly endorsed by Israeli Lobby factions, though as momentum slowed
AIPAC said they wanted the vote to wait until the interim deal expires.
President

Obama has promised to veto the sanctions, and Senate hawks from

both parties have suggested they would try to override the veto. Though it is
unclear how close a veto override vote is right now, even the possibility could seriously harm
negotiations, since the US cant be counted on to keep any promises it
makes so long as hawks are determined to cancel the deal.

PC key to prevent override legislators want to force Obamas

hand
Buonomo 1/30 [Thomas, Former Military Intelligence Officer, U.S. Army, 2014, Americans Must Exercise
Their Power to Check Congress on Iran Sanctions, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-j-buonomo/americansmust-exercise-t_b_4699196.html]
In spite of the United States' unprecedented opportunity to reach a negotiated settlement with the Iranian

Republicans and Democrats in Congress are

determined to push ahead with sanctions , with 59 of 100 Senators cosponsoring a bill that would undermine diplomacy if passed. President Obama
vowed during his State of the Union speech to veto the bill if it passes but Congress could
government over its nuclear program, both

override his veto with a two-thirds majority of votes in the Senate (67 of 100) and
more bellicose House (290 of 435), which passed its own bill last year and would almost certainly
support the Senate bill. While two senators may be withdrawing their cosponsorship of the legislation, the situation remains precarious.
Iran in November agreed for the next six months to cap enrichment of its uranium to a level that could not be used
to produce nuclear weapons, to open nuclear facilities previously inaccessible to IAEA inspectors, and to allow daily
inspections at these sites. In return the Obama administration agreed to provide limited sanctions relief that could
be quickly reversed if Iran breaks the terms of the deal. On January 20, Iran began implementation of this interim
nuclear agreement, intended to allow time and political space for negotiations on a comprehensive deal planned to
resume in mid-February.

Many

legislators, however, are attempting to force the Obama administration's

hand on additional sanctions out of a mistaken belief that increasing economic pressure now will
strengthen the U.S. negotiating position. Others appear to want to sabotage diplomacy altogether and use the
pressure of sanctions to goad Iranian citizens to attempt an overthrow of their government.

Pressure avoids an override

Kampeas 1/24/14 Washington, D.C. bureau chief of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (Ron, Heritage
Florida Jewish News, Iran sanctions have majority backing in Senate, but not enough to override veto
http://www.heritagefl.com/story/2014/01/24/news/iran-sanctions-have-majority-backing-in-senate-but-not-enoughto-override-veto/2115.html
WASHINGTON (JTA)More

than half the United States Senate has signed on to a bill

that would intensify sanctions against Iran. But in a sign of the so-far
successful effort by the White House to keep the bill from reaching a
veto-busting 67 supporters, only 16 Democrats are on board.
The number of senators cosponsoring the bill, introduced by Sens. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Robert
Menendez (D-N.J.), reached 58 this week, up from just 33 before the Christmas holiday break.
Notably only one of the 25 who signed up in recent days Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.)
is a Democrat, a sign of intense White House lobbying among Democrats
to oppose the bill.
Backers of the bill say it would strengthen the U.S. hand at the negotiations. But President Obama has said he
would veto the bill because it could upend talks now underway between the major powers and Iran aimed at
keeping the Islamic Republic from obtaining a nuclear bomb. A similar bill passed this summer by the U.S. House of
Representatives had a veto-proof majority.
On Thursday, the White House said backers of the bill should be upfront about the fact that it puts the United States
on the path to war.
If certain members of Congress want the United States to take military action, they should be up front with the
American public and say so, Bernadette Meehan, the National Security Council spokeswoman, said in a statement
posted by The Huffington Post. Otherwise, its not clear why any member of Congress would support a bill that
possibly closes the door on diplomacy and makes it more likely that the United States will have to choose between
military options or allowing Irans nuclear program to proceed.

A number of pro-Israel groups, led by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, are
leading a full-court press for the bills passage, with prominent Jewish leaders in a
number of states making calls and writing letters to holdouts. Dovish Jewish groups such as J Street and Americans
for Peace Now oppose the bill.

Err neg on veto overrides

Lindsay, 11/25/13 - Senior Vice President, Director of Studies, and Maurice R.
Greenberg Chair at the Council on Foreign Relations (James, Will Congress
Overrule Obamas Iran Nuclear Deal? http://blogs.cfr.org/lindsay/2013/11/25/willcongress-overrule-obamas-iran-nuclear-deal/?
utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+jlindsay+
%28James+M.+Lindsay%3A+The+Water%27s+Edge%29)

Does this mean that Congress is going to take Iran policy out of Obamas hands? Not quite. Any sanctions bill could

The odds
that sanctions proponents could override a veto arent good. Congress
hasnt overridden one in foreign policy since it imposed anti-apartheid sanctions on South
Africa over Ronald Reagans objections back in 1986. In that respect, Obama is in a much
stronger position than he was back in September when he sought to
persuade Congress to authorize a military strike on Syria. Then the
difficulties of passing legislation worked against him; now they work for
him.
be vetoed, something the president presumably would do to save his signature diplomatic initiative.

One reason Obama should be able to make a veto stick is party loyalty . Many
congressional Democrats wont see it in their interest to help Republicans rebuke him, and he only needs
thirty-four senators to stand by him. Senator Reid has already begun to soften his commitment
to holding a sanction vote. As Majority Leader he has considerable freedom to slow down bills and to keep them
from being attached to must-pass legislation that would be politically hard for Obama to veto.

AT: Reid Blocks

Not this time

1NC Kredo says the bills attached to other important legislationReid cant block
because that kills Democratic initiatives too

Bill would be a rider on any must-pass legislation the

plans fiat means the bill is brought up for a vote any other
scenario prevents our DA. Obama cant veto if its a rider
Rogin 2/5 [Josh, Staff Writer for the Daily Beast, 2014, GOP Will Force Reid to Save Obamas Iran Policy
Over and Over Again, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/05/gop-will-force-reid-to-save-obama-s-iranpolicy-over-and-over-again.html]

The Republican Senate caucus is planning to use every parliamentary trick in

the book to push

Senate Majority Leader Harry

Reid to allow a floor vote on a new

Iran sanctions bill that the Obama administration strenuously opposes.

The Obama White House has succeeded in keeping most Democrats in line against
supporting quick passage of the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act, which currently has 59 co-sponsors, including 13

Reid has faithfully shelved the bill, pending the outcome of

negotiations between Iran and the worlds major powersthe so-called P5+1.
But tomorrow , Republicans plan to respond by using an array of floor
Democrats.

tactics including bringing up the bill and forcing Reid to publicly oppose
itas a means of putting public pressure on Reid and Democrats who may
be on the fence.
Now we have come to a crossroads. Will the Senate allow Iran to keep its illicit nuclear infrastructure in place,

42 GOP
senators wrote in a letter sent to Reid late Wednesday and obtained by The Daily Beast. The
rebuild its teetering economy and ultimately develop nuclear weapons at some point in the future?

answer to this question will be determined by whether you allow a vote on S. 1881, the bipartisan Nuclear Weapon
Free Iran Act, which is cosponsored by more than half of the Senate.

The GOP letter calls on Reid to allow a vote on the bill during the current
Senate work periodin other words, before the chambers next recess. Senate GOP aides
said that until they get a vote, GOP senators are planning to use a number
of procedural tools at their disposal to keep this issue front and center
for Democrats. Since the legislation is already on the Senates legislative
calendar , any senator can bring up the bill for a vote at any time and
force Democrats to publicly object.
Senators can also try attach ing the bill as an amendment to future bills
under consideration . Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has been a harsh critic
of Reids shelving of the bill, so he could demand a vote on it as a
condition of moving any other legislation.

Reid is able to fend off a vote because Obama is pressuring

Democrats if those dynamics change, Reid would be forced to
cave
Kaper 1/17 [Stacy, Staff Writer for the National Journal, 2014, U.S. Senate's Iran Hawks Flounder Against
Reid-Obama Coalition http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/us-senates-iran-hawks-flounder-against-reid-obama-coalition/]

hawks have lots of votes to back their sanctions legislation. What they
lack is a plan to get the bill to the floor. Fifty-nine senators -- including 16
Democrats -- have signed onto sanctions legislation from Democratic Senator Robert Menendez (N.J.) and
The U.S. Senate's Iran

Republican Senator Mark Kirk (Ill.). The measure would punish Iran with sanctions if it reneges on an interim nuclear
agreement, or if that agreement does not ultimately abolish any nuclear-weapons capabilities for Iran. The count
has climbed rapidly since the bipartisan pair introduced their legislation in late December. But now

it's

unclear whether that support will be enough to clear the bill's next major hurdle:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The Nevada Democrat is siding with the White House, which has put intense
pressure on lawmakers not to act on sanctions, arguing it could result in both a nuclear-armed and hostile Iranian
state. And without Reid's backing, supporters of the Menendez-Kirk bill are unsure how to move the measure to the

if the Democrat senators put enough pressure on Senator Reid

he might bring it to the floor," said Missouri Republican Senator Roy Blunt. "But, you know, we are
floor. "I assume that

at a moment in the Senate where nothing happens that Senator Reid doesn't want to happen; and this is something
at this moment that Senator Reid doesn't want to happen." And for now, sanctions supporters are still mulling their
strategy. "We are talking amongst ourselves. There is a very active debate and discussion ongoing about how best
to move forward," said Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, a cosponsor of the bill. "There are a
number of alternative strategies, but we're deliberating them." While

Reid has, at least for now,

foiled their policy plans, sanctions supporters are still scoring the desired political points on the issue.
They can report their efforts to their constituents while blaming Reid for the inaction. But whatever
pressure Reid is getting from his colleagues, he's also getting support
from the commander in chief. In a White House meeting Wednesday night, President Obama
made a hard sell to Democrats on the issue , pleading with them to back off sanctions while
his team worked on a nuclear pact. "The president did speak passionately about how [we] must seize this
opportunity, that we need to seize this six months and that if Iran isn't willing to in the end make the decisions
necessary to make it work, he'll be ready to sign a bill to tighten those sanctions -- but we gotta give this six

many bill
supporters reason that Reid will eventually feel the heat. "We'll just have
to ratchet up the pressure, that's all," said Republican Senator John McCain (Ariz.). "The
president is pushing back, obviously, and he's appealing to the loyalty of
Democrats, but there are a lot of other forces out there that are pushing
in the other direction, so we'll see how they react." Earlier this week Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
months," said Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon, after returning from the White House. In the meantime,

said he was hoping to find more Democratic cosponsors over the recess and was talking to House Majority Leader
Eric Cantor (Va.) about whether the Republican-controlled House might take up the Senate sanctions bill as a way to
spur the Senate to act. But neither of Graham's approaches represents a broad, coordinated campaign. Democrats,
who have more power to drive the train in the Senate, seem to be in little hurry. "I don't think there is any time
schedule related to it at this point," said Democratic cosponsor Ben Cardin of Maryland. "We are all trying to figure
out how we can be most helpful and make sure Iran does not become a nuclear-weapon state." Menendez, who
chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and is the lead Democratic sponsor, said he is focused on hearing
more from the administration about the reported unofficial secret "side deal" with Tehran. About the plans to
proceed, Menendez said noncommittally, "We'll see." Kirk, the Republican who is the other lead sponsor, said he
was counting on elections pressure to spark action. "My hope is that, as we get towards midterm elections,
members are going to want to be on record being against giving up billions of dollars to Iran," Kirk said. Other

pro-Israel
groups could convince Democrats to spring into action or that supporters could
make it uncomfortable for Reid to continue blocking the bill .
members are hoping lobbying groups can carry the weight on this one. McCain said he hoped

Obamas gotta keep the pressure on

JTA 2/6 [The Global Jewish News Source, 2014, GOP Senators Press Reid on Iran Sanctions Vote,
http://www.jta.org/2014/02/06/news-opinion/politics/gop-senators-press-reid-on-iran-sanctions-vote]

Forty-two Republican senators urged the Democratic-led Senates majority leader, Sen. Harry
Reid, to bring to a vote a bill on new Iran sanctions.
Its time for the elected representatives of the American people to have a say in the future of Irans nuclear
weapons program, said the Feb. 4 letter first revealed by the Daily Beast and initiated by Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), a
lead sponsor of the bill. Its time to vote.

Reid (D-Nev.) has resisted bringing the bill to the floor. Proponents of the new sanctions
say they would strengthen the Wests hand in Iran negotiations, adding that without new sanctions, the momentum
in the talks between Iran and the major powers, including the United States, is moving in Irans favor.

I stand with the majority of Americans who want Irans illicit nuclear infrastructure dismantled before economic
sanctions are lifted, Kirk said in a statement sent to JTA. The American people deserve a vote on the bipartisan
Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act.
Absent from the letters signatories are Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the top Republican on the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, and the two Republican senators out of 45 in the caucus who are not sponsors of the bill:
Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). Paul and Flake are also on the Foreign Relations Committee.

According to the Daily Beast, Republicans may attempt to attach the bill to
must-pass legislation as an amendment and could refuse cooperation on
other bills in order to force Reid to call a vote.
President Obama has said he would veto any new sanctions , which he says
could scuttle talks aimed at keeping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Democratic support for the new bill, introduced in December, has waned considerably.
A number of top Democrats, including several who originally sponsored the bill, now say they do not want it to
advance while talks are underway.
A sizable portion of the Democratic caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives is also now opposed to new
sanctions, although the caucus overwhelmingly approved a similar bill last summer, months before the talks with
Iran were launched.
The Senate bill has 59 co-sponsors, eight short of the 67 it would need to override an Obama veto.

Democrats will switch gears and support the bill

Krasuhaar 11/22 [Josh, political editor for National, 2013, The Iran Deal Puts Pro-Israel Democrats in a
Bind http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-iran-deal-puts-pro-israel-democrats-in-a-bind-20131121]

this puts Democrats, who routinely win overwhelming support from

Jewish Americans on Election Day, in an awkward position. Do they stand with the
president on politically sensitive foreign policy issues, or stake their own
course? That difficult dynamic is currently playing out in Congress, where
the Obama administration is resisting a Senate push to maintain tough
sanctions against Iran. This week, Obama met with leading senators on the Banking and Foreign Relations committees to dissuade
them from their efforts while diplomacy is underway. "There's a fundamental disagreement between
the vast majority of Congress and the president when it comes to
increasing Iran sanctions right now," said one Democratic operative involved in the advocacy efforts. "Pro-Israel
All of

groups, like AIPAC, try to do things in a bipartisan way; they don't like open confrontation. But in this instance, it's hard." That awkwardness has been
evident in the lukewarm reaction from many of Obama's Senate Democratic allies to the administration's outreach to Iran. Senate Foreign Relations
Committee Chairman Robert Menendez of New Jersey said last week he was concerned that the administration seems "to want the deal almost more than
the Iranians." Normally outspoken Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, a reliable ally of Israel, has been conspicuously quiet about his views on the
negotiations. In a CNN interview this month, Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, whose job as chairwoman of the Democratic National
Committee is to defend the president, notably declined to endorse the administration's approach, focusing instead on Obama's past support of sanctions.
This, despite the full-court press from Secretary of State John Kerry, a former congressional colleague. On Tuesday, after meeting with Obama, Menendez
and Schumer signed a bipartisan letter to Kerry warning the administration about accepting a deal that would allow Iran to continue its nuclear program.
The letter was also signed by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Robert Casey, D-Pa. Democrats, of course,
realize that the president plays an outsized role in the policy direction of his party. Just as George W. Bush moved the Republican Party in a more hawkish
direction during his war-riven presidency, Obama is nudging Democrats away from their traditionally instinctive support for the Jewish state. "I can't
remember the last time the differences [between the U.S. and Israel] were this stark," said one former Democratic White House official with ties to the
Jewish community. "There's now a little more freedom [for progressive Democrats] to say what they want to say, without fear of getting their tuchus kicked
by the organized Jewish community." A Gallup survey conducted this year showed 55 percent of Democrats sympathizing with the Israelis over the
Palestinians, compared with 78 percent of Republicans and 63 percent of independents who do so. A landmark Pew poll of American Jews, released in
October, showed that 35 percent of Jewish Democrats said they had little or no attachment to Israel, more than double the 15 percent of Jewish
Republicans who answered similarly. At the 2012 Democratic National Convention, many delegates booed a platform proposal supporting the move of the
U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. In 2011, Democrats lost Anthony Weiner's heavily Jewish, solidly Democratic Brooklyn House seat
because enough Jewish voters wanted to rebuke the president's perceived hostility toward Israel. Pro-Israel advocacy groups rely on the mantra that
support for Israel carries overwhelming bipartisan support, a maxim that has held true for decades in Congress. But most also reluctantly acknowledge the
growing influence of a faction within the Democratic Party that is more critical of the two countries' close relationship. Within the Jewish community, that
faction is represented by J Street, which positions itself as the home for "pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans" and supports the Iran negotiations.
"Organizations that claim to represent the American Jewish community are undermining [Obama's] approach by pushing for new and harsher penalties
against Iran," the group wrote in an action alert to its members. Some supporters of Israel view J Street with concern. "There's a small cadre of people that
comes from the progressive side of the party that are in the business of blaming Israel first. There's a chorus of these guys," said a former Clinton
administration foreign policy official. "But that doesn't make them the dominant folks in the policy space of the party, or the Hill." Pro-Israel activists worry
that one of the ironies of Obama's situation is that as his poll numbers sink, his interest in striking a deal with Iran will grow because he'll be looking for

Thus far, Obama's diminished

political fortunes aren't deterring Democrats from protecting the
administration's prerogatives. Congressional sources expect the Senate
Banking Committee, chaired by South Dakota Democrat Tim Johnson, to hold off on any sanctions
legislation until there's a resolution to the Iranian negotiations . But if
any bit of positive news that can draw attention away from the health care law's problems.

Obama's standing continues to drop , and negotiations produce a deal that Israel doesn't like, don't be
surprised to see Democrats become less hesitant about going their own way.

Reids being tied in knotsObamas PC key

Klimas 2/26 [Jacqueline, Covers Capitol Hill for The Washington Times, 2014, Democrats Seek to Avoid
Iran Sanctions Vote Embarrassment, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/26/democrats-seek-to-avoidiran-sanctions-vote-embarr/]

Democratic leaders desire to avoid a potentially embarrassing vote on Iran

sanctions is tying the Senate into procedural knots, with the latest victim being a bill
that would boost veterans benefits.
Majority Leader Harry

hand

Reid, Nevada Democrat, has said he wants to give President Obama a free

to conduct diplomacy with Iran,

and doesnt want to see Congress even vote on

the issue. If stiffer sanctions were put to a vote, analysts said they would likely
pass , an outcome that could undercut the presidents softer position.
Republicans have insisted members of Congress deserve a chance to
weigh in on the issue, and have called for votes on several major bills over
the last few months leaving Mr. Reid tied in procedural knots.
But

This week, Mr. Reid is struggling to figure out how to advance the veterans policy bill, which would boost retirement
pay and expand health and education services for former troops. But GOP lawmakers have said they want to vote
on Iran sanctions as part of the amendment process.
Republicans say they want to help veterans. Strange way of showing it, Mr. Reid said Wednesday. We introduce a
bill that would do just that, and Republicans immediately inject partisan politics into the mix, insisting on
amendments that have nothing to do with helping veterans.

if a vote were
held, there would be overwhelming bipartisan support for stiffer
sanctions.
There is no excuse for muzzling the Congress on an issue of this importance to our own
But Republicans counter that Mr. Reid has blocked a vote on Iran long enough, and said

national security, to the security of Israel, our closest ally in the Middle East, and to international stability more
broadly,

said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican.

AT: Fights Now

No fights nowObamas taken everything off the table
Tumulty 2/22 [Karen, Politics Correspondent for the Washington Post, 2014, Obama seeks to defuse
tensions among Democrats, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-seeks-to-defuse-tensions-amongdemocrats/2014/02/22/92e472fc-9b1b-11e3-ad71-e03637a299c0_story.html]

Obama is stepping up his efforts to coalesce and energize the

Democratic base for the 2014 elections, backing off on issues where his positions
might alienate the left, and more aggressively singling out Republicans as
being responsible for the countrys problems.
President

Voter turnout in midterm elections tends to be much lighter than it is in years when the country is picking a
president, which means that it is crucial to maximize the enthusiasm of the party stalwarts who are most likely to
show up at the polls.
That helps explain why, in several sensitive policy areas,

Obama recently has moved to defuse

tensions with his fellow Democrats.

Liberals are celebrating the presidents decision not to include a proposal to
trim Social Security benefits in his 2015 budget, abandoning his previous stance in favor
of making that part of a larger grand bargain to bring down the national debt.

And while the White House insists that it will continue to press Congress for more
authority to negotiate trade deals something that puts the administration at odds with the Democratic base,

and with its own partys congressional leaders Vice President Biden this month signaled to House Democrats that

it has no expectation that will actually happen.

Nor is the administration showing much appetite for bringing about a resolution to the
question of allowing construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, an issue that pits environmentalists against
unions, both of which the Democrats will be counting on in November. A Nebraska judges decision on Wednesday
rejecting the pipeline route in that state has raised the possibility that a decision may be delayed until after the
election.

No fights now despite tensions

Hook and Nicholas 2/3 [Janet and Peter, White House Reporters for the Wall Street Journal, 2014,
Fractures Emerge Between Obama, Congressional Democrats,
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304851104579361340885310508?mg=reno64wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304851104579361340885310508.html]
Against that backdrop, Mr. Reid met with the president in the Oval Office for about an hour Monday along with Sen.
Michael Bennet (D., Colo.), who is chief strategist in his party's drive to keep control of the Senate after November.
The meeting was to review the political landscape of the crucial midterm-election year.
A Democratic official familiar with the meeting said it was requested by Mr. Reid as a routine matter, unrelated to
the rift between the Nevada senator and the president on trade policy that emerged last week.

"We don't stay on the same page through smoke signals ," the official said. "We sit
down and talk."
Despite those tensions, Democrats and White House officials say they
remain united on major elements of the legislative and political agenda,
such as the extension of unemployment benefits that lapsed late last year.
"There is far more that Democrats in Congress and the president agree on
than there are areas where there might be differences," said Obama pollster Joel
Benenson.

Republicans, too, are riven with deep divisions within their partyon immigration policy and how to handle the
coming debt-limit increase. But Democrats are finding that a united front that was so durable through last year's
budget battles has its limits in an election year. Action on Mr. Obama's trade policy could advance his economic
plans but hurt Democratic candidates in the process.
"Our caucus would rather see this issue come up at another time because there are strong feelings on both sides of
the issue, and you hate to be pushed into a decision that might be easier to make after an election," said Senate
Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D., Ill.).

The White House and Senate Democrats share a powerful political interest in the fight to keep Republicans from
picking up six seats they would need to take control of the Senate this year. Mr. Reid doesn't want to relinquish
control of a chamber that has proved a bulwark against a Republican-controlled House and would be crucial to Mr.
Obama's ability to have any sway in Congress during the last two years of his presidency.
Although he is unpopular in the states with the most fiercely contested Senate racesincluding Arkansas,

Obama remains a mighty asset in helping his

party's candidates raise money. He participated in seven fundraising events for the Democratic
Louisiana, Alaska and North CarolinaMr.

Senatorial Campaign Committee last year, and Democrats are expecting more in 2014.

AT: Thumper Generic

No thumpersObamas taken everything else off the table
Tumulty 2/22 [Karen, Politics Correspondent for the Washington Post, 2014, Obama seeks to defuse
tensions among Democrats, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-seeks-to-defuse-tensions-amongdemocrats/2014/02/22/92e472fc-9b1b-11e3-ad71-e03637a299c0_story.html]

Obama is stepping up his efforts to coalesce and energize the

Democratic base for the 2014 elections, backing off on issues where his positions
might alienate the left, and more aggressively singling out Republicans as
being responsible for the countrys problems.
President

Voter turnout in midterm elections tends to be much lighter than it is in years when the country is picking a
president, which means that it is crucial to maximize the enthusiasm of the party stalwarts who are most likely to
show up at the polls.
That helps explain why, in several sensitive policy areas,

Obama recently has moved to defuse

tensions with his fellow Democrats.

Liberals are celebrating the presidents decision not to include a proposal to
trim Social Security benefits in his 2015 budget, abandoning his previous stance in favor
of making that part of a larger grand bargain to bring down the national debt.

And while the White House insists that it will continue to press Congress for more
authority to negotiate trade deals something that puts the administration at odds with the Democratic base,

and with its own partys congressional leaders Vice President Biden this month signaled to House Democrats that

it has no expectation that will actually happen.

Nor is the administration showing much appetite for bringing about a resolution to the
question of allowing construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, an issue that pits environmentalists against
unions, both of which the Democrats will be counting on in November. A Nebraska judges decision on Wednesday
rejecting the pipeline route in that state has raised the possibility that a decision may be delayed until after the
election.

Obama is ignoring the domestic spending capital on foreign

issues
Lee 2/14 [Carol, Staff Writer for the Wall Street Journal, 2014, Obama Seeks Progress Abroad,
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/02/14/after-muted-triumphs-at-home-obama-seeks-progress-abroad/]

The White House arguably had one of its best weeks in what seems like a very long
time. Yet youd hardly know it.
Thats mainly because after the fierce, partisan battles of the last five years, President Barack Obamas
victories now often manifest the status quo.
Its a reality that seems set to define Mr. Obamas domestic legislative
agenda for the remainder of his term, and one he probably would have found hard to imagine during his 2008
campaign. As a candidate, Mr. Obama regularly chastised the status quo. Now
his White House sometimes considers it a triumph.

There are two cases in point from this week: the debt limit and the health-care law.
The administration announced that some 3.3 million people signed up for health-care coverage under the new law
as of January. It was much-welcome news for a White House that has been for months digging out from its botched
rollout of the law.
The House and Senate also passed a so-called clean debt-limit increase, meaning it came with no legislative
demands or spending cuts attached that Republicans have insisted on in the past. There were no eleventh-hour
negotiations or default countdown clocks like in previous battles. The votes happened pretty much drama-free, save
some remarkable GOP infighting in the Senate.
A White House that spent much of its energy, and political capital, in 2013 trying to create that very scenario had a
relatively stoic reaction. An end to that kind of brinksmanship for now is a very welcome thing, White House press
secretary Jay Carney said before adding: It says something about the expectations that the American people have
of Congress that people notice when Congress actually doesnt do direct harm to the economy.

the status quo that the White House claims as a

victory at home falls short of Mr. Obamas foreign-policy goals.
Yet in another sign its a second term,

Thats in part why the president is spending Valentines Day on a sprawling Palm Springs, Calif., resort with plans for
multiple rounds of golf and some quality time withthe king of Jordan.

Obama is beginning to turn his sights on foreign policy more than

weve seen recently. Its a typical shift for presidents in their final years in
Mr.

office. But for Mr. Obama, it may be the one area where he can achieve significant goals.
In September, during a speech at the United Nations, Mr. Obama outlined his top three focal points on foreign policy
in his second term Iran, Syria and Middle East peace.
Now that U.S. policy with each has reached an important moment talks with Iran over a long-term nuclear deal
begin next week, a deadline is approaching in Middle East peace talks, and Syria continues to deteriorate

the

president plans to get more personally involved in the process.

Thats where King Abdullah II of Jordan comes in. Hes Mr. Obamas first in a string of sit-downs with leaders from
the region.

Obama has little to hope for in a robust legislative agenda this year,
particularly now that House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) has cast doubt on any
passage of immigration reform. The White Houses emphasis on executive
action so far hasnt yielded the kind of major change Mr. Obama initially arrived in Washington promising.
Mr.

Hes expected to get more aggressive in his use of executive action, and is likely to attempt big strides on climate
change. But in the meantime, hes often content with the status quo.

Foreign policy issues are distinct Obama has capital to spend

on them
Ziaberi 1/24/14 - interview with Kaveh Afrasiabi, the author of several books on Irans foreign policy and a
former advisor of Center for Strategic Research (Kourosh, Congress New Sanctions Bill Scuttles the Geneva Deal
Iran Review, http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/Congress-New-Sanctions-Bill-Scuttles-the-GenevaDeal.htm)

Can we interpret the conflicts and disputes between the White House
and the Congress as a power struggle which has manifested itself in the
nuclear standoff? Is it that the complexity of the decision-making hierarchy in the United States has
Q:

resulted in a conflict between the government and the two chambers of the Congress?
A: Well, certainly this can be viewed from many different angles, such as the checks and balance and

Since the Clinton

Administration, Congress has organically inserted itself in the Iran policy and
Congressional role in foreign policy, not to mention traditional party politics.

even more so during the Obama era, as a result of which White Houses moves on Iran are subject to intense

But, given Secretary John Kerrys long tenure in the Senate, compared to the first Obama
administration, I would say that the second Obama administration has a greater sway
congressional scrutiny.

on Congresss foreign policy input , otherwise the Geneva deal would not
have survived the criticisms.

AT: Thumper Defense

Doesnt apply

Their cards say the budget wont be pushed until next week

Hagels pushing, not Obama

Ewing 2/26 [Philip, Senior Defense Reporter for Politico, 2014, Chuck Hagels selling tighter, leaner defense
budget, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/chuck-hagel-defense-budget-103999.html?hp=l3]
Many important players in Washington do not share that view or even the
Pentagons broader interpretation that the U.S. has stepped over a threshold into a new era.

Congress reacted skeptically to almost everything Hagel and his

colleagues unveiled on Monday. He acknowledged that many key decisions would be out of his hands, but
defended the premise that a new era has arrived.
Now it doesnt mean that were going to accomplish everything that we have proposed, and the
Congress will accept the recommendation, but it is a different time , Hagel
Defense advocates in

said. And it means that were required to deal with that different time in a very responsible way.

Internals

2NC PC Key
PC is key

1NC Kredo says the only reason there isnt overwhelming Senate support is
Obamas full-court press

Obama has to hold off pressure from congress that would

scuttle the deal
Lakshmanan 2/20 [Indiri, Staff Writer for Gulf News, 2014, Barack Obama, Hassan Rouhani Share
Nuclear Challenge, http://gulfnews.com/news/region/iran/barack-obama-hassan-rouhani-share-nuclear-challenge1.1293505]

Obama and Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have one thing in
common: Both have voiced doubts that nuclear talks will produce a deal to
President

curtail Irans nuclear programme.

Thats only in part because negotiators need to hack through a thicket of

technical and political issues to close the distance between the two sides opening positions. Its
also because some of the most important negotiations will be on the
home fronts

in Tehran and Washington.

Hardliners in Iran are pressing President Hassan Rouhani to reject dismantling any part of his countrys nuclear

In the US in a congressional election year, some lawmakers and

lobbying groups backed by American ally Israel urge Obama to accept nothing
less than elimination of virtually all Iranian nuclear activities, as well as intrusive
infrastructure.

inspections to ensure that the Islamic Republic cant secretly develop a nuclear weapons capability.

The Obama administration has ambitious objectives for curtailing Irans programme, and thats
not merely for show, said Suzanne Maloney, an Iran specialist at the Brookings Institution, a Washington policy
research organisation. Given the pressure from Capitol Hill and Israel, sticking with a tough position is what the
traffic will bear in this town, she said.
Obama has said publicly that the odds are no better than 50-50 that an interim accord now in effect will lead to a
lasting agreement allowing Iran a limited nuclear enrichment programme with sufficient safeguards to satisfy Israel,
the US and the world. Even so, Obama says diplomacy remains the best means to prevent Iran from acquiring a
nuclear weapon.
Khamenei, who insists that Irans programme is peaceful, said on Monday hes not an optimist about the talks
that his president and foreign minister have championed as a path to removing the sanctions that have hobbled
Irans economy.
Reaching a comprehensive deal is challenging but not impossible, Irans Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi
said in an interview last night in Vienna.

One difficulty thats dogged negotiations between Iran and six world powers the US,
Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China since they began in October is rhetoric by hardliners in
Tehran and Washington who oppose compromise and accuse their leaders
of giving up too much in the first-step agreement signed November 24 that freezes much of Irans
sensitive nuclear work in exchange for limited relief from certain sanctions.
Thats forced the US and Iranian governments to deny conceding anything and to issue tough statements. Then
the other side reacts, creating an echo chamber of maximalist positions, said Daryl Kimball, executive director of
the Arms Control Association in Washington.
What really matters, said one US official involved in the Vienna talks who spoke on condition of anonymity, isnt
whats said in speeches, but whats said behind closed doors, and the purpose of this weeks talks is to lay out the
essential issues and both sides red lines.

With congressional elections looming in which Obama needs as many Democratic seats as
possible to protect his health-care law and other domestic priorities, support for tough sanctions
on Iran has been a rare bipartisan issue on Capitol Hill since 2011.
So far this year, the Senate Democratic leadership has held off on a new
sanctions bill that Obama has threatened to veto, saying it would derail diplomacy and
make a risky military strike on Irans nuclear facilities more likely.

With midterm elections coming up,

pressure will intensify for strong measures in

Congress once the interim deal expires in July, Maloney predicted, bringing with it the
risk of a train wreck if new sanctions come to a vote before a final agreement is
negotiated with Iran.

Imposing new US sanctions at this stage would isolate the US from its five negotiating
partners, increase the probability of war and undermine the new Iranian presidents
efforts at diplomacy, according to a report being released Tuesday by the Iran Project, a group
dedicated to improving relations between the US and Iran. Signatories to the report include former US
Undersecretary of State Thomas Pickering and former Central Intelligence Agency official Paul Pillar.
Retired Lieutenant General Robert Gard, chairman of the Centre for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, said hes
concerned about possible efforts in Congress to develop a nonbinding resolution specifying what members would
endorse in an agreement with Iran and what they would reject.
Whats often overlooked in all the talk about the US and Iranian positions, is that there are six countries
negotiating with Iran, not just the US, he said. While we have been able surprisingly to get the Chinese and
Russians to go along with stringent sanctions so far,

if Congress took actions that prompted

the Iranians to walk away, blame would fall on the US, according to Gard.

Standing of the executive is key to beat down the Israel lobby

Rosenberg 1/31 [M.J., Senior Foreign Policy Fellow at Media Matters Action Network and Former Director
of Policy at the Israel Policy Forum, 2014, Iran: The Week Obama Took Down the Lobby,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/obama-state-of-the-union-iran_b_4702457.html]

It didn't take much. Just the power of the presidency , the State of the Union, and
the whole country watching.

the president's will.

And AIPAC's entire campaign to destroy America's chance to reach an
agreement with Iran crumbled. Within hours, three senators announced they
were no longer cosponsoring AIPAC's bill to kill the Iran negotiations (Gillibrand, Coons and
Manchin), and AIPAC's hopes to override Obama's veto ended with a whimper, AIPAC's
Plus

whimper.

this does not mean that AIPAC and Netanyahu are giving up. At every
critical junction during the process of reaching a deal with Iran they will be there working
hard to subvert Obama's effort. Their March conference in Washington (with 400
Members of Congress in attendance) is already slated to be one massive "Bomb
Iran" rally, with Congresspeople and candidates pledging support for war
in exchange for campaign cash. (I've been in the room and watched how they do it).
And they still might succeed , particularly if the Iranians give them any ammunition.
No,

But it is less likely now, not after Obama issued his veto threat and
asserted that he would continue to pursue diplomacy in the name of "our
national interest" (not Israel's, although an agreement is in Israel's interest too, but our national interest).
At that moment, with those words, Obama won and the lobby lost.
Think about it. For months AIPAC (and all its satellite organizations and neocon mouthpieces) had prepared for this
moment. For a dozen years, the centerpiece of AIPAC's annual confab has been fear-mongering about Iran and

since Obama announced

his breakthrough, they lined up clear majorities in both houses to defeat
making members of Congress enact more and more sanctions bills. And then,

him. And, yet, with two sentences, Obama crushed them.

AT: Winners Win

Lee 2/14 [Carol, Staff Writer for the Wall Street Journal, 2014, Obama Seeks Progress Abroad,
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/02/14/after-muted-triumphs-at-home-obama-seeks-progress-abroad/]The White
House arguably had one of its best weeks in what seems like a very long time. Yet youd hardly know it.

Obamas wins dont translate just gets him the status quo

because after the fierce, partisan battles of the last five years, President Barack Obamas
victories now often manifest the status quo.
Its a reality that seems set to define Mr. Obamas domestic legislative
agenda for the remainder of his term, and one he probably would have found hard to imagine during his 2008
campaign. As a candidate, Mr. Obama regularly chastised the status quo. Now
his White House sometimes considers it a triumph.
Thats mainly

There are two cases in point from this week: the debt limit and the health-care law.
The administration announced that some 3.3 million people signed up for health-care coverage under the new law
as of January. It was much-welcome news for a White House that has been for months digging out from its botched
rollout of the law.

The House and Senate

also passed a so-called clean debt-limit increase ,

meaning it came with no legislative demands or spending cuts attached that Republicans have insisted on in the
past. There were no eleventh-hour negotiations or default countdown clocks like in previous battles. The votes
happened pretty much drama-free, save some remarkable GOP infighting in the Senate.

A White House that spent much of its energy, and political capital, in 2013
trying to create that very scenario had a relatively stoic reaction . An end to
that kind of brinksmanship for now is a very welcome thing, White House press secretary Jay Carney said before
adding: It says something about the expectations that the American people have of Congress that people notice
when Congress actually doesnt do direct harm to the economy.

Winners dont win just White house hopefulness

Brown and Sherman 9/4 [Carrie and Jake, Reporters for Politico, 2013, President Obamas
Political Capital Spreads Thin, http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/obamas-political-capital-spreads-thin96306.html]

Obamas surprise decision to seek

congressional authorization will affect the rest of his agenda, but his
advisers are betting that a win could usher in other domestic successes.
The West Wing says its too early to know how

A
failed vote, however, would undoubtedly weaken him. A senior administration official said the effort could build
some trust between the White House and Republicans that might ease tensions in negotiations over the budget and

White House aides have long argued that success begets success.
Their latest test of that theory was the broad bipartisan Senate vote for
comprehensive immigration reform bill, which was supposed to compel the House to
act. So far , it has not and House Republicans dont think the Syria vote
will be any different. The idea that passing the authorization for use of
military force in Syria would give the administration more leverage in
future political debates is absurd, one senior GOP leadership aide said.
They are currently spending political capital they dont have. No matter how it plays
out, the sudden emergence of a fight over Syria presents both political and
other issues.

logistical challenges for Congress and the White House . House

Republicans were already grumbling about the prospect of several perilous
votes this fall first on raising the debt limit and extending government funding, then on a package of reforms
to the immigration system. White House aides began hearing skepticism from Republican leaders that they could
force a debt limit hike through the chamber and then press for passage of even a pared-back immigration bill.

Adding a vote

on military intervention in Syria

could create even more friction

between

the Obama administration and House Republicans, as lawmakers are being put in a position of potentially voting
against their party leaders. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) are
backing Obama, but the vast majority of the conference appears to oppose the resolution, at least at this point. And

there was very little time on the congressional

calendar to address those issues as well as the confirmation of the yet-to-be-nominated Federal
Reserve chairman. As much as Obama likes to say the White House and Congress
should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time, often they
even before Syria took over the headlines,

cannot.

Impacts

2NC Iran Prolif

Deal breakdown means Iran nuclearizationflow some
warrantsthis card is our overview and no tag can do it justice
Ward 12 [Alex, Graduate Student of International Relations at Durham University, March 2, Irans Nuclear
Programme and the Stability of the Middle East, http://www.e-ir.info/2012/03/02/irans-nuclear-programme-andthe-stability-of-the-middle-east/]

the current US Director of National

highlighted how Iran is technically capable of

Quoted in the Washington Post (2011: npn),

Intelligence

James Clapper,

producing enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon in the next few
years. Undoubtedly, a nuclear-armed Iran will inevitably throw existing
security structures into flux (Kaye & Wehrey, 2007: 120), recalibrating the Middle Eastern
strategic order. That said, the contours of this increasingly nuclearized political
landscape are shaped by a myriad of interlocking and complex factors.
Naturally, Irans nuclear programme is sure to elicit responses from
Washington, Israel and a host of Arab states, most notably those of the Gulf Cooperation
Council (GCC), particularly Saudi Arabia.

it is clear that Iran is now a centrepiece of

American Policy (Sick et al, 2008: 1), largely due to its counter-hegemonic,
recalcitrant foreign policy. Whilst direct military confrontation is unlikely, the US and the
EU has already engaged a multitude of covert operations targeting Irans
nuclear facilities and imposed significant diplomatic and economic
sanctions upon the Islamic Republic. With regards to the GCC, compelling arguments have been made for the
reactionary pursuit of nuclear weapons , as is the case with many other Arab states, which
has severe implications for regional nuclear proliferation.
However, the most profound effect on regional stability is likely to come from
With regards to the Western powers,

the possibility of an Israeli pre-emptive strike to stall Irans nascent

nuclear programme, driven by the need to ensure regional pre-eminence
and counterbalance against Iranian hegemony in the Gulf (Schake & Yaphe, 2004).
Indeed,

fears of an emboldened Iranian foreign policy have sharply

increased regional tensions (Gasiorowsky, 2007: 125).

Nonetheless, the implications for regional stability ultimately hinge upon whether
the Islamic Republic is a revisionist or status-quo power. Suspicions, particularly
from Israel and the GCC about Iranian support for Shia proxies in both the Levant and Gulf and threats of a Shialed Iranian pursuit of regional hegemony are not ill-founded. However, it is necessary to draw upon a
constructivist and pluralist review of the origins and nature of Iranian
foreign policy , as well as the theory of defensive realism, which suggest that Irans nuclear
programme is reactionary in nature, nullifying the argument for Iran as an
intrinsically revisionist state.
Crucially, in assessing the implications of Iranian nuclearization, it is important to acknowledge the fact that

Waltzs
theory of nuclear deterrence frames Irans nuclear programme in such a
nuclear worlds call for and encourage a different kind of reasoning (Waltz, 1981: npn). As such,

way that informs notions of a more stable regional order , mainly due to the
deterrent capabilities of nuclear weapons (Betts, 2000).

suspicions of Irans clandestine nuclear programme have

galvanized western cooperation under the mutual necessity to prevent a
nuclearized, emboldened Tehran (Rakel, 2007). From a pluralist stance, the US
Presidency has come under increasing domestic support for the use of
force as a preventive measure , with a recent CBS/NYT poll revealing that 82% of US citizens
To be sure,

consider Iran as an enemy of the US (Gilboa, 2010: 1). Similarly, influential Zionist lobbies such as AIPAC have
exerted mounting pressure on Washington, particularly in Congress wherein Israel is virtually immune from
criticism (Maersheimer & Walt, 2006:42). Currently, in the run up to the 2012 elections,
tremendous

Obama is under

pressure from the Israel lobby (Madsen, 2011: npn) to support an

Israeli strike on Iran. In the Gulf, according to Mattair (2007), the GCC states are likely to
consent to US attacks based in GCC territory in support for counterbalancing the
hegemonic ambitions of an emboldened Iran.
These factors considered, a covert campaign coordinated by the CIA and Mossad
has been launched to stall the nuclear programme. In particular, cyber warfare
(Fiore, 2011) and assassinations of numerous Iranian nuclear scientists (RT, 2011a)
(Guardian, 2011) has demonstrated staunch US-Israeli opposition to the
programme and has set a precedent for escalation, which is being further
perpetuated by increased US naval presence in the Gulf in response to Tehrans
recent naval drills in the region (RT, 2012)
Nonetheless, a direct military conflict between the NATO, the US and/or the EU with a nuclear Iran remains unlikely
for several reasons (Sick et al, 2008). Firstly, Irans promises of massive retaliation (RT, 2011b) serve to echo the
notion of Iran as an undeterable state (Towle, 2000), which would significantly reduce the chances of a US strike
(Powell, 2003), especially if Iran possessed nuclear capabilities. Moreover, the economic instability
and sheer civilian casualties of a direct military confrontation would

increase anti-Americanism to a level that would severely undermine US

power and influence throughout the region (Mattair, 2007:137), hindering the
fostering of democracy in the Middle East a hallmark of contemporary US
strategic regional policy.
With this in mind, an avenue for Western powers could be to take advantage of the dynamic nature of Irans
domestic politics. According to Chubin & Litwak (2003: 102), the sceptical Iranian public is increasingly given to
criticism [...] and scrutiny of [the] regime rendering the nuclear issue a potentially contested turf. Moreover, as
the situation has evolved, the increasing isolation brought about by Iranian hardliners, reflected recently by both
the closure of the British embassy and mounting economic sanctions, could galvanize domestic opposition to the
incumbent regime (Oren, 2011). The promotion of regime change in Iran, however, has considerable impediments.
According to Russel (2004: 112), the
cause

promotion of domestic instability would develop a

for aggressive behaviour , serving to embolden the Iranian hardliners .

Similarly, the estrangement of Iran from the international community could ,
according to Powell (2003), compel the regime to propagate a form of reactionary
Iranian nationalism that could be mobilized in support for an increasingly
provocative and aggressive regional strategy.
One final option lies in the potential for US-Iranian talks . Nonetheless, the likelihood of this is
minimal, largely owing to the significant leverage of AIPAC and other Zionist
lobbies in actively discouraging any form of dialogue between the two states

Talks would undercut the

ideological purchase it has with regards to its role as a counter-hegemonic
Islamic regional leader (Rakel, 2007).
Of course, the effect of Irans nuclear programme upon regional stability is
underpinned by whether Iran is a revisionist or benign power. To many, Iran
has aspirations of attaining hegemony over the Gulf (Ottolenghi, 2009), aspirations
(Madsen, 2011). For Iran, the issue of independence is crucial.

that could be realized with the deterrence, compellance and coercive capabilities of nuclear weapons in the
interstate bargaining process (Panofsky, 2007). Indeed, according to Mindell (2008: 70), a nuclear
weapon would increase their ability to take more aggressive steps in
asserting their pre-eminence in the region , largely through being able to
use the spectre of a nuclear strike to renegotiate regional security
arrangements. Furthermore, the deposition of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein has eliminated
considerable impediments to a potential Iranian regional hegemony (Gasiorowski, 2007). Naturally, a more
emboldened, nuclear Iran is bound to raise fears in the Gulf , particularly amongst
the GCC. In particular, the perennial dispute between Iran and the UAE over the
territorial rights to disputed islands in the Strait of Hormuz could be a first point of call
for an emboldened revisionist Iran. In face of this, Abu Dhabi has reportedly

sought to counterbalance against the Iranian threat through arms deals

with Washington, including one recently of 500 hellfire missiles (RT, 2011c).
In light of Irans history of subversive policy towards the GCC states, its rising influence amongst Shia contingents
in the region has exacerbated regional concerns (Mattair, 2007), particularly considering the loss of Iraq as a
Sunni Arab bulwark (Kaye & Wehrey, 2007: 118) and the subsequent political empowerment of Shia groups
therein (Gause, 2007). Hence, the ruling elites in GCC states fear an emboldened Iran utilizing the threat of
domestic destabilization through promoting Shia ascendancy to deter GCC states from balancing against Tehrans
hegemonic ambitions. Dangerously, Iranian support for Shia groups could be
counterbalanced by GCC states employing a similar policy of endorsing Sunni militants in postwar Iraq (Mattair, 2007). Such a move would be highly destabilizing, evoking
profound concerns of deeper sectarian violence in Iraq (Gasiorowsky, 2007: 125)

that could propagate a Sunni/Shia divide throughout the region (Barzegar,

2005). GCC fears of a Shia Crescent stretching from the Gulf to the Levant (Gause, 2007) have framed
uncertainties about growing Iranian influence in Iraq (Mattair, 2007), even despite the Shia Crescents lack of
political and religious cohesiveness (Terhalle, 2007: 70). In particular, GCC and Israeli fears of a Shia Crescent
have been amplified by the notion that a nuclear Iran will step up its support for Shia proxies not only with Shia
paramilitary groups in Iraq, but with Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Deep concerns for regional stability lie in the possibility of nuclear warheads being transferred
to Hezbollah but this is a far-fetched contention (Fitzpatrick, 2006), mainly due to
their growing autonomy from the Islamic Republic (Sadr, 2005: 66). This
notwithstanding, even if Iran did not actively support Shia paramilitary groups,

Irans strengthening could provide a cover for proxies [ to ] engage in

more reckless pursuits (Kaye & Wehrey, 2007: 117) due to the cover of a nuclear umbrella.
Contrarily, Sick et al (2008: 5) identify a clear trend toward Arab accommodation of Iran as states bandwagon
with Iran as a means of socialising Tehran into a peaceful rise. This is doubly underpinned by the conjuncture of a
growth in anti-US sentiment (Russel, 2007: 141) and the need for a regional counter to Israel (Kaye & Wehrey,
2007: 119).

That states are bandwagonning with Iran thus presents a critical

challenge to the pre-existing strategic order, which could be

counterbalanced by an aggressive Israel.
In the case made for Iran as a benign power, many have attributed Irans nuclear programme to the need to
guarantee the Islamic Republics national security and sovereignty (Russel, 2004). According to Rakel (2007: 187),
the prime objective of both foreign and domestic policy has been regime survival and as such, Irans nuclear
ambitions can be framed through the concept of defensive realism. This asserts that Irans nuclearization has been
a defensive project in reaction to a feeling of encirclement (Barzegar, 2005: 49) brought about by US presence
not only the Gulf, but in Iraq and Afghanistan as well, especially in relation to its close ties to several GCC states

the argument for defensive realism has been fueled

both by regional US military presence and by the discursive threats
levelled against Iran by the Bush Administrations anti-Iran [ rhetoric ]
under the rubric of the Axis of Evil (Afrasiabi & Maleki, 2003: 256) that serve as a US
statement of intent regarding the deposition of the Iranian regime (Sadr, 2006). Furthermore, Iran is
situated in a nuclearized neighbourhood with Israel and Pakistan both
possessing nuclear weapons, which according to Schake & Yaphe (2004: 38) has been a
primary reason for Irans nuclear programme.
Drawing upon constructivist and pluralist theory, the contours of Irans foreign policy are
intimately shaped by internal factors and thus can be best explained [...]
by the countrys political culture and political system (Guldimann, 2007: 172).
Indeed, it can be said that Irans nuclear programme is tied to consolidating the
incumbent regime through fostering a sense of national pride (Mindell, 2008).
(Mattair, 2007). Undoubtedly,

Here, the strong domestic need for an independent and self-reliant regime can be realized through the power

Irans
nuclear programme can be seen not as an inflammatory or aggressive
step, but as a medium through which potential domestic dissent can be
appeased , especially in light of the 2009 election protests and the enduring Arab Spring.
On the other hand, the theocratic nature of the Iranian political system has
invoked the labelling of Iran as a state driven by its revolutionary values
and ideological perspectives (Nia, 2010: 148) rather than through the realpolitik logic of the
projection and deterrent capabilities inherent to the acquisition of nuclear capabilities. In view of this,

nation state. Indeed, the regimes identity as the natural leader of Islam has sparked major regional uncertainties,
particularly amongst the predominantly Sunni monarchies of the GCC (Shake & Yaphe, 2004). Moreover, these
fears have intensified following the continually inflammatory and anti-West rhetoric of President Ahmadinejad
(Rakel, 2007: 182). However, the nature of the Iranian political system renders Ahmadinejad as not the sole or
even lead decision maker (Fitzpatrick, 2006: 21), which, in conjuncture with the popular discontent stemming
from Ahmadinejads aggressive diplomacy and Irans continuing international isolation, will serve to mitigate the
revisionist tendencies of Ahmadinejads Presidency (Gasiorowsky, 2007). Thus, due to Irans defensive motivations
for its nuclear programme, there remain doubts about it being born out of revisionism. Thus, Irans nuclear
programme can be said to not be symptomatic of the actions of a rogue
state but rather, the reaction to exogenous threats to its own national
securit y, evincing the notion of a benign nuclear Iran.
In a similar vein, Kenneth Waltzs theory of nuclear deterrence can be utilized to
interrogate the notion that , in fact, Iranian acquisition of a nuclear warhead
could be a powerful deterrent to preserve the status quo and prevent the outbreak of interstate
conflict (Russel, 2004: 102).

Nuclear deterrence theory is underpinned by the idea that the threat of

nuclear weapons are enough to render the potential costs an aggressor is

likely to shoulder far higher than the potential benefits if they were to engage
militarily (Blair, 1993). Thus, the operationalization of deterrence involves high
stakes brinksmanship whereby states actively pursue risk in order to discourage exogenous
aggression, hinging upon rational choice models and game theory (Schelling, 1960) as states actions are based
upon predicting their opponents responses to threat. The credibility of this threat is of paramount importance as it
is the resolution of the state in question that is imperative to the effectiveness of deterrence strategies (Powell,
2003).

Iran, due to both its undeterable rhetoric, its identity as a rogue state
and the numerous exogenous threats to its domestic stability has
considerable credibility in this sense. This theory therefore holds that, following Irans
nuclearization not escalation but de-escalation becomes likely (Waltz, 1981: npn) due to Irans high threat
credibility. A nuclear conflict between involving Iran would result in a Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) scenario,
which as the Cold War proved, can provide a stable equilibrium (Mindell, 2008: 72) in the regional balance of
power.
Corroboratively, according to Waltz (1981: npn), the likelihood of a conventional arms race decreases massively
as the logic of deterrence eliminates incentives for strategic arms racing, largely due to the fact that when
dealing with a potential MAD scenario, arguments based on relative advantage lose their point (Fox, 1946: 181)
as both states can ensure the total annihilation of the other. As such, nuclear warheads could be additionally
stabilizing by rendering conventional arms races largely redundant (Jervis, 2001).
As posited by Goldstein (2000: 283) nuclear weapons could further contribute to regional stability through providing
historically unprecedented incentives for negotiators to discover a way to avoid risking national survival. The
overwhelming threat inherent to nuclear weapons could consequently drive regional policy hardliners to the
negotiating table (Sadr, 2005), akin to the both establishment of the Hotline between the White House and the
Kremlin following the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Six Party Talks following North Koreas nuclear programme.
The

mechanisms of nuclear deterrence theory presuppose both actor

rationality and effective inter-state communication structures that enable

agents to precisely interpret and convey intent (Brown, 2008) (Huth, 1999). However,
according to Morgan (1977: 78), the circumstance of threat can undermine the
psychological capacity of key decision makers to act rationally, especially
in the case of Iran, wherein perennial regional instability, Axis of Evil
rhetoric and an increasingly restless nuclear Israel have served to
magnify threats to Irans national security.

Another major critique of nuclear deterrence is

Sagans (1994) organisation theory that emphasises the salience of misinformation, misunderstanding, or
misconstruing information (Krieger, 2000: npn), in conjuncture with leaders use of simplifying mechanisms
(Sagan, 1994: 71) to comprehend complex political situations.

Absent an effective

communication infrastructure, actors will act on the basis of

misunderstandings (McNamara, 1962: npn) and , accordingly, will not function
predictably in accordance with bargaining and game-theory assumptions
undermining the stabilizing effect of nuclear warheads upon
the regional stability.
In the Middle East, the limitations to deterrence theory are intensified as
there exists no institutionalized process for adversaries to ensure structured
(Russel, 2004: 106),

communications on a routine basis (Russel, 2004: 105), rendering interstate communication

distinctly problematic, especially in light the relatively large role of the media in shaping inter-state perceptions. At
an internal level, as Iran is an embryonic nuclear state, the command-and-control problems therein will be
inevitably more severe and thus, according to Powell (2003: 102), the risk of accidental or inadvertent war will be
higher.

it is of crucial importance to acknowledge the critical

distinction between a theory and predictions derived from it (Powell, 2003:
Ultimately though,

outdated Cold War theory , as it is not applicable

to the radically different Middle Eastern strategic order.
Similarly, the implications of Tehrans nuclear programme , in relation to regional
nuclear proliferation could undermine the positive connotations posited by
deterrence theory (Bahgat, 2006), regardless of whether Iran is a revisionist
state. Drawing upon balance of threat theory, Gause (2007: 119) notes, states act in the
international arena on perceptions of threats . As such, the effects of Irans
nuclear programme have lead to extensive state interest in nuclear
weapons as hedges against a nuclear armed Iran (Elderman & Krepinevich, 2011:
1000) and to avoid extrapolating form

69). In February 2007, GCC representatives liaised with IAEA officials to assess the potentiality of pursuing their
own nuclear programmes (Sick et al, 2008). Similarly, pre-revolution Egypt, Turkey and Syria all explicitly
expressed interest in nuclear programmes in the context of Iranian developments (Brown, 2008).

the reaction of Saudi Arabia is a leading concern among all

regional states (Kaye & Wehrey, 2007: 114). As posited by Sick et al (2008:18), Saudi Arabia
do not accept [ Irans perceived ] aspirations for hegemony in the region
In particular,

and as such, a nuclear Riyadh could use the spectre of a nuclearized Iran
to reassert its pre-eminence in the region. Such a response would have
fundamentally detrimental effects to regional stability and undermine any
potential for rapprochement between the two states, especially with regards to envenoming the
aforementioned Sunni-Shia sectarian divide.
All in all,

the potential for regional proliferation is sure to

contemporary security arrangements,

have profound impacts upon

entail ing the possibility of an escalating spiral

of a regional arms race (Kaye & Wehrey, 2007:111), wherein, because of the
security dilemma, states endeavour to defensively build up nuclear
capabilities in an attempt to counterbalance against rival states own
build up.
Importantly, the regional build-up of nuclear capabilities will significantly
contribute to further instability through increased multipolarity in the
region. According to Powell (2003: 87), critiques of nuclear deterrence theory see it as an obsolete
and possibly dangerous kind of Cold War thinking due to its embeddedness in the notion of bipolarity. In a
neorealist vein, this

is inapplicable to a nuclear Middle East due to the

intrinsically temperamental nature of multipolar systems ; the nature of

multipolarity involves a constant dynamism in the security architecture
and an unstable balance of power, in which uncertainty prevails (Waltz, 1979).
Furthermore, nuclear powers within a more multipolar region would , according to
Elderman & Krepinevich (2011: 72)

be more prone to miscalculation and escalation

than a bipolar competition, which would also serve to further accentuate

the chances of erroneous information about the other sides nuclear
intentions (Blair, 1993: 1), undermining the applicability of deterrence theory.
Another crucial challenge to nuclear stability theory in the region lies in the
possibility of a pre-emptive strike (Sagan, 1994), emanating in this case from
Israel. The challenges presented by systematic communication

inadequacies make pre-emptive action that much more attractive (Russel,

2004: 115) as they inhibit the mechanisms of deterrence from operating
effectively. Moreover, according to Huth (1999: 29) pre-emptive strikes are imaginable in conditions under
which

the security dilemma might

operate and

produce fears of a first-strike

advantage. The importance of national security must also not be neglected, as even a few
nuclear detonations on [ Israels ] soil would be devastating (Elderman &
Krepinevich, 2011: 68) due to its geographically dense population.

Israels bombing of the Iraqi Osirak reactor

in 1981

clearly highlights Tel-

Avivs stance toward regional nuclear proliferation and its willingness to

employ pre-emptive tactics (Sadr, 2006). According to Raas & Long (2007: 30), a similar
attack on the Islamic Republics facilities would provide at least as much benefit in terms of
delay ing Iranian development of nuclear weapons , especially in light of the
modernization of the Israeli Air Force (IAF) since the 80s. Thus, the capability of the IAF launching a pre-emptive
strike with a relatively high degree of confidence, coupled with the regional impediments to the operation of
nuclear deterrence, increases the likelihood of an Israeli strike.
Of course, in assessing the likelihood of a pre-emptive strike, it is wholly necessary to adopt an insight into Israels
strategic ethos. At an ideological level, Fiore (2011: 9) contends, no Israeli decision-maker can
risk allowing a bitter ideological enemy to acquire nuclear weapons . This
is reflected in comments by key Israeli leaders such as Ariel Sharon (2004)
who specifically noted how Israel must include appropriate pre-emption
options in its overall defensive strategy . Additionally, the central role of hardliners and military
leaders in Israels foreign policy will further exacerbate fears of a pre-emptive strike and undermine deterrence
theory. Similar to Sharon, comments such as we have to consider killing [Ahmadinejad] made by Former Israeli
Defense Chief Moshe Yaalon clearly highlight the potentially radical nature of Israels military contingent.

inflammatory military projects, such as the deployment of longrange Jericho missiles around Jerusalem (RT, 2011b) and the test of a missile
capable of a nuclear strike in November 2011 could allude to an Israeli
willingness to counterbalance against Irans nuclear threat through
military escalation (RT, 2011a).
The situation looks bleaker still when considering the virtual
nonexistence of dialogue between the two states. In lieu of this, Cohen (2010)
Recently,

highlights the negative impact of

a belligerent Israeli press that warns of a second

holocaust following Irans nuclearization, which

pressure for a preemptive strike.

in turn

generates domestic

That said, the impracticalities of the strike (owing to the underground, dispersed nature of Irans nuclear facilities)
and the potential backlash of a strike, including the possibility of a massive Iranian military and/or proxy response,

the threat upon domestic

security of a nuclear Iran is a cost too high to bear for Israel and Tel-Aviv could
well pursue some form of disarming strike in light of this.
All in all, Irans nuclear programme has already had a profoundly
destabilizing effect upon the regions security architecture, evoking an
intense concern about the restructuring of the regions power relations
(Kaye & Wehrey, 2007: 112). This has led to Western and Israeli concerns of a
revisionist state pursuing an increasingly emboldened and subversive
might deter Israel from this option. Nevertheless, according to Sadr (2005),

foreign policy, propagated further by Ahmadinejads demagogic rhetoric.

Indeed , fears of a revitalized Iranian pursuit of regional hegemony are shared by the GCC states, particularly over
the perceived Iranian fostering of a Shia Crescent (Gause, 2007). Despite Irans intentions being
most suitably framed through the lens of defensive realism (Barzegar, 2005),
Irans nuclear programme nonetheless has raised concerns that run the
danger of spiralling into a nuclear arms race due to the security dilemma
(Mattair, 2007). On the contrary, Waltzs nuclear deterrence theory offers a more
positive outlook , suggesting that, because of the possibility of MAD, a nuclear arms race would inhibit
direct military conflict, compelling states to adopt more diplomatic means to solve crises. However, the

lack of adequate inter-state communication infrastructures , the high

possibility of an Israeli pre-emptive strike and the potential
crystallisation of a proliferation-induced anarchic multipolar system serve
nullify the argument for nuclear deterrence, shaping the post-nuclear
Middle East into a region characterised by an increasingly unstable
multipolar strategic order, plagued by the spectre of all-out nuclear
only to

apocalypse.

2NC North Korea

Success in Iran will mobilize a solution in North Korea
Cain 11/28 [Geoffrey, Staff Writer for the Global Post, 2013, How the Iran nuclear deal matters for North
Korea, http://www.salon.com/2013/11/28/how_the_iran_nuclear_deal_matters_for_north_korea_partner/]
Given the tumultuous relations between Washington and Tehran, the nuclear pact announced early Sunday was the
most significant diplomatic development between the two since the 1979 Iranian Revolution.

Six world powers agreed to curtail sanctions and release more than $4 billion
in frozen Iranian oil sales revenue in exchange for limits on Tehrans nuclear activity.
Everyone recognized the six-month deal as just a first step, and there were plenty of
detractors, most notably Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But President Barack Obama said it
opened up a new path toward a world that is more secure a future in which we can verify that
Irans nuclear program is peaceful and that it cannot build a nuclear weapon.

in Seoul, the deal prompted discussion of whether the breakthrough

could be a model for the worlds other seemingly intractable nuclear standoff, with North
Here

Korea.
Would the US, riding on the momentum of the Iran deal, go back to long-stalled talks to
reduce tensions on this long-troubled peninsula?
It seems to me that the US is in a position to put more focus on the North Korea
issue after the Iran deal, said Choi Kang, vice president at the Seoul-based Asan Institute for

Policy Studies, and a former South Korean delegate to North Korean talks in the late 1990s.
But he was skeptical that Washington would reach a breakthrough, given North Korean dictator Kim Jong
Uns policy of pursuing its nuclear program alongside economic growth, an official program called
byungjin.
If the tumultuous events of the past year are any guide, its unlikely that North Korea will take a softer
stance any time soon.
Starting in December 2012, the regime went on a bout of saber-rattling. In four months, Pyongyang launched a
satellite (demonstrating long-range missile capability), tested a nuclear device in response to expanded UN
sanctions, threatened war against Seoul and Washington, and then temporarily closed down a jointly run industrial
zone at Kaesong just north of the South-North border.
Some South Korean and American policymakers are fatigued by years of negotiations, citing North
Koreas apparent unwillingness to disarm.
For nearly two decades, the hermit kingdom has repeatedly joined and then withdrawn from various pacts, making
clear its intentions to continue pursuing its weapons program. The most recent round of failed negotiations called
the six-party talks involving the US, Russia, Japan, China, South Korea, and North Korea collapsed in 2009, with
no sustained dialogue since then.
The West has cited repeated provocations. South Korea, once so optimistic about peaceful reunification that it
disbursed massive amounts of humanitarian aid to the North, felt burned by underground atomic tests, in 2006,
2009, and 2013.
Just over three years ago, Seoul also accused the regime of torpedoing a naval corvette and then shelling an island,
two incidents that together left 50 South Koreans dead. By the time Kim Jong Un assumed power in December
2011, North-South relations were already at a nadir.
Before the success in Iran can come to North Korea, serious changes will be needed in how the regime
conducts itself, experts say. There are lessons to be learned from the Iran deal, Choi Kang said. Iran needed a
leadership change before it could go forward. North Korea, on the other hand, hasnt evolved much under its
current leader, who is the son of its previous leader and grandson of the nations founder.
Iran was also more open to negotiations, Choi Kang said.

Provided matters proceed

smoothly, the recent Iran deal could shift greater attention back to
finding a solution on North Korea, Subin Kim, an independent defense
analyst in Seoul, told GlobalPost.
North Korea, the worlds most heavily sanctioned nation, may eventually feel the pinch,
pushing it back to the table in hopes of lifting UN embargoes, say experts. But
Moreover, the US has long been preoccupied with Middle Eastern issues.

given its erratic behavior in the past, its unclear whether any deal will translate into to genuine, lasting concessions
on its nuclear weapons program. On that prospect, South Koreans remain skeptical.

Addressing North Korea key to stop nuclear extinction

Hayes and Hamel-Green 09 [Peter, Professor of International Relations, RMIT University,
Melbourne; and Director, Nautilus Institute, San Francisco, and Michael, Dean of and Professor in the Faculty of Arts,
Education and Human Development, Victoria University, Melbourne, December 14, The Path Not Taken, The Way
Still Open: Denuclearizing The Korean Peninsula And Northeast Asia,
http://japanfocus.org/articles/print_article/3267]

The consequences of failing to address the proliferation threat posed

by the North Korea developments, and related political and economic
issues, are serious, not only for the Northeast Asian region but for the whole
international community. At worst, there is the possibility of nuclear
attack1, whether by intention, miscalculation, or merely accident,
leading to the resumption of Korean War hostilities. On the Korean Peninsula itself,
key population centres are well within short or medium range missiles. The
whole of Japan is likely to come within North Korean missile range. Pyongyang has a population of over 2 million,
Seoul (close to the North Korean border) 11 million, and Tokyo over 20 million.

Even a limited nuclear

exchange would result in a holocaust of unprecedented proportions . But the

catastrophe within the region would not be the only outcome. New research indicates that
even a limited nuclear war in the region would rearrange our global
climate far more quickly than global warming . Westberg draws attention to new studies

even a limited nuclear exchange involving

approximately 100 Hiroshima-sized 15 kt bombs 2 (by comparison it should be noted
modelling the effects of

that the United States currently deploys warheads in the range 100 to 477 kt, that is, individual warheads
equivalent in yield to a range of 6 to 32 Hiroshimas).The studies indicate that the soot from the fires produced

would lead to a decrease in global temperature by 1.25 degrees

Celsius for a period of 6-8 years.3 In Westbergs view: That is not global winter, but the
nuclear darkness will cause a deeper drop in temperature than at any
time during the last 1000 years. The temperature over the continents would decrease
substantially more than the global average. A decrease in rainfall over the continents would also
followThe period of nuclear darkness will cause much greater decrease in grain production than 5% and it will
continue for many years...hundreds of millions of people will die from hunger To
make matters even worse, such amounts of smoke injected into the stratosphere would
cause a huge reduction in the Earths protective ozone . 4 These, of course, are
not the only consequences. Reactors might also be targeted, causing further
mayhem and downwind radiation effects, superimposed on a smoking, radiating ruin left
by nuclear next-use. Millions of refugees would flee the affected regions . The direct
impacts, and the follow-on impacts on the global economy via ecological and
food insecurity, could make the present global financial crisis pale by
comparison . How the great powers, especially the nuclear weapons states respond
to such a crisis, and in particular, whether nuclear weapons are used in response to nuclear first-use,
could make or break the global non proliferation and disarmament regimes.
There could be many unanticipated impacts on regional and global security relationships5, with
subsequent nuclear breakout and geopolitical turbulence, including possible loss-of-control over
fissile material or warheads in the chaos of nuclear war, and aftermath chain-reaction
affects involving other potential proliferant states. The Korean nuclear proliferation
issue is not just a regional threat but a global one that warrants priority consideration from the international

North Korea is currently believed to have sufficient plutonium

stocks to produce up to 12 nuclear weapons.6 If and when it is successful in
implementing a uranium enrichment program - having announced publicly that it is
community.

experimenting with enrichment technology on September 4, 20097 in a communication with the UN Security

it would likely acquire the capacity to produce over 100 such weapons. Although
some may dismiss Korean Peninsula proliferation risks on the assumption that
the North Korean regime will implode as a result of its own economic problems, food problems, and
treatment of its own populace, there is little to suggest that this is imminent. If this
were to happen, there would be the risk of nuclear weapons falling into
hands of non-state actors in the disorder and chaos that would ensue. Even
without the outbreak of nuclear hostilities on the Korean Peninsula in either the near or
longer term, North Korea has every financial incentive under current economic
sanctions and the needs of its military command economy to export its nuclear and
missile technologies to other states. Indeed, it has already been doing this for some time. The
Council -

Proliferation Security Initiative may conceivably prove effective in intercepting ship-borne nuclear exports, but it is
by no means clear how air-transported materials could similarly be intercepted.

AT: No Deal Collapse

Renewed sanctions in any capacity would shut down the deal
Mohammed 12/9 [Arshad, Staff Writer for Reuters, 2013, Irans Zarif says Nuclear Deal Dead if US
Passes New Sanctions, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/09/us-iran-nuclear-zarif-idUSBRE9B810320131209]
WASHINGTON -

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said the Iranian nuclear deal would be

dead if the US Congress imposes new sanctions , even if they do not take
effect for six months,

Time Magazine said on Monday. In a transcript of the interview, which was

Time said it asked Zarif what happens if

Congress imposes new sanctions, even if they do not go into effect for six months.
According to the magazine, he replied: "The entire deal is dead." Zarif was referring to a Nov. 24
conducted on Saturday and posted online on Monday,

agreement with six world powers under which Tehran would curb its nuclear program in exchange for limited relief

"We do not like to negotiate under duress," Zarif added. "If

Congress adopts sanctions, it shows lack of seriousness and lack of a desire
from economic sanctions.

to achieve a resolution on the part of the United States.

AT: Cant Trust Iran

Reason to trust Iran international obligations and consensus
AP 2/2 [The Associated Press, Inventors of News, 2014, Iran: We're Serious About Nuke Talks,
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/iran-nuke-talks-mohamad-javad-zarif-102995.html]

Irans foreign minister said Sunday his country is prepared to move ahead
in negotiations over its nuclear program, assuring Western diplomats that
Tehran has the political will and good faith to reach a balanced long-term
agreement.
Mohamad Javad Zarif told a gathering of the worlds top diplomats and security
officials that his country and Western nations were at a historical
crossroads and just beginning to build the trust necessary for a long-term agreement.
I think the opportunity is there, and I think we need to seize it , he said.
The comments came after Zarif met one-on-one with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on the sidelines of the
conference Sunday morning.
Kerry reiterated to Zarif the importance of both sides negotiating in good faith, and of Iran abiding by its
commitments, according to the State Department. Zarif described it as a good meeting.

Iran and the I nternational A tomic E nergy A gency struck a deal Nov. 11 granting U.N.
inspectors wider access to Irans nuclear facilities. The deal is parallel to an agreement
reached with world powers Nov. 24 in Geneva to have Iran halt its most sensitive uranium enrichment activities in
return for an easing of Western sanctions over its nuclear program.
Thats an important beginning, its not the end of
deals. There are important questions and we are prepared to address them.

IAEA director general

Yukiya

the road , Zarif said of the two

Amano said he could report that practical

measures are being implemented as planned by Iran, and that there would be new
negotiations over the next phase on Feb. 8.

Iran also has agreed to a new round of negotiations on Feb. 18 in Vienna with
a six-nation group of world powers, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council
plus Germany.

I can promise is that we will go to those negotiations with the political

will and good faith to reach an agreement, because it would be foolish for
What

us to only bargain for six months

everybody, Zarif said.

that would be [a] disaster for

Zarif said Iran and the international community needed to restore mutual trust, and said

Tehrans end

goal was a good solution - a balanced solution . He added that an unbalanced solution is
inherently not stable.
Believe me, you do not possess the monopoly on mistrust there is a lot of mistrust in Iran, he
told the audience. Iranians believe, with good reason, that the West wants to deprive Iran of its ability to have
access to technology.
Zarif said that the

answer at the end of the day is you need to put aside all

narratives and take concrete steps.

AT: Sanction Key to Iranian Compliance

Pressure is still in place sanctions will remain till a deal is
finalized
Richter 2/4 [Paul, Staff Writer for the LA Times, 2014, Iran Sanctions Remain Despite Nuclear Deal, U.S.
Officials Say, http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-iran-congress-20140205,0,5032344.story#axzz2sZDlup00]

Obama administration officials insisted to a Senate panel Tuesday that a temporary deal
meant to curb Iran's nuclear program is not about to destroy restraints on world trade
with Tehran.

At a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the administration's top negotiator with Iran and its senior
sanctions officials acknowledged that the Nov. 24 interim agreement with Tehran has set off a surge of contacts
between Western corporations and officials of the long-isolated Iranian economy.
Business executives from Britain, Canada, Germany and Italy have visited Tehran in recent weeks, and a French
delegation that arrived Monday included 100 potential investors.
But the U.S.

officials said the international economic sanctions that have crippled Iran's
economy over the last few years remain in place . They said the business delegations are
maneuvering to be first in line if an agreement someday makes it possible to resume sales and
services in a country of 76 million people with a taste for Western imports.
Foreigners are visiting "to see what might come in the future," said David Cohen, a Treasury Department
undersecretary. "They're not looking to do business today ."
The temporary agreement, which took effect Jan. 20, places some curbs on Iran's nuclear program in exchange for a
temporary easing of some sanctions. The deal is aimed at providing six months to one year for Iran and six world
powers to try to negotiate a deal that would set longer-term curbs on its nuclear development.
Many nations suspect that Iran, despite its denials, is seeking a nuclear weapons capability.

Critics of the deal contend that the interim arrangement has shifted the
psychology of world markets toward Tehran and is building up pressure for business deals
that could rupture the international sanctions program.
Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) said that because some sanctions have been relaxed, America's European partners "are
now flooding in there with businesspeople going back to business as usual with the Iranians."

U.S. officials responded that the sanctions are firm and they are
emphasizing that they are willing to impose tough punishment on foreign
companies that break the rules.
"We have not seen deals being done," Cohen said. "There's very little economic potential today in the Iranian
business sector."

AT: Talks Fail

Talks off to a good start
Dehghan 2/20 [Saeed, Staff Writer for the Guardian, 2014, Iran Nuclear Talks Off To A Good Start, Says
EU Foreign Policy Chief, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/20/iran-nuclear-talks-good-start-eu]

Three days of talks between Iran and six world powers in Vienna have
ended to "a good start" as diplomats negotiating for a final nuclear deal, agreed on a
mutual framework

before they could discuss details in future sessions.

we have identified all of the issues we

need to address in reaching a comprehensive and final agreement ," the
"We have had three very productive days during which

European Union's foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, said. "There is a lot to do. It won't be easy but we have
made a good start."
Ashton, who acts as the convenor of talks on behalf of Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia and the US the

both
sides had agreed to start the technical work and further political
discussions as early as March. They would set a timetable over four months to
discuss the differences that have so far prevented settlement of the decades-long
group known as P5+1 is negotiating directly with Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran's foreign minister, said

dispute over Tehran's nuclear programme.

The Vienna talks mark the start of a potentially complicated process, which both sides hope to wrap up within six
months but which is likely to continue much longer.
Abbas Araqchi, a senior Iranian negotiator, told the semi-official Isna news agency that Ashton will visit Tehran in
early March.
Speaking at a joint press conference with Ashton in Vienna,

Zarif said: "We had three fruitful

and extensive working days and both sides have the feeling that it was a
good start for the difficult task we have ahead."
sides show
"political will and mutual respect " then a final agreement was within reach. A senior US
administration official described the talks as " constructive and useful " and
said some areas of agreement have emerged in the talks but still "very difficult" issues remain.
Zarif later updated his 800k followers on Facebook with the latest from Vienna, saying that if all

"This will be a complicated, difficult and lengthy process. We will take the time required to do it right," the official
said. "We

will continue to work in a deliberate and concentrated manner to

see if we can get that job done."

AT: Sanctions Good

Framing issue

None of their evidence assumes recent progress in talks its just Heritage
Foundation shitheads

New sanctions cause Iran prolif, Israel strikes, and US draw-in

which escalate
Buonomo 1/30 [Thomas, Former Military Intelligence Officer, U.S. Army, 2014, Americans Must Exercise
Their Power to Check Congress on Iran Sanctions, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-j-buonomo/americansmust-exercise-t_b_4699196.html]

this move would provoke Iranian leaders to ratchet up

their nuclear enrichment program, which the Iranian parliament has
threatened to do in response to increased sanctions.
The escalation in tension would likely lead to military conflict , if not
It is more likely, however, that

initiated by the U.S. then by Israel , which would likely suck the U.S. in.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, Chairman of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, who is privy to the most secret

the imposition of additional

sanctions would be "a march toward war." A spokeswoman for the White House's National
intelligence on Iran within Congress, went so far as to warn that

Security Council concurred with her assessment.

While advocates for war would have you believe that surgical airstrikes against Iran's nuclear program would be the

Iran's government would probably feel compelled to retaliate

strongly against the U.S., potentially leading to a serious and uncontrollable
extent of U.S. engagement,

military escalation if Iran succeeded in inflicting serious pain on the U.S. Furthermore, the Iranian
government would probably resolve to rebuild, militarize, and fortify it nuclear
program against future airstrikes. Under this scenario, a U.S. invasion of Iran involving several
hundred thousand troops would be necessary to ultimately eliminate the threat. And recent history
demonstrates that even for the most powerful nation in the world, war is
a roll of the dice.

Action by congress will reverse gains, embolden hard-liners,

and make confrontation inevitable ignore hawks who dont
trust Iran
Kahl 12/31 [Colin, Associate Professor in Georgetown Universitys Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign
Service & Senior Fellow and Director of the Middle East Security Program at the Center for a New American Security,
2013, The Danger of New Iran Sanctions, http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-danger-new-iran-sanctions9651]

The Geneva interim agreement reached in November between Iran and the so-called P5+1
(the United States, Britain, China, France, Germany, and Russia) freezes Tehrans nuclear
program in exchange for modest sanctions relief, with the goal of enabling further talks to comprehensively
resolve one of the world's thorniest challenges. Yet despite the landmark accord, more than
two dozen Senators introduced legislation on December 19 to impose new oil
and financial sanctions on Iran. The Senate could vote on the measure soon after it returns from recess
in January. Powerful lobby organizations are mobilized in support of the bill, and it could certainly pass.

The legislation defies a request by the Obama administration and ten Senate
committee chairs to stand down on sanctions while negotiations continue. It also flies
in the face of an unclassified intelligence assessment that new sanctions
would undermine the prospects for a successful comprehensive nuclear

agreement with Iran. Proponents of the bill note that the proposed sanctions
would only come into force if Iran violates the Geneva agreement or fails to
move toward a final deal, and would not kick in for months. But the White House warns that
enshrining new economic threats in law now runs counter to the spirit of the
Geneva pledge of no new sanctions during negotiations, and risks empowering Iranian forces hoping to
scuttle nuclear talks. The legislation also defines congressionally acceptable parameters for a final deal that Iran
experts almost universally believe are unachievable, namely the requirement that Iran completely dismantle its
uranium enrichment program. For these reasons, the administration believes the bill represents a poison pill that
could kill diplomacy, making a nuclear-armed Iran or war more likely.

Sanctions hawks disagree, arguing that the legislation will enable, not thwart,
diplomatic progress. Current sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table, Senator Robert
Menendez, the bills leading champion, contends, and a credible threat of future sanctions will require Iran to
cooperate and act in good faith at the negotiating table.

But this logic badly misreads the historical effect of sanctions on Iranian
behavior and under-appreciates the role played by Irans fractious
domestic politics. A careful look at Iranian actions over the past decade suggests
that economic pressure has sometimes been effective, but only when it
aligns with particular Iranian political dynamics and policy preferences .
And once domestic Iranian politics are factored in, the lesson for todays
sanctions debate is clear: the threat of additional sanctions, at this critical
juncture, could derail negotiations toward a peaceful solution .
In the fall of 2003, under Irans reformist president Mohammad Khatami and his lead nuclear negotiator, nationalsecurity adviser Hassan Rouhani, the so-called E-3 (Britain, France, and Germany) persuaded Tehran to voluntarily
suspend its uranium enrichment activities. Iran also agreed to implement the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
Additional Protocol, allowing International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors more expansive access to Iranian
nuclear facilities. According to the 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate and a November 2011 IAEA report, the
Iranian regime previously halted its organized effort to design a nuclear warhead. Franois Nicoullaud, the French
ambassador to Iran during this period, suggested that Rouhani may have played a key role in convincing Supreme
Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to order the halt to Irans weaponization work.
These decisions came in the aftermath of the August 2002 revelations that Iran had constructed a secret uranium
enrichment facility at Natanz and was building a heavy water reactor at Arak. Iranian leaders feared that the IAEA
Board of Governors would refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council for violations of Irans nuclear safeguards
agreement, raising the prospect of multilateral sanctions. (In the aftermath of the initial lopsided U.S. military
victory over Saddam Husseins forces in Iraq, the Iranian regime may also have feared they would be targeted next
for pursuing weapons of mass destruction.) A year later, the parties signed the Paris Agreement, which extended
the temporary suspension of Irans nuclear activities, pending negotiation of a comprehensive framework.
In March 2005, Iran presented a proposal to the E-3 offering to cap Irans level of enrichment at 5 percent, a level
appropriate for civilian nuclear power plants but far from weapons-grade. Tehran also offered to limit the number of
operating centrifuges to 3,000 and ratify the Additional Protocol. But negotiations broke down when the E-3, backed
by the Bush administration, balked at allowing Iran to continue low-level enrichment. With the resurgence of
hardline forces, many affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, in the 2004 Iranian parliamentary
elections and the June 2005 presidential election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it became impossible for Iranian
moderates to sustain elite consensus for nuclear compromise. Moderates were accused of appeasement and
retreat, and hardliners demanded a tougher stance. Rouhani was singled out for particular derision. Hardliners
showed little concern about possible UN sanctions or U.S. military action, advocating for the abandonment of
diplomacy in favor of resistance and the creation of irreversible technological facts on the ground.
And that is exactly what happened during the Ahmadinejad period. Iran ended its temporary suspension of nuclear
activities in the summer of 2005 and resumed enrichment at Natanz in early-2006. Tehran also stopped voluntarily
implementing the Additional Protocol. Iran increasingly viewed its nuclear activities as inalienable rights, and
uranium enrichment in particular became a central symbol of national pride.
In late-2006, the UN Security Council passed the first of six resolutions imposing economic sanctions and calling on
Iran to suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities until such time that it restored the confidence of the
international community in the peaceful nature of its program. The most recent and significant of these resolutions,
negotiated by the Obama administration and passed in June 2010, set the stage for a series of crippling unilateral
U.S. sanctions, including potent provisions aimed at preventing third parties from buying Iranian oil or engaging in
transactions with Iranian banks. The European Union and other like-minded nations followed suit with similar
punishing measures. Sanctions severed Irans links to the international financial system and cut the countrys oil
exports by more than fifty percent, costing the Islamic Republic more than $80 billion in revenue since the
beginning of 2012, according to White House estimates. The value of Irans currency plummeted, and inflation,
government debt, and unemployment soared. In 2012 alone, Irans economy contracted by five percent, and the
2013 numbers are expected to be similar.

despite the escalation of sanctions during the Ahmadinejad period, Iran

did not halt its nuclear activity. On the contrary, when Ahmadinejad
entered office, Iran possessed several hundred centrifuges enriching to the 3.5
percent level, but by 2013, Iran had nearly nineteen thousand centrifuges,
Yet

including almost one thousand at the deeply buried Fordow facility (another once-secret site constructed during the
Ahmadinejad period) enriching to the much-closer-to-bomb-grade 20 percent level. In total, Iran accumulated
enough low-enriched uranium during this time to produce, if further enriched, as many as half a dozen nuclear
weapons. Iran also began installing much more advanced centrifuges at Natanz, and made substantial progress
toward making the Arak reactor operational, opening up a potential plutonium pathway to nuclear weapons.
None of this changed until the June 2013 presidential election. In a six-way race, Rouhani vanquished several more
conservative candidates, including Ahmadinejad's chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, who campaigned on
continued economic and nuclear resistance in the face of international pressure. Rouhani, in contrast, emphasized
the dangers of Irans isolation and the economic damage from sanctions. He pledged to repair relations with the
world and have a softer touch at home. Rouhanis sweeping victorywhich surprised internal and external
observers alikegave him a strong public mandate and, for the time being, implicit support from Ayatollah
Khamenei to change course.
Aware that he needed to act fast, Rouhani put together a largely technocratic unity government, including the
Western-educated foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, another member of the 2003 negotiating team, who was
given the nuclear file. Rouhani and Zarif immediately set off on a charm offensive designed to signal a more
moderate Iranian path, including a historic phone call between Rouhani and president Obama in September. The
new approach culminated in Tehrans willingness to accept the interim nuclear deal signed in Genevaa deal very
similar to one that Jalili had rejected in previous nuclear talks.

Irans behavior over the last decade clearly shows that there is no
inevitable or linear causal relationship between applying more pressure
and obtaining more concessions, as many sanctions advocates claim. Sometimes, as was
the case in the 2003-2005 period, the threat of sanctions motivated nuclear
compromise; but at other times (2006 to mid-2013), the actual imposition of
sanctions appeared to have the opposite effect. There is little doubt that
the economic deprivations produced by crippling sanctionsworsened by profound
mismanagement under Ahmadinejadcompounded popular dissatisfaction with the
regime and played a role in Rouhanis recent election. And sanctions certainly
influenced the Iranian regimes apparent willingness to move toward nuclear accommodation in Geneva. But
there is also little doubt that had Jalili become president, as some Western analysts
predicted, Tehrans nuclear intransigence would have continued despite the
same level of economic hardship.
History thus suggests that external economic pressure matters, but the balance of domestic political forces in Iran
matters at least as muchand it is the interaction between the two that matters most of all. The Islamic Republic's
authoritarian political system is not nearly as static or monolithic as many casual observers assume. Rather, it is an
arena for contestation between competing political actors and interestsand the winners of these battles can have
considerable influence over the ultimate course Iran takes. To be sure, Supreme Leader Khamenei is the most
powerful actor in the Iranian government, and he is the ultimate decider on the nuclear issue. But he is not
omnipotent or unmovable. More often than not, Khamenei stays above the political fray, waiting to weigh in on
controversial decisions until he has assessed the domestic power balance and the direction the political winds are
blowing.

Irans domestic politics matter because competing factions place different

values on the nuclear program relative to other national priorities , and they
have fundamentally divergent diplomatic and economic worldviews. Iranian moderatesincluding both
pragmatic conservatives and reformersbelieve Irans national interests are best served
by international recognition and integration. They value the countrys nuclear program,
but they also worry that pursuing nuclear weapons could ultimately leave Iran
less secure by worsening regional tensions and, by making Iran the target of sanctions, ruining the nations
economy. Consequently, they may be willing to settle for a nuclear outcom e in
which Iran maintains some distant, latent capability to develop nuclear weapons under significant international
constraints. Such a capability, in their view, would be sufficient to deter foreign adversaries if security conditions

For
pragmatists like Rouhani, that latent status was achieved once Iran mastered uranium-enrichment
deteriorate, but would not put Iran so close to an actual bomb that it results in international isolation.

technology, and they seem willing to trade away more advanced nuclear capabilities to achieve their higher-order
objectives of sanctions relief and reintegration into the international community.

In contrast, Iranian hardlinersincluding so-called Principlists and traditional clerical conservatives

do not seek integration with the wider world. They embrace a narrative that
portrays the United States, Israel and the West as unrelenting enemies
hellbent on toppling the Islamic Republic and depriving Iran of the economic and scientific
wherewithal to take its rightful place among the worlds great nations. They see resistance to the West
as the core of Irans national identity. And they view economic self-reliance and the acquisition
of a one-turn-of-the-screwdriver-away threshold nuclear capability or actual nuclear weapons as the only means

For this group, international

threats and sanctions simply vindicate their worldview , encouraging them
to escalate their own provocative counter-reactions.
of deterring Western aggression and realizing Irans regional ambitions.

In this clash of perspectives, Khamenei appears closer to the hardliners camp. But Khamenei is also concerned
about the legitimacy and survival of the system as a whole, which was badly damaged by the rigged 2009 elections
and the mishandling of foreign and economic policy during Ahmadinejads tenure. Rouhani's sweeping election
victory thus mattered not only because of the new presidents own preferences, but because the election itself
signaled to Khamemei that some policy shift was required in order to maintain domestic legitimacy. Anxious to
shore up the system, Khamenei appears willing to give Rouhani a chance to resolve the nuclear impasse, but only
so long as the president and his negotiating team do not cross the leaders red lines, especially as it relates to
defending Irans asserted right to enrichment.
If Rouhani can maintain sufficient elite consensus, Khamenei may ultimately agree to meaningfully roll back Irans
program as an act of heroic flexibility to relieve the economic pressure created by sanctions. But he will not
support total capitulation. Given the significant financial investmentestimated to be at least $100 billionand
political capital the regime has expended to master uranium enrichment, the supreme leader will not agree to
completely dismantle Irans program as many in Congress demand. Indeed, Khamenei probably fears such a
humiliation more than he fears economic collapse or targeted military strikes against his nuclear facilities. If
Khamenei senses Rouhani and Zarif are headed in that direction, he will likely pull the rug out from under continued
negotiations, regardless of U.S. threats to escalate the pressure further. And cognizant of this fact, Iranian
hardliners will seize on any sign that Rouhani is being suckered by the West to try to sway the leader's decision.

any
member of Congress truly committed to a diplomatic outcome should
recognize Americas acute interest to ensuring that Iranian moderates
maintain their fragile momentum within Irans political system. The
What does all this mean for the current debate in the Senate over new Iran sanctions? It means that

Revolutionary Guard and other hardliners are already fighting a rearguard action against the Geneva agreement,
with a war of words breaking out in recent weeks between Zarif and the Guards top commander, Major General
Mohammad Jafari, over the course of Irans nuclear and foreign policy. These same forces would undoubtedly seize
on Congressional legislation threatening new sanctions and demanding de facto nuclear surrender as the latest
example of American perfidy, using it to rebut Rouhanis claim that an accommodation with the West that protects

Hardliners have consistently argued that Iranian

compromise is just a prelude to greater U.S. pressure. Khamenei suspects this too.
Threatening new sanctions in the immediate aftermath of the first
meaningful Iranian concessions in a decade, as the proposed Senate legislation does,
risks validating that view.
The Senate bill could also lead to provocative Iranian counter-reactions at
an extraordinarily delicate moment for diplomacy. Indeed, nearly one hundred
hardline Iranian parliamentarians have already drafted legislation that
would mandate escalating enrichment to the nearly-bomb-grade 60 percent level if more
U.S. sanctions are imposed. Given thirty-five years of distrust between Tehran and Washington, it
would not take much perceived bad faith by either party to reverse the modicum
of confidence built at Geneva. It is difficult to imagine negotiations surviving such a tit-for-tat retaliatory
core Iranian interests is possible.

cycle.
Finally, Rouhanis ability to forge elite consensus for the additional concessions required for a final nuclear deal
hinges on his ability to deliver meaningful sanctions relief, not just avoid an increase in sanctions. Yet by imposing
demands that Iran completely dismantle its enrichment programwhich Khamenei, hardliners and the majority of
the Iranian public view as unacceptable capitulationprior to lifting U.S. sanctions, the proposed Senate legislation

The net effect

will be to make a comprehensive, peaceful resolution to the Iranian
nuclear crisis more difficult to achieve.
will make it extremely difficult for Rouhani to build a coalition in favor of further compromise.

In 2005, the last time Iran and the West had an opportunity for a nuclear breakthrough, Iran walked away from
negotiations on a comprehensive accord because moderates were discredited. Hardliners came to dominate the

History is not doomed to repeat itself,

but it easily could if Congress inadvertently helps the forces of
confrontation regain lost ground.
Iranian political scene and the nuclear threat grew.

Sanctions dont increase pressure for Obama theyd backfire

Kahl 12/10 [Colin, Associate Professor in Georgetown Universitys Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign
Service & Senior Fellow and Director of the Middle East Security Program at the Center for a New American Security,
2013, Why New Iran Sanctions Won't Work, http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/12/why-new-iransanctions-wont-work-100978.html#.Uuvsf_k_CQB]
The agreement struck between Iran and six world powers in Geneva last month freezes and modestly rolls back
Tehrans nuclear program in exchange for a pause in imposing new international sanctions and a suspension of

The dealdesigned to create a six-month window to negotiate a final, peaceful

solution to the nuclear disputerepresents the most meaningful step to slow Irans
march toward a nuclear weapons capability in more than a decade.
Despite the historic nature of the agreement, it has met with considerable skepticism in the
some existing penalties.

halls of Congress, where several senators have vowed to move forward with a fresh round of economic pressure on
Iran. Because Iran simply freezes its nuclear capabilities while we reduce the sanctions, New York Sen. Chuck
Schumer declared, this disproportionality makes it more likely that Democrats and Republicans will join together
and pass additional sanctions when we return in December. Sen. Marco Rubio echoed this sentiment, calling on
Congress to increase sanctions until Iran completely abandons its enrichment and reprocessing capabilities.

Sanctions proponents claim that new legislation would strengthen President

Barack Obamas hand and incentivize further Iranian concessions .
Unfortunately, the opposite is more likely the case. New sanctions are
dangerous and threaten to derail diplomacy, making a peaceful resolution
to the Iranian nuclear challenge more difficult to achieve.
Some senators are pushing for the body to take up a version of crippling sanctions legislation passed by the House
of Representatives last July as early as this week. Sens. Robert Menendez and Mark Kirk, two longtime sanctions
hawks, are crafting legislation that would aim to sharply reduce remaining Iranian oil sales and impose additional
limitations on Iranian financial transactions. The new penalties would have a deferred trigger, however, allowing
Obama to suspend their application for six months if Iran implements the Geneva agreement and ultimately
accepts more comprehensive constraints on its nuclear program.

Since no oneespecially the Iranian regimedoubts that Congress will

slap Tehran with additional penalties in six months time if it violates the
terms set at Geneva or drags its feet in continuing negotiations, the value of stating the
obvious now in legislation is unclear . But beyond being unnecessary, the move to enshrine the
threat of future sanctions is unnecessarily provocative.
Even if new sanctions do not kick in immediately, passing such legislation
now would most likely be viewed in Tehran as evidence of American bad
faith. The Geneva Joint Plan of Action says that the U.S. Administration, acting consistent with the respective
roles of the President and the Congress, will refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions for the period of

Deferred congressional sanctions may not violate the letter of the agreement,
certainly violate its spirit, providing Iranian forces hoping to
scuttle the next phase of diplomacy a prime opportunity to do so. For this reason, if Congress
the agreement.
but they most

moves forward with such legislation, Irans moderate Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has warned that
[t]he entire deal is dead.

The Revolutionary Guard and other Iranian hard-liners are deeply skeptical of the Geneva
agreement and are keen to put the brakes on further accommodation. Capitalizing on Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali
Khameneis long-standing suspicions that America is not trustworthy, is self-important and breaks its promises,
hard-liners would use new sanctions legislation to demonstrate the unrelenting hostility of the Great Satan toward
Iran. After all, they will argue, if Iranian concessions simply expose the Islamic Republic to greater Western pressure,
what is the point? Irans pragmatic President Hassan Rouhani and his lead negotiator Zarif would be put on the
defensive.
Theres a history here. A decade ago, when Rouhani was Irans nuclear negotiator, he was labeled an appeaser by
hard-line forces because he advocated Iranian concessions that went unreciprocated by the West. If Washington
responds to Irans positive moves at Geneva with a fresh round of economic threats, old battles would have to be
fought anew. Rouhani and his team would be forced to spend scarce political capital to defend the interim deal,
leaving them little in reserve to forge elite consensus for accepting more significant constraints on Irans nuclear
program in the next phase of negotiations. The chances of moderate forces maintaining their current momentum

within the Iranian system would diminish, along with the prospects of achieving a final, peaceful solution to the
Iranian nuclear challenge.

Champions of new sanctions dismiss these concerns. We consistently

hear about how we have to worry about the hard-liners in Iran. And it seems that the
Iranians get to play good cop-bad cop, Sen. Menendez recently said, but we cant. Menendez contends that new
sanctions legislation strengthens the administrations hand in negotiations by conveying to Iran [t]his is whats
coming if you dont strike a deal . But if we strike a deal, those sanctions will never go into effect.

But imagine if the situation were reversed.

Suppose the Majles, Irans legislature, passed legislation tomorrow, over Rouhanis
objections, declaring that Iran would resume and escalate its nuclear
activities in six months time if Washington failed to live up to its Geneva
commitments and agree to a final deal that fully respects Irans nuclear rights. Imagine that the
legislation threatened to resume enrichment of nearly bomb-grade 20 percent uranium
(halted by Geneva); bring all 16,000 first-generation centrifuges at the Natanz enrichment site online (only 9,000
were operating pre-Geneva) and move to install thousands more; activate the 1,000 next-generation centrifuges
currently installed at Natanz (none are operational now) and step up planned assembly of 2,000 new ones; activate
all 3,000 centrifuges at the deeply buried Fordow enrichment site (only 1,000 were spinning pre-Geneva), making
the facility fully operation for the first time; begin enriching to the even-closer-to-bomb-grade 60 percent level for
civilian naval propulsion; and significantly accelerate fuel production for the Arak plutonium reactor.

Suppose further that when asked by an Iranian reporter whether this

legislation risked undercutting diplomacy, speaker of the Majles Ali Larijani poohpoohed the notion, assuring the media that this in no way violates the
terms agreed to in Geneva. After all, Larjani would say, Iran is doing nothing now. We are simply

creating a sword of Damocles as leverage to ensure the Americans live up to their end of the bargain and accept a
final agreement that respects Irans red lines.

How would U.S. lawmakers view such a move?

Would they see it as consistent with the

letter and spirit of Geneva? Would it enhance American support for diplomacy? Would the threatened Iranian
escalation be helpful to Obama as he works to convince skeptics on Capitol Hill of the need to back continued
negotiations and support future compromise? Or would it put the administration on the defensive, confirm the worst
American suspicions about Iranian intentions, complicate diplomacy and make a confrontation over the nuclear
program more likely?

Were Tehran to pursue this course, the answers seem obvious. And if the
Senate moves forward with new sanctions nowjust as talks with Iran are finally starting
to bear fruitthe answers on the Iranian side will very likely be just as obvious.

AT: No Strikes
Israeli motive exists, Menedez lowers the threshold and green
lights attack
Lennard 13 [Natasha, assistant news editor, Senate resolution would greenlight Israeli attack, Salon, 3-1,
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/01/senate_resolution_would_greenlight_israeli_attack_on_iran/]

Senate resolution would greenlight Israeli attack

On Thursday, Ali Gharib at the Daily Beast drew attention to a resolution set to be introduced in the Senate, which

The resolution, to be
introduced by Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Robert Menendez, D-N.J., has bipartisan
declares U.S. support for an Israeli military strike against Irans nuclear program.

support and the backing of AIPAC. Via Gharib:

With prominent liberal Democrats already signing on, AIPACs lobbying heft will likely propel a bill that, in

commits the U.S. to active support of a potential

Israeli attack that experts think could have consequences as grave as further
Congressional sentiment at least,

destabilization in the region , adverse global economic consequences, and even a hardening of
Iranian resolve to get a weapon.
Although the bills supporters have stressed that it is does not advocate war or use of force,

the non-

binding resolutions language is strong. Gharib cites a passage that reads, if the
Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in self-defense,
the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide diplomatic,
military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people,

and existence.
A CIA official dismissed the resolutions geopolitical importance. He told Gharib that the discussions between the
Obama administration and the Israelis about potential military action on Iran have nothing to do with these kinds of
resolutions. However, Gharib, who has reported U.S. foreign policy and the Middle East for many years sees these
non-binding resolutions, although not policy decisions, as among the many incremental pushes that create the
conditions for conflict. He explained:

While non-binding Congressional resolutions dont directly make policy,

the language therein often manifests itself both in later, binding legislative
efforts and, more frequently, in the public discourse. In this case, the resolution builds
steam for a hawkish push against Iran at a time when the Islamic Republic and world powers
are amid a negotiating process over the formers nuclear program, which is widely believed to be aimed at
producing weapons.

with strong AIPAC support, these resolutions have in the past had
profound impact on the public discourse on Israel and Iran, in turn
impacting policy frameworks . Gharib highlights as exemplar the shift in
the U.S. red line on Iran moving from Tehran acquiring a weapon to having the capability to do
Indeed,

so:
Like a previous Graham effort, the new resolution misstates U.S. policy as to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear
weapon capability (my emphasis)phrasing the Senate overwhelmingly approved in another AIPAC-backed
measure last September.

The capability language sets a lower threshold for war

than Barack Obamas stated policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, fullstopa distinction at the
heart of Obamas flaplast autumn with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Sanctions collapse the deal, cause Israeli strikes

Keller 12/11/13 - Former New York Times Executive Editor and currently an Op-Ed columnist (Bill, Irans

Hardliners, and Ours New York Times, http://keller.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/11/irans-hardliners-and-ours/?_r=0)

Americas hawks, in turn, would suffer a serious blow to their bellicose notion
of Americas role if the evilest spoke in the Axis of Evil turned out to be amenable to diplomacy.
And so a failure of negotiations would delight both of them American hawks
because Israel could get on with the business of bombing , Iranian hawks because
theres nothing like an attack by the infidels to unify a fractious public behind an authoritarian regime.

our hard-liners pose a greater problem than Irans . The moves

on Capitol Hill to impose new sanctions before the interim deal even takes
effect may pass for tough-mindedness, but they are effectively sabotage. They would
undermine President Rouhanis precarious position at home. Paradoxically, they
could also endanger the cooperation Obama has painstakingly earned
from the other nuclear powers, and lead to the collapse of the global
sanctions. We would lose a united front (which includes China and Russia) against the
nuclearization of Iran, and demonstrate that Iranian hardliners are right
about what really motivates Washington.
For the moment,

Both the US and Israel will strike if talks collapse

Kearn 1/19/14 - Assistant Professor, St. Johns University (David, Huffington Post, The Folly of New Iran
Sanctions, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-w-kearn/the-folly-of-new-iran-san_b_4619522.html)

The clear
commitment of the Obama administration to thwart Tehran from acquiring a
nuclear weapon has been in place for some time. Containment is not an
option, and military force will ostensibly be used to prevent an Iranian nuclear
weapon from becoming operational . Despite this commitment, the Israeli
government has consistently expressed its willingness to act alone to stop
an Iranian bomb even without U.S. support. While hardliners in Tel Aviv and Washington may
not agree, these are both credible threats that the regime in Tehran must take seriously. Thus , the situation
confronting Iran and the world is either the peaceful negotiated solution
to the nuclear question, or the high likelihood of another destructive,
costly war in a region already torn apart by conflict.
Nonetheless, this debate has effectively been made moot by official U.S. and Israeli policies.

The current sanctions bill in the Senate is not about providing President Obama and Secretary Kerry with greater
leverage in the negotiations. The Iranian delegation has made clear that it views any such sanctions as an
indication of bad faith that will wreck the process and undo any progress made to this point. With the interim
agreement set to go into effect next week, this is clearly not the time for the Senate to usurp the authority of the
commander-in-chief and his chief diplomat. Taking their respective rationales at face value, the Democratic
members of the Senate supporting the sanctions legislation may have good intentions to provide a stronger "bad

New sanctions will not only

play into the narrative of hard-liners in Iran who don't want agreement, it will also
isolate the United States from its negotiating partners and likely cripple
the cohesive united front that has seemingly emerged throughout the
talks. In doing so, it is most likely to fulfill the wishes of hardliners in Israel and
the United States that simply don't want an agreement and refuse to take any "yes" for an answer. However,
with a failure of negotiations, military conflict is much more likely .
cop" to Secretary Kerry's "good cop" in Geneva. This is short-sighted.

No defenseIsraeli anxiety is extreme and even defensive

measures escalate
Ehud Eiran 13 is an Assistant Professor at the University of Haifa and an Affiliate of the Middle East
Negotiation Initiative at the Program on Negotiation, Harvard Law School. Eiran is also a former Assistant to the
Foreign Policy Advisor to Israels Prime Minister. The Sum of all Fears: Israels Perception of a Nuclear-Armed Iran,
http://live.belfercenter.org/files/thesumofallfears.pdf, The Washington Quarterly 36:3 pp. 7789

Israel not only has a particular view of the threat posed by the military
dimension of the Iranian nuclear program, it also has an independent means of
First,

taking action to alleviate its fears. Although Israel is less capable than the United States, if
Israel were to launch strikes on Iran to set back the nuclear program, the effects
would ripple across the region and beyond. Meir Dagan, former head of Israels external
intelligence agency, the Mossad, warned a number of times that an Israeli attack on Iran would ignite a regional
war.1

Second,

Israels anxieties over Iran could produce a series of defensive

moves and escalating responses which spiral out of control in a manner

that neither side intends. As the history of war and conflict in the Middle
East from the June 1967 Six-Day War to the November 2012 round of violence between Israel
and the Gaza-based Hamas reminds us, the Middle East is a tinderbox
where a few sparks could all too easily ignite a major conflagration .
Finally, as President Obamas March 2013 visit to Israel demonstrated, Israels fears of Iran have
become an inescapable and urgent concern for U.S. policy in the Middle East. Given
the U.S.Israeli friendship, President Obama will need to pay close attention to these sensitivities toward Iran. A
clear understanding of Israeli perceptions of Iran will remain essential to U.S.
policy toward Tehran.

They overlook Israeli calculationsthey THINK theyll succeed

Sadot 12/30/13 (Uri, research associate at the Council on Foreign Relations and holds a masters degree in
international affairs from Princeton University, A Raid on Iran?, Weekly Standard, VOL. 19, NO. 16,
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/raid-iran_771518.html?page=1)

history shows
that Israels military capabilities are typically underestimated . The I srael
American analysts are divided on Israels ability to take effective military action. However,

D efense F orces keep finding creative ways to deceive and cripple their
targets by leveraging their qualitative advantages in manners that confound not only skeptical
observers but also, and more important, Israels enemies. Military triumphs like the SixDay War of June 1967 and the 1976 raid on Entebbe that freed 101 hostages are popular Israeli lore for good
reasonthese miraculous victories were the result of assiduously planned,
rehearsed, and well-executed military operations based on the elements of surprise,

deception, and innovation, core tenets of Israeli military thinking. Inscribed on one of the walls of the IDFs officer
training academy is the verse from Proverbs 24:6: For by clever deception thou shalt wage war. And this has been
the principle driving almost all of Israels most successful campaigns, like the 1981 bombing of Iraqs nuclear
reactor, the 1982 Bekaa Valley air battle, and the 2007 raid on Syrias plutonium reactor, all of which were thought

yet in spite of Israels record, some

American experts remain skeptical about Israels ability to do anything about Irans nuclear
improbable, if not impossible, until Israel made them reality. And

weapons facilities. Even the most optimistic assessments argue that Israel can only delay the inevitable. As a
September 2012 report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies contends: Israel does not have the
capability to carry out preventive strikes that could do more than delay Irans efforts for a year or two. An attack, it
continued, would be complex and high risk in the operational level and would lack any assurances of a high
mission success rate. Equally cautious is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, who
argued that while Israel has the capability to strike Iran and to delay the production or the capability of Iran to
achieve a nuclear weapons status, such a strike would only delay the program for a couple of years. The most
pessimistic American assessments contend that Israel is all but neutered. Former director of the CIA Michael
Hayden, for instance, said that airstrikes capable of seriously setting back Irans nuclear program are beyond

Part of the reason that Israeli and American assessments

diverge is the difference in the two countries recent military histories and
political cultures. While the American debate often touches on the limits of
military power and its ability to secure U.S. interests around the globe, the Israeli debate is
narrower, befitting the role of a regional actor rather than a superpower ,
and focuses solely on Israels ability to provide for the security of its citizens at
Israels capacity.

home. That is to say, even if Israel and the United States saw Iran and its nuclear arms program in exactly the same

an accurate understanding of how

Israelis see their own recent military history provides an important insight
into how Israels elected leaders and military officials view the IDFs
abilities regarding Iran. Any account of surprise and deception as key elements in Israeli military
light, there would still be a cultural gap. Accordingly,

history has to start with the aerial attack that earned Israel total air supremacy over its adversaries in the June 1967
war. Facing the combined Arab armies, most prominently those of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, Israels Air Force was
outnumbered by a ratio of 3 planes to 1. Nonetheless, at the very outset of the war, the IAF dispatched its jets at a
time when Egyptian pilots were known to be having breakfast. Israeli pilots targeted the enemys warplanes on their

runways, and in two subsequent waves of sorties, destroyed the remainder of the Egyptian Air Force, as well as
Jordans and most of Syrias. Within six hours, over 400 Arab planes, virtually all of the enemys aircraft, were in
flames, with Israel losing only 19 planes. Israels sweeping military victory over the next six days was due to its
intimate familiarity with its enemys operational routinesand to deception. For instance, just before the actual
attack was launched, a squad of four Israeli training jets took off, with their radio signature mimicking the activity of
multiple squadrons on a training run. Because all of Israels 190 planes were committed to the operation, those four
planes were used to make the Egyptians believe that the IAF was simply training as usual. The IAFs stunning
success was the result not only of intelligence and piloting but also of initiative and creativity, ingredients that are
nearly impossible to factor into standard predictive models. The 1981 raid on Iraqs nuclear reactor at Osirak is
another example of Israels ability to pull off operations that others think it cant. The success caught experts by
surprise because every assessment calculated that the target was out of the flight range of Israels newly arrived F16s. The former deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassy in Israel Bill Brown recounted that on the day after the
attack, I went in with our defense attach, Air Force Colonel Pete Hoag, to get a briefing from the chief of Israeli
military intelligence. He laid out how they had accomplished this mission. ... Hoag kept zeroing in on whether they
had refueled the strike aircraft en route, because headquarters of the U.S. Air Force in Washington wanted to know,
among other things, how in the world the Israelis had refueled these F-16s. The chief of Israeli military intelligence
kept saying: We didnt refuel. For several weeks headquarters USAF refused to believe that the Israelis could
accomplish this mission without refueling. Washington later learned that Israels success came from simple and
creative field improvisations. First, the pilots topped off their fuel tanks on the tarmac, with burners running, only
moments before takeoff. Then, en route, they jettisoned their nondetachable fuel drop tanks to reduce air friction
and optimize gas usage. Both these innovations involved some degree of risk, as they contravened safety protocols.
However, they gave the Israeli jets the extra mileage needed to safely reach Baghdad and return, and also to gain
the element of surprise by extending their reach beyond what the tables and charts that guided thinking in
Washington and elsewhere had assumed possible. Surprise won Israel a similar advantage one year later in the
opening maneuvers of the 1982 invasion of Lebanon. For students of aerial warfare, the Bekaa Valley air battle is
perhaps Israels greatest military maneuver, even surpassing the June 1967 campaign. On June 9, Israel destroyed
the entire Soviet-built Syrian aerial array in a matter of hours. Ninety Syrian MiGs were downed and 17 of 19
surface-to-air missile batteries were put out of commission, while the Israeli Air Force suffered no losses. The brutal
and for Israel, still controversialnature of the Lebanon war of which this operation was part dimmed its shine in
popular history, but the operation is still studied around the world. At the time it left analysts dumbfounded. The
1982 air battle was the culmination of several years worth of tension on Israels northern border. Israel was
concerned that Syrias deployment of advanced aerial defense systems in Lebanons Bekaa Valley would limit its
freedom to operate against PLO attacks from Lebanon. When Syria refused to pull back its defenses and U.S.
mediation efforts failed, Israel planned for action. Although Israel was widely understood to enjoy a qualitative
advantage, no one could have imagined the knockout blow it was about to deliver. Israel launched its aerial
campaign on the fourth day of the offensive, commencing with a wave of unmanned proto-drones that served as
decoys to trigger the Syrian radars. Rising to the bait, the aerial defense units launched rockets and thus exposed
their locations to Israels artillery batteries and air-to-ground missiles. In parallel, Israel used advanced electronic
jammers to further incapacitate Syrian radars, which cleared the path for the IAFs fighter-bombers to attack the
remaining missile launchers. When Syrian pilots scrambled for their planes, their communications had already been
severed and their radars blinded. Israeli pilots later noted the admirable bravery of their Syrian counterparts,
whom they downed at a ratio of 90 to 0. A RAND report later concluded that Israels success was due not to its
technological advantage. The Syrians were simply outflown and outfought by vastly superior Israeli opponents. ...
The outcome would most likely have been heavily weighted in Israels favor even had the equipment available to
each side been reversed. At bottom, the Syrians were ... [defeated] by the IDFs constant retention of the
operational initiative and its clear advantages in leadership, organization, tactical adroitness, and adaptability. In

And
then there is Israels most recent high-profile conflict with Syria . When
Israeli intelligence discovered that Bashar al-Assads regime was building a
plutonium reactor in the northeast Syrian Desert, Israeli and American leaders disagreed on the
best course of action. Israels then-prime minister Ehud Olmert argued for a military solution ,
other words, Israel won because of its creative and skillful orchestration of a well-organized fighting force.

while the Bush administration feared the risks, demurred, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pushed to take

The Israelis, however, confident in their cyberwarfare

capabilities, knew they could disable Syrias air defenses . Moreover, as careful
the matter to the U.N.

students of Syrian decision-making, they believed they could destroy the reactor without triggering a costly reaction

Israel once again overturned the expert

predictions and assessments of others and successfully destroyed the
Syrian reactor at Al Kibar. With Iran, American and Israeli leaders once again disagree on what might
be gained by a military strike. While the American debate is riddled with doubts
about the efficacy of force, Israeli experts harbor far fewer doubts. As
former chief of military intelligence Amos Yadlin asserts unequivocally: It
can be done. There are some Israeli strategists less optimistic, but the nature of their dissent is
from Assad. And on September 6, 2007,

fundamentally different from that of American skeptics. U.S. policymakers and analysts question Israels ability to

Israelis largely
believe they can take effective military action. The question for Israeli
strategists is at what cost? A 2012 IAF impact evaluation report predicted
300 civilian casualties in the event of an Iranian retaliatory missile attack .
Former defense minister Ehud Barak offered a higher number, contending
that open conflict with Iran would claim less than 500 Israeli casualties .
strike, or how far even the most successful strike might set back Irans nuclear program, but

Responding to Baraks relatively optimistic assessment, onetime Mossad director Meir Dagan argued instead that
an attack on Iran would take a heavy toll in terms of loss of life and would paralyze life in Israel. Regardless of the
number of potential casualties, the frank discussion of what an attack on Iran might cost Israel in human lives is an

Israel has also devoted

material resources to the eventuality of a military campaign against the
regime in Tehran. According to Ehud Olmert, Israel has spent over $10 billion on preparations for a
essential part of preparing the country, and steeling it, for the possibility of war.

potential showdown with Iran. Weve worked long and hard to prepare ourselves, former IDF chief of staff Gabi
Ashkenazi said recently. Israel, he added, will be able to deal with the consequences of a military attack on Iran.
The question of how exactly Israel might act to stop the Iranian nuclear program is an open one. In part, thats
because its hard to know how Israeli strategists see the problem or might reconfigure the working paradigm. The
basic operational assumption is that Israel would attack from the air, but who knows? If the goal is to slow down
Irans nuclear program, there are other ways to do it, perhaps by targeting Irans economy, its powergrid, its oil
fields, or the regime itself. Or military action might not take the form of an aerial attack at all, but rather a
commando heist of Irans uranium. Recall the raid on Entebbe: With commandos operating 2,000 miles from Israels
borders disguised as a convoy carrying the Ugandan leader Idi Amin, that 1976 operation, like many of Israels air

What is certain, howeverwhat

many historical precedents make clearis that it would be an error of the
first order to dismiss Israels ability to take meaningful military action
against Iran. Israel has left its enemies, as well as American policymakers
and military experts, surprised in the past, and it may very well do so
again.
triumphs, combined strategic surprise with tactical deception.

AT: Waivers
Gardner 1/9 [Timothy, Staff Writer for Reuters, 2014, Senate majority support Iran sanctions bill opposed
by Obama, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/09/us-usa-senate-iran-idUSBREA0811X20140109]

Waivers destroy the deal

Parsi 2/18 [Trita, President of the National Iranian American Council, 2014, US-Iran deal: Compromise is
Key, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/02/us-iran-deal-compromise-key-201421845935181913.html]

the utility of waivers is

questionable due to the proportionality principle established in the Istanbul talks in the spring of 2012.
Obama can temporarily waive Congressional sanctions, but

Reversible Western concessions, the Istanbul talks established, will have to be exchanged for reversible Iranian
measures and vice versa.

To extract irreversible concessions, similarly irreversible

measures have to be offered.

Sanctions waivers are fundamentally reversible. They usually last only six months and have to be
actively renewed by the president - including by whoever occupies the White House after 2016.

If Obama can only offer Iran waivers , Tehran will likely respond in kind. Its
implementation of the Additional Protocol - a pivotal transparency instrument - would be time limited and subject to
continuous renewal (just like the waivers) rather than being permanent.

This is tantamount to

adding a self-destruction mechanism to the deal . Such a deal is harder to sell, and even
harder to keep. To be durable, the deal must have strong elements of
permanence to it, which requires irreversible measures. It is foreseeable that waivers could be used
during the first phase of the implementation of a final deal; partly to test Iranian intentions, partly because actually
lifting sanctions can take years.

Waiving new ones still collapses diplomacy, causes war

Costello 12/19 [Ryan, Policy Fellow at the National Iranian American Council, 2013,To Boost Leverage
with Iran, Give Obama a Sanctions Kill Switch, http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/boost-leverage-iran-giveobama-sanctions-kill-switch-9591]
This stance puts Menendez and others in open opposition to the president and our nations negotiators. As the
White House has made clear,

if Congress passes new sanctions even if they include

waivers to delay implementationboth Iran and the international

community would see the United States as violating the terms and faith of the
agreement. After the deal collapses, Iran would once again have an
unconstrained nuclear program, we would lose our unprecedented inspections regime, and the
U.S. and Iran would be back on a pathway to war.
The chief leverage that the U.S. and other members of the P5+1 have in negotiations is not unending
sanctions, but sanctions relief . Since 1979, the United States, European Union and UN Security
Council, for a variety of purposes, have levied more than thirty separate sanctions on Iran. However, the United
States has led the charge. Most of Americas unilateral sanctions on Iran are codified via both Executive Order and
Congressional legislation. That includes nine separate Congressional sanctions, including measures targeting Irans
oil and financial sectors that are the most valuable relief we can offer. As a result, it is extraordinarily difficult to
unwind the sanctions on a permanent basis because the president cannot do so unilaterallyhe would need
Congressional support

The bill seeks to cut Iran's oil exports to zero two years after implementation. It also
puts limits on the Obama administration's ability to waive sanctions .
A group of 72 conservative foreign policy experts , including Elliot Abrams, an aide to
former President George W. Bush, and former Senator Joe Lieberman, wrote a letter to congressional leaders on
Thursday urging them to act to halt Iran's nuclear program .
Earlier in the week, a group of nine bipartisan foreign affairs experts including Ryan Crocker, a former ambassador
to Iraq and Afghanistan, urged Menendez and Kirk not to pass the
potentially

new sanctions , saying they could

move the
United
States closer
to war
.
New
bill limits
Obamas
ability
to do it

NEGOther Bills

Immigration

Will Pass
Immigration reform will pass
Sherfinski 2/25 [David, Staff Writer for the Washington Times, 2014, Grover Norquist: Well See Some
Sort Of Immigration Reform Happen, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/25/grover-norquist-well-seesome-sort-immigration-ref/]

Anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist predicted Tuesday that some sort of immigration
reform will pass Congress , arguing that the United States immigration policy separates America
from China and the rest of the world in the modern economy.

There are a handful of elements to reform some of which could move

sooner than others, said Mr. Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform.
I think we should have a guest worker program for sure we should take quality guys
that come here and get Ph.D.s, we should hand them a Visa and say you want to stay and work? Wed love to have
you stay here and start companies, Mr. Norquist said on CSPANs Washington Journal. Forty percent of our
Fortune 500 companies are run by either immigrants or the sons or daughters of immigrants, so immigration brings
a lot of talent, a lot of opportunity.
Its what makes the United States dynamic versus the rest of the world, Mr.
Norquist continued.
The reason were the future and China isnt is [because] we do immigration and have a growing population and a
more vibrant one. [Theres] a lot of whining that goes on during this process, but we watched 50 years ago and 100
years ago when our parents showed up, or got whined at, and now were whining about the new guys. But in point

I think that well see some sort of reform because we need to do

something, he said.
of fact,

Mr. Norquist specifically mentioned that something should be done to address so-called Dreamers, or children of
illegal immigrants brought to the country by their parents.
He is the second high-profile advocate in two days to make the business case for increased immigration, following
remarks Monday from U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Thomas J. Donohue.
Immigrants do not typically compete with Americans for jobs, and, in fact, create more jobs through
entrepreneurship, economic activity, and tax revenues, Mr. Donohue said. Immigrants serve as a complement to
U.S.-born workers and can help fill labor shortages across the skill spectrum and in key sectors.

The U.S. Senate passed a broad rewrite of U.S. immigration laws last
summer, a key feature of which would provide an eventual pathway to
citizenship for the estimated 11 million illegal aliens currently in the country.
House Speaker John A. Boehner , Ohio Republican, has expressed interest in taking a
piecemeal approach on the issue and dealing with individual items like
border security, but said the effort has stalled because of a lack of trust among the GOP that President
Obama will enforce the countrys laws.

Immigration will pass now business lobby push

Kim 2/25 [Seung Min, Assistant Editor for Politico, 2014, Chamber Of Commerce Urges Action On
Immigration, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/chamber-of-commerce-immigration-reform-103939.html]

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce increased pressure on House Republicans to make

a move on immigration reform on Tuesday, sending them a letter from more
than 600 businesses and other groups urging lawmakers to pass an overhaul this year.
The powerful business lobby spearheaded the letter, which applauded
House GOP leaders for releasing a set of reform principles last month. The
businesses called on Republicans to build on that, saying: We can and must do better
for our economy and country by modernizing our immigration system.
Failure

to act is not an option, the letter reads. We cannot afford to be content and
watch a dysfunctional immigration system work against our overall national
interest. In short, immigration reform is an essential element of a jobs agenda and economic growth. It will add
talent, innovation, investment, products, businesses, jobs, and dynamism to our economy.

the letter is signed by 246 businesses nationwide, as

well as 390 business-oriented organizations.
A chamber spokeswoman said

Conservatives advocating for an immigration overhaul have so far declined to engage in adversarial tactics favored

the Chamber has stepped up its

public advocacy efforts.
In addition to Tuesdays letter, Chamber President Tom Donohue penned an opinion piece Monday
that was set to run in the Weekly Standard and the Washington Examiner, press ing Congress on
by progressives in the reform movement. But in recent days,

overhauling the nations immigration laws.

Immigration will pass now discharge petition

Kim 2/25 [Seung Min, Assistant Editor for Politico, 2014, Democrats' Immigration Gambit,
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/immigration-reform-democrats-103936.html?hp=t1]

Hill Democrats and immigration reform advocates are almost certain theyll have to
resort to a rare procedural move to try to force a vote on an overhaul this year.
The tricky part is deciding when to pull the trigger.
Though aides say no decision has been made, House Democratic leaders are strategizing on
when to deploy whats known as a discharge petition, which would have to garner a majority of
lawmakers signatures to force immigration legislation onto the House floor for a vote.

Advocates of the gambit are aiming to increase the pressure on Republicans

who have so far resisted moving on reform this year. But the pro-reform coalition is
split over the timing of the discharge effort with some urging lawmakers to take it up immediately and others
advising them to hold off.

Democrats wont try to advance the Senates comprehensive

version essentially mirrors the Senate bill with a pathway to
citizenship for the nations undocumented immigrants, but the House Democratic bid
One thing is certain, however: House
immigration overhaul. Their

scales back the Senates border-security provisions.

its likely to happen, a Democratic leadership aide said of the discharge petition effort. I think
people just want to make sure the groups are in the right place.
Even if they do forge ahead, there is no illusion among Democrats that such an effort would succeed. A
discharge petition needs 218 signatures the majority of the full House to succeed. If
all 199 sitting Democrats sign on far from guaranteed that means petition backers
have the herculean task of swaying 19 Republicans to join their effort.
I think

But success of a discharge petition isnt the only goal.

Democrats and advocates are banking on the tactic creating yet another way for lawmakers, activists and voters to
compel Republicans to act particularly those more amenable to immigration reform. One source close to Sen.
Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who endorsed the strategy recently, laid out his thinking:

Put enough pressure

on key House Republicans that they turn to their own leadership to urge
them to move on immigration

even if a discharge petition fails to get the

appropriate number of signatures. Schumer is hoping for a discharge effort sometime before May.
Ultimately, a discharge petition may not be the tool that causes the Republican leadership to let the majority vote,
but it

increases the pressure, which is what we need, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) said.

Minimum Wage

Will Pass
Minimum wage increase will pass
Crittenden and Peterson 2/25 [Michael and Kristina, Staff Writers for the Wall Street Journal
Washington Wire, 2014, Sen. Harkin Predicts Passage of Minimum Wage Bill,
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/02/25/sen-harkin-predicts-passage-of-minimum-wage-bill/]
The Senate author of legislation to boost the federal minimum wage predicted

Congress will pass an

increase before November , though Democrats in the House and Senate

are taking different paths to press the issue.
Sen. Tom Harkin (D., Iowa), who has authored a measure to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 from the current
$7.25 level, told reporters he was willing to compromise with Republicans to
help it garner bipartisan support. He cautioned, however, that he wouldnt budge on the amount
of the increase.
If you dont like $10.10 then what youre saying in effect is, I want a minimum wage whereby if you work full time
in a job youre going to be below poverty, Mr. Harkin said following Senate Democrats weekly caucus lunch.

His position was backed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), who said he was
not willing to compromise on the $10.10 level.
Not with me, Mr. Reid said when asked about the possibility of negotiating to a lower rate.

The White House and congressional Democrats have made the minimum
wage the centerpiece of their political messaging ahead of Novembers mid-term
elections. Senate aides have said the chamber could hold multiple votes on the
issue in the coming months, while House Democrats are trying to use
procedural tactics to force House Republicans to hold a vote on the issue. House
Republicans havent shown much enthusiasm for taking up action, particularly absent Senate movement on the bill.
Mr. Reid hasnt yet formally set date to consider minimum wage, but is now expected to bring it up after the
Senates next recess, which ends March 21, a senior Senate Democratic aide said. Senate leaders want to keep the
focus on efforts to reach a deal on restoring lapsed emergency jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed
during the next three weeks and plan to ramp up attention on minimum wage after that, the aide said.
House

Democrats hope to use a so-called discharge petition to overcome

GOP opposition and require a vote on minimum-wage legislation. House

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) and other top Democrats plan to speak publicly Wednesday about the
effort, which would require roughly 20 Republicans to buck their leadership and sign with Democrats on the issue.

Harkin said hes optimistic the minimum wage will eventually be raised.
I believe firmly that before the elections take place this year we will have an
increase in the minimum wage that gets us above the poverty line , Mr. Harkin
Mr.

said.

Ukraine

Wont Pass
Ukraine aid package wont passPC key to hold off hardliners
bill collapses US-Russia relations
McGregor and Dyer 2/25 [Richard and Geoff, Staff Writers for the Financial Times, 2014,
Washington Hawks Urge Tougher Stance on Ukraine, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/bcd4deec-9dca-11e3-83c500144feab7de.html#axzz2uLw5EhUb]

When Ukraine was teetering on the edge of civil war last week , Barack
Obama declared that the US was not engaged in a cold war chess game
with Russia over the countrys future.

In the tumultuous days since, Washington has been at pains to send the
same message, insisting its support for Ukraines rebels and other countries once in
the Soviet orbit, like Georgia, was not part of some zero-sum game with Russia , in the
words of a senior administration official.
We dont believe the decision of these countries to pursue a European path should preclude them from having
productive relations with Moscow, the official said.

The line may become harder to maintain , however, as demands rise on the
US to back an aggressive financial package for Ukraine and hawks on Capitol
Hill

push for a tougher line from a president they regard as a passive player at a

grand historical moment.

McCain, a Republican senator, reinforced his

view that Mr Obama remained naive about Vladimir Putin, his Russian counterpart.
Stepping off an aircraft from Ukraine late on Monday, John

One of the things the US president could do is to make a statement publicly and privately to our friend Vladimir
that any interference in Ukraine would have the most serious repercussions, he said.
Susan Rice, Mr Obamas national security adviser, did publicly warn at the weekend that it would be a grave
mistake for Russian troops to intervene in Ukraine but, by and large,

the administration is playing

down the potential for further confrontation

with Russia.

The US has also carefully calibrated its statements on financial assistance for Ukraine, to ensure they do not get
ahead of Europe and the ongoing negotiations in Kiev with the International Monetary Fund.
With difficult issues like Iran and Syria on its foreign policy frontburner, many in Washingtons policy making
firmament see Europe as the natural frontrunner for the wests response to Ukraine.
Europes ability to lead strongly will be an important test of whether it can still act externally with all the problems

Summers, the former Treasury secretary.

sketched an expansive potential programme for Ukraine
with an ambition of the kind heard little in Washington, involving the World Bank and
of the eurozone, said Lawrence
But Mr Summers also

the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, with reforms to government finances, social safety nets
and the private sector.
Historically, there is much more risk of doing too little too slowly than there is of doing too much too fast in terms

said. There has to be strong tangible support so that

people can see it on the ground.
The administrations restraint is tied to its reliance on Russian coof providing support, he

operation in the nuclear talks with Iran and its hope to eventually persuade
Moscow to withdraw support for the Assad regime in Syria.

AFFSpecifics

Immigration

Wont Pass
Wont pass and XO solves
AV 2/25 [Americas Voice, Immigration News, 2014, When Discussing Immigration Reform, Three Factors
President Obama and Speaker Boehner Should Keep in Mind, http://americasvoice.org/blog/when-discussingimmigration-reform-three-factors-president-obama-and-speaker-boehner-should-keep-in-mind/]

Theres little chance that immigration reform will be easier in 2015 for
Despite the wishful thinking of some Republicans and the President
himself, the notion that Republicans can block immigration reform in 2014
and successfully take it up in 2015 when they hope to have both the House and the Senate
is a pipedream. First, the GOP presidential primary season will highlight the
1)

Republicans:

partys divisions and make it highly unlikely that Republicans in Congress

will develop a unified approach. As Senator John McCain (R-AZ) recently said, To wait until
2015 when were involved in Republican primaries, obviously, would not be a viable scenario. And the
Wall Street Journal recently editorialized that the opponents will raise the same furor whenever
it comes up, and Democrats will be less likely to compromise figuring they can
use the issue to drive minority voter turnout in 2016. Moreover, few
Democrats are likely to sign on to any immigration bills drafted by
Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee leaders such as Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and
Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX). The predictable result of inaction this year? The next time broad
immigration reform has a serious chance of gaining traction is on the other
side of the 2016 elections.
2) By blocking immigration this year, Republicans are risking an electoral tsunami in 2016: If Speaker Boehner and
the House Republicans block reform this year, they may well squander an historic opportunity to shape immigration
reform policy and win much-needed credit with key voting groups. Moreover, they would be setting themselves up
for a disastrous 2016 electoral cycle. As John Feehery, a former House leadership aide and current Republican
consultant, recently noted, If we dont pass immigration reform this year, we will not win the White House back in
2016, 2020 or 2024. In addition, Republicans will be defending 24 Senate seats in 2016 seven in states carried
by Obama while Democrats need only to defend 10 seats. Some experts are suggesting the possibility of a
filibuster-proof majority for Senate Democrats. And in an election year in which the voting population swells by a
third especially with Latino, Asian American, immigrant and youth voters 2016 will present an opportunity for
Democrats to take the House, too.

pressure on President Obama to roll back deportations will only intensify, and
Republican inaction combined with movement pressure will likely compel
him to take bold executive action , and soon: As a number of articles highlight, activists are
increasingly turning their energy toward pressuring President Obama and the
White House to suspend deportations and grant work permits to millions of
immigrants. In 2010 Republicans blocked the DREAM Act, in 2011 advocates pressured the President to take
3) The

administrative action and in 2012 he provided relief to more than a half million Dreamers through a program called
DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). Republicans are setting up a similar scenario should they block
reform this year. As Tamar Jacoby, a longtime pro-immigration reform advocate on the center-right, recently said in
response to a question about the growing demand for Obama to take unilateral action:

This is not a new

playbook. If Congress goes home in October without taking action,

Obamas in a position to do what he did last time around. Instead of letting
Republicans off the hook, the increased focus on the President and the potential for executive action sets up the
worst case political scenario for the GOP: it would further inject immigration into the Republican presidential
primary cycle; it would make it clear which party is on the side of Latino, Asian-American and immigrant voters
the fastest growing groups of voters in the nation; and it would box the Republican Party in politically much like
President Obamas DACA announcement did in June 2012.

Iran

Reid Blocks
No vote and Reid blocks
McAuliff 2/26 [Michael, Staff Writer for the Huffington Post, 2014, Top Foreign Relations Republican
Predicts Iran Sanctions Won't Get A Vote, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/26/bob-corker-iransanctions_n_4861429.html]

The top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is admitting

that the GOP push to attach Iran sanctions to a veterans benefits bill will not
succeed.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) are leading the effort to pass new
Iran sanctions, even though the White House has warned that such a move could make war more likely.

Obama administration has little to worry about, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) suggested
Wednesday.
" It doesn't look to me like we're going to get a vote ," Corker told several reporters on
The

Capitol Hill.

Democrats have signaled support for new sanctions, but Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid (D-Nev.) backed away from taking a vote, deferring to White House concerns that it
could harm ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran. Reid has criticized the Republican
attempt to force a vote on sanctions as politicizing the issue. Besides the veterans bill, GOP
senators tried earlier in the week to attach sanctions to measures aimed
at curbing sexual assault in the military.
Many

Corker declined to criticize that effort, saying the matter needs to be debated, but he offered no endorsement of his
colleagues' specific tactic.
"I think Congress weighing in strongly, in some form or fashion, on the biggest foreign policy issue we have
underway right now kind of makes sense. It's kind of what you do when you're in the United States Senate," Corker
said. "Whether it's exactly this piece of legislation or whether it's something else, I think it makes sense for
Congress to weigh in."

The key goal, he suggested, is to make clear what will trigger tougher U.S.
sanctions should Iran continue to develop nuclear weapons capabilities.
"I think there are very legitimate concerns about the sanctions dissipating, and you never end up with a deal and
have a series of rolling agreements," Corker said. " To

us, the most important element is to

define what the end has to be," he added. "As their economy begins to recover,
which it is ... we're going to lose the traction that we have on this issue. "

Reid blocks the bill

Everett 2/26 [Burgess, Congressional Reporter for Politico, 2014, Harry Reid Blocks GOP on Iran
Sanctions, http://www.politico.com/reporters/BurgessEverett.html]
Senate Majority Leader Harry

Reid is blocking a vote on Iran sanctions demanded by

Republicans.
The GOP rolled fresh economic penalties on Iran into their alternative to
Democrats veterans benefits bill, pressing for Congress to weigh in on diplomatic talks between
Senate

global powers and Iran on scaling back the countrys nuclear program.

Reid moved to cut off debate on the bill and block

consideration of amendments to the legislation, dimming any chance of a n
immediate vote on Iran sanctions.
Senate Democrats have largely backed away from calling for an immediate vote on
On Wednesday evening,

imposing Iran sanctions if the country breaks off ongoing negotiations or doesnt adhere to a current, interim

But Republicans have continued to press for a vote on sanctions

legislation written by Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), proposing it
agreement.

be voted on as an amendment to a 2013 defense bill, as a condition for voting on

military sexual assault legislation and as an amendment to the veterans bill.
There is no excuse for muzzling the Congress on an issue of this importance to our own national security, to the
security of Israel our closest ally in the Middle East and to international stability, said Minority Leader Mitch
McConnell (R-Ky.) on Wednesday morning. This is that rare issue that should unite the two parties in common
purpose. And theres no question that it would, if the majority leader would simply drop his reflexive deference to a
president whose foreign policy is focused on withdrawing from our overseas commitments.
But

Reid has sided with President Barack Obama on Iran, heeding the presidents

warning

that any vote on Iran sanctions even conditional ones as suggested by McConnell would shatter

The Democratic leader blamed Republicans for using

sanctions as cover for their opposition to the veterans bill and for turning
Iran into a partisan issue.
delicate diplomatic talks.

2AC Deal Fails

Zero chance of an effective Iran deal they wont give up their
nukes
JPost 1/21 [Jerusalem Post, Decent News Website, 2014 Iranian Nukes,
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Iranian-nukes-338944]

While Irans gestures are a positive development, there is a long way to

go before its nuclear weapons project is put on ice . Most actions the
Iranians have undertaken are quite reversible and the most difficult
issues have been postponed to a final agreement.
The Obama administration unlike Israel, the Saudis and other Gulf states is willing to accept
Tehrans demand to keep some uranium enrichment capability.
Nevertheless, the US is demanding that Iran reduce the number of its
centrifuges from the current 19,000 to fewer than 5,000. America is also demanding the
closure of the supposedly impregnable underground enrichment facility at Fordow; the dismantling
of the heavy-water nuclear reactor at Arak; an account from Iran of all its past weaponization
activities; and an inspection regime even more rigorous than required by Irans signature of the
IAEAs additional protocol.

Iran has rejected most of these demands . President Hassan Rouhani has
promised his people that none of Irans existing nuclear facilities will be
destroyed; that Arak will be kept, to supply only medical isotopes; and that
Iran has the right to what he calls industrial-scale enrichment , which could
mean as many as 50,000 centrifuges.
Unfortunately,

Americas leverage at the negotiating table is diminishing . The

military option, at least from the US perspective, has essentially been taken off the
table , at least as long as the interim agreement is in place.
it is highly likely that this interim arrangement will be extended at
least once before it becomes irrefutably clear that Iran, or at least the mullahs
safely ensconced at the helm of the Islamic Republic, have no intention of abandoning their
And

aspirations for nuclear weapon capability .

Meanwhile, Irans economy is recovering. The World Banks recently released Global Economic Prospects report
projects that Irans real GDP is expected to grow 1% in 2014. The World Bank sees even higher GDP growth in 2015
and 2016. The International Monetary Fund also sees Irans economy beginning to rebound, with estimated growth
of 1.3% and 1.98% in 2014 and 2015, respectively. These rosy forecasts contrast sharply with the two years of
economic contraction in 2012 and 2013.
There are quite a few reasons for the Islamic Republics economic recovery. In part it can be attributed to an overall
global resurgence. It might also have something to do with better fiscal and monetary policies implemented by Iran
since Rouhanis election in June. Also, US President Barack Obama has vowed to veto any attempts by the Senate
to pass more (conditional) sanctions, which essentially serves as a green light for businesses to reestablish ties,
though the Senate is getting close to the 67 votes needed to override a presidential veto.
Next week, Rouhani will be in Davos to address the World Economic Forum and court business as part of the
normalization of the Islamic Republics status in the international community.
Prospects look bleak for any real diplomatic breakthrough.
Obama, in an extensive interview with The New Yorkers David Remnick, estimated that the chances for a final
agreement with Iran along with resolutions of the Israeli-Palestinian and Syrian conflicts are less than fifty-fifty.

In all three arenas, which Obama sees as connected, we may be able to push
the boulder partway up the hill and maybe stabilize it so it doesnt roll
back on us. Hardly a reassuring assessment of the chances for stopping
Irans march to nuclear weapons.

1AR Deal Fails Ext

Talks will fail Iran subverts diplomatic efforts

Abrams 1/3 [Elliot, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, 2014, Iran
Continues Subversion Despite the Nuclear Negotiations, http://blogs.cfr.org/abrams/2014/01/03/iran-continuessubversion-despite-the-nuclear-negotiations/]

ADL 13 [Anti-Defamation League, Truth Speakers, Iran's Press TV: Broadcasting Anti-Semitism To EnglishSpeaking World, http://www.adl.org/anti-semitism/united-states/c/press-tv-iran.html]

Lambers 1/2 [William, Graduate of the College of Mount St. Joseph in Ohio, Writer for The Huffington Post,
2014, Nuclear Peace Emerging in the Middle East, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-lambers/nuclear-peacemiddle-east_b_4485847.html]

Nuclear Iran doesn't change anything

Walt 12 [Stephen, Robert and Rene Belfer Professor of International Relations at Harvard University,
November 30, The Mother of All Worst-Case Assumptions about Iran,
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/category/topic/nukes]

The Obama administration is fighting strongly to prevent Congress from

adopting new sanctions legislation that would go into effect one year
from now if, and only if, the nuclear negotiations fail or Iran cheats on
its commitments. It seems that adopting such legislation would anger the Iranian regime, and would be
contrary to the spirit of the talks. Or something like that. But while we are told to walk on
eggshells lest we offend the delicate Iranians, they continue to subvert
their neighbors. Not for them this idea that, because there are talks, they should stop shipping arms.
Syria is the obvious case, but now we have a new one: Bahrain. This week Bahraini authorities discovered
plastic explosives, detonators, bombs, automatic rifles and ammunition which were found in a warehouse and
onboard a boat intercepted as it was heading to the country. To be more precise, Gulf News reported that

Iranian-made explosives, Syrian bomb detonators, Kalashnikovs, C-4 explosives, Claymores, hand

grenades, a PK machine gun, circuit boards for use in bomb making, armour-piercing explosives, TNT and a raft
of other materials used to manufacture bombs were discovered. Is this just propaganda from the Government of

very
worrying for Bahrain ; an Iranian campaign of subversion and terrorism
could turn the tiny country into a war zone. Ive written on this site many times about
Bahrain? No; Ive checked with US authorities and these reports are accurate. This is of course

the need for progress in negotiations between the royal family and the majority-Shia population (most recently
here), but obviously the Iranian subversion is not an effort to promote peace and democracy in Bahrain. It is
among
other
an effort
to tell the Gulf Arab states
that Iran cansatellite
make their lives
miserable
if they continue
Press
TV,things
Iran's
government-run
English-language
news
network
, has

It is striking that at the very moment when the Obama

emerged as the Iranian government's primary propaganda tool to
administration is pleading with Congress to be very careful in its
promote a wide range of pernicious anti-Semitic conspiracy theories in English to a
behavior,
the Iranian
regime
has of
no
fears
and (IRIB),
no hesitation
to engage
worldwide audience.
Operated by
Islamic Republic
Iran
Broadcasting
a significant amount
of Press TV
to oppose its policies.

programing provides a platform for American anti-Semites, conspiracy theorists and Holocaust deniers, who
in
this subversion . They must have calculated that the Obama administration is so committed to
help amplify the Iranian regime's hateful messages. The station not only misleadingly
these nuclear talks, and so committed to the Rouhani narrative that Rouhani is a moderate and we must help
presents
these
hatemongers
asadministration
serious and credible
"experts"
or "they
analysts"
on
him
succeed that
nothing
they do will affect
policy. Sadly,
and dangerously,
appear to be
right.
Not these arms economic
shipmentsand
to Bahrain,
shipments
last yeartheir
to Yemen,
the famoustoplot
to blow
international
political nor
issues
, but early
also enables
bigotednor
perspectives
reach
a

up
the Saudi
ambassador
a restaurant
in Washington,
D.C.
havethe
hadstation
the slightest
impactinon
administration
significant
new
audience. in
Launched
in 2007
and based in
Tehran,
is broadcast
North
America,
Last
yearThis
ended
with some
momentum
toward
ending
standoff
over
Iran's
nuclear
program.
If athe
comprehensive
policy.
helps
explain
why
Arabs
are
so
nervous:
see
Europe,
the Middle
East,
Asia
and parts
of the
Africa
and the
Latin
America
via
a number
ofthey
satellite
television
agreement
be forged
year, it classic
will
anuclear
major stepmyths
toward
the
world
of
costly
and
providers.can
In addition
tothis
promoting
globalwilling
Jewish
domination,
Press
TVdangerous
presents a
United
States
hell-bent
onbeaanti-Semitic
dealoffreeing
and
totheignore
pervasively negative perspective on Western society, emphasizing what it views as the West's imperialism,
burden
of nuclear weapons.
Iran
has
suffered
from
sanctions
for failing
to
live
up to
everything
else
Iranian
regime
doing.
Itsclass
an analogue
policy
in Syria,
faltering economies,
lackthe
of justice,
political
corruptionis
and
racial and
divisions.toItsObama
programs,
interviews,
where
we
have
embraced
a
deal
on
chemical
weapons
that
leaves
Assad
free
to
murder
as
many
people
as
he
and
articles
are
available
on
the
network's
website
and
further
distributed
through
social
media,
including
on
obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty . A report from the
Facebook
and
Twitter.
In
July
2013,
Press
TV
sought
to
further
expand
its
viewership
by
live
streaming
its
likes
as
long
as
he
does
not
use
that
one
method.
For
a
couple
of
years
after
the
protests
International Federation of Human Rights stated the consequences for the Iranian people: " Unemployment
content on YouTube. ADL contacted YouTube to inform them that the content on Press TV may violate their
inrise,
Bahrain,
Iranis
limited
itself to broadcasting
nasty
material
in
isbegan
on the
inflation
at unprecedented
levelsmay
andbe
most
people
have to combine
terms
of service,
also
noting that providing
such communication services
viewed
as violating
the Iran
Arabic,
and
did
not
try
to
subvert
the
country
.
U.S.
officials
repeatedly
told
me
we
Sanctions
YouTube
subsequently
disabled
Press TVs
ability to live stream
their
content.population
Although
several
jobs Act.
because
the minimum
wage
is insufficient
to counterbalance
inflation.
Iran's
is
simply
had no disabled
evidence of armed
subversion.
Well, now
we do. What
will the
American
reaction
Nothing
YouTube
Press
TVs live
stream
after ADL
exposed
it, Hispan
TV, be?
Press
TVs

experiencing an increasing income gap between rich and poor." Iran

you
see, this is a delicate
moment
and we started
dont want
upset the
can YouTube
only account,
Spanish-language
sister-station,
similarly
live to
streaming
itsnuclear
contenttalks.
from One
the stations
cannot
afford
toshutdown
be diverting
precious
resources
to the
pursuit of
and was subsequently
after YouTube
was altered.
imagine
the satisfied
laughter
such
a position
causes
in Tehran.
And the
fear it engenders
inPresident
capitals
like
Manama,
Riyadh,
Dhabi.
nuclear
weapons . As
Obama
said,
"Iran must
know and
thatAbu
security
and
prosperity will never come through the pursuit of nuclear weapons -- it must

2AC No Prolif
1AR Deal Fails AT: Press TV

be reached through fully verifiable agreements that make Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons impossible."

No internal link no risk of Iranian breakout proliferation

2AC
Impact
Their
they lack
impact
thecard
capability
is literally
andNo
cash
propaganda

The debate on Iran and its nuclear program does little credit to the U.S. foreign policy community,
because much of it rests on dubious assumptions that do not stand up to
even casual scrutiny. Lots of ink, pixels, and air-time has been devoted to discussing whether
Iran truly wants a bomb, how close it might be to getting one, how well sanctions are working, whether the
mullahs in charge are "rational," and whether a new diplomatic initiative is advisable. Similarly, journalists,
politicians and policy wonks spend endless hours asking if and when Israel might attack and whether the
United States should help. But we hardly ever ask ourselves if

wildly out of proportion.

this issue is being blown

At bottom, the whole debate on Iran rests on the assumption that

Iranian acquisition of a nuclear weapon would be an event of shattering geopolitical significance: On a par
with Hitler's rise to power in Germany in 1933, the fall of France in 1940, the Sino-Soviet split, or the
breakup of the former Soviet Union. In this spirit, Henry Kissinger recently argued that a latent Iranian
capability (that is, the capacity to obtain a bomb fairly quickly) would have fearsome consequences all by
itself. Even if Iran stopped short of some red line, Kissinger claims this would: 1) cause "uncontrollable
military nuclear proliferation throughout [the] region," 2) "lead many of Iran's neighbors to reorient their
political alignment toward Tehran" 3) "submerge the reformist tendencies in the Arab Spring," and 4) deliver
a "potentially fatal blow" to hopes for reducing global nuclear arsenals. Wow. And that's just if Iran has
nuclear potential and not even an actual weapon! It follows that the United States must either persuade

this "mother of all

assumptions" is simply asserted and rarely examined. The obvious
question to ask is this: did prior acts of nuclear proliferation have the
same fearsome consequences that Iran hawks now forecast? The
them to give up most of their enrichment capacity or go to war to destroy it. Yet

answer is no . In fact, the spread of nuclear weapons has had remarkably little impact on the basic
nature of world politics and the ranking of major powers. The main effect of the nuclear
revolution has been to induce greater caution in the behavior of both
those who possessed the bomb and anyone who had to deal with a
nuclear-armed adversary. Proliferation has not transformed weak
states into influential global actors, has not given nuclear-armed states the ability to
blackmail their neighbors or force them to kowtow, and it has not triggered far-reaching
regional arms races . In short, fears that an Iranian bomb would
transform regional or global politics have been greatly exaggerated ;
one might even say that they are just a lot of hooey. Consider the historical record. Did the world turn on its

Although alarmist
documents like NSC-68 warned of a vast increase in Soviet influence and
aggressiveness, Soviet nuclear development simply reinforced the
caution that both superpowers were already displaying towards each
other. The United States already saw the USSR as an enemy, and the basic principles of containment
axis when the mighty Soviet Union tested its first bomb in 1949?

were already in place. NATO was being formed before the Soviet test and Soviet dominance of Eastern

Having sole possession of the bomb hadn't

enabled Truman to simply dictate to Stalin, and getting the bomb
didn't enable Stalin or his successors to blackmail any of their
neighbors or key U.S. allies. It certainly didn't lead any countries to
"reorient their political alignment toward Moscow ." Nikita Khrushchev's
Europe was already a fait accompli.

subsequent missile rattling merely strengthened the cohesion of NATO and other U.S.-led alliances, and we

Having a
large nuclear arsenal didn't stop the anti-commnist uprisings in East
now know that much of his bluster was intended to conceal Soviet strategic inferiority.

Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, or Poland, and didn't allow the Soviet Union to win in Afghanistan. Nor

Did British and French

acquisition of nuclear weapons slow their decline as great powers?
Not in the slightest. Having the force de frappe may have made De Gaulle feel better about
did it prevent the USSR from eventually collapsing entirely.

French prestige and having their own deterrent made both states less dependent on America's security
umbrella, but it didn't give either state a louder voice in world affairs or win them new influence anywhere.

Britain couldn't get Argentina to give back the

Falklands by issuing nuclear threats -- even though Argentina had no
bomb of its own and no nuclear guarantee -- they had to go retake the islands with
conventional forces. Did China's detonation of a bomb in 1964 suddenly make
them a superpower? Hardly. China remained a minor actor on the
world stage until it adopted market principles, and its rising global
influence is due to three decades of economic growth, not a pile of
nukes. And by the way, did getting a bomb enable Mao Zedong--a cruel megalomaniac who launched the
And you might recall that

disastrous Great Leap Forward in 1957 and the destructive Cultural Revolution in the 1960s -- to start
threatening and blackmailing his neighbors? Nope. In fact, China's foreign policy behavior after 1964 was

Does Israel's nuclear arsenal allow it to

coerce its neighbors or impose its will on Hezbollah or the
Palestinians? No. Israel uses its conventional military superiority to
try to do these things, not its nuclear arsenal. Indeed, Israel's bomb didn't even
generally quite restrained. What about Israel?

Elhusseini 13 [Fadi, Palestinian Diplomat and Journalist, March 12, Will Israel attack Iran?
http://www.jordantimes.com/will-israel-attack-iran]

Zero risk of Iran strikes

Maloney 1/13 [Suzanne, Brookings Saban Center Senior Fellow, 2014, Six Myths about Iran Sanctions,
www.brookings.edu/blogs/iran-at-saban/posts/2014/01/7-iran-sanctions-nuclear-deal-myths?
utm_content=bufferb5045&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#]
Myth 6. Support for additional Iran sanctions is the equivalent of support for war.

Obama administration officials who have been making this argument, it is an

overstatement and, in many cases, patently untrue and unfair. It may be effective
domestic politics, given the country's understandable weariness of Middle Eastern conflicts, but it is
an ugly smear to accuse all those who are skeptical about the current diplomacy or
who seek additional pressure on Iran of war-mongering.
More to the point, the outcome of new sanctions is almost certainly not war .
Tehran has come to the negotiating table despite, and because of, severe
economic pressure. Rouhani's determination to achieve a deal, the speed with
No. With all due respect to the

which he has advanced this agenda, and the flimsy pushback (by the rough-and-tumble standards of Iranian

suggests that there is a broad and deep

consensus around ending the nuclear stand-off with the West. No one should
internal politics) he has received from hard-liners

doubt Foreign Minister Zarif's sincerity when he says sanctions will end the talks, but there is a reasonable chance

Tehran will continue to seek a diplomatic resolution under almost any

circumstances there simply is no better alternative for Iranian interests.
The same is true for Washington. Few in Congress are truly eager for
another costly Middle Eastern conflict, and despite the tough talk from
successive U.S. presidents on preventing a nuclear Iran, there is nothing automatic
about military action. Even if the current diplomacy collapses, Washington
and the world will have an array of alternatives for blunting Iran's nuclear advances,
including many that fall short of war.
that

is Israel going to really attack Iran?

Many observers say this is sheer fantasy, especially in view of the new Israeli
government coalition and the current developments in the Middle East .
That red line is fast approaching, but

Iran insists its nuclear programme is peaceful and a national right, yet the fiery speeches and comments delivered
by its officials proffer neither good gestures nor convincing assurances to the international community or its
sympathisers.

The prospect of war terrifies not only Israelis, but also people across the
Middle East and the rest of the world. Surveys in Israel show that most Israelis
oppose launching a unilateral attack

on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Experts believe that no Israeli attack would deter the Iranian nuclear
programme and its ambition would not be ended, but simply delayed.
Israeli military and intelligence chiefs believe that a strike on Iran is a
bad idea, while the Obama administration has told Israel to back off and
wait for sanctions to work.

While it is likely that Iran would retaliate against Israel and possibly the US in response to any attack, it is unlikely

Albeit for different reasons, Iran, Israel and the US

understand that a war would not serve their interests.
that Iran will instigate a major war.

Israeli decision makers are confident that if things go bad, the US will not leave Israel at peril.
Neither the US, whose most difficult decisions are usually taken in the second presidential term, nor other
international powers would leave Israel unaided or accept an Israeli defeat.

Iranian decision makers are also aware of the fact that initiating a major
war would lead to an eventual American intervention and an inevitable
confrontation with the worlds biggest military might.

1AR No Strikes Ext

Rogan 12 [Thomas, MS in Middle East Politics from the School of Oriental and African Studies, August 8,
Israel Could Attack Iran Without Causing a Major War in the Region
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/18/israeli-attack-iran]

Wont escalate

While it is likely Israel will attack Iran in the near future,

it is not in either party's interest to

allow retaliation to escalate Over the last few days, Israeli newspapers have been consumed by
reports that the prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has decided to launch an attack on Iranian nuclear
facilities some time this autumn. Although Netanyahu has an obvious interest in increasing pressure on Iran, it
would be an error to regard these reports as simple rhetorical sensationalism. In my opinion, whether this year
or next, Israel is likely to use its airforce to attack Iran. While it is impossible to know for sure whether
Netanyahu will act, it is possible to consider the likely repercussions that would follow an Israeli attack. While it
is likely that Iran would retaliate against Israel and possibly the US in response to any attack, it is unlikely that
Iran will instigate a major war. Albeit for different reasons, Iran, Israel and the US all understand that a war

Netanyahu decides to order an attack on

focus will be on maximising the success of that action and
minimising any negative consequences that might follow. In terms of Iranian retaliation,
would not serve their interests. First, the Israeli policy angle. If
Iran, his

Israel would expect Iran's core non-state allies Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah to launch

present success with advanced defence

systems has helped increase Israeli confidence in their ability to absorb
this method of retaliation. Beyond rocket attacks, the Israeli leadership also understands that a likely
rocket attacks into Israeli territory. However,

mechanism for Iranian retaliation is via attacks against Israeli interests internationally. Whether carried out by
the Iranian Quds Force or Hezbollah, or a combination of both, various incidents this year have shown Israel
that Iran continues to regard covert action as a powerful weapon. The key for Israel is that, while these Iranian
capabilities are seen as credible, they are not seen to pose intolerable threats to Israel. Faced with rocket
strikes or limited attacks abroad to which the likely response would be air strikes or short-duration ground
operations (not a repeat of 2006) in Lebanon and Gaza Israel would be unlikely to pursue major secondary
retaliation against Iran. Certainly, Israel would not want to encourage intervention by Syria's Assad alongside
Iran (an outcome that might follow major retaliatory Israeli action). If Netanyahu does decide to take action,

Israeli objectives would be clearly limited . The intent would be to prevent Iran from

acquiring a nuclear capability while minimising escalation towards war. Israel has no interest in a major conflict
that would risk serious damage to the Israeli state. Though holding opposite objectives, Iran's attitude

Iran regards nuclear capability as prospectively

clerical leaders also understand that
initiating a major war would make American intervention likely . Such
intervention would pose an existential threat to the theocratic project that underpins
the Islamic Republic. Thus, in the event of an Israeli attack, Iran's response would be finely
calibrated towards achieving three objectives: First, punishing Israel
for its attack. Second, deterring further Israeli strikes and so creating space
for a reconstituted Iranian nuclear programme. Finally, weakening US/international support
for Israel so as to increase Israeli isolation and vulnerability. Hezbollah, Hamas and other non-state allies
concerning a major war is similar to Israel's. While
guaranteeing the survival of its Islamic revolution,

would play a major role in effecting Iranian retaliation. Iran may also attempt to launch a number of its new
Sajjil-2 medium-range missiles against Israel. Again, however, using these missiles would risk major retaliation
if many Israeli citizens were killed. As a preference, Iran would probably perceive that utilising Hamas and
Hezbollah would allow retaliation without forcing Netanyahu into a massive counter-response. Crucially, I
believe Iran regards that balancing its response would enable it to buy time for a reconstituted, hardened
nuclear programme. In contrast to the relatively open current structure, sites would be deeper underground
and far less vulnerable to a future attack. The nuclear ambition would not be lost, simply delayed. As a final
objective for retaliation, Iran would wish to weaken Israel's relationship with the US and the international
community. This desire might encourage Iran to take action against US navy assets in the Gulf and/or attempt
to mine the Strait of Hormuz, so as to cause a price spike in global oil markets and increased international
discomfort. However, beyond their rhetoric, the Iranian leadership understand that they cannot win a military

For Iran then, as with Israel,

regional war is far from desirable. Finally, consider the US. It is now clear that Obama and
contest against the US, nor hold the strait for longer than a few days.

Netanyahu disagree on Iran. In my opinion, Netanyahu does not believe Obama will ever be willing to take preemptive military action against Iran's nuclear programme. Conversely, Obama believes Netanyahu's diplomatic
expectations are too hasty and excessively restrictive. The policy distance between these two leaders appears
increasingly irreconcilable. If Netanyahu decides to go it alone and attack Iran, the US president will face the
unpleasant scenario of having to protect American interests while avoiding an escalation dynamic that might
spin out of control towards war. This difficulty is accentuated by Obama's re-election race and his fear of the
domestic economic fallout that may come from the decisions that he might have to make. Again, the simple
point is that the US government has no interest in a war with Iran. If Netanyahu decides to take military action,
he will do so in a strategic environment in which Israel, Iran and the US have no preference for a major war.

Because of this,
while serious, Iranian retaliation would be unlikely to produce an
escalatory dynamic leading to war. The leadership of each of these
states will restrain their respective actions in the pursuit of differing
long-term objectives but common short-term ones.
Each state views the prospect of a war as counter to their particular long-term ambitions.

1AR No Strikes AT: Kristol

Youd probably be safe betting your life savings against
Kristols predictions

Armbruster 1/2 [Ben, National Security Editor for ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress
Action Fund and MA in International Relations from Kings College, London, 2014, Kristols 2014 Prediction: Israel
Will Take Real Action And Attack Iran, http://thinkprogress.org/security/2014/01/02/3112031/kristol-2014-israelreal-action-iran/.
I dont mean sending John Kerry somewhere to have a discussion, he added. No, I mean real action, the kind that
we should take as a great power.

Last
November,and
the pundits
United S
tatesbeen
, its international
the P5+1
and Iran
reached
an
Analysts
have
sayingpartners
for years
thatIsrael
should
or will

interim
agreement
Tehrans
program
aim or
of reaching
take real
action, over
as Kristol
saysnuclear
, and attack
Iranwith
in 6 the
months
in one
ayear;
finalbut
dealofwithin
the
nextpredictions
6 to 12 months,
course
those
neverleading
turned many
out. experts to
conclude
that an Israeli strike during this time is highly unlikely.
And in this particular case, one might want to bet against Kristo l as time
Yet Kristol who has made a habit of calling for war with Iran thinks
and again, his predictions have come up short (in 2010 he said that by
otherwise. I think we will see, because of the failure of Obama to do anything, Israel taking action to delay
2013,
theprogram,
healthhecare
reform
law
would
be repealed).
Irans
nuclear
said this
week on the
Weekly
Standards
podcast.

Minimum Wage

Wont Pass
Wont pass and no vote until March
Mimms 2/25 [Sarah, Staff Writer for the National Journal, 2014, Senate Democrats Push Minimum-Wage
Fight to March, http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/senate-democrats-push-minimum-wage-fight-to-march20140225]

Democrats are delaying a bill to raise the

federal

minimum wage until

at least

late March. The legislation, which represents a key priority for both President Obama and
will not come to floor until after the Senate returns from
its next recess, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said Tuesday.
A Senate Democratic aide confirmed that the issue has been pushed until
at least March 24, when the Senate returns from its next break.
The news comes just a week after the Congressional Budget Office released a
report showing that raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, as
Democrats are pushing, would cost the nation 500,000 jobs. The report also showed, however,
congressional Democrats,

that 900,000 individuals would be brought out of poverty and 16.5 million would receive a wage increase.

Reid alluded to the delay in his weekly press briefing on

Tuesday, blaming Republican obstruction over unemployment insurance , another
key Democratic priority, for pushing the issue back to March. "The obstruction continues, and it
Senate Majority Leader Harry

slows things down," Reid said.

The majority leader also stood his ground on the $10.10 figure, saying he would not compromise with Republicans
on a lower increase. The same CBO report showed that a $9 minimum wage would have substantially less of an
impact on jobs (with just 100,000 jobs lost), but that just 7.6 million workers would see a wage increasehalf of
those affected by the $10.10 option.
House Democrats, meanwhile, are not satisfied with waiting. Minority Leader Nancy

Pelosi will announce

tomorrow that her conference will push a discharge petition to force a vote on the issue
"as soon as possible," according to an aide, who confirmed that House Democratic leadership will move forward on
the bill regardless of what their Senate counterparts have planned.

which would require 218 signatures, would allow the measure to bypass
The petition would need 19 Republican
signatures, no easy feat, given GOP opposition on the issue, particularly in the
wake of last week's CBO report. Only seven discharge petitions have
accrued sufficient signatures to get to the floor in the past 30 years , although
The discharge petition,

the committee process and head directly to the floor.

Pelosi's office notes that another 12 were allowed to move forward before all 218 members signed on.
Still, it's clear that

Republican leadership will present a significant roadblock on

the issue. House Speaker John Boehner's spokesman Brendan Buck seemed to dismiss the
issue last week in responding to the CBO report. "With unemployment
Americans' top concern, our focus should be creating not destroyingjobs
for those who need them most," Buck said.

2AC Raise Bad

Wage increase fails and kills the economy empirics
Poole 2/4 [William, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and Distinguished Scholar in Residence at the
University of Delaware, Former President and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 2014, A Minimum Wage
on the Rise? http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/minimum-wage-rise]
In fact,

there is a massive body of research over more than 70 years that

convincingly shows that the minimum wage is bad for the broader
economy, results in job loss, and has little to no effect on reducing poverty.
Worse, the minimum wage has proven to disproportionally hurt the people it
was ostensibly put in place to help: the poor, the low-skilled and the uneducated. Any skeptics can find

easily two recent comprehensive surveys of the literature. One is a 2012 survey by Mark Wilson available on the
Cato Institute website. Another is a 2006 survey by David Neumark and William Wascherth available on the National
Bureau of Economic Research website.

Advocates of an increase in the minimum wage often focus on employees of fastfood restaurants, hotel housekeeping staff and the like. The president and
others seem unaware of the fact that nonprofit organizations hire many
minimum wage workers. Think nursing homes and inner-city day-care centers. Think group homes for
developmentally challenged children and recovering substance abusers. Think Goodwill Industries and Salvation
Army.

How are these and many other nonprofits serving low-income families going
to find the revenue to meet a higher minimum wage?
It is not hard to explain to the noneconomist why some studies suggest no effect of the minimum wage on

In the past, most changes in the minimum wage have been

relatively small. Trying to sort out the effects of the increase from everything else going on requires highemployment.

powered statistics, and even then the effects can be buried by a host of other simultaneous disturbances and

If you accept as a fact that a minimum wage of, say, $50.00 per hour
would reduce employment, and you accept as a fact that some workers are currently paid $7.25 per
hour, then logic compels you to believe that a small increase in the minimum wage
above $7.25 will have at least a small negative effect on employment.
Besides reducing employment, an inevitable impact of a higher minimum wage is
increased prices for consumers a class of people that includes those minimum wage workers
influences.

with their new, higher paycheck.

A higher wage has to come from somewhere the

tooth fairy wont provide it.

A day-care center, for example, will have to raise its fees. A 2004

a 10 percent increase in the U.S. minimum

raises food prices by up to 4 percent. However, the president isnt calling for a 10
percent increase, he wants a 39 percent increase. Thatll take a bite out of the
higher paychecks of minimum-wage workers, and everyone else.
review of more than 20 minimum wage studies found that
wage

Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 is good politics, but only if citizens fail to understand its negative effects.

Focusing on the minimum wage ignores

the

policies that really would help

the working poor, such as an expansion of the earned income tax credit. The EITC directs assistance to low-income
wage earners, whereas some minimum wage earners are, for example, teenagers from wealthy families.

1AR Raise Bad Ext

Wage increase destroys jobs
Holtz-Eakin 1/30 [Douglas, president of the American Action Forum; From 2001 to 2002, he served as
chief economist for the Council of Economic Advisers to then-President George W. Bush, and from 2003 to 2005, he
was director of the Congressional Budget Office, 2014, What Obama Doesn't Get About the Minimum Wage,
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/01/30/what-obama-doesnt-get-about-the-minimum-wage]

hold on would raising the minimum wage pull many families out of
poverty? The fact is that the president correctly diagnosed poverty and
economic mobility as real problems in the United States, but his plan to increasing the
minimum wage will simply fail to fix them.
Why? We have to recognize that family income, not wages, is what determines someone's
economic well-being. It is true that, hypothetically, if someone worked a fulltime job at the current federal minimum wage their annual income would be
below the poverty line for families with two or more people. However, today that scenario
But

simply does not occur , because minimum wage earners are often the second or third earner in a
family.

the people who would benefit the most from an increase

in the minimum wage are not those who need the most help. According to
Current Population Survey data, 80 percent of minimum wage earners are not in
poverty. Meanwhile, more than 50 percent of minimum wage earners are young adults and over a third are
The numbers are clear that

young adults who still live with their parents. For the young adults who live with their parents, their family incomes
average more than $100,000, placing them in the top 20 percent of the income distribution. It's hard to see how an
increase in the federal minimum wage would fight poverty and income inequality when the vast majority of
minimum wage earners today are not the ones who need the most help.
Moreover, it is unfair to tout Costco, as the president did, for paying its employees above the federal minimum
when most minimum wage employers are nothing like it. Rather than large, national corporations, the majority of
minimum wage earners work for a local small business, with 40 percent having fewer than 50 employees.
Meanwhile, most minimum wage employees work part-time, averaging 24 hours per week. This allows them to take
classes, take care of their families and provide supplemental income. For example, in the restaurant industry nearly
80 percent of employees who earn minimum wage work part-time.
What about employment? In reality, having a job is the best path out of poverty , as only 7
percent of employed people are poor. That figure quadruples to 28 percent when the person is unemployed and

Raising the minimum wage, however, not only fails to address

joblessness, but also impedes job creation. When employers are forced to
looking for work.

pay more per hour for work, it prevents them from

increasing hours,

expanding their

workforce and making new hires. A recent American Action Forum analysis concludes that
California's recent minimum wage increase to $10 per hour will cost the state
nearly 200,000 jobs. If every state enacted a $10 minimum wage, more
than 2.3 million jobs would be lost

nationwide. With 10.4 million people unemployed and

looking for work, providing more work opportunities should be the national priority.

Decreases employment by double digits

Gay 2/4 [Brian, Staff Writer for AFP Alaska Newsroom, 2014, Raising the Minimum Wage Hurts Those Its
Supposed to Help, http://americansforprosperity.org/alaska/newsroom/raising-minimum-wage-hurts/]

One of the focal points that President Obama discussed in the State of the Union address
is increasing the minimum wage. The prospect of arguing for a minimum wage increase certainly
has better appeal than defending the failures of the Affordable Care Act. The Senate is poised to consider a proposal
that would raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour.

Raising the minimum wage may sound

like a good idea in theory, yet it would actually harm the very people its
trying to help.
On the surface, the idea of raising the minimum wage in order to put more money in the hands of
struggling, low-skilled workers is a good thing. The stark reality is that businesses, in order
to remain competitive and stay afloat in a down economy, will find ways to offset this new increase
in the cost of labor. The easiest way to do this is by either cutting employee
hours or jobs altogether.

For evidence, we need to look no further than the catastrophic ObamaCare

rollout.
Businesses were forced to deal with this new expense by cutting hours and the number of workers they employ.

This impact falls particularly hard on small businesses that have thinner
margins. Theres bipartisan agreement among economists that increases
in the minimum wage result in lower levels of employment. A 40% increase in the
minimum wage could easily shrink U.S. employment by up to double digits based
on previous research.

1AR Raise Bad Statistics

Their args dont have the same statistical support
Meer and West 13 [Jonathan, Ph.D. from Stanford University and Assistant Professor of Public
Economics at Texas A&M University, and Jeremy, Fellow in the Private Enterprise Research Center and the Bradley
Foundation, and a Ph.D. student in Economics at Texas A&M University, December, Effects of the Minimum Wage
on Employment Dynamics, pg. 26]

We examine how a wage floor impacts employment by directly assessing

employment dynamics. In a worker search and matching model (e.g. Acemoglu,
2001; Flinn, 2011), a minimum wage has two opposing effects on employment: it reduces
demand for new workers by raising the marginal cost of an employee , while
inducing additional search effort from unemployed workers, potentially improving the employee-employer match

theory shapes our understanding of how a minimum wage affects

employment, but the equilibrium result is an empirical question. We provide
both theoretical and empirical reasons to believe that an effect of the
minimum wage should be most pronounced on net job growth. In addition, we
conduct a simulation showing that the common practice of including state-specific time trends will
attenuate the measured effects of the minimum wage on employment if the true
effect is in fact on the rate of job growth. We examine the effects in three separate data
quality. The

sets and find that the results are similar both qualitatively and
quantitatively: the minimum wage reduces net job growth. The results for job
creation show that, in equilibrium, any supply-side effects on search (and the potential
increase in the quality of employer-employee matches) do not overcome the negative
demand-side effects of higher labor costs. The lack of strong effects on job destruction is in
line with the literature on the fixed costs of labor and firing aversion. More importantly, we find
that on net the minimum wage meaningfully affects employment via a
reduction in the rate of long run job growth. Our results have implications for the recent
proposals to index the minimum wage to inflation. We show that the effects on employment are limited by the

Permanent real increases in the minimum wage are likely

to have substantially greater impacts than the nominal changes we study.
Following the recent recession, unemployment remains disproportionately high for less
educated and inexperienced workers (United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013). In the
long run, this group of workers faces substantially longer periods of unemployment or
delays in hiring, thus bearing more of the cost from minimum wages. This
erosion due to inflation.

phenomenon is particularly important given the evidence that minimum wage jobs often result in relatively rapid
transitions to higher-paying jobs.

TPA

Wont Pass
Wont pass no support in congress
The Economist 2/22 [World News, 2014, Taking Aim at Imports,
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21596939-protectionists-congress-could-scupper-crucial-free-tradedeals-taking-aim-imports]

The last time the White House was granted the authority to do trade deals, George
W. Bush was popular and Republicans had a majority in the House. Even so, the
law only just squeaked through, with 183 Democrats voting no in the House and only 25 voting
yes. Moreover, the deal mooted in 2002, a free-trade pact with Andean nations, was small: the threat to American
jobs from imported Peruvian knitwear seemed less menacing than an Asian pact that includes big economies like
Japan and Australia (though not China).

Most of the lawmakers who voted in favour of that deal have now left
Congress. Of the 279 members of both chambers who voted yes, only 86 remain.
That makes any vote on granting the president the authority to do an Asian trade deal and, later, a European one,

the chances are not good.

A total of 173 House members 151 Democrats and 22 Republicans have
already signed letters opposing the granting of deal-making authority to
the White House. The wording of the letter signed by the Democrats gives them some wiggle room,
but it reflects a powerful feeling on the left. Our constituents, said three House Democrats,
hard to predict. But there are good reasons for assuming that

George Miller of California, Louise Slaughter of New York and Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, did not send us to
Washington to ship their jobs overseas.

Within the Democratic caucus, there is a level of scepticism on trade that

we havent seen since the mid-1990s [when the North American Free-Trade Agreement, or NAFTA,
was signed]in fact its probably higher now than it was then , says Matt Bennett of

Third Way, a centre-left think-tank. The belief that NAFTA is partly to blame for rising income inequality and the
disappearance of well-paying manufacturing jobs has become fixed on the left, so that even those who are in favour
of the Asian deal talk about learning the lessons of NAFTA, as if it were a painful defeat.

Opponents of free trade have fixed on the idea that letting the White
House negotiate behind closed doors is somehow undemocratic and that more
transparency is required. The executive office responsible for trade negotiations has held more than 1,150 meetings
on Capitol Hill on the Asia deal alone, but this is apparently insufficient.

A similar argument has developed to oppose the deal at the other end of
the political spectrum. In addition to those few Republicans who oppose more free
trade for protectionist reasons there is a larger group that likes trade deals
in theory but not in practice , since negotiating them involves handing
power to a president who cannot be trusted.

The Republican letter opposing the granting

of such authority regrets that recent presidents have seized Congresss constitutional trade authority and asks for
it to be returned.
It is hard to oppose greater transparency without sounding sinister, but too much will make it hard for America to do
a good deal. I dont know anyone who, when buying a car or a house, walks in with their best price written on their
forehead, says someone involved in negotiating the Asian deal.

Both sides in Congress now seem to prefer inaction to moving ahead. The office of
John Boehner, the House Speaker, has suggested he will need the support of 50
Democrats to ensure passage. That seems impossible for now, which probably suits
him well: attending a signing ceremony with Mr Obama in the Rose Garden is not high on his list of priorities before

Democrats, who would rather not pick a fight with the

unions before the elections. Yet even when that hurdle is past, it is not
the mid-terms. This suits

clear that the political maths

change d.

on which approval

for free trade

turns

will

have

Obama Not Pushing

Obamas not pushing TPA
Wiser 2/24 [Daniel, Staff Writer for the Washington Free Beacon, 2014, Experts: Obama Not Pushing Hard
Enough for Trade Deal, http://freebeacon.com/experts-obama-not-pushing-hard-enough-for-trade-deal/]
The

Obama administration has not pushed hard enough for

a wide-ranging free

trade

deal that could yield significant economic and geostrategic benefits, experts say.
Final negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a proposed free trade agreement involving 12 countries in
the Asia-Pacific region and North and South America, resumed on Saturday in Singapore.
The United States and Japan, the two largest economies taking part in the talks and vital signatories to any deal,
aim to resolve the lingering concerns of Japanese farmers and U.S. automakers over increased competition.
However, the TPP could still be derailed in Congress. Bipartisan legislation that would grant President Barack
Obama trade promotion authority (TPA) to fast-track the deal with a simple yes or no vote and no amendments
a tool viewed as essential to convincing other nations to sign on has

stalled in the Senate due

to opposition from his own partys leaders.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) told reporters at the end of last month that
everyone would be well-advised to not push this right now , just a day after
Obama urged lawmakers to pass TPA in his State of the Union address. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.,
Calif.) joined Reid in opposition earlier this month when she told unionskey Democratic
allies and fundraisers staunchly against free tradethat fast-track authority was out of the
question.
Dan Blumenthal, director of Asian Studies at the American Enterprise
Institute (AEI) and former senior director for China, Taiwan, and Mongolia in the George W. Bush administration,
said in an interview that Obama has yet to fight for the TPP.
Its fair to say he has not pushed harder for it, he said. He didnt get his own
leadership in line to make sure theyre coordinating this being a priority
on the legislative agenda.

No TPAObamas given up
Thune 2/25 [John, R-South Dakota, 2014, Democrats Must Give Obama Trade Promotion Authority,
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/02/25/give-obama-trade-promotion-authority/]

Obama declared in his State of the Union speech, We need to

work together on tools like bipartisan trade promotion authority to protect our workers,
President Barack

protect our environment and open new markets to new goods stamped Made in the USA. China and Europe arent
standing on the sidelines. Neither should we.

the president has not followed through on his call for

legislative action. Giving him trade promotion authority would put two large trade deals on a fast track to
Republicans agree. But
completion.

politics have intruded. The president has given in to members of

his party who oppose granting fast-track authority because the trade deals
might alienate friendly special-interest groups in an election year. He reportedly
did not even mention the issue when speaking to the House Democratic
Caucus at its annual retreat. Then Vice President Joe Biden, addressing the same group, said the
White House would be backing off the issue in deference to Democrats
political concerns.
It appears

Wont pass and Obamas not pushing

Watson 2/20 [Bill, Staff Writer for the Hill, 2014, GOP Should Support Free Trade,
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/198759-gop-should-support-free-trade]

The U.S. trade agenda is floundering and theres a lot of blame to go around. House
Democrats have refused to support trade promotion authority (TPA), which would streamline
passage of President Obamas signature trade initiative, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. As for the Senate, Harry

Reid recently announced his opposition, and the administration doesnt seem
willing to apply the political muscle needed to get it through.
The news media have also reported that the tea party is rising up in opposition to TPA.
They point to a handful of organizations that, using the party label, have argued that free trade
agreements are part of the presidents globalist agenda to enact
Obamatrade.

The truth is that the tea party movement has consistently driven the Republican Party toward genuine,
unconditional support of free trade. The evidence is there for anyone willing to look.
We have two terms worth of voting records to help us understand the impact of the tea party on trade politics in
Washington. The tea party class of House and Senate freshmen from 2010 voted strongly in favor of the last three
trade agreements, along with the rest of the Republican caucus. More importantly, members most closely aligned
with the tea party movement have been much more likely than other Republicans to support opening the U.S.
market without the need for reciprocal trade agreements.

members stood out last term for their principled opposition to popular bipartisan
trade initiatives. Members like Tim Huelskamp, Justin Amash, Jeff Flake and Mike Lee broke with their
These

Republican colleagues when Congress voted to expand subsidies from the Export-Import Bank, to impose tariffs on
all goods from China under the pretext of currency rebalancing, and to exacerbate protectionist antidumping laws.

They were joined by conservative groups like FreedomWorks and the Club
for Growth that condemned these programs as harmful corporate welfare and economic
interventionism.

Republicans that actively oppose trade. Late last year some

27 Republicans signed a pair of letters opposing t rade promotion authority. The
leaders of the effort, such as Rep. Walter Jones, have opposed trade expansion for
decades. However, some of the signatories, such as Reps. Michele Bachmann, Paul Broun, Louie
Gohmert, and Steve Stockman, are members of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus.
These members appear to have accepted the argument that trade promotion authority
gives undue power to President Obama. Protectionists at the American Jobs Alliance
have relied on the power of an anti-Obama message in their campaign to paint free
trade agreements as part of a power-grab by the president to impose his
anti-American Obamatrade agenda.
Thats not to say that there arent

AT: Key to Trade

Not key to trade bills
Ponnuru 2/10 [Ramesh, Visiting Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and Senior Editor at the
National Review, 2014, Obama on Free Trade: Doing It Wrong, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0210/obama-on-free-trade-doing-it-wrong.html]

the old argument for trade-promotion authority has lost some of its
force. K. William Watson, who studies trade for the Cato Institute, a libertarian research group, argued in
December that passing the trade-promotion authority just to conclude the T ransPacific Partnership didn't make sense. Talks were already well under way , and
could be slowed down by the new negotiating demands Congress would make as a
Even so,

condition for passing the authority.

the standard procedure for freeing trade requires winning

two votes in Congress: First the authority has to be granted, and then the
final deal passed. " Why have the same debate twice? " he asks. It's actually
worse than that, because it's harder to get the trade-promotion authority
than to enact a deal.
Congress hasn't granted the authority since 2002, when a Republican House passed it
Watson points out that

by a 215-212 vote. It lapsed in 2007. Yet Congress has been able to pass several notable trade agreements by wide
margins since then. In 2011, a free-trade deal with Colombia got 262 votes in the House, one with South Korea got
278, and one with Panama got 300.
The congressional debate over trade-promotion authority tends to turn on the abstract question of whether free
trade is a good idea. Protectionists can conjure up all kinds of grim scenarios about where liberalization will lead. In
the debate over actual trade agreements, on the other hand, proponents can point to concrete benefits -- this
specific market will be opened in this specific way to our exports -- to set against such fears. It's an easier fight for
the pro-trade side.

other countries can't count on trade-promotion authority to mitigate

the risks of negotiating with the U.S. When Democrats had control of the
House in 2008, they voted against complying with the commitment to make a quick
decision on trade agreements. The "fast track" took three more years.
And

Not key to free trade

Watson 12/19 [William, Trade Policy Analyst at the Cato Institutes Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade
Policy Studies, 2013, Stay Off the Fast Track: Why Trade Promotion Authority Is Wrong for the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, http://www.cato.org/publications/free-trade-bulletin/stay-fast-track-why-trade-promotion-authoritywrong-trans-pacific]

Obama administration has asked Congress to reinstate trade promotion

authority in hopes that it will enable passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade agreement being
negotiated by 12 countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Advocates of free trade generally
support trade promotion authority, because it eases the passage of trade
agreements through Congress by guaranteeing an up-or-down vote with no amendments. While
trade promotion authority can be useful, the current political climate in Washington reduces
The

its benefits , and the late stage of the TPP negotiations raises the risk that trade promotion authority will do
more harm than good.
Free trade agreements are an important tool to improve U.S. trade policy, and "fast track" trade promotion authority

contrary to the
assertion of many trade advocates, trade promotion authority is not a
has been helpful in securing the completion and passage of those agreements. But,

necessary prerequisite to passing trade agreements.

Trade policy has become much more partisan than it was when fast track
was invented 40 years ago.1 With Republicans controlling the House of Representatives and a
Democrat in the White House, the TPP has excellent prospects for passage even without trade promotion authority.
While the benefits that stem from granting fast track are currently weak, the costs are still very real. In exchange
for promising expedited procedures, Congress sets negotiating objectives in the trade promotion authority statute
that the president is expected to adopt if he wants an agreement to receive fast track treatment. If the TPP
negotiations are as far along as the administration claims, adding new negotiating objectives will delay or possibly
even prevent completion of the agreement.
If trade promotion authority is to be useful in facilitating the TPP negotiations, it must subtract rather than add
negotiating objectives. The TPP, as envisioned by U.S. negotiators, will push forward a lot of unpopular, new U.S.
demands as a condition for access to the U.S. market. None of these "ambitious" goalslike stricter intellectual
property enforcement, investment protections, and regulatory good governancehelps American consumers or
furthers the goal of trade liberalization. They do, however, attract substantial political opposition at home and
abroad.
Unless trade promotion authority is used to make the TPP a better agreement, there is little point in pursuing it now.
The battle over trade promotion authority will likely involve a divisive debate about the value of trade in which
support from individual members is bought with guarantees of protection or favor for special interests. Such a
debate will surely occur again when Congress votes to pass a completed TPP agreement, so why have it twice?
Unless trade promotion authority can be used to simplify the trade debate and improve trade agreementsto make
them more about free tradethe American people will be better off without it.
What Is Trade Promotion Authority?

There are a lot of myths about what fast track is and how it works. A grant of
trade promotion authority establishes an agreement between Congress and the president over how trade

Both the president and Congress take on

obligations. Congress agrees to hold an up-or-down vote on trade
agreements submitted by the president within established time limits. In exchange for this promise,
the president agrees to consult with congressional leaders throughout the
agreements should be negotiated and ratified.

negotiations and to adopt a variety of negotiating objectives dictated by Congress.2

After negotiations are completed, the "fast track" component of trade promotion authority kicks in. Under the 2002
Trade Promotion Act, the president was required to notify Congress 90 days before signing any agreement. Then the
president would submit the agreement to each house of Congress in the form of a bill implementing the treatys
obligations. The House and Senate then had a total of 90 days to pass the bill out of committee and hold a floor
vote.3 During this time, no amendments could be attached to the bill, and Senate filibuster rules didnt apply.
Trade promotion authority can be very helpful in securing ratification and implementation of trade agreements. By
simplifying and streamlining the approval process, and by giving congressional leaders influence over the
negotiations from the beginning, trade promotion authority greatly reduces the potential for unhelpful disruption by
Congress after an agreement is completed. The procedural restrictions prevent the agreement from being picked
apart by every member of Congress whose district is home to an uncompetitive business.
Indeed many proponents of trade promotion authority claim that fast track is necessary to get trade agreements
through Congress, and with good reason. Trade historian Craig VanGrasstek notes that between 1789 and 1933, the
president submitted 27 tariff reduction treaties to the Senate for ratification, and only five of those were approved.4
Most of those that did not pass died after the Senate simply refused to hold a vote on them. Trade promotion
authority removes that possibility.

The benefits of trade promotion authority, however, come with a substantial cost.
Congress generally sees trade promotion authority as a way not only to expedite the
passage of trade agreements but also to influence their content.5 Any agreement that receives fast track
treatment is expected to conform to demands imposed by Congress in the trade promotion authority statute.
The 2002 Trade Promotion Act, in particular, laid out extensive and detailed negotiating objectives. Topics covered
in the objectives included investment protection, intellectual property laws, administrative law, labor law, and
environmental protection.6 These objectives are mostly export-oriented and reflect the interests of certain U.S.
business interests in foreign markets. Their inclusion may garner additional political support for the agreement, but
they also attract opposition.

Most importantly, achieving these negotiating goals will not liberalize

trade . Nevertheless, these non-trade issues are often the most politically
contentious aspect of trade agreements. At the same time, they distract
negotiators

from the legitimate goal of lowering U.S. trade barriers and fighting protectionism.

Trade Promotion Authority Is Unnecessary

The conventional wisdom, among trade advocates and opponents alike, is that fast track is
necessary to get agreements through Congress. But the most recent experiences with trade
promotion authority following the Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives in 2007 aptly

demonstrate how ineffective it can be. At the same time, trade policy has
become increasingly partisan in recent decades so that trade promotion
authority is now neither necessary nor sufficient to pass free trade
agreements.
Partisan Congress

In theory, trade promotion authority works well to enable the president to pursue an

ambitious trade policy despite a typically trade-skeptic Congress. The negotiating objectives Congress includes in
trade promotion authority serve as politically necessary restrictions on the presidents power to open the U.S.
market. According to conventional wisdom, accepting the need for a watered-down agreement in advance is the
only way to avoid having an agreement rejected or delayed after years of difficult negotiations.

But support for and opposition to free trade agreements has become
especially predictable and partisan over the last few decades. Indeed, the trade policy divide in
Congress may be more partisan now than at any time since the 1920s, when protectionist Republicans imposed
high tariffs that helped plunge the country into economic depression and war. Today, anti-trade sentiment has
become quite powerful within the Democratic Party. The Republican Party, while certainly not dominated by free
traders, is strongly committed to reciprocal liberalization through trade agreements.

The result of this dynamic is that trade agreements are passed largely
along party lines, regardless of whats in them . For example, the last time there was a

Democrat in the White House and Republicans in charge of Congress, controversy over labor and environment
issues prevented Congress from approving fast-track legislation for President Clinton in 1998 despite support from
Republican leadership. But while Republicans opposed including strong labor and environment objectives in a grant
of fast track authority to a Democratic president in 1998, they had no trouble approving three agreements in 2011
that included such provisions.
Democrats, on the other hand, have recently demonstrated their willingness to oppose agreements without strong
labor and environment provisions, even if the agreements are consistent with agreed upon fast-track objectives. In
2007 when the Democratic Party took control of the House of Representatives, the new leadership reneged on the
2002 fast track grant and demanded that already-completed agreements be renegotiated to include stronger
obligations on labor and the environment before holding a vote.7 Even then, three of the agreements werent taken
up by Congress until Republicans took back the House four years later.

Ironically, securing trade promotion authority can end up being politically

more difficult than passing trade agreements. In 1998 the House voted 243180 against
granting fast-track authority to President Clinton. One third of the Republican majority joined the bulk of the
Democratic members to defeat the bill. In 2002 a Republican House and Democratic Senate approved trade
promotion authority for President Bush. The House voted along partisan lines, but the administration had to lobby
Democrats in the Senate to secure passage. The 2002 Trade Promotion Act passed the Senate 6234, a closer
margin than all but one of the free trade agreements submitted to Congress under that bills procedures.

The lesson we should learn from fast tracks recent history is that
ideological and partisan differences may be more toxic to trade promotion
authority than to gaining approval of completed agreements. While trade
agreements offer concrete, measurable benefits, the debate over fast track takes place in the abstract.8 Trade
promotion authority is an opportunity for members to score points with constituents and special interests without
much consequence. Once a completed agreement is on the table, members of Congress will face much greater
pressure to avoid making parochial demands.
Theres little purpose in having a divisive debate about trade policy now and then another one when the TPP is
complete, especially when the agreement is likely to pass even without trade promotion authority.

AFFGeneric

Thumpers

Defense Budget
Defense cuts thump
AP 2/25 [The Associated Press, The Gods of News, 2014, Congress Signals Tough Fight For Pentagon Plan,
http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/national/2014/02/congress_signals_tough_fight_for_pentagon_plan]

Lawmakers signaled a difficult battle ahead for the Obama

administration's plan to dramatically overhaul the nation's military, voicing
opposition Tuesday to proposed cuts in benefit packages, long-standing weapons programs and
bases that mean money and jobs across America.
The

skepticism from both Republicans and Democrats augured poorly for

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel's vision of shrinking the Army to its smallest size in threequarters of a century and creating a nimbler force more suited to future threats than the large land wars in Iraq and

Congress may
be more interested in increasing military spending in a midterm election
year.
The cuts "will weaken our nation's security while the threats we face around
the world are becoming more dangerous and complex," Sens. John McCain and
Lindsey Graham, two leading GOP hawks, said in a joint statement. "Now is not the time to
Afghanistan over the last decade. Tuesday's advance of a new veterans bill also suggested

embrace a defense posture reminiscent of the years prior to World War II," they said, without outlining substitute
cost reductions.
Although Congress has agreed on keeping next year's military budget just under $500 billion, major tradeoffs must
still be made to get under the cap.

Tensions exist in both parties. GOP hawks are lining up against tea party
supporters keen to rein in spending, while Democrats backing the Obama administration must
deal with colleagues from military-heavy districts and states fretful about the potential
fallout. Automatic spending cuts that landed heavily on the military were only eased somewhat by a budget
agreement two months ago.

appetite is waning for difficult decisions on defense

reductions, especially as the nation gears up for congressional elections in
November.
The evidence since then suggests

Defense budget thumps

Klapper 2/25 [Bradley, Staff Writer for the Associated Press, 2014, Congress Skeptical Of Obama
Administration Plan To Shrink Military, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/25/congress-obamamilitary_n_4852936.html]

The Obama administration's push for a smaller , nimbler military must now
face the scrutiny of a Congress that has spent years battling the Pentagon's vision
for a new security strategy.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is proposing to shrink the Army to its smallest size in three-quarters of a century,
hoping to reshape the military after more than a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan and roped in by fiscal
constraints set by Congress.

The plan unveiled Monday is already raising red flags among leading
Republicans and Democrats.
"What we're trying to do is solve our financial problems on the backs of our military, and that can't be done," said
Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., the House Armed Services Committee chairman.
" There's

going to be a huge challenge ," Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the Senate Armed Services

Committee chairman, conceded.

lawmakers
appear in little mood to weigh difficult, if necessary, decisions on defense
reductions, especially as the nation gears up for midterm elections in November.
They have resisted cutting tanks and aircraft the military doesn't even
want, or accepting base closings that would be poison in their home districts. They
Having backtracked just this month on cutting veterans benefits by less than 1 percent,

have consistently advocated bigger pay increases for service members than the government has requested.
And although Congress has agreed on an overall number for the military budget in 2015, at just under $500 billion,
there are still major decisions to be made on how that money should be spent.
"We are repositioning to focus on the strategic challenges and opportunities that will define our future: new
technologies, new centers of power and a world that is growing more volatile, more unpredictable and in some
instances more threatening to the United States," Hagel said Monday at the Pentagon.
President Barack

Obama will submit the budget to Congress

next week.

At its core, the plan foresees the U.S. military as no longer sized to conduct large and protracted ground wars.
Instead, more emphasis will be on versatile, agile forces that can project power over great distances, including in
Asia.
The active-duty Army would shrink from 522,000 soldiers to between 440,000 and 450,000. That would make it the
smallest since just before the U.S. entered World War II.
Other contentious elements include the elimination of the Air Force's A-10 "Warthog" tank-killer aircraft and the
Cold War-era U-2 spy plane; Army National Guard reductions; and domestic military base closings that Congress has
roundly rejected since Obama became president. Military compensation will also decline slightly. Another flashpoint
could emerge over the fleet of 11 aircraft carriers that the Pentagon insists it is maintaining.

Winners Win

2AC W/W
Winners win overcomes gridlock
Lemieux 1/30 [Alex, Staff Writer for Liberty Voice, 2014, State of the Union Address: Obama Plays Small
Ball, http://guardianlv.com/2014/01/state-of-the-union-address-obama-plays-small-ball/]
Lets make this a year of action, Obama emphatically stated. Movement in Washington is
much-needed to resolve the myriad of problems that are plaguing partisan
politics. The American people are fed up with stagnant growth out of the
recession

and failed policy

implementation

attempts. This is evident as the

Presidents poll numbers are dipping and Congress is rated at a historical

low 9%.
The president has faced two problems: an unindustrious Congress and
lackluster economy . He explained that even in the middle of an economic recovery, far too many
Americans are working more than ever just to make ends meet and countless Americans are still without
employment. One of Obamas remedies is to raise the minimum wage from a federally-mandated $7.25 to $10.10
for federal contract workers. Republicans have offered to negotiate over the measure by offering tax credits rather
than an outright increase in minimum wage. Although addresses are mainly just talk, the president has
threatened to act unilaterally and is unwavering in his plan to increase wages for all workers.
Obama stated before the address that he would not be making any extensive proposals in his speech to the
American people. The president explained, though, that he is seeing to create, new ladders of opportunity. He
wants to focus on the hopes and aspirations of the American people.

While it may have been a somewhat rousing discourse for his electoral base and his
political hopefuls, his address was restrained and empty . It lacked a sense of
urgency and resoluteness in addition to undoubtedly being oversold by
the White House. He was also not as combative as he has been towards
conservative Republicans. By this gesture, it can only be inferred that he was using
the stage of the State of the Union Address to play small ball with political leaders.
The New York Times gave bullish praise to the presidents address by stating that Obama has declared
independence from Congress after five years of political conflict. He declares that he will alleviate e
conomic disparity from the American people with new initiatives on jobs, wage compensation, and retirement

In regards to the presidents vow to act without

Congress, Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R) stated late last week, We have a
constitution.
Although he may perceive Congress as the adversary of his legacy, the president will be unable to
produce distinct policy initiatives without the help of the House and
Senate. While political gridlock may be the product of a Congress that has been
hitherto unproductive at the most, Obama still needs to abide by the constitutional
guidelines regarding his ability to sign executive orders into law.
income without congressional approval.

As for entertaining a broad theme of inequality, the president did not disappoint. The same song and dance is being
played to a divided nation regarding political, social, and economic inequality and Obama is orchestrating that
symphony. Concerning minimum wage, he called on Congress to enact a similar proposal during last years State of
the Union. While the proposal sat on the steps of the Capitol being debated by Republicans who said that it would
suppress job creation amidst the sluggish recovery, the president stood back and watched. The endless debates
and stagnant improvements from Washington has 63% of Americans believing that the country is currently on the
wrong track.
President Obamas signature bill, the Affordable Healthcare Act (ACA) was surprisingly not as prominent in his
address as it has been in the media. He recognized that the ACA has had problems in its initial rollout, but wouldnt
offer any solutions probably why it was buried in the second half of his address. He also didnt say he would be
working with his Republicans colleagues to create a comprehensive solution. Nonetheless, by not stemming away
from the core principles of the ACA, he shielded himself from having to articulate any substantive concessions or
expend any political capital.

With a blatant dividedness among the legislature, the president is at risk

of having a lame-duck term.

Therefore,

how can Obama save his second term?

Many of his signature policy initiatives are long-term goals. Right now, the
president needs a short-term policy victory which will
his administrations morale.

have the potential to

boost

While he only devoted one paragraph to it during his address, Obama

hinted that he is willing to work with a bipartisan legislature on comprehensive immigration reform. If the president
can uphold this undertaking his job approval numbers will climb back into the high 40s.
As for the overall consensus of the address, Fox News Contributor, Charles Krauthammer made comparisons to Bill
Clinton. He sounds like a president who realized hes not going to get it downand now hes playing small ball, he
said. The speech mirrors President Clintons address in the mid-90s after a Republican takeover of Congress. In his
latter years, Clinton was unable to move as swiftly as he wanted through policy debates as pushback from the
Republicans was creating gridlock.

Tuesdays State of the Union Address showed that Obama will not stop
until he can implement his plan for America. In his first term Democrats held both houses of
Congress and the president was able to work rather efficiently with the legislature to progress is ultimatum.

after the Tea Party takeover of the House in 2010, he realizes is political
potential is being diminished by opposing views in Congress .
President Obamas address may have captivated his base; however, that is a
base that is diminishing in power every day. As the president goes forth
into the depths of his second term in office, he will attempt to progress
unilaterally with unfavorable policy implementations that will further divide our
already bifurcated nation. Obama no longer has the heavy-hitter status
he did half-a-decade ago. If his second term is at all foreshadowed by his State of the Union Address,
However,

the basketball-loving statesman will undeniably be playing small ball in the second half.

1AR W/W Ext

Winners win

No PC now gridlock, low approval rating, and economy needs a win to build
momentum and overcome lame duck status thats Lemieux

Wins overcome past failures generate political pressure

Espuelas 12/19 [Fernando, Staff Writer for the Hill Pundits Blog, 2013, Just a Flesh Wound: Obama's
Not Over, http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/national-party-news/193647-just-a-flesh-wound-obamas-not-over]

the self-referential pundocracy in Washington has declared the

Obama presidency over, kaput, ready for the history books. It's an easy riff for the
people desperate to fill a 24-hour news cycle. How better to break through the media
Predictably,

cacophony than with a jaunty headline like Obama presidency over?

Like Monty Python's knight, the Obama administration has had a series
of "flesh wounds " in 2013. The embarrassing non-launch of the Affordable Care Act website, a muddled
reaction to the Syria crisis and the utter lack of leverage over the reactionary House of Representatives have
conveyed an image of a White House with loose hands on the national
reins.
Yet often forgotten in such analysis-light reporting is the fact that the future is not
visible today or in panel discussions of news networks or even in columns that explain the
reasons for the imminent collapse of the Obama presidency with the solemnity of an obituary.
Here are the top five reasons the

Obama

administration

will be a growing force in our

national affairs for at least two more years, that is, before the 2016 horse race launches with full abandon.
Nothing teaches like failure. Reports of a president enraged by his team's
fumbling of the ACA website launch have been seared in the collective White
House consciousness. Failure is not an option, and the disaster of HealthCare.gov's bugridden takeoff is a bitter lesson learned. You can bet that future plans and initiatives will be
vetted and revetted with the assumption that everything could go wrong
and usually does without vigilance.
ObamaCare is finally working. Beyond the lingering process issues that will be resolved, the hypermaligned
Affordable Care Act is signing up people at a faster pace. The insurance industry is betting on ObamaCare and
ready to launch a massive recruitment marketing campaign.

good press ,

Nothing beats

back

bad press like

and that is starting to happen now. By the 2014 elections, there may be a whole new narrative.

Often the best-made plans to refocus on American domestic needs and let the world shoulder more of responsibility
for its own security get upended by international events. Just last week an increasingly reckless China almost
collided one of their warships with an American missile cruiser sailing in international waters. More recently, Saudi
Arabia has intimated that it may take on Iran on its own. And one should never discount the possibility of a major
flare-up in Israel and Palestine. You can bet that an unexpected crisis will change the national agenda.

Congress has become a national punch line. In some polls, its popularity is
measured in the single digits. An Obama White House not burdened by flesh wounds
can and will act as an effective counterbalance to the dysfunction on
The

Capitol Hill. The situation is ripe for an assertive presidential offensive

that creates significant political pressure on the legislative branch.
When Winston Churchill was informed that Italy would likely join Germany in a second world war, he is reported to
have said, "That seems only fair. We had them last time! The almost farcical actions of today's Republican Party
and its parasitic partners in the Tea Party are certainly a huge asset to the Obama administration. Case in point:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnells (R-Ky.) recently declared the debt-ceiling vote would have to be
accompanied by concessions from the White House. After the recent disaster of the GOP's government shutdown
and their concurrent threat to destroy the full faith and credit of the United States, the supposed grown-ups in the

Republican Party are threatening the same kind of economic disaster that failed them as a political lever in October
and led to the widespread disgust of Americans and a collapse of confidence across the world.

with
smart execution, strategic politics and the unique gift of the Republicans
to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, the flesh wounds of today will
Sure, the Obama administration may still go forth and fumble the ball. A more likely scenario is that

be healed and the critical focus of the nation will

Flying Circus that is today's Congress.

once again

shift fully to the Monty Python

Key to bandwagoning
Young 1/2 [J.T., Served in the Treasury Department and the Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to
2004 and as a former Congressional Staff Member, 2014, The Luck Of Congressional Democrats Has Run Out, And
They're No Longer Playing With House Money, http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/01/02/the-luck-ofcongressional-democrats-has-run-out-and-theyre-no-longer-playing-with-house-money/]
This difference will be as meaningful as it is different, for Democrats on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

When youre no longer winning, youre no longer everyones friend. The

media is already a prime example. The kid gloves have come off the questions have gotten
tougher, while the answers havent gotten better. Right now, Obama could not buy a good
headline, much less win one.
At least some Democrats in Congress are very likely to be another example. This coming year means playing for
keeps in Novembers elections. If Democrats do not retake the House,

Congress

Obama faces at best a split

just as he becomes a lame duck president. If the Democrats should lose

the Senate, then Obama could find himself in even worse straits.

Obamacares failures and negative public reception have given

Republican candidates a single nationwide issue the thing that nationalizes elections
and creates landslides. The further Democrats move down the political color
spectrum, from blue to red districts, the greater the incentive they have to break
with the administration on any issue, even those they would normally support to compensate for
Suddenly

Obamacares political drag.

The more his own party distances, the more the White House will be inclined to
ignore Congress exacerbating an institutional antagonism already increasingly
apparent.

Such fracturing is new to this administration.

When youre winning, everyone bets with

you; when you are losing, they bet against you. That could be very
detrimental to this White House, where many potentially difficult issues have
been defused by split control of Congress and unified support from
Democrats.

1AR W/W Foreign Policy

Foreign policy wins spill over turns their offense
Foster 12/31 [Peter, Staff Writer for Gulf News, 2013, Obama Has to Get His Act Together,
http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/obama-has-to-get-his-act-together-1.1272540]
Delivering his final press conference of 2013, Barack Obama looked like a man who had already decided he was
going to get the empty half of the cracker for Christmas. After a year this bad, the president could be forgiven for
spending most of his Hawaiian holiday disconsolately ruffling the frizzy mop of Bo, the First Dog, muttering, at
least you understand me, buddy. It had been a bruising 12 months for Obama having
begun with high hopes for a second term, but ended with the presidential approval rating down at a desultory 41
per cent. It is the same rock-bottom figure to which George W. Bush slumped in 2005 after his own fifth year in
office.
The questions fired at Obama before the Christmas break told their own story, zooming in mercilessly on the
biggest loss of 2013 for the president not the botched Obamacare roll-out or indeed a trove of top secret
documents from the National Security Agency (NSA) but the far more priceless commodity that is his credibility
with the public. Has this been the worst year of your presidency? someone asked with cruel bluntness. It went
downhill from there as Obama was reminded that Politifact had awarded him the Lie of the Year for his if you like
your plan, you can keep your plan Obamacare slogan. Hinting at lies again, another reporter asked Obama if he
really believed those assurances he gave to the American public that the NSA spying programmes were scrubbed
and nothing to worry about.

Even a city as divided as Washington agrees that Obama has pretty much hit
the bottom of the well when it comes to approval ratings. The question is
whether unlike Bush, whose numbers never recovered he can climb back out again.
Obama has several advantages over Bush, not least that the US economy is now recovering,
not tanking, as it was at the same time in Bushs second term. And while Obama may be locked in a war of words
with Congress Republicans, he is not mired in a real war going hopelessly wrong, as Bush was in Iraq. Indeed, 2014
is the year US troops will leave Afghanistan, meaning, Obama has something to celebrate already inked into his
calendar.
And as for Obamacare, while far from a certain success, the websites and exchanges are now grinding into life and
the victims of that particular fight those who will pay more for their health insurance, not less are relatively

It also is not impossible as Ronald Reagan had shown at the end of his second term
that Obama may yet be saved by his foreign policy , aided by John Kerry, a Secretary
few in number.

of State whose sheer energy and willingness to lead (unlike his boss) has been a welcome change in many capitals
last year. Reagan showed what was possible. In early 1987, his ratings had plummeted so far (42 per cent),
following the Iran-Contra scandal, that when he welcomed that years SuperBowl champions to the White House
and the captain thanked the fans, Reagan was heard to observe: Yes, I used to have fans. But within a year,
Reagans ratings were back over 50 per cent as he took credit for the sudden warming of ties with the Soviet Union

The real question is whether Obama

and a second-string team of advisers at the White House who keep putting up backs in
Congress, including among Democrats can re-emerge as a force for progress . Already
a fight looms over Iran sanctions this month thanks to a clumsy White House promise to veto a
and staged his historic summits with Mikhail Gorbachev.

bill that was co-signed by 15 Democrat senators, with the promise of perhaps another 15 signatures to come. But
instead of cutting a deal with Democrat senators facing re-election in the mid-terms several with donors and
electorates that want a tough line on Iran Obama took the opportunity in his press conference to sneer at them.
I think the politics of trying to look tough on Iran are often good when youre running for office or if youre in
office, said the man who has run his last election. It is the kind of unnecessary clumsiness that has been the
hallmark of this White Houses dealings with Congress.

Obama is right. He has plenty going for him in 2014, but the underlying
tailwinds will mean nothing without a change of attitude

at the top. A couple [of]

days of sleep and sun the presidents own prescription for erasing the wounds of 2013 will not be enough.

1AR W/W Bargaining

Winners win bargaining
Bitzer 1/30 [Michael, Associate Professor of Politics and History at Catawba College, 2014, President Didn't
Show Willingness To Bargain In SOTU Speech, http://wfae.org/post/president-didnt-show-willingness-bargain-sotuspeech]

The power of the presidency has been described as the power to

persuade, but how presidents use that persuasion , not just within the government but
also with the nation as a whole, can be a determining factor in their successful use of leadership.
The State of the Union provides the most notably activity for a president to engage in this power of persuasion.
Traditionally, the address commands the nations attention and allows the chief executive to provide his vision of
what the coming year may bring, typically through legislation but also through a focus on his priorities, whether
they pass Congress or not.
Most States of the Union lack the notoriety of inaugural addresses: FDRs the only thing we have to fear to
Kennedys ask not to Reagans government isnt the solution to our problems, government is the problem. But
hardly anyone remembers State of the Union one-liners or key phrases; perhaps the most current one that many
may remember was the axis of evil denoted by President George W. Bush just four months after the 9/11 attacks.

States of the Union have become

more of a laundry list of wishes and plans that presidents put forth, and in our recent
times of divided government, its more often considered a D.O.A. list.
That doesnt stop presidents from commanding the nations attention and
using the power of persuasion. But when political scientist Richard Neustadt coined the phrase, he added a
While the address is a constitutionally-mandated requirement,

critical component to understanding that presidential power.

The power to persuade is ultimately about the power to bargain , and this
corollary symbolizes the ultimate design of our constitutional republic: that of not getting
everything you want, but rather getting as much as you can and realizing
the other party may get something that they want.
Because when you divide power between different players in a game, the game will
ultimately

ensure

that theres

conflict. But winners can come out of the game, if

they are willing to bargain

and ultimately create compromise.

President Obamas speech was a classic laundry list, with assertions of other presidential power laden inside of it.
From the threat of veto against ramped-up sanctions to Iran to declaring a year of action, even if he has to go it

Obamas speech seemed like his grocery list. It includes something

from every aisle that he wants, but no real sense of what the meal was beyond a
alone,

buffet.

the power of persuasion is

always on display with lines like Give America a raise! But what President Obama didnt seem to fully
connect to Neustradts dictum was the second half: Bargaining. If the president had said that he wanted
an increase in the minimum wage and then offered to accept a meaningful Republican idea ,
that would have not only been a sign of bargaining, but something grander: Compromise.
Presidents understand and command power at their disposal, and

Confrontation Good

2AC Fights Good

Confrontations build momentum
Tomasky 1/29 [Michael, Politics Correspondent for the Daily Beast, 2014, Will Obama Ever Play
Hardball? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/29/will-obama-ever-play-hardball.html]
That was sort of a throw-down. At least it had to make Republicans feel pissed off. And thats always what I want

Heres the most obstructed president in the modern

history of the country. (Yes, theres no serious disputing this.) His approval numbers are
Obama to do at these speeches.

dragged down by the opposition party, which does everything it can to make sure there
will be no economic recovery while hes president. Hes got three years left, three years during
which he stands only one remote shot of getting anything positive donehave
the Democrats win back the House this November. If that doesnt happen, with the
party simultaneously holding the Senate, then pffft.
He acknowledged this reality with all that executive order business, and that was good. But by and large, he
didnt go at the Republicans in the way I think he should have. I see it like this. Nothings
going to pass. Thats a given. So, given that nothings going to pass, then what? The
only thing you can doand this aint very uplifting, but its where we are these daysis set it up
so that when nothing passes, the country blames the other guys.
That entails...what? Some shaming. Some calling out. Some zingers at the other side.
Some direct challenges to the Republicansyou are defying the will of the
clear majority of the American people on the minimum wage, on unemployment insurance, on gun control,
et cetera. Its true; they are. To say so would, I believe, put them on the defensive, and it
would provide a framework for the whole year: The president directly
challenges Congress to act , even taunts them a little.
That gives the Democrats something to run on. You keep that challenge up
all year. Obstructionist, obstructionist, obstructionist. And then by November, when nothing has
happened, hopefully people will think that its the Republicans fault. Youve
down,

galvanized your side.

1AR Fights Good Ext

Fights good

Controversial issues pressure Republicans and galvanizes support for future policies
thats Tomasky

Fractures the GOP and allows agenda success

Parnes 12/31 [Aimee, Staff Writer for the Hill, 2013, Five Things Obama Must Do to Avoid Lame-Duck
Status, http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/194158-five-things-obama-must-do-to-avoid-lame-duck-status]

When Obama has used the bully pulpit to take a hard line with
Republicans, hes seen a bump in his approval ratings. A good example
was during the government shutdown, when the White House refused to
negotiate with the GOP over concessions on a continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government.
Democrats won in a huge way when Obama didnt back down on the CR, the
former senior official said. Allies say Obama also benefitted because the shutdown divided the GOP. They say the
White House needs to identify more policies that drive a wedge between
mainstream and Tea Party

Republicans . Every time [Senator] Ted Cruz threatens to default, [Senator] Mark

Pryors staff breathes a little easier, the former official added. Pryor (D-Ark.) is a top GOP target in 2014.

Picking the right fights also telegraphs a message of strength from the
White House. People respect strength and every time the president
exhibits it, he does well , Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons said.

We control uniqueness Obamas not fighting now

engagement is key
McNamara 1/30 [Eileen, Professor of Journalism at Brandeis University, 2014, The President Should Be
Talking to Congress Not Costco, http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2014/01/30/state-of-the-union-eileen-mcnamara]
President

Obamas agenda is not the problem. His refusal to fight for it is.

Hed like to raise the minimum wage for everyone but, until Congress agrees, hell settle for raising it for employees
of federal contractors? Hed like every child to have access to preschool but, in the absence of congressional action,
hell celebrate the states that have taken steps in that direction? Hed like to see comprehensive immigration
reform but, until Congress moves on the issue, hell settle for slowing deportations through executive order?

Instead of engaging with an obstructionist Congress two miles down the

road, the president this week is taking his preferred route, avoiding
Capitol Hill altogether and traveling across the country to trumpet ideas from his
State of the Union address that his audiences already support.
President Obamas agenda is not the problem. His refusal to fight for it is.

The president is not going to find his absent leadership chops at rallies in
a Costco warehouse in Maryland or a steel plant in Pittsburgh or a high school in Nashville or a
manufacturing plant in Wisconsin. The applause that will greet his calls to raise the minimum wage, to extend
unemployment benefits, to require tougher background checkson gun sales, to expand access to early childhood
education wont get any of it done. Neither will a few anemic executive orders.

In order to lead, a president needs to engage those

even the most venal

who

would thwart him at every turn. Disdain for the opposition isnt a political strategy. That there are
those on Capitol Hill committed to undermining Obama at any cost is beyond dispute, but that is all the more

Obama invariably does the opposite. Rather than

capitalize on public fury at fringe Republicans who shut down the federal
government last year, Obama simply savored the satisfaction of being right.
reason to refuse to yield.

In doing so, he squandered an opportunity to mobilize the public and to

form productive alliances with those Republicans on Capitol Hill who were as disgusted as he by the
destructive grandstanding of the Cruz-Paul wing of the GOP.
America does not stand still, and neither will I, a defensive president with dramatically diminished dreams said
Tuesday night. So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more
American families, thats what Im going to do.

Isolating himself in the West Wing, crafting incremental

changes to avoid the big policy fights, is precisely not what Americans
elected, and then re-elected, him to do. Working with Congress, no matter how distasteful a president might
That is simply not enough.

find its component parts, is in the job description.

Barack Obama is not the first president to face political intransigence at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. The

But for
the system to work, a president has to show up prepared to fight. Plenty
of Obamas predecessors did. The minions of Wall Street in Congress opposed Franklin D. Roosevelt
founders expressly envisioned a fractious relationship between the executive and legislative branches.

on everything from creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission to rural electrification. Southern
segregationists tried but failed to block Lyndon B. Johnson on civil rights. A Democratic majority in the House could
not thwart Ronald Reagans determination to expand military spending.

1AR Fights Good Inevitable

Confrontational positions key to agenda success
The Economist 1/30 [The Economist, Super Awesome News Magazine, 2014, Clowns to the Left,
Jokers to the Right, http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/01/barack-obama]
DMITRI SHOSTAKOVICH is supposed to have told his biographer that the bombastic triumphalism of the last
movement of his Fifth Symphony, which Stalin compelled him to write, was actually a parody: "It's as if someone
were beating you with a stick and saying, 'Your business is rejoicing, your business is rejoicing.'"

Obama strained to project an

image of pragmatic, bipartisan optimism in his state-of-the-union address. Given how
I thought of this (probably apocryphal) story Tuesday as Barack

frustrating the past year has been for Mr Obama, one might have expected him to mount the podium and vow
eternal vengeance on the Republican party, cursing its leadership to the deepest circles of hell. But nobody rewards

people want sunny

confidence from their leaders, and Mr Obama's calm demeanor is one of the reasons his popularity
a president for pouring out his indignation upon the opposition. The American

ratings aren't lower than they are, after a year in which Republicans have deployed scorched-earth resistance to his
every proposal, brought his agenda to a grinding halt, damaged the economy by imposing needless austerity
measures, and nevertheless convinced much of the country that Mr Obama is largely to blame for Washington's
paralysis

The closest Mr Obama got to denouncing the GOP's strategy of total

resistance came early on, when he noted that Washington "has been
consumed by a rancorous argument over the proper size of the federal
government". He conceded that this is "an important debateone that dates back to our very founding", but
he chided Congress (without pointing fingers) for allowing this argument to shut down the government. This
rhetorical stance encapsulates everything that makes Mr Obama a successful politician, and also what what drives
both parties crazy. Mr Obama has built his career on standing above the political fray, acknowledging that he has a
partisan agenda, but calling for both sides to compromise wherever possible for the country's sake. This is his
vaunted "adult in the room" ploy. Tuesday night, for example, after plugging the achievements of Obamacare, he
cracked that he "do[es] not expect to convince my Republican friends on the merits of this law," drawing a round of
laughs. Then he scolded Republicans for continuing to stage hopeless votes to repeal the law, and said he would
welcome any positive ideas they have to improve it.

Obama's wry, pedagogical tone angers Republicans .

Increasingly, though, it also angers Democrats, who are tired of having to
throw their weight behind the president's call for reasonable compromise.
Over the past three years, America's political system has descended into all-out
It's obvious why Mr

partisan warfare. Democrats want a general in that fight ; they are

increasingly dissatisfied that their leader has to spend his rhetorical
energy playing the role of the UN envoy calling on all sides to exercise restraint. Since the day
after his re-election, pundits have been calling on Mr Obama to act more like LBJ:
take strong ideological positions , propose major legislation , twist arms
off and beat people's heads in with them

(in Senator Russell's immortal words), and so forth.

(Our Lexington argued that case a few months back.) Earlier this month Isaac Chotiner bemoaned the president's
habit of forever presenting both sides of every argument, accusing him of "talk[ing] to us like we're children": "It's
as if the reader can't be trusted to just hear one side from the president, because that might (heaven forbid) make
him or her think Obama hasn't considered every angle."

PC Fails

2AC PC Fails
PC fails gridlock inevitable and no spillover
Lizza 1/30 [Ryan, Staff Writer for the New Yorker, 2014, Obama Breaks Up With Congress,
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/01/the-state-of-the-union-or-obama-breaks-up-withcongress.html]

despite his emphasis on less grandiose initiatives, Obama didnt actually

abandon any of the big items on last years legislative agenda : tax reform,
comprehensive immigration reform, gun control. He mentioned all of them. But, over-all, his tone of
resignation and his laundry list of smaller ideas reflected a new sense of
realism about the fact that theres little on which he and House
And,

Republicans agree.
Obama now understands, like other Presidents before him, that the State of the Union is
a giant con. The media builds it up as an evening with potentially transformative
effects. The stagecraft, with the Commander-in-Chief addressing a sea of applauding congressmen,
emphasizes the Presidents alleged primacy in our political system. But its all just
a show.
Besides,

The ratings for the event are in decline.

political scientists have made it clear that the speech

It may even have the opposite effect. The act of making the speech often

more tightly to their prexisting positions.

rarely changes minds.

pushes partisans to cling

(The very task of having to wait for Obama

caused one Texas Republican to tweet, On floor of house waitin on Kommandant-In-Chef the Socialistic dictator
whos been feeding US a line or is it A-Lying? )
Several generations of political leaders and journalists have been taught to believe that, in the words of the political

Presidents always come into

office believing that, with bargaining, cajoling, and pure reason, they can
bring members of Congress around to the idea that passing the White
Houses agenda is in their interest. Obama believed this in his bones; his 2008 campaign was
scientist Richard Neustadt, Presidential power is the power to persuade.

premised on it.

But modern political scientists have abandoned some of Neustadts core claims.
Theyve settled on a far less exciting analysis, which casts the President as a more
passive victim of circumstance who can do little to move Congress unless
he already has a majority of votes. Instead of emphasizing the potential of great Presidential
leadership and heroic abilities of persuasion, this more structural view emphasizes the limits
of a system in which Congress and the Presidentdespite the way it looked on TV on
Tuesday nightare co-equal branches of government. Congress contains land mines that
the White House has almost no ability to defuse : the extreme polarization
of the House, based on a geographic sorting of the public; the rural-state tilt in the Senate
that gives Republicans an advantage; the filibuster, and more.

1AR PC Fails Ext

PC fails, Lizza gives 2 reasons
Structural gridlock
Congress is fundamentally impossible to compromise with Obama cant defuse
every land mine

No spillover

Obama cant do much unless the bill is already popular any capital lost on the plan
doesnt affect PC spent on other bills

PC not useful structural barriers

Dionne 1/30 [E.J., Staff Writer for Real Clear Politics, 2014, Obama, Confidence Builder,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/01/30/obama_confidence_builder_121404.html]

the president is responding

to a systematic disconnect between the politics of the executive branch
and the politics of the legislative branch.
Nationally, the country is moving steadily toward the center-left . Democrats
After years of hoping in vain that he could break Washington's "fever,"

have won the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections and never received fewer than 252 electoral
votes. Generational change will reinforce this trend -- conservatives are older as a group
than the country as a whole -- and the non-white share of the electorate will continue to grow.

But the legislative branch tilts rightward structurally, even when the
national vote goes the other way.
House because the
GOP had disproportionate control over how congressional district lines
were drawn. Democrats, for now, have a majority in the Senate. But the
upper chamber over-represents conservative and rural interests. Thus do Idaho
Republicans lost the popular vote in House races in 2012 by 1.7 million, but held the

and Wyoming have the same number of senators as New York and California.

The Senate's filibuster rules further empower a willful minority, while

House rules confer enormous sway over the legislative agenda to the
party that holds the speakership.
All of this means that initiatives such as an increase in the minimum wage, background checks
for gun purchases, expanded pre-kindergarten programs and the extension of unemployment insurance

can be

foiled even when they enjoy broad national support . Obama pushed for them all
again. But absent legislative action, he said he would accomplish what he could in each area on his own.

Obama's influence fails

Sexton 1/30 [Michael, Staff Writer for Financial Review, 2014, Obama Travels a Harder Road,
http://www.afr.com/p/opinion/obama_travels_harder_road_ArvWiPButp8n4VJTwqvzSI]

Obama - just
over a year into his second and final term as President of the United States - is commonly described
Despite the plans announced in his State of the Union address to Congress on Wednesday, Barack

as a failure , and not only by Republicans. Is this judgment too harsh and too early?
Arguably the two greatest presidents - Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt - owe much of their reputations to the nation's
survival in two great wars during their time in office. Their closest rivals - Washington and Jefferson - were founding
fathers and builders of the infant America. Few presidents have these opportunities. Looking at the seven decades
since the end of World War II, it would be hard to nominate a great president. Eisenhower is certainly underrated,
given his generally sure response to international tensions at the height of the Cold War. Johnson's domestic
programs were once much praised but came to be completely overshadowed by his determination to drag the

country into the Vietnam quagmire and, in any event, many of those big-spending programs are now seen as
problems rather than solutions.

Obama was always

going to struggle to achieve a high rating , especially when the Democrats
control only one house of the Congress: the Senate. Even with the support of both houses many
presidents, including FDR, have found it difficult to push through their legislative programs. But in Obama's
case, this difficulty has been magnified by the Democrats' minority in the
House of Representatives and the increased militancy of some sections of
the Republican majority in that House. The deadlock between the two Houses over budget bills
As a peacetime president in a period of ever greater demands on governments,

in October 2013, which produced the so-called shutdown of the federal government, reflected a genuine debate in
the US about the role of the state and the limits to government expenditure. This is not really a debate that has
ever taken place in Australia where there is a large measure of agreement between the two major parties on

Obama's presidency has been handicapped by two

additional factors. The first was the extraordinary expectations that his
election in 2008 seemed to inspire in some.
existing patterns of expenditure.

In addition to gaining the co-operation of Congress, a US president has to take into account the interests of a

Any proposal for

change will meet strong resistance from those interests adversely affected
by it. The second problem for the Obama presidency has been the
generally poor quality of his selections for cabinet officers and other
senior positions. With a few exceptions, these have too often been conventional Democrat time-servers
multitude of lobby groups, ranging all the way from business to the welfare sector.

from a north-eastern Ivy League background.

Obama ran against the Washington

establishment but now seems very much a part of it. All this may have been a
Like all recent candidates for president from both sides,

product of Obama gaining the presidency without a long-standing political machine of his own and a consequent
reliance on the established Democrat pools of potential appointees. But

it has certainly diminished

the effectiveness of his administration.

Obamas capital irrelevant

The Economist 1/30 [The Economist, Super Awesome News Magazine, 2014, Clowns to the Left,
Jokers to the Right, http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/01/barack-obama]

I find this argument unpersuasive. Ed Luce made the key point a year and a half ago: LBJ had
liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats to work with, whose decision
about whether to vote with or against the president on different bills could be influenced by a variety of political

considerations. Those legislative cross-loyalties don't exist anymore . Neither do

earmarks, the budget goodies targeted to individual districts that were once a widespread currency of congressional

The parties today are ideologically sorted, and

Obama can do to convince or compel

dealmaking (something we lamented here).

there is almost nothing

Mr

Republicans to vote with him . Republicans are able to halt the president's
agenda in its tracks, and they have every reason to do so. There simply
isn't any reason to believe that more aggressive legislative arm-twisting
would have generated more success for Mr Obama; it seems entirely possible that if he

had aggressively tried to dictate the terms of health-care reform legislation rather than allowing various senators to

Obama
decided to throw his entire weight behind gun-control legislation, taking on just the
sort of ambitious and improbable crusade Mr Ignatius had advised him to attempt. The result was that
he lost, squandered political capital, and mired his party in the mud .
rewrite (and weaken) the bill, he might have lost even that signature achievement. Last year, Mr

1AR PC Fails AT: SOTU

Too small to help
Rusling 1/29 [Matthew, Contributer to Xinhua News, 2014, News Analysis: Obama Delivers Annual
Address Amid U.S. Jobs Crisis, Political Gridlock, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/indepth/201401/29/c_133083480.htm]

Experts say just one speech is unlikely to significantly boost Obama's

numbers , which stand at 43 percent approval amid the lead-up to the 2014 Congressional
elections. To add to his woes, there is a real danger of the president becoming
a lame duck in his final years in office.
The disastrous rollout of Obama's landmark healthcare overhaul, or Obamacare, has
played a role in this, hurting his credibility and causing his poll numbers
to plunge , although, if things improve, voters may forget the fiasco come the election day.
Republican strategist Ford O'Connell told Xinhua Obama's speech was an effort
to "put a positive spin on a bad situation," and the address was more about appearance
than substance ahead of the elections.
"I think he realized

he's on the verge of being a lame duck president

recognized the importance of having an upbeat, hopeful tone," he said.

but he also

1AR PC Fails AT: PC Solves

Gridlocks inevitableeven if Obama has PC, hes not using it
Kiefer 2/24 [Francine, congressional correspondent for The Christian Science Monitor, 2014, Obama's Icy
Relationship with Congress: Can It Ever Thaw? http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2014/0224/Obama-sicy-relationship-with-Congress-Can-it-ever-thaw]

Relations between the White House and Congress reached a low in February
when House Speaker John Boehner (R) of Ohio said it would be tough for the House to
move on immigration reform this year. He cited a lack of trust in President Obama to
implement a new immigration law, saying he's not enforcing current ones.

Ever since Republicans took control of the House in 2010, tension and
gridlock have defined dealings between the two ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. Indeed, 2013
went down as the least productive year for Congress since World War II , and
it included an impasse between Mr. Obama and lawmakers that partially shut down the federal government for 16
days in the fall.

White House-Congress relations could get even more polarized if , in this fall's
midterm elections, the GOP takes the Senate, where it needs a net gain of only six
seats. Yet big issues, in addition to immigration, remain unresolved: weak job growth,
America's expensive entitlement programs that drive up the national debt, and Iran's nuclear program, to name a
few.
With three years to go in this presidency, can the relationship between Obama and Congress be saved in hopes of
getting some business done? Or perhaps more realistically, can the relationship at least be improved?
It's easily forgotten, but "governing is hard work," says Leon Panetta, whose rsum includes Democratic
congressman from California and former Defense secretary for Obama. "There's almost a sense now that if you run
into any obstacles or you run into any serious differences, people almost give up and resort to blaming the other
side."
Pinpointing the genesis of today's White House-Congress feud is like trying to unravel the rivalry between the
Hatfields and McCoys. The most obvious cause is 2010, when the tea party movement poured enough Republicans
into the House to flush Democrats from power and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D) of California from the speaker's chair.
Ideological rigidity stiffened.
But former Sen. Olympia Snowe (R) of Maine points to the very start of the Obama administration, when the
president and Democrats in Congress passed expensive and expansive legislation along party lines. That fueled "big
government" concerns among Republicans and ignited the burner under the teakettle.
Less than a month after Obama took office in 2009, the $787 billion stimulus bill passed with only three Republican
votes (including the moderate Senator Snowe's). In 2010, the mammoth Affordable Care Act passed with no GOP
support. Wall Street reform went through later that year.
In her book "Fighting for Common Ground," Snowe recounts the president's many attempts to reach out to her
during the health-care debate at least eight meetings with him and more than a dozen phone calls.
He made one last attempt shortly before Christmas in 2009, when they met at the White House during a
snowstorm, Snowe recalls. With a fire roaring in the fireplace, Obama urged her to support the final vote on the
legislation. She regretfully declined, explaining that despite all their exchanges and her meetings with Senate
Democrats, there had been no headway on any of the issues she had discussed such as her objection to the way
penalties would be assessed for failure to adhere to the so-called individual mandate. It was "all windup and no
pitch," she writes.
"If strong overture to the leadership and members of the minority party on Capitol Hill had been made by President
Obama at the outset of his term, perhaps they could have survived other encumbrances from the respective
caucuses," Snowe writes. "However, once the president deferred to Speaker Pelosi on the stimulus legislation and
then turned his focus to such a massive government spending program as health care, it was unlikely he could have
built a rapport with many Republicans."
For their part, political scientists tracing the origins of the White House-Congress feud look back even further to
the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 that made Newt Gingrich speaker and gave the GOP control of both the House
and Senate for the first time in 40 years. It launched today's era of polarization, playing out in President Clinton's
impeachment and under President George W. Bush, says Stephen Wayne, an expert on the American presidency at
Georgetown University in Washington.

The polarization continues to drive moderates such as Snowe from Congress,

and it feeds itself as each side responds to what it sees as the latest
indignity lobbed from the other side, says James Thurber, a congressional
expert at American University in Washington.

characterizes GOP comments about

an untrustworthy and lawless Obama as "quite offensive" messaging, given the
Such dynamics exist in the immigration debate. Mr. Thurber

lengthy history of presidents using their executive power.

Specifically, Republicans criticize the president for independently deciding, rather than working with Congress, to
defer deportations for children of illegal immigrants. They say he has inflated the number of removals at the border
by changing the counting method, and they criticize a steep drop in deportations from the interior of the country.

GOP lawmakers also point to a host of other executive actions that they
say are excessive: controlling greenhouse gases through regulation, not enforcing federal laws against
marijuana and gay marriage, and, of course, delaying or revising the implementation of parts of "Obamacare," not
to mention the disastrous rollout of HealthCare.gov.

Lack of trust "is an overriding issue that covers far more than immigration," says Rep. Lamar
Smith (R) of Texas. Obama may not have signed as many executive orders as
previous presidents, he says, but their scope is breathtaking.
On immigration, the White House has responded that the "trust" accusation doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It's merely
cover for the speaker's inability to control his divided caucus on this issue, Democrats say.
More broadly,

Obama

has said he's being forced to act on his own because he

can't get

cooperation from Congress.

"I'm eager to work with all of you," he told members of Congress in his Jan. 28 State of the Union speech. "But
America does not stand still, and neither will I. So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to
expand opportunity for more American families, that's what I'm going to do."
Then again,

this president is hardly the first one to face a brick wall on the Hill.

Obama's

legislative scorecard with Congress what's called the "presidential success rate" is not as bad as one might
think. Last year, 56.3 percent of the bills approved in the House and Senate were ones that Obama agreed with,
according to Congressional Quarterly. Most presidents going back to Dwight Eisenhower have, at some point during
their time in the Oval Office, batted in that range or even lower.
Even in Obama's worst legislative year so far 2012, when his presidential success rate was 54 percent he
outperformed Richard Nixon's lowest score from 1973 (50.6 percent), when the Watergate hearings were in full
swing on the Hill. Obama also scored higher than Mr. Clinton's nadir in 1995 (36.2 percent), the first year of the
Republican takeover of Congress, and he surpassed the score of his Republican predecessor, Mr. Bush, in 2007 (38.3
percent), after a war-weary public returned control of Congress to Democrats.
It's important to remember that the slope from Capitol Hill to the White House is not supposed to be some downhill
ski course where the president zooms toward victory after dropping off his latest idea at the starting gate of
Congress. The Founding Fathers built lots of moguls to slow things down and even stop them. Those include two
equal branches of Congress not always held by the same party or the president's party; varying election
schedules two years for the House, six years for the Senate, four years for the president; different constituencies
from districts, to states, to a nation; and other checks and balances, such as the presidential veto.

What's notable about the Obama-Congress relationship is how steeply it

declined. In 2009, the newly elected president of hope and change had the highest
presidential success rate with Congress in the history of the modern presidency 96.6
percent. "The drop from 96.6 to the 50s is dramatic ," Thurber says.
Clinton, however, fell even further after the Republican sweep in the 1994 midterms and he made a remarkable
recovery by finding common ground with Speaker Gingrich. Is there something that Obama can learn from the
"comeback kid"?
Mr. Panetta, who also served as Clinton's chief of staff, thinks so. He recalls a conversation when Gingrich first
became speaker.
"The president said, 'You know, I think I could cut a deal with this guy.' I warned him Gingrich had just won with a
revolution and that it was going to be hard to do. But Bill Clinton never, never lost that confidence that somehow he
could find a way to get it done."
Clinton may be praised for his personal skills his charisma, his ability to remember names, his love of the
campaign rope line but Panetta says that Clinton's post-Gingrich recovery had more to do with the fact that he
never gave up trying to make deals on the Hill. Panetta suggests that both Obama and Boehner "put everything on
the table" and allow a give-and-take that will lead to getting things done.

Obama has basically given up , a view that Panetta shares. Professor Wayne
of Georgetown posits that Obama uses GOP pushback and antipathy
toward his policies, as well as his lack of personal relations on the Hill , "as
an excuse not to get his hands dirty." Even some in his own party find him
aloof and arrogant.
Some say

Obama wants to be more of a visionary president, Wayne explains, and assumes that
everything he is in favor of will automatically be opposed. Maybe that's true,
Wayne continues, "but he has not really tried."

Misc Updates

Midterms

GOP Lose / Dems Win

GOP will lose seats
Bannon 2/24 [Brad, President of Bannon Communications Research, a Political Polling and Consulting Firm,
2014, Reversing the Tea Party Curse, http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/brad-bannon/2014/02/24/republicansmust-vanquish-the-tea-party-to-win-the-senate-in-2014]

In 2010, the GOP had the wind at its back. But while their colleagues routed
Democrats and took control of the House, Senate Republicans actually lost
seats when the economy was awful, Obamacare was under attack and the president was fighting for his life.
2012 was pretty much a rerun of 2010 for the Republicans. The party had another
great chance to win the Senate. Republican Senate candidates Todd Akin of Missouri and Richard Mourdoch of

GOP
candidates made offensive and incendiary statements about rape that
outraged Americans and ended GOP hopes of winning the Senate.
Fast forward to today, when the campaign for control of the U.S. Senate has
Indiana reprised the roles that made ODonnell and Angle infamous. In both cases, the 2012

begun

in earnest. Conservative groups have already spent millions of dollars on TV attack ads against

vulnerable Senate Democrats up for re-election this year. This week, former President Bill Clinton travels to
Kentucky to work his campaign magic for Secretary of State Alison Grimes, who is a threat to unseat Republican
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

the GOP, has an opening to take the Senate this

year, but it will find a way to screw it up just like it did in 2010 and 2012. An
elephant never forgets, but the GOP has already forgotten what it learned from its illThe Party of Tea, formerly known as

fated efforts in 2010 and 2012.

The GOP has to vanquish the tea party before it takes on Democratic
Senate candidates. Yes, there are several vulnerable Democratic seats, but the
GOP will have to win them all and not lose any of their own to take the
Senate back. There are at least two states where GOP Senate seats are in jeopardy. A tea
party primary has already put McConnell in hot water in Kentucky and the bitter primary in Georgia among tea
party extremists gives Michelle Nunn, the daughter of longtime Sen. Sam Nunn, an opening for Democrats to pick
up another GOP seat in a state which is slowly changing from red to purple.
The GOP also hopes to take advantage of President Obamas weak job approval ratings. But in the kingdom of the
blind, the one eyed man is king. The presidents approval rating is currently in the 40 percent range, but the
approval rating for congressional Republicans is in the 20s.
The Red Sox had the Ruth curse to contend with until the team won in 2004 for the first time since 1918. The GOP

Can Republicans
reverse the curse? The GOP is bewitched, bothered and bewildered so I
will need to overcome Christines curse, which has haunted the party since 2010.

wouldnt bet on it.

GOP Win / Dems Lose

Democrats will lose the senate
Sullivan 2/26 [Sean, Staff Writer for the Washington Post, 2014, Why Democrats Can Win On Obamacare
And Still Lose In The Midterms, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/02/26/why-democrats-canwin-on-obamacare-and-still-lose-in-the-midterms/]

Republican candidates and allied groups are putting serious money

behind reminding voters about how we got here. They have run so-called "Lie of the Year" ads
singling out President Obama for his oft-repeated if-you-like-your-health-plan-you-can-keep-it line. They
are trying to tether Democrats who voted for or supported the law to
Obama's line (See Americans For Prosperity's ads against Democrats running for the Senate in Iowa and
Michigan and Ending Spending's ad against New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen.)

The GOP is also targeting Democratic incumbents by simply reminding voters

they voted for or supported the law, which remains unpopular overall. The
Kaiser poll found that 47 percent of Americans say they hold an unfavorable view of
the law, compared to the 35 percent who say they have a favorable impression. In four of the GOP's
seven best Senate pickup opportunities (Arkansas, Alaska, Louisiana and North Carolina)
Democratic incumbents who voted for the law will be on the ballot.
There's also the reality that midterm elections tend to be about which party is better
able to turn out its base. Few issues rile up the GOP base like opposition
to the heath-care law, which continues to be a topic of heavy and visible debate in many campaigns.
Just look at how large the appetite for repeal is among Republicans in the Kaiser poll.
The fact that the Obamacare discussion has become broader than the repeal-versus-keep-it debate doesn't mean
Republican candidates can ignore the argument for repeal in the campaign. Indeed, not pushing for repeal could be
problematic for them with a GOP base still hungry for repeal. But pushing it too hard could alienate moderates,
presenting the GOP with a tricky tightrope walk.
Just look at Republican Senate candidates Terri Lynn Land in Michigan and Jack Kingston in Georgia, who late last
year had to beef up their support for repeal after appearing too soft on it initially. Meanwhile, North Carolina
Republican Senate contender Thom Tillis has come under scrutiny for not embracing a leading GOP alternative to
Obamacare even though he advocates repeal.

whether
a politician supported or opposed Obamacare or what he or she wants to do about it now?
Republicans are banking that the former still carries a lot of weight while Democrats are leaning
heavily on the latter. Given how much money Republicans have and will continue
to spend making their case, though, it's hard to envision Democrats turning
The fundamental question for voters in this year's midterms may be this: Which is more important --

the debate into strictly a referendum on what's next.

Democrats lose big statistical models prove

Curl 2/26 [Joseph, Staff Writer for the Washington Post, 2014, Fear and Trembling for Democrats on Capitol
Hill, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/26/curl-fear-and-trembling-democrats-capitol-hill/?
page=all#pagebreak]
More, talk is beginning to swirl that

Democrats might just lose their majority in the

Senate. Already, two longtime legislators have bailed resigned, not retired. They
looked at the landscape, may have even gazed into the future, and said, nuh uh. And inside the chilled Senate
halls, those too afraid to run are frozen in fear, with nowhere to turn.

None, for instance, are turning to the leader of their party, President Obama. Gallup puts his approval
rating at just 44 percent, with disapproval at 53 percent (he took roughly 53 percent of the vote when he won in
2008). Hes toxic and, in record time, already a lame duck. No one needs him as an ally and,
frankly, like your kids on a trip to the mall, no one wants to been seen anywhere near him.

The playing field is clearly tilted toward Republicans this time around. Sean
Trende, who not surprisingly covers electoral trends for realclearpolitics.com, says there are 17 competitive Senate
races, 15 of which are held by Democrats, two of which are held by Republicans.

In a complicated analysis called a Monte Carlo simulation, Trende sees this trend: Democrats
lose , big. This is a grim picture for Senate Democrats, suggesting that
the president would have to get his approval above 50 percent by Election Day
before they would be favored to hold the chamber, he wrote in a piece titled How
Likely Are Democrats to Lose the Senate?
Sure, there are scenarios and simulation models in which Democrats hold the Senate, or even gain seats. But, he

the election turns into an absolute

debacle for Democrats.
The most common outcome in the Senate, Trende says, is Democratic losses of
between seven to nine seats. The current makeup is 55 Democrats (including two independents
that always vote D) and 45 Republicans. In the most common outcome , Republicans
notes: There are also, however, situations where

take over the Senate.

So on to your next question: How will Republicans manage to once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?
Will they begin talking non-stop about legitimate rape? Will they bash lesbians and gays and bisexuals and
transgenders? (Who cares? Move on.) Will they keep pushing an unpopular amnesty for illegal aliens? Theyve lost
winnable elections before and could well again. Its early.

the Grand Old Party does appear to see the important issues on which 2014 will
revolve. They bailed on the even more unpopular notion of shutting down the
government over the debt ceiling, and even agreed to a budget outline that
includes more spending than theyd like, just to shove the issue off the table.
And as Mr. Obama rolls out his new 2015 budget (pledging, as the Washington Post reported,
an end to austerity), Republicans may just be able to focus voters on the out-ofcontrol federal spending, along with the Obamacare disaster, which is already
the gift that keeps on giving.
But

Thursday File 2-20-14 [Old]

*****General

2ac Iran Thumper

Obama is spending PC on diplomacy with Iran
Ereli 2/17
Adam, Reporter, International Business Times, The Iranian Nuclear Deal: A Foreign
Policy Hail Mary, http://www.ibtimes.com/iranian-nuclear-deal-foreign-policy-hailmary-1556004
This is why the Obama administration is investing so much political capital
in its quixotic pursuit of a grand bargain with Iran. A comprehensive
agreement would represent a real game-changer for the United States and the
region. It would save us from having to take military action to roll back their nuclear
program -- a very real option and one that most reasonable analysts assess would
prove tragically costly to our long-term interests. The global sanctions regime that
we have so skillfully put in place over the past decade will be increasingly difficult to
sustain over the long term. Its a far better bet to leverage our present advantage
and cut a good deal now, rather than to lead a doomed effort to prevent a gradual
disintegration of the stranglehold we currently enjoy over Irans economy. One of
the principal reasons the U.S. took military action against Iraqi dictator Saddam
Hussein in 2003 was because we were convinced that he was on the verge of
breaking out of the sanctions box we had put him in. This diplomacy is
unfortunately based more on wishful thinking than hard reality. Iran is not
acting in good faith. It has no intention of giving up its nuclear weapons
program. Possessing a nuclear weapons capability is an issue of national
pride and one which the Iranian public strongly supports. The Middle East is a
dangerous neighborhood: Iran has no shortage of enemies and Iranians believe a
credible nuclear deterrent is vital to national survival. Although the clerical
regime led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Kahmenei is increasingly unpopular as
evidenced by the governments continuing ruthless suppression of internal dissent
-- dismantling Irans nuclear weapons program would be a death blow to its
legitimacy as the defender of Persian exceptionalism. It is a step that Irans
rulers cannot and will not take. -- or both -- if it puts a proposal on the table
that the rest of the international community will find serious and plausible.

2ac Immigration/Minimum Wage Thumper

Immigration and minimum wage thump the da
AP 2/14
Reporter, Obama says immigration, minimum wage top agenda for Congress,
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/politics/immigration-minimum-wage-toppresident-obamas-agenda-for-congress
CAMBRIDGE, Md. - President Barack Obama says top priorities for Congress
should be increasing the minimum wage and reforming immigration.
Obama told a House Democratic retreat Friday that the party needs to
stand up for the American dream of getting ahead. He congratulates
lawmakers for standing together to support increasing the government's debt with
no strings attached, which Congress approved this week. He also thanks his party
for supporting the "tough issue" of his health care law. He predicts people will look
back on the troubled law and consider it "a monumental achievement." Obama did
not mention an issue that's created disagreement in the party. Obama wants
greater leeway to make trade deals. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said this week
that's out of the question.

2ac No Pass Election Year

Nothing will pass before the election bipartisan deals are
dead on arrival in the House
Benen 2/19

Steve, Reporter, MSNBC, Lacking the will, not the votes,

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/lacking-the-will-not-the-votes
Election Day 2014 is 258 days away, which in political terms, is an extraordinarily
long time. In theory, in 258 days, policymakers in Washington could identify
several national priorities, consider worthwhile legislation, and pass meaningful
bills into law. But Robert Costa makes clear in a new report that for House
Republicans, the year that is just now getting underway is already effectively
over. Three weeks after President Obama presented a fairly ambitious
agenda to Congress in a State of the Union address, the GOP House majority
fully expects to get nothing done between now and November. After a
tumultuous week of party infighting and leadership stumbles, congressional
Republicans are focused on calming their divided ranks in the months ahead, mostly
by touting proposals that have wide backing within the GOP and shelving any bigticket legislation for the rest of the year. Comprehensive immigration reform, tax
reform, tweaks to the federal health-care law bipartisan deals on each
are probably dead in the water for the rest of this Congress. We dont
have 218 votes in the House for the big issues, so what else are we going to
do? said Rep. Devin Nunes (Calif.), an ally of House Speaker John A. Boehner
(Ohio). I feel like this assumption legislating simply isnt feasible because major
bills cant get 218 votes in the lower chamber comes up quite a bit. Note that
Boehner recently told Jay Leno, I like to describe my job as trying to get 218 frogs
in a wheelbarrow long enough to pass a bill. Its hard to do. Except, its not that
hard to do. What were hearing isnt an explanation for inaction and passive
indifference towards governing, but rather, an excuse. GOP leaders look at their todo list and wistfully imagine how nice it would be to tackle priorities like immigration
and tax reform, but they quickly do imaginary head-counts and throw up their arms
in disgust. As Nunes put it, We dont have 218 votes in the House for the big
issues, so what else are we going to do? It doesnt have to be this way. If House
Republican leaders brought the popular, bipartisan immigration reform bill to the
floor, itd likely get 218 votes. If they brought the Employment Non-Discrimination
Act to the floor, itd have a decent shot at 218, too. The same goes for a minimumwage increase and a variety of other measures that the public would be glad to
see. The missing ingredient isnt votes. Its political will. Its precisely
why House Democrats are increasingly invested in discharge petitions if
only a sliver of House Republicans agreed to help bring popular bills to the floor for
an up-or-down vote, Dems believe Congress can do more than spin its wheels for
the next 258 days. It is, to be sure, a longshot, and discharge petitions very
rarely work. But the alternative is yet another year of a do-nothing Congress.
Postscript: Costas piece also quoted former Rep. Vin Weber (R-Minn.), who said, If
youre a Republican in Congress, youve learned that when we shut down the
government, we lose. Now that weve had some success in avoiding another
shutdown, our fortunes seem to be rising, so maybe we dont want big things to

happen. Thats quite an inspiring message: Vote GOP 2014: We only shut down
the government once, not twice.

*****Immigration

***Neg

Yes Pass
Obama will pass immigration reform by the end of this year
Sink 2/14
Justin, Reporter, The Hill, Obama: Immigration reform will get done by end of
presidency, http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/198441-obamaimmigration-reform-will-get-done-by-end-of-presidency
President Obama predicted that Congress would pass an immigration reform
bill before the end of his presidency in a Univision Radio interview airing Friday.
I believe it will get done before my presidency is over, Obama president said. Id
like to get it done this year. Obama cast House Republicans as unwilling
to act and told listeners to ratchet up pressure by contacting their legislators.
The main thing people can do right now is put pressure on Republicans
who have refused so far to act, he said. And I think sending a strong message to
them that this is the right thing to do, its important to do, its the fair thing to do,
and it will actually improve the economy and give people a chance. Obama also
looked to deflate hopes that he could take executive actions to end
deportations if Republicans don't move a bill. Ive been able to prevent
deportations of younger people with, the Dream Act kids, by administrative action,
he said. But the problem is thats just a temporary action that Ive been taking.
Thats not yet the law thats been passed by Congress. And it doesnt help their
parents and others who are in the similar situations. While the Senate passed a
comprehensive immigration bill in a bipartisan vote last year, efforts in the
House have faltered. Republican leaders began 2014 by outlining a series of
principles that indicated they were open to pursuing immigration reform, but that
momentum stalled when Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Obama had not
demonstrated to Republican lawmakers that he can be trusted to enforce the law
as it was written. He accused Obama of changing his signature healthcare law on
a whim, whenever he likes and said that his recent focus on executive actions was
alienating lawmakers. Now hes running around the country telling everyone that
hes going to keep acting on his own, he continued. Hes talking about his phone
and his pen and hes feeding more distrust about whether hes committed to the
rule of law. Theres widespread doubt about whether this administration can be
trusted to enforce the law. And its going to be difficult to move any immigration
legislation until that changes.

Yes Obama Push

Obama is pushing immigration
The Washington Times 2/14
Staff Writer, Obama taunts scared Republicans, says immigration reform is a
priority, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/14/obama-saysimmigration-reform-still-priority-2014/?page=1
President Obama told House Democrats Friday that comprehensive immigration
reform remains a top priority for this year in spite of Republican lawmakers
who are scared of the political consequences. Theyre worried and
theyre scared about the political blowback, Mr. Obama said of the GOP.
We can all appreciate the maneuverings that take place, particularly in an election
year. Speaker John A. Boehner has said that the House probably wont approve
comprehensive immigration reform this year because Republicans dont trust Mr.
Obama to improve border security. At the Democrats annual retreat in Cambridge,
Md., Mr. Obama said he doesnt want to wait until later in his presidency to get the
legislation approved. Punting and putting things off for another year, another two
years, another three years, it hurts people, Mr. Obama said. It hurts our economy,
it hurts families. We have to remind ourselves that there are people behind the
statistics. The president also thanked Democratic lawmakers for hanging tough
with him on the unpopular Affordable Care Act and for helping to push through an
increase in the nations borrowing limit. The fact that we were able to pass a clean
debt limit is just one example of why, when you guys are unified, you guys stick
together, this country is better off, Mr. Obama said. And I could not be more
appreciative and thankful for what youre doing. On Obamacare, the president said
he was encouraged that the administration slightly exceeded its target for
enrollments in January with a total of more than 3.5 million signed up. He didnt
mention that about 20 percent of those enrollees havent yet paid premiums.
Thank you for all of you hanging in there tough on an issue that I think ten years
from now, five years from now were going to look back and say this was a
monumental achievement that could not have happened were it not for this
caucus, the president told lawmakers. Earlier, Vice President Joseph R. Biden told
House Democrats that their political prospects in the fall will look brighter than they
do right now. Between now and November is three political lifetimes, Mr. Biden
said. I cant imagine our prospects being viewed by the press and everyone else as
being a whole hell of a lot brighter by the time we turn to September than now. Mr.
Biden said even with all the difficulties youre facing now with the ACA [Affordable
Care Act], 55 percent of the American people dont want to see it repealed. He said
the public sides with Democrats on issues that affect the middle class. They are
with us, Mr. Biden said. Lets go out and make every single effort not just
to defend, but to aggressively push our agenda. Im optimistic about
Americas prospects, and Im optimistic about our prospects. So keep your eye
on the ball. The vice president also seemed to acknowledge that some
Democratic incumbents dont want him or President Obama campaigning for them
this year. He recalled the comment made to him by Senate Judiciary Committee
Chairman James Eastland, a conservative Democrat from Mississippi, when he
offered to help Mr. Biden run for re-election in Delaware in the 1970s. He said Ill
come to Delaware and campaign for you or against you, whichever will help the
most, Mr. Biden said. The vice president told the assembled Democrats, The

president has committed, and you know me too tell, Im fully committed, to
put in every effort we can to be of help to any of you. Then Mr. Biden laughed as
he thanked Rep. Steve Israel of New York, chairman of the House Democrats
campaign arm, for being so helpful and directing me where he wants me to go.
Some Democrats have expressed the wish openly that they dont want Mr. Obama
to campaign for them. Mr. Biden also criticized the GOP as disorganized and unable
to lead in Washington. There isnt a Republican Party, Mr. Biden said. I wish there
was a Republican Party. I wish there was one person you could sit across the table
from and make a deal. Look at the response of the State of the Union what were
there, three or four?

at: xo
Obama wont take executive action he is limited and it
doesnt solve the impact
Heyes 2/15

J.D., Reporter, The Examiner, Obama to Democrats: Im limited on immigration

reform, http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-to-democrats-i-m-limited-onimmigration
President Obama has told Democrats pushing him to use his executive
authority to enact immigration reform that he has only limited ability to
do so. Obama, who is visiting drought-ravaged California, told House
Democrats on Friday they should continue pressing for new legislation that
would result in an immigration overhaul that gives eventual legal status to
millions of people currently in the U.S. illegally. Don't take your foot off the
pedal," the president said during a closed-door session with Democrats gathered
for their partys annual issues retreat on the Eastern Shore, the Los Angeles Times
reported. In recent days any hope of new immigration reform legislation this year
has dimmed, with rank-and-file Republicans in the GOP-controlled House
expressing no desire to back any measure this year. The lack of support from
members has caused House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, who was championing
immigration reform a few weeks ago, to downplay its chances prior to the 2014
midterms in November. That reality has caused consternation among
Democrats and their Latino and minority constituents, forcing them to put
renewed pressure on Obama to take executive actions to at least limit
deportations of those in the country illegally.

***Aff

2ac No Pass
Nothing will pass before the election bipartisan deals are
dead on arrival in the House
Benen 2/19

Steve, Reporter, MSNBC, Lacking the will, not the votes,

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/lacking-the-will-not-the-votes
Election Day 2014 is 258 days away, which in political terms, is an extraordinarily
long time. In theory, in 258 days, policymakers in Washington could identify
several national priorities, consider worthwhile legislation, and pass meaningful
bills into law. But Robert Costa makes clear in a new report that for House
Republicans, the year that is just now getting underway is already effectively
over. Three weeks after President Obama presented a fairly ambitious
agenda to Congress in a State of the Union address, the GOP House majority
fully expects to get nothing done between now and November. After a
tumultuous week of party infighting and leadership stumbles, congressional
Republicans are focused on calming their divided ranks in the months ahead, mostly
by touting proposals that have wide backing within the GOP and shelving any bigticket legislation for the rest of the year. Comprehensive immigration reform, tax
reform, tweaks to the federal health-care law bipartisan deals on each
are probably dead in the water for the rest of this Congress. We dont
have 218 votes in the House for the big issues, so what else are we going to
do? said Rep. Devin Nunes (Calif.), an ally of House Speaker John A. Boehner
(Ohio). I feel like this assumption legislating simply isnt feasible because major
bills cant get 218 votes in the lower chamber comes up quite a bit. Note that
Boehner recently told Jay Leno, I like to describe my job as trying to get 218 frogs
in a wheelbarrow long enough to pass a bill. Its hard to do. Except, its not that
hard to do. What were hearing isnt an explanation for inaction and passive
indifference towards governing, but rather, an excuse. GOP leaders look at their todo list and wistfully imagine how nice it would be to tackle priorities like immigration
and tax reform, but they quickly do imaginary head-counts and throw up their arms
in disgust. As Nunes put it, We dont have 218 votes in the House for the big
issues, so what else are we going to do? It doesnt have to be this way. If House
Republican leaders brought the popular, bipartisan immigration reform bill to the
floor, itd likely get 218 votes. If they brought the Employment Non-Discrimination
Act to the floor, itd have a decent shot at 218, too. The same goes for a minimumwage increase and a variety of other measures that the public would be glad to
see. The missing ingredient isnt votes. Its political will. Its precisely
why House Democrats are increasingly invested in discharge petitions if
only a sliver of House Republicans agreed to help bring popular bills to the floor for
an up-or-down vote, Dems believe Congress can do more than spin its wheels for
the next 258 days. It is, to be sure, a longshot, and discharge petitions very
rarely work. But the alternative is yet another year of a do-nothing Congress.
Postscript: Costas piece also quoted former Rep. Vin Weber (R-Minn.), who said, If
youre a Republican in Congress, youve learned that when we shut down the
government, we lose. Now that weve had some success in avoiding another
shutdown, our fortunes seem to be rising, so maybe we dont want big things to

happen. Thats quite an inspiring message: Vote GOP 2014: We only shut down
the government once, not twice.

1ar No Pass -- Elections

GOP have turned to the elections no votes for immigration
Beutler 2/19
Brian, political writer, Salon, GOPs pitiful, non-existent agenda: Can these cowards
win by failing?,
http://www.salon.com/2014/02/19/gops_pitiful_non_existent_agenda_can_these_cow
ards_win_by_failing/
After House Speaker John Boehner put immigration reform back on ice a
couple weeks ago, the most obvious assessment was that the GOP had
completely suspended its own agenda, at least until after midterm
elections. That the Republican partys political strategy will consist solely of an
eight-month long bet that the Affordable Care Act will doom Democrats in
November. That was definitely my assessment. I know others shared it. But in case
youre looking for third-party validation, conservative reporters back us up. The
Washington Posts Robert Costa concludes: Comprehensive immigration reform,
tax reform, tweaks to the federal health-care law bipartisan deals on each
are probably dead in the water for the rest of this Congress . He reports:
We dont have 218 votes in the House for the big issues, so what else are
we going to do? said Rep. Devin Nunes (Calif.), an ally of House Speaker John A.
Boehner (Ohio). We can do a few things on immigration and work on our principles,
but in terms of real legislating, were unable to get in a good negotiating
position. Added Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster who works closely with party
leaders: It is an acknowledgment of where they stand, where nothing can
happen in divided government so we may essentially have the status quo.
Significant immigration reform and fundamental tax reform are probably
not going to happen. Its not so uncommon for legislative activity to slow down
ahead of an election, so I wont pretend this is some kind of extraordinary
phenomenon. But February is a little early for one party to make a total transition
from policymaking to politicking, particularly when the other is actively rolling out a
positive, popular agenda. The Senates already passed a comprehensive, bipartisan
immigration reform bill and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. If Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid uses the Senate to pass (or to force Republicans to
filibuster) another bill renewing emergency unemployment compensation, a Voting
Rights Act patch, an equal pay bill, a minimum wage bill, and so on, its going to
start to look extremely awkward if the House has literally nothing to offer in return
other than comparably picayune gimmicks.

Wont pass electoral incentives go aff

Torry 2/17
Jack, Reporter, The Columbia Dispatch, GOP at standstill on immigration reform,
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/02/17/gop-at-standstill-onreform.html
WASHINGTON To House Speaker John Boehner, the answer to overhauling
the nations immigration laws seems obvious. This issue needs to be dealt
with, and the sooner we deal with it, the better off the country will be, he said.
Yet, seven years after Republican President George W. Bush urged Congress to
provide millions of undocumented immigrants with a path to citizenship, and nearly

eight months since the Senate overwhelmingly approved an immigration bill,

House Republicans are no closer today to agreeing on a plan and bridging
a huge schism among themselves. I would say were in the pause mode,
Boehner said in an interview last week. Our members dont feel they can
trust the president to implement the law the way we would design it.
GOP lawmakers, many of whom oppose what they regard as amnesty for
nearly 11 million people who came to the United States illegally, steer away from
passing a bill. But Boehner, R-West Chester, and scores of Republican strategists
fear the party cannot win the presidency if it continues to antagonize Latinos, the
fastest-growing minority in America. Just two years ago, Republican presidential
nominee Mitt Romney called on undocumented immigrants to self-deport, a major
reason he received 27 percent of the Latino vote compared with 44 percent for Bush
in 2004 when he defeated John Kerry. The system is irretrievably broken and most
people, when they look at irretrievably broken systems, try to make them better,
said Whit Ayres, a Republican consultant in Washington. Thats what the Senate did
with their bill a far-from-perfect bill, but a good-faith effort to solve the problem.
And the speaker is absolutely right when he says the House needs to take its turns
at bat." Although the impact of losing Latino voters is particularly
damaging to the GOP in presidential elections, some Democrats are giddy at
the thought of Latinos voting in greater numbers in the November
congressional elections. It is handing the Dems one of the greatest getout-the-votes operations in the mid-terms they could have ever done, said
Mary Anne Marsh, a Democratic consultant in Boston. To conservatives affiliated
with the tea party, the idea that Latinos will vote for Republicans is a
fools errand. Tom Zawistowski of the Portage County Tea Party said there is this
insane philosophy that if we do this, Hispanics will vote for Republicans.
We cant help but laugh out loud at that. Unlike Texas, Florida and Nevada,
Ohio does not have a large Latino population. According to the U.S. census, in 2010
Latinos made up about 3.3 percent of the population, compared with 16.9 percent
for the country as a whole. Nobody knows for certain how many undocumented
immigrants are in Ohio, although Dennis Muchnicki, an immigration lawyer in
Columbus, estimates that the state has more than 100,000 illegal immigrants, most
of whom are Latino. Its that group that companies want to hire for jobs that most
Americans do not want to perform. Muchnicki said most business executives would
say that undocumented workers are hard, industrious workers, and honest, who
only want an opportunity to earn a living. Theyre not here for welfare. Theyre here
to work for a living. Last month at a House Republican retreat in Maryland,
Boehner outlined a series of ideas that he and GOP leaders could support
tighter border security and tougher enforcement of undocumented immigrants in
the United States. But Boehner held out the hope that some could attain a legal
status short of full citizenship. But faced with intense conservative
opposition , Boehner stepped back from those ideas. Democrats dismiss
Boehners complaints about not trusting Obama, saying they are willing to delay
implementing a new immigration law until after Obama leaves office in 2017.
There is little doubt that in the conservative congressional districts across
the country, GOP backers of immigration reform could face a backlash.
Some analysts are convinced that Boehner is stalling now before returning
to the issue after the spring primaries. The only thing his caucus is afraid
of is a primary challenge, said James Manley, a former adviser to Senate

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Theyre not worried about 2016. Theyre
worried about surviving a primary.

1ar No Pass Path to Citizenship

Zero chance of passage GOP, election year, and no path to
citizenship
UPI 2/14

Staff Writer, Obama predicts immigration reform no later than 2017,

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/02/14/Obama-predicts-immigration-reformno-later-than-2017/UPI-83101392360045/?spt=rln&or=1
WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 (UPI) -- Congress will pass U.S. immigration reform
legislation before 2017, President Barack Obama said in an interview that aired
Friday. Speaking with Univision Radio, the president said House Republicans have
"refused so far to act," and urged listeners to put pressure on Congress to enact
reform. "I believe it will get done before my presidency is over," he said. "I'd like to
get it done this year." "And I think sending a strong message to them that this is
the right thing to do, it's important to do, it's the fair thing to do, and it will actually
improve the economy and give people a chance," Obama said. Sen. Chuck
Schumer, D-N.Y., said Thursday a procedural maneuver to circumvent the
House Republican majority could revive stalled efforts on immigration. He
told the New York Times he was considering a legislative tactic known as a
discharge petition to bring sweeping immigration legislation out of
committee to the floor for consideration. The tactic, which has succeeded only
twice since 1985, is done by bringing the measure directly to the House floor,
bypassing the regular committee process, and usually without the cooperation of
House leadership. A successful petition "discharges" the committee from further
consideration of a bill and brings it directly to the floor. The petition would require
the support of an absolute majority of House members, meaning if all Democrats
supported the measure, it would still need more than a dozen Republican
signatures, the Times said. Schumer, one of the architects of a comprehensive
immigration reform measure that passed the Senate in June, told the newspaper
GOP House members were trying to "sweep this issue under the rug." "In the next
few months you're going to see increased pressure, and the discharge petition is
one such way," he said. Some Democratic lawmakers said the scheme would,
at best, simply keep alive an election-year issue GOP lawmakers aligned with
the Tea Party movement strongly oppose. Michael Steel, a spokesman for House
Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told the Times Schumer's "scheme has zero
chance of success. " "A clear majority in the House understands that the
massive Senate-passed bill is deeply flawed," Steel said. "That's why we will
continue to work on step-by-step, common-sense reform." The Senate bill
included a path to citizenship for the 11 million immigrants living in the country
without legal permission. House Republicans largely reject the measure as
"amnesty." They have called for a piecemeal approach, with smaller bills.
Boehner, who tried to advance immigration reform at a recent GOP retreat, told
reporters Feb. 6 the idea was all but dead this year. His comments came two
days after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who faces a primary
challenge, predicted the immigration push would stall, saying the dissimilar
approaches between the House and Senate presented "sort of an irresolvable
conflict." Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said Feb. 2 comprehensive immigration reform
was "clearly in doubt" this year. Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, told Roll Call

Feb. 4 Boehner should lose his speakership if he pursues the bill, which
could be seen as giving Obama a legislative victory in a midterm election
year. "Discharge petitions are difficult, but when they work, it's because there's a
clear majority of the body that supports a specific proposal, and in this case, that is
true," Schumer told the Times. "But I have no illusions that this will be easy in any
way." Some Democratic lawmakers told the newspaper even if the maneuver fails,
it would pressure Boehner and other Republicans to act on some form of
immigration overhaul this year -- and could help Democrats looking toward the 2016
presidential elections. The White House declined to comment on Schumer's
proposal.

Not a priority, GOP doesnt trust Obama and wont support a

path to citizenship
Gehrke and Davidson 2/18
Robert and Lee, Reporters, Salt Lake Tribune, Stewart says immigration reform
unlikely, http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57563921-90/stewart-congressimmigration-federal.html.csp
U.S. Rep. Chris Stewart told the Utah Legislature on Tuesday that passing
immigration reform is not a top priority in his mind and he believes
Congress mistrust of President Barack Obama makes it unlikely any changes
will pass this year. The freshman congressman told members of the Utah House
that polling shows immigration is a low priority for the public, and he agrees
with that assessment, believing Congress should focus on balancing the budget and
reducing the debt. Stewart said some in Congress, including himself, are
uncomfortable with giving citizenship to people who entered the country
illegally and with the bad blood between Congress and the president.
"There has been so much distrust between the executive and Congress
now that many of us dont believe any longer the president will enforce
the laws we give him," Stewart said. Those factors combine to make it very
unlikely that Congress will get anything done to reform the U.S. immigration
system, one of the presidents priorities in his recent State of the Union address.

No path to citizenship GOP opposition derails passage

Leubsdorf 2/17
Carl, Reporter, The Daily Ranger, How badly do GOP, Dems want immigration
reform?, http://dailyranger.com/story.php?story_id=11343&headline=How-badlydo-GOP,-Dems-want-immigration-reform
On the morning of President Barack Obama's State of the Union speech, the lead
story on the front page of The New York Times laid out the details -- and the politics
-- of the immigration plan House Republican leaders were unveiling at last week's
party conference. In the end, that meeting may prove more consequential than
anything the president said during his 65-minute speech or that Republicans added
in response. Obama presented Congress and millions of viewers with a politically
appealing mix of modestly repackaged proposals, pleas for action on tax reforms
Republicans want and unemployment benefits and the minimum wage increase
Democrats favor, plus a vigorous defense of his troubled health-reform law. Political
reaction mostly followed the usual partisan lines with Republicans especially critical
of Obama's vow to use executive powers where Congress fails to act. However,
some embattled Democratic senators sought to separate themselves from Obama.

A CNN poll of speech viewers showed mainly positive responses, probably reflecting
the fact that more of any president's partisans watch such presentations. Judging
from post-speech commentary, Obama's carefully crafted array of proposals -- and
an emotional climax featuring a soldier wounded in Afghanistan -- was far more
effective than Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers' official GOP response, long on criticism
and short on specifics. Neither advanced the immigration debate. "It is time to
heed the call of business leaders, labor leaders, faith leaders, and law enforcement
-- and fix our broken immigration system," Obama said, citing massive
economic benefits some economists say would follow. He avoided specifics,
notably the GOP-opposed provision in the Senate bill providing a path for
illegal immigrants to citizenship, thus leaving open the prospect of a
subsequent compromise if the House passes some form of its plan. But differences
remain obvious. McMorris Rodgers, echoing four House Judiciary
Committee-approved bills, called for "a step-by-step solution to immigration
reform by first securing our borders and making sure America will always
attract the best, brightest and hardest working from around the world." In the
GOP's Spanish language response, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida called
similarly for fixing "our broken immigration system with a permanent solution."
Their language reflected the stance of Speaker John Boehner and other
House GOP leaders. But the party's substantial tea party faction opposes
action now, as do important outside conservative voices, like the magazines
National Review and Weekly Standard. The tea party opposition was reflected
in the decisions by its designated spokesman, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, and
another GOP responder, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, to avoid the subject in listing
proposals for action. The Judiciary Committee measures would give states more
power to create and enforce immigration law, expand use of electronic databases to
screen job applicants, create a new temporary agricultural guest worker program
and expand the number of green cards for temporary high-skilled workers and
immigrant entrepreneurs. Though far more limited than the Obama-backed,
Senate-passed bill, that could lead to a negotiable version of the legislation
he made a major second-term goal and Republicans need to improve their standing
with Hispanics. Still, a GOP decision to proceed with legislation won't
necessarily mean it will pass , given conservative concentration on
strengthening enforcement of current laws and expanding a guest worker
program. Republican leaders favor a path to legal status, rather than
citizenship, for the 11 million adult illegal aliens in this country. That's a
nonstarter for reform advocates , who back the Senate bill's path to
citizenship, though only after a lengthy process. In the end, any resolution
may depend on how badly each party wants a bill, which side is willing to
compromise, and by how much. Senate Democrats are insisting so far on
their bill's path to citizenship, while House Republicans flatly oppose it.
But Obama may be open to compromise, given the likelihood he won't have much
else to show legislatively for 2014.

1ar No Pass at: House Dems Force Vote

Dems wont force a vote and it wouldnt pass anyway
Heyes 2/17
J.D., Reporter, The Examiner, House Dems to push votes on minimum wage,
immigration reform, http://www.examiner.com/article/house-dems-to-push-voteson-minimum-wage-immigration-reform
House Democrats say they are determined to push for key votes on a pair
of hot-button topics in the current session, and purposely in advance of the
midterm elections in November. The goal, they say, is to put the spotlight on
majority Republicans in an election year to put them on record as, likely,
opposing both issues. In order to do so, Democratic leaders say they plan to use
a rarely successful tactic known as a discharge petition which requires the
minority party to persuade enough Republicans (in this case, 17) to defy their
leadership and join with Democrats to force votes on both issues. A discharge
petition, if successful, allows the minority party to bypass House leadership to bring
measures to the full chamber for consideration. Democrats want to push a
measure to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour; they also
want to force a vote on a sweeping immigration reform measure that would
provide legal status to millions of people currently in the U.S. illegally. House
Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has, so far, given no indication he is ready to
bring either measure up for a vote, at least before the midterms. And its
not clear how successful Democratic leaders will be in convincing 17
House Republicans to join their cause, but the odds are not good. The
tactic is clearly a political maneuver designed to put Republicans on
record opposing a pair of measures Democrats believe are popular among
the American electorate. In terms of raising the minimum wage, Democrats are
right; according to a recent Gallup survey, a vast majority of Americans 76 percent
support boosting the minimum wage to $9 an hour, up from its current level of
$7.25. However, on immigration reform especially any bill that would provide
some sort of amnesty for illegal aliens 60 percent of Americans are opposed,
according to a November 2013 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center.
Congress is currently in recess; lawmakers return to work Feb. 24.

*****Iran

***Neg

1nc
Obamas PC prevents new Iran sanctions failure tanks
diplomacy and causes war with Iran
Bloomberg 2/18

Indira A.R. Lakshmanan, Reporter, Obama Shares Rouhanis Challenge Selling Any
Deal Reached, http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-02-18/obama-sharesrouhani-s-challenge-selling-any-deal-reached#p2
Closed Doors What really matters, said one U.S. official involved in the Vienna talks
who spoke on condition of anonymity, isnt whats said in speeches, but whats said
behind closed doors, and the purpose of this weeks talks is to lay out the essential
issues and both sides red lines. With congressional elections looming in which
Obama needs as many Democratic seats as possible to protect his health-care law
and other domestic priorities, support for tough sanctions on Iran has been a
rare bipartisan issue on Capitol Hill since 2011. Story: The Apollo of Gaza:
Hamas's Ancient Bronze Statue So far this year, the Senate Democratic
leadership has held off on a new sanctions bill that Obama has threatened
to veto, saying it would derail diplomacy and make a risky military strike
on Irans nuclear facilities more likely. With midterm elections coming up,
pressure will intensify for strong measures in Congress once the interim
deal expires in July, Maloney predicted, bringing with it the risk of a train
wreck if new sanctions come to a vote before a final agreement is
negotiated with Iran. Isolating America Imposing new U.S. sanctions at this
stage would isolate the U.S. from its five negotiating partners, increase the
probability of wa r and undermine the new Iranian presidents efforts at
diplomacy, according to a report being released today by the Iran Project, a group
dedicated to improving relations between the U.S. and Iran. Signatories to the
report include former U.S. Undersecretary of State Thomas Pickering and former
Central Intelligence Agency official Paul Pillar. Retired Lieutenant General Robert
Gard, chairman of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, said hes
concerned about possible efforts in Congress to develop a nonbinding resolution
specifying what members would endorse in an agreement with Iran and what they
would reject.

No Pass
Sanctions wont pass for Now Obama is key
Gulf News 2/18
Reporter, Further Iran sanctions would undermine efforts by int''l community,
Rouhani report, http://www.kuna.net.kw/ArticleDetails.aspx?
id=2361950&Language=en
WASHINGTON, Feb 18 (KUNA) -- A bipartisan report published by analysts with an
independent non-profit group in the US said further sanctions on Iran will only
undermine the diplomatic effort currently underway to curb the Islamic
Republic's nuclear program. "It is difficult to argue that a new sanctions bill is
intended to support the negotiations when all the countries doing the negotiating
oppose it," concluded the report by the Iran Project, a group that serves to bolster
the US-Iran dialogue and educate members of Congress. The document examined
the pros and cons of the bill introduced in December by Senators Mark Kirk and
Robert Menendez, a Republican and a Democrat, respectively. The bill seeks to
increase sanctions as a way of pushing Iran to cooperate further with the
international community. But any such action "would feed an unwelcome
narrative" to the other countries involved in the nuclear talks, and "the net
result would be less pressure on Iran," said the report. "It is very difficult to
imagine that the sanctions bill would do anything but undermine Rouhani,
as he attempts to steer Iran on a different path," it continued. "This is an
assessment shared not only by Iran experts, and Iranian expats who have opposed
the regime, but also by Israeli military intelligence, which has concluded that
Rouhani may represent a fundamental shift in Iranian politics." The report also
added that it would be "difficult to escape the conclusion that a new sanctions bill
would increase the probability of war, even if it does not guarantee such an
outcome." For now, the sanctions bill has slowed down in Congress as it
undergoes another review, and more than 100 members of the House of
Representatives - including some Republicans - signed a letter last week
backing President Barack Obama's negotiation process with Iran. Discussions
to work out a long-term nuclear deal, based on the agreement reached in
November, are currently underway in Vienna, Austria, between Iran and the
members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (P5+1). The meetings are
expected to run through Wednesday. (end) ys.bs KUNA 182222 Feb 14NNNN

Sanctions Kill Diplomacy

Sanctions kill diplomacy and ensure war with Iran
Armbruster 2/18
Ben, National Secuirty Editor for Think Progress @ the Center for American Progress,
Bipartisan Expert Group Says New Iran Sanctions Will Undermine Diplomacy,
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/02/18/3300741/iran-project-sanctionsdiplomacy/
A new report from a bipartisan group of experts at the Iran Project released on
Tuesday finds that opponents of new sanctions on Iran at this time are largely
correct in that they would lead to a break-down of diplomacy, isolate the
U.S. from its negotiating partners and embolden hard-liners in Tehran.
The Iran sanctions battle in the Senate has stalled for now, but its unclear
if the House will take up the matter again, as Majority Leader Eric Cantor (RVA) is reportedly working on language with other House leaders. The Iran
Projects report analyzes arguments for and against the Senate Iran sanctions bill
that was introduced last December by Sens. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Robert Menendez
(D-NJ), who have argued that new sanctions will give the U.S. more leverage in
nuclear talks with Iran. But, the report says, It is difficult to argue that a new
sanctions bill is intended to support the negotiations when all the countries doing
the negotiating oppose it. Kirk, Menendez and other supporters of the bill say
the sanctions have a delayed trigger and will kick in in six months or if Iran
backs out of the deal. Not so, the Iran Project says. After carefully reading the
bill line by line and consulting with both current and retired Senate staff the relevant
committees, it appears that the critics are correct: the change in sanctions law
takes effect upon passage , the report says, which would most likely put the
United States in violation of the interim nuclear agreement reached in Geneva
in November On whether new sanctions will weaken the international coalition on
imposing existing sanctions, some countries would continue to honor some
sanctions, the Iran Project says if the Senate sanctions bill passes. Still, it would
seem that on balance, the net result would be less pressure on Iran . The
report also says that unilateral congressional action on sanctions now would
feed an unwelcome narrative to Americas partners, the U.K., France,
China, Russia, Germany and others, that the U.S. cant live up to its
promises and is an unreliable partner. Many, like Sen. Patrick Murphy (D-CT),
have argued that placing new sanctions on Iran will undermine relative
moderate Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who supports a diplomatic
approach with the U.S. The Iran Project agrees. It is very difficult to imagine
that the sanctions bill would do anything but undermine Rouhani, as he
attempts to steer Iran on a different path. This is an assessment shared
not only by Iran experts, and Iranian expats who have opposed the regime, but also
by Israeli military intelligence, which has concluded that Rouhani may represent
a fundamental shift in Iranian politics. [I]t is difficult to escape the conclusion that
a new sanctions bill would increase the probability of war , even if it does
not guarantee such an outcome, the report says. The bipartisan Iran Project has
issued several reports on the Iran nuclear issue. In 2012, the group concluded that
attacking Iran would risk an all out regional war lasting several years

and that In order to achieve regime change, the report says, the occupation of
Iran would require a commitment of resources and personnel greater than
what the U.S. has expended over the past 10 years in the Iraq and
Afghanistan wars combined. The anti-sanctions movement in Congress gained
steam last week when 104 House members, including some Republicans, signed a
letter to President Obama supporting his diplomatic approach to Iran and calling on
Congress to avoid passing any new Iran nuclear related bills or resolutions while
talks which are set to resume this week are taking place.

***Aff

2ac Must Have

PC fails, Iran wont give up the program, and sanctions are
inevitable
Ereli 2/17

Adam, Reporter, International Business Times, The Iranian Nuclear Deal: A Foreign
Policy Hail Mary, http://www.ibtimes.com/iranian-nuclear-deal-foreign-policy-hailmary-1556004
The deal with Iran to roll back its nuclear program in exchange for
sanctions relief is like a fourth quarter Hail Mary pass from American
football an entertaining, high-risk play but with little chance of success .
With three years in power remaining, the administration of President Barack Obama
is in a deep hole and needs to put some points on the board. Its putative foreign
policy successes like the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan -have proven hollow. Iraq is gripped by political stagnation and a level of violence
greater than at any time since the height of sectarian violence of 2007.
Afghanistans government refuses to sign a deal that will allow U.S. forces to remain
in an advisory capacity beyond 2014, paving the way for a resurgent Taliban to
make a devastating come-back. Also, Russia has outflanked us in Syria: Putins
support, ably abetted by the regime in Iran, is the principal reason that President
Bashar al Assad remains in power. Americas relations with Israel are arguably at
their lowest point since the founding of the Jewish state in 1948. In addition, we
have alienated our staunchest Arab allies Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab
Emirates and Bahrain and they are taking unprecedented steps to distance
themselves from the United States, their erstwhile strategic partner of choice. This
is why the Obama administration is investing so much political capital in
its quixotic pursuit of a grand bargain with Iran. A comprehensive agreement
would represent a real game-changer for the United States and the region. It would
save us from having to take military action to roll back their nuclear program -- a
very real option and one that most reasonable analysts assess would prove
tragically costly to our long-term interests. The global sanctions regime that we
have so skillfully put in place over the past decade will be increasingly difficult to
sustain over the long term. Its a far better bet to leverage our present advantage
and cut a good deal now, rather than to lead a doomed effort to prevent a gradual
disintegration of the stranglehold we currently enjoy over Irans economy. One of
the principal reasons the U.S. took military action against Iraqi dictator Saddam
Hussein in 2003 was because we were convinced that he was on the verge of
breaking out of the sanctions box we had put him in. This diplomacy is
unfortunately based more on wishful thinking than hard reality. Iran is not
acting in good faith. It has no intention of giving up its nuclear weapons
program. Possessing a nuclear weapons capability is an issue of national
pride and one which the Iranian public strongly supports. The Middle East is a
dangerous neighborhood: Iran has no shortage of enemies and Iranians believe a
credible nuclear deterrent is vital to national survival. Although the clerical
regime led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Kahmenei is increasingly unpopular as
evidenced by the governments continuing ruthless suppression of internal dissent
-- dismantling Irans nuclear weapons program would be a death blow to its

legitimacy as the defender of Persian exceptionalism. It is a step that Irans

rulers cannot and will not take. And make no mistake: despite his Twitter-savvy
charm, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is not a revolutionary intent on
undermining the legitimacy of the Irans ruling religious elite. In fact, as an
ayatollah himself, he is a member of that exclusive club and his survival is
inextricably tied to theirs. So where does that leave us? America is right to put
Irans stated intention to disarm to the test. Paradoxically, providing the regime an
opportunity to fail is the surest way to undermine it. Let the world see that despite
its seductive charm offensive, Irans fundamental interests have not changed and a
resolute, unified stance by the international community is our best protection. As
the Obama Administrations former Deputy National Security Advisor recently wrote,
if diplomacy fails, the United States will be far more credible in
reinforcing sanctions or using force -- or both -- if it puts a proposal on the table
that the rest of the international community will find serious and plausible.

2ac UQ Overwhelms the Link

No momentum sanctions bill is dead
Press TV 2/18
Reporter, US public defeats pro-Israeli lobby on anti-Iran bill,
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/02/18/351279/us-public-beats-aipac-on-antiiranbill/
The hold-up of the anti-Iran sanctions bill in the US Senate is the result of
American citizens pressuring senators against the pro-Israel lobby, a
political analyst tells Press TV. This [hold up] is the result of really hundreds of
thousands of US citizens lobbying congressional members against the pro-Israeli
lobby AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, William Beeman, a
professor with the University of Minnesota, said in an interview with Press TV on
Tuesday. The anti-Iran sanctions bill, introduced by hawkish lawmakers in mid
December, has lost momentum in the US Senate after opposition from key
members of the Senate Democratic leadership. this [failure] is I think a very
good sign. It shows that the American public is actually more sensible than our
legislators and certainly is not interested in having our legislators be subject to
lobbying from these external groups, the analyst pointed. AIPAC, which is the most
powerful pro-Israel lobby group in the US, has been lobbying on Capitol Hill to
convince US senators to co-sponsor the new sanctions bill against Iran. The group
even launched an attack on a pro-Israel Jewish Democrat in the House of
Representatives, Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, for not
supporting the new anti-Iran legislation. Last month, two Senate Democratic
aides admitted that the sanctions legislation is already dead despite
AIPACs efforts to derail nuclear negotiations. Iran and the sextet the US,
France, Britain, Russia, China and Germany inked an interim deal on Irans nuclear
energy program in Geneva, Switzerland, last November. The deal came into force on
January 20th. Under the deal, Iran agreed to limit certain aspects of its nuclear
activities as a confidence-building measure, and the world powers undertook to
provide Iran with some sanctions relief and release more than $4 billion of Tehrans
oil revenues.

Obamas PC was already successful hawks have abandoned

sanctions
Ahmadi 2/14
Alireza, Reporter, PressTV, Congress hawks looking for new paths against Iran
diplomacy, http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/02/14/350620/us-hawks-scheminganew-against-iran/
Republican hawks and the strong pro-Israel lobby in Washington came
together to pass the so-called Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act, only to see
Congressional Democrats (after initially caving) respond to President

Obamas pressure and not allow for it to come to a vote on the Senate
floor. The chances of the bill passing at this point seems remote and many
journalists and commentators have already declared the effort dead and
called it a defeat for hawks in the Senate from both sides of the isle and the
hawkish pro-Israel lobby in Washington. However, they would likely be mistaken if

they saw this as a complete defeat for the aforementioned politicians and
institutions rather than a tactical retreat. As has been reported, the focus in
Congress regarding Iran has now shifted to a different piece of legislation. Not
assuaged by the requests of the Obama Administration that they simply do nothing
as to allow Secretary of State John Kerry to proceed with negotiations, they have
now set their sights on a non-binding resolution aimed at defining what they believe
the final agreement should involve. As early as December of last year Senator
Robert Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey who Chairs the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee and was a principal sponsor of the previously mentioned Iran
sanctions legislation, said that he would consider drafting a non-binding resolution
that would look to the final agreement and allow the Senate to have a hand in
molding that agreement. Im beginning to think that maybe what the Senate
needs to do is define the end game and at least what it finds as acceptable as the
final status, said Menendez to US officials who testified on the Iran deal before the
Senate Banking committee. Because Im getting nervous about what I perceive will
be acceptable to [the administration] as the final status versus what the Congress
might view as acceptable, he added. Though this resolution has not yet been
introduced, one need only to look back two months to see what the contours of such
a resolution would be. In December, while the new Iran sanctions bill had yet to be
introduced, two Republicans, Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Foreign Affairs
Comsmittee Chairman Ed Royce along with their Democratic counterparts Steny
Hoyer and Elliot Engle introduced a non-binding resolution in the House of
Representatives that they claimed would add the input of Congress to help mold the
final agreement. The resolution they drafted claimed that sanctions are the only
reason Iran is willing to negotiate and that it is US policy that no country has a right
to enrich. The resolution called on Iran to "suspend all enrichment-related and
reprocessing activities" and allow for inspections of "all suspect sites, including
military facilities, and full access to all Iranian personnel, scientists, and technicians
associated with Iran's nuclear program." The resolution goes on to become a grab
bag for any gripes and complaint the Congressmen have against Iran and would like
to see addressed in the context of the negotiations. They make a number of claims
against Iran involving international agreements and resolutions as well as human
rights. They call Iran a state sponsor of terror and demand American citizens who
they claim are unjustly detained in Iran to be released, including Robert Levinson
who was recently revealed to be a CIA operative. The purpose of the resolution was
to allow Cantor and the House Republican leadership, who have repeatedly
criticized the idea of diplomatic conflict resolution between Iran and the US in
general, to look for ways to express opposition to negotiations that President
Obama is perusing and to put obstacles in its path. Many of the demands made
regarding the Iranian nuclear energy program contradict the positions of the Obama
Administrations and the many non-nuclear issues raised have never been discussed
by the President in the context of these negotiations. The resolution would create
the strictest possible parameters for the American negotiators to the point that it
would either significantly harm sensitive international negotiations or derail the
process all together. That resolution eventually lost Democratic support under
heavy pressure from the White House and was abandoned by the Republicans in
favor of the new sanctions legislation. However, Members of the House involved
with crafting the new resolution discussed in recent days have already indicated
their interest in many of the provisions of the previous resolution. I want this
administration to know that the Congress believes in dismantling, removing and

stopping the Iranian nuclear program said Senator Lindsey Graham, a noted
Senate hawk. Therefore, having lost the battle to impose new sanctions and
directly violate the terms of the interim agreement, those in Congress and their
allies in the pro-Israel and hawkish lobby groups have simply shifted their
strategy, rather than accept defeat in their efforts to stand against diplomatic
conflict resolution between Iran and the P5+1 countries.

1ar UQ Overwhelms the Link

Sanctions fight is over Obama won
OHanlon 2/16
Michael E., senior fellow with the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence
and director of research for the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution,
To Date, Washington's Iran Policy Has Been a Triumph of Bipartisanship,
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/iran-at-saban/posts/2014/02/16-us-iran-policybipartisan-triumph-ohanlon
As a new round of Iran talks gets underway, the temptation in Washington
as usual, as with most issues is to engage in ferocious debate about
proper U.S. approaches to the nuclear issue. President Obama appears to
have deflected Congressional interest in intensifying sanctions, at least for
now, but the criticism of his policies remains widespread and quite strong. There
are admittedly valid issues within the Iranian nuclear file to debate. Specifically,
does Iran's new willingness to negotiate reflect a weakness that we should seek to
attack further keeping economic sanctions in place, even if not adding to them
now, while maintaining a very hard line in negotiations? Or is it fragile within Iran's
own political system, requiring some degree of American flexibility and moderation
if we are to improve the odds that President Rouhani's new engagement policy will
maintain support within the Islamic Republic?

Obamas PC was already successful

Times of Israel 2/14
Reporter, House letter against Iran sanctions garners half of Dems,
http://www.timesofisrael.com/house-letter-against-iran-sanctions-garners-half-ofdems/
Proponents of the new sanctions, among them the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee, have launched efforts in recent days to generate a non-binding
House resolution urging a tougher line on Iran in the talks underway between
the Islamic Republic and the major powers. The talks are aimed at keeping Iran from
obtaining a nuclear weapon. Senate Democrats have set aside legislation for
now that would impose new Iran sanctions as a means of strengthening the US
hand at the talks. The Obama administration had successfully lobbied to
table the legislation, arguing that its passage could scuttle the talks.

Lobbies have given up Obama won

Baehr 2/13
Richard, Reporter, Israel Hayom, Walt and Mearsheimer's victory,
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=7357
Not quite eight years after the initial article was published, we have a spectacle
today where the leading pro-Israel lobbying group in the United States, the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee, appears to have given up the fight
for new sanctions legislation to pressure Iran. That effort, which at one
point attracted a bipartisan group of 59 senators (43 Republicans and 16
Democrats), resulted in a bill that toughened sanctions with Iran if the current

second stage of negotiations between the so-called P5+1 and Iran did not produce a
final agreement on that nation's nuclear weapons program, or if Iran ignored what
has already been agreed to in the preliminary deal between the two sides. The
momentum for the new sanctions bill collapsed when U.S. President Barack
Obama made clear he would veto such a bill (for which an override would
require 67 senators) and the supposedly pro-Israel leadership among Democrats
in the Senate and the House immediately did the president's bidding,
making clear that what mattered to them, above all else, was loyalty to
the president of their party -- Israel and America be damned. As Caroline Glick laid
out this week, an Iran with a nuclear weapon or weapons would be a disaster not
just for Israel but also the United States. But Democratic Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid, an administration lackey of the first order, understood his marching
orders -- there was to be no vote in the Senate, since Obama did not want to
be forced to veto the sanctions legislation and did no want to put Democratic
senators and House members in a position of having to choose in an election year.
Of course, it was more than that, since the president had other issues with the
legislation: a desire to continue to humiliate AIPAC, accomplished when the group
announced it was standing down and was not going to push for the bill's adoption,
and also annoyance with the substance of the bill -- since the president at this point
seems to have switched sides and was now seeking a strategic alliance with Iran, a
redrawing of the Middle East to reflects Iran's new role. Toying with AIPAC has
become a sport for the Obama administration. Seemingly trapped by its red line on
the need for a military response to the use of chemical weapons by the Assad
government in Syria last year, the president asked AIPAC to lobby on Capitol Hill, for
what was clearly a hopeless effort to get congressional support for limited strikes
against Syria. While AIPAC's top people were getting the cold shoulder in their effort
from most members of Congress, the president was busy selling out AIPAC by
quickly agreeing to a Russian compromise to remove Syria's chemical weapons (a
process that of course has resulted in far less than advertised on that front). AIPAC,
in retrospect, went to the mats for a president who seemed anxious to have them
look weak in case the lobbying effort failed, and look ridiculous when the deal with
Russia was announced. While some have argued that pulling back on the Iran
sanctions bill this week was a strategic play by AIPAC (don't take on the president in
an effort you can't win), the eagerness to please the president on the Syria vote was
an enormous mistake since in that case, they were ready to get their heads handed
to them for following the president's direction. AIPAC has seemed terrified of Obama
from the get-go, when its leaders downplayed any evidence that Obama had a far
different background than other candidates for the White House when it came to
Israel, and issues of national security in his first campaign for the White House.

1ar No Vote
No vote until July and the aff isnt key, its all about the interim
agreement
Washington Post 2/20
Indiri Lakshmanan, Reporter, Barack Obama, Hassan Rouhani share nuclear
challenge, http://gulfnews.com/news/region/iran/barack-obama-hassan-rouhanishare-nuclear-challenge-1.1293505
With congressional elections looming in which Obama needs as many
Democratic seats as possible to protect his health-care law and other domestic
priorities, support for tough sanctions on Iran has been a rare bipartisan
issue on Capitol Hill since 2011. So far this year, the Senate Democratic
leadership has held off on a new sanctions bill that Obama has threatened
to veto, saying it would derail diplomacy and make a risky military strike on Irans
nuclear facilities more likely. With midterm elections coming up, pressure
will intensify for strong measures in Congress once the interim deal
expires in July , Maloney predicted, bringing with it the risk of a train wreck if
new sanctions come to a vote before a final agreement is negotiated with Iran.

2ac Diplomacy Fails/Sanctions Inevitable

Diplomacy fails Iran wont dismantle the program and no deal
will be reached
Goldberg 2/18

Jeffrey, Reporter, in an interview with Gary Samore, Barack Obama administrations

top expert on weapons of mass destruction and the go-to White House official on
the complexities and challenges of the Iranian nuclear program, Bloomberg,
Obama Weapons Expert: No Chance of Success With Iran,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-18/obama-weapons-expert-no-chance-ofsuccess-with-iran.html
Question: What would Iran have to agree to in order for these negotiations
to work? Answer: Iran would have to drastically limit the number of
centrifuges they will have at Natanz, for starters. They could be dismantled, or
disinstalled, or put in storage someplace, but a monitored storage. Basically, they
would have to operate far fewer centrifuges than they currently have. Were also
talking about taking down their supply of low-enriched uranium, way below the
seven or eight tons they have currently have that they have no need for. Were
talking about losing Qom, the famous Fordow facility inside a mountain.
Were talking about closing or converting the Arak heavy water research
reactor, either shutting it or converting it to a low power light water reactor. And
were talking about enhanced monitoring and verification. Q: You think it could
happen? A: As I read the Iranian position, they reject all of that. [President
Hassan] Rouhani says they wont dismantle a thing. He says he has to have
an enrichment facility big enough to provide fuel for the Bushehr nuclear
plant, and that would be tens of thousands of centrifuge machines, fifty or sixty
thousand of the current machines, to provide fuel for a single years fuel load. And
they say they need their heavy water research reactor to produce isotopes.
So I think were miles apart. And I think both sides are really locked in by
their domestic politics. If Rouhani were free to act, he might very well
accept restrictions for the sake of getting the sanctions lifted and for changing
Irans international position. But hes very constrained by the hard-liners.

1ar Diplomacy Fails/Sanctions Inevitable

No impact to Iran walking away form a deal
Goldberg 2/18
Jeffrey, Reporter, in an interview with Gary Samore, Barack Obama administrations
top expert on weapons of mass destruction and the go-to White House official on
the complexities and challenges of the Iranian nuclear program, Bloomberg,
Obama Weapons Expert: No Chance of Success With Iran,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-18/obama-weapons-expert-no-chance-ofsuccess-with-iran.html
Q: What would walking away look like? A: I always thought the scenario of
the Iranians making an overt dash for a bomb to be the least likely
scenario. Theyre not just going to kick out the inspectors in place and take
other steps that would be so easily detected. It would be too risky.
Especially the idea that they would risk everything to produce enough weaponsgrade uranium for a single, untested device, which is no good at all from a strategic
standpoint. Q: So whats the more plausible scenario? A: The best scenario
for them is to build secret plants, secret enrichment facilities, and produce
a couple of nuclear weapons, and then when they test one, theyve got a few to
back up what they have. Q: Whats the likelihood of that? A: Theyve tried to
do this twice already, with the formerly secret facilities at Natanz and Qom.
Both times we caught them.

Diplomacy is only an interim solution

Goldberg 2/18
Jeffrey, Reporter, in an interview with Gary Samore, Barack Obama administrations
top expert on weapons of mass destruction and the go-to White House official on
the complexities and challenges of the Iranian nuclear program, Bloomberg,
Obama Weapons Expert: No Chance of Success With Iran,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-18/obama-weapons-expert-no-chance-ofsuccess-with-iran.html
A: I dont think the Iranians feel compelled to make these kinds of
concessions. This would mean giving up everything theyve achieved over
the past decade, and this is a very important project for them. This wont
work in terms of finding a comprehensive solution. These negotiations can lead
to an interim solution , so thats what is happening now. We slow the program
down; theyre not making dramatic advancements in terms of their enrichment
capacity, in their ability to complete the heavy water research reactor, and they get
a respite from additional sanctions. But this is a truce. Its a classic truce. Both sides
are benefiting from this period of diplomacy. And the question will be: How and
when will it end? At some point, there could be internal changes in Iran, if the
Supreme Leader dies and someone else takes over. We dont know what the
persons calculations will be. It could be that the Iranians at some point in the
future feel strong enough to walk away from negotiations.

*****TPA

***Neg

1nc Econ
Congress will pass the Trade Promotion Authority Obamas PC
is key to get Dems on board.
Spulak and Byers 2/12
Thomas Spulak is a partner and Bonnie Byers is a consultant in King and Spaldings
Washington, D.C., office, Law360 is a LexisNexis company, Expect Trade Promotion
Authority Bill To Pass, http://www.law360.com/articles/509435/expect-tradepromotion-authority-bill-to-pass
Will TPA Be Enacted? It is hard to imagine that a TPA bill will not be
enacted, but when it does, it will look different from the one now pending.
President Obama will have to work with Congress to add provisions that

make the bill more palatable to Democrats. There are a number of trade
provisions that could attract democratic votes. One is legislation that would
clarify that currency manipulation by a country can result in a countervailable
subsidy under U.S. trade laws. The provision would help U.S. companies address the
serious competitive disadvantage they face from Chinese exports that benefit from
Chinas undervalued currency. The provision has significant bipartisan
support and similar versions have passed by wide margins in separate congresses
in both the House and Senate. There is also likely to be a push for full renewal
of Trade Adjustment Assistance either as part of the TPA bill or as a separate
provision. Portions of TAA, which provides assistance to workers displaced by foreign
trade, expired at the end of 2013. Members of the New Democratic Coalition are
expected to introduce a TAA bill within the next several weeks. Other trade
provisions that could be packaged with TPA include renewal of the Generalized
System of Preferences, which expired last year, a Miscellaneous Tariff Bill that would
temporarily lower the duties on imported products that are not produced in the
United States, and other trade preference programs. Like everything else in
Washington, D.C., today, nothing is easy. In fact, the safest bet is to say that TPA
will not be enacted. But although there are significant challenges associated
with negotiating trade agreements without TPA, it can and is being done.
In the end, Congress could gain more by being in the tent than outside
trying to look in. Thus, we believe TPA will be enacted. Democrats will get
some concessions from the administration. And in the end, although not
favored, side letters could be negotiated to address some issues that may
already be concluded in the ongoing negotiations. With rank and file
Republicans on his side, Obama will have to work this out with his fellow
Democrats. We believe that he will.

<Insert plan is a loss with Dems>

TPA passage solves growth and prevents decline
Brilliant 2/18
Myron, executive vice president and head of international affairs at the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce., WSJ, Why Harry Reid Must Reconsider on Trade,

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100014240527023045588045793770222952
53420
President Obama in his State of the Union address called for Congress to grant him
Trade Promotion Authority to "open new markets to new goods stamped 'Made in
the USA.' " The next day Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid warned that "Everyone
would be well-advised not to push this right now." House Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi said last Wednesday that the bipartisan TPA bill introduced in January was
"out of the question." TPA, often referred to as "fast-track," requires the
executive and legislative branches to work together on trade agreements.
Under TPA, Congress sets negotiating objectives, the administration consults
frequently with legislators, and any agreement is subject to an up-or-down vote.
The opposition to TPA is unfortunate, as new agreements like those being
negotiated with European and Asia-Pacific countries would help American
workers, farmers and companies. Freer trade would also be a boon to
economic productivity, creating more jobs at good wages. Imported
manufactured goods face U.S. tariffs averaging a mere 2%, with a few exceptions
for protected industries such as apparel, footwear and sugar. But U.S.
manufacturers and farmers often face far higher tariffs and other steep trade
barriers when entering foreign markets, beginning every game a dozen points
behind. Take the U.S. auto industry, which has made a comeback after the
recession. Automobiles made in the U.S. face a 35% import tariff in Malaysia,
shutting American manufacturers out of the market. Though the U.S. is the largest
agricultural exporter in the world, Vietnam levies double- and triple-digit duties on
U.S. farm goods. The country recently raised taxes on a number of products ranging
from walnuts to tomato sauce. Express shippers, insurers and banks are at a major
disadvantage in Japan, where regulations prop up a state-owned company called
Japan Post Holdings. The interference damages the U.S. economy. In 2010, the
Commerce Department estimated that foreign tariffs reduce the earnings of U.S.
factory workers by as much as 12%. The impact spreads to other sectors such as
agriculture due to non-tariff barriers including unscientific sanitary requirements.
The way to fix these inequalities? New trade agreements that demand
accountability and fairness. Free trade agreements have eliminated
disadvantages in the past. America's 20 trade-agreement partners
represent 10% of the global economy, but they buy nearly half of our exports.
Citizens of these countries purchase 12 times more U.S. exports per capita than
citizens of countries without trade agreements. The U.S. boasts a trade surplus in
manufacturing, agriculture and services with these 20 partners, unlike the trade
deficit it runs with the rest of the world. American workers reap the benefits.
Earnings are 18% higher for workers in factories that export than in those
that don't, according to a 2010 Commerce Department report. Small businesses
also stand to gain from freer trade. Large firms often find a way to work around
foreign trade barriers, but tariffs are often a deal-breaker for small
companies. Creating new trade agreements would significantly help the
U.S.'s 300,000 small exporters. TPA would give the administration the
ability to finish the job in two ongoing trade negotiations. In Asia, the U.S. is
taking part in talks for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which includes 11 other AsiaPacific countries. If ratified, the agreement could help upend barriers in Malaysia,
Vietnam and Japan. Furthermore, the TPP would unleash economic growth for U.S.
exports. Two billion Asians joined the middle class in the past 20 years, and another
1.2 billion will do so by 2020, according to International Monetary Fund projections.

The TPP will allow U.S. goods and services to be sold freely in these
booming markets. In Europe, the U.S. is talking with the European Union to
negotiate a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Trade between the U.S.
and the EU reaches $1 trillion annually and employs 15 million Americans and
Europeans. Even eliminating the relatively modest tariffs on U.S.-EU trade
would boost our combined GDP by $180 billion within five years , according
to a 2010 study by the European Centre for International Political Economy. But to
tackle any of these inequalities, Congress must first approve TPA. The
Constitution grants Congress the authority to regulate international trade, but it
gives the executive the authority to forge agreements with foreign governments.
TPA allows each branch to perform its constitutional role. Without TPA, U.S.
exports will remain at a profound disadvantage. Renewing TPA would help
restore fair competition in tradeand put economic growth in the U.S.
ahead of partisan politics.

Nuclear war
Friedberg and Schoenfeld 8

Aaron, Prof. Politics. And IR @ Princetons Woodrow Wilson School and Visiting
Scholar @ Witherspoon Institute, and Gabriel, Senior Editor of Commentary and Wall
Street Journal, The Dangers of a Diminished America
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455074012352571.html
Then there are the dolorous consequences of a potential collapse of the
world's financial architecture. For decades now, Americans have enjoyed
the advantages of being at the center of that system. The worldwide use of the
dollar, and the stability of our economy, among other things, made it easier for
us to run huge budget deficits, as we counted on foreigners to pick up the tab
by buying dollar-denominated assets as a safe haven. Will this be possible in
the future? Meanwhile, traditional foreign-policy challenges are multiplying.
The threat from al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist affiliates has not been
extinguished. Iran and North Korea are continuing on their bellicose
paths, while Pakistan and Afghanistan are progressing smartly down
the road to chaos. Russia's new militancy and China's seemingly
relentless rise also give cause for concern. If America now tries to pull
back from the world stage, it will leave a dangerous power vacuum. The
stabilizing effects of our presence in Asia, our continuing commitment to
Europe, and our position as defender of last resort for Middle East energy
sources and supply lines could all be placed at risk. In such a scenario there
are shades of the 1930s, when global trade and finance ground nearly
to a halt, the peaceful democracies failed to cooperate, and aggressive
powers led by the remorseless fanatics who rose up on the crest of
economic disaster exploited their divisions. Today we run the risk that
rogue states may choose to become ever more reckless with their
nuclear toys, just at our moment of maximum vulnerability. The aftershocks
of the financial crisis will almost certainly rock our principal strategic
competitors even harder than they will rock us. The dramatic free fall of the
Russian stock market has demonstrated the fragility of a state whose
economic performance hinges on high oil prices, now driven down by the
global slowdown. China is perhaps even more fragile, its economic growth
depending heavily on foreign investment and access to foreign markets. Both

will now be constricted, inflicting economic pain and perhaps even sparking
unrest in a country where political legitimacy rests on progress in the long
march to prosperity. None of this is good news if the authoritarian
leaders of these countries seek to divert attention from internal
travails with external adventures.

1nc Asia Pivot

Congress will pass the Trade Promotion Authority Obamas PC
is key to get Dems on board.
Spulak and Byers 2/12
Thomas Spulak is a partner and Bonnie Byers is a consultant in King and Spaldings
Washington, D.C., office, Law360 is a LexisNexis company, Expect Trade Promotion
Authority Bill To Pass, http://www.law360.com/articles/509435/expect-tradepromotion-authority-bill-to-pass
Will TPA Be Enacted? It is hard to imagine that a TPA bill will not be
enacted, but when it does, it will look different from the one now pending.
President Obama will have to work with Congress to add provisions that

make the bill more palatable to Democrats. There are a number of trade
provisions that could attract democratic votes. One is legislation that would
clarify that currency manipulation by a country can result in a countervailable
subsidy under U.S. trade laws. The provision would help U.S. companies address the
serious competitive disadvantage they face from Chinese exports that benefit from
Chinas undervalued currency. The provision has significant bipartisan
support and similar versions have passed by wide margins in separate congresses
in both the House and Senate. There is also likely to be a push for full renewal
of Trade Adjustment Assistance either as part of the TPA bill or as a separate
provision. Portions of TAA, which provides assistance to workers displaced by foreign
trade, expired at the end of 2013. Members of the New Democratic Coalition are
expected to introduce a TAA bill within the next several weeks. Other trade
provisions that could be packaged with TPA include renewal of the Generalized
System of Preferences, which expired last year, a Miscellaneous Tariff Bill that would
temporarily lower the duties on imported products that are not produced in the
United States, and other trade preference programs. Like everything else in
Washington, D.C., today, nothing is easy. In fact, the safest bet is to say that TPA
will not be enacted. But although there are significant challenges associated
with negotiating trade agreements without TPA, it can and is being done.
In the end, Congress could gain more by being in the tent than outside
trying to look in. Thus, we believe TPA will be enacted. Democrats will get
some concessions from the administration. And in the end, although not
favored, side letters could be negotiated to address some issues that may
already be concluded in the ongoing negotiations. With rank and file
Republicans on his side, Obama will have to work this out with his fellow
Democrats. We believe that he will.

<Insert plan is a loss with Dems>

TPA passage is key to a successful Asia Pivot
Miller and Nadeau 1/31
Scott Miller holds the Scholl Chair in International Business at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. Paul Nadeau is program

manager and research associate with the Scholl Chair at CSIS, TPP Is More than a
Trade Agreement, http://csis.org/publication/tpp-more-trade-agreement
Who gains the most now from TPA and the resulting TPP agreement? The White
House. This isnt because of the immediate economic benefits to the United States,
or because it provides a template for future large-scale, comprehensive trade
agreements, or because the President has advanced the most ambitious trade
agenda since the early 1990s. The White House needs TPA because the TPP is
the pivot to Asia. The military realignment is important, but the
repositioning is mostly relative, driven by drawdowns in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The Pivot is a political and economic realignment that aims to
improve cooperation and integration among the United States and East Asia. Thensecretary of state Hillary Clinton said this explicitly in her Foreign Policy article,
Americas Pacific Century, when she wrote [O]pen markets in Asia provide the
United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access
to cutting-edge technology. Our economic recovery at home will depend on exports
and the ability of American firms to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of
Asia. Military presence was only one out of the six courses of action that
Secretary Clinton used to define the Asia Pivot, while the TPP is arguably
the key ingredient of three (deepening America's relationships with rising
powers, including China; engaging with regional multilateral institutions;
expanding trade and investment). If solving the financial crisis and passing
health care reform were President Obamas key domestic policy victories, then the
Asia Pivot is primed to be the area where he beneficially changes the course of U.S.
foreign policy (the discussions with Iran are still too nascent to determine how far
reaching they will become). Today, there are tensions among Asias large
powers, and the United States is likely the single entity that can influence
the situation. The United States and Asia need each other and TPP is the
vehicle that can functionally, economically, and politically help bind them
together. The Members of Congress and staff that have drafted the TPA bill have
put admirable effort into legislation. Trade negotiators working on TPP have been
equally tireless. But TPP, and Asia, cannot wait forever. Many in Asia are
already concerned that the Pivot was only superficial and that United States
is already moving on. If TPA and TPP remain framed as a trade issue, with
all of the political baggage that comes with that, the Administration risks
putting TPP on ice for 2014. Alternatively, the Administration can influence
perceptions by framing the TPP as a strategic goal that will be the
cornerstone of the Asia Pivot. This would reassure U.S. partners in Asia
and answer domestic critics who argue that the Pivot lacks substance.
Moreover, it would give the President an achievable goal in advance of his April trip
to Asia. Many have had their say on TPA this week. What matters now is what
the President does. We hope he will start by reminding policymakers
whats at stake.

Solves nuclear conflict

Klingner 13

Bruce, senior research fellow for Northeast Asia at The Heritage Foundation, The
U.S. and Its Allies Need a Strong Defense, March-11,
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/03/11/will-south-korea-and-japantake-the-nuclear-route/us-and-its-allies-need-strong-military-to-deter-north-koreanthreat ///cmf

So much for basketball diplomacy. Self-appointed ambassador Dennis

Rodmans trip to Pyongyang didnt keep his new B.F.F., North Korean leader
Kim Jong-un, from threatening a pre-emptive nuclear strike that would
turn Washington into a sea of flames. Rodmans trip can be written off as
narcissistic self-promotion. But Kims bombastic rhetoric shouldnt be dismissed
so easily. Pyongyangs two deadly acts of war against South Korea in
2010 and its long history of terrorist acts show the regime often follows
through on its threats. A nuclear attack on the United States or full-scale
invasion of South Korea remains highly unlikely, however, as either would ensure
North Koreas destruction. But it is only a matter of time before the regime
launches another tactical-level attack on the South. There is now a
greater risk of miscalculation and escalation, due to new leaders in both
Koreas. Kim Jong-un lacks experience and may stumble across red lines that his
predecessors would have known not to cross. Moreover, he may be
emboldened by North Koreas new nuclear muscle and the knowledge that
neither Washington nor Seoul ever responded to previous attacks. Newly
inaugurated South Korean President Park Geun-hye criticized her countrys
past passivity and vowed to hit back hard and exponentially in case of
another attack. The danger is that even a low-level retaliation could
escalate into an all-out conflict . As a U.S. general on the peninsula warned,
Before you start even a limited response, you better be prepared to go all-in.
Since repeated diplomatic efforts have failed to curb North Koreas reckless
behavior, the United States and its allies need strong military forces to
protect themselves. Unfortunately, President Obamas Asia Pivot was, itself,
little more than rhetoric. Not a single unit will pivot from Afghanistan, Iraq or
Europe into the Pacific. And massive defense budget cuts undermine U.S.
military capabilities and credibility.

2nc UQ Wall
TPA will pass
a) insider statements
AFP 2/18

Staff Writer, Agreement on Trans-Pacific Partnership very close,

http://www.dawn.com/news/1087910/agreement-on-trans-pacific-partnership-veryclose
US President Barack Obama's administration has put a high priority on the TPP,
seeing it as tying the US more firmly to the dynamic Asia-Pacific region at a time
that China's clout is rising. Singapore's Lee warned against a failure to reach a deal
this year. If we don't close this year, there is not much time left on the American
political calendar to get it through Congress and to settle the matter, he said. And
when time passes, loose ends get unravelled and then it would be a setback. Lee
said he hoped the US Congress would pass a bill that would empower the
Obama administration to negotiate major trade agreements that the US
legislature could approve or reject without making changes. Supporters
said the four-year extension of the powers under the Trade Promotion Authority
(TPA), which last ended in 2007, is indispensable to speeding up trade
negotiations. The move however faces stiff opposition from House
Democrats who feel it is too far-reaching. Lee said the powers would ensure
that US lawmakers would not be able to vote down items in the TPP that they were
not in favour of as the pact is a negotiated package. So they have to get the
TPA, otherwise I think it's a big trouble.AFP

b) Obama creates momentum

Politi and Donnan 2/10

James and Shawn, Reporters, Financial Times, Trade: Pacts of strife,

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c1254a20-8ff3-11e3-aee9-00144feab7de.html?
siteedition=intl#axzz2tgvXT0wi
But that vision is colliding with a sobering domestic reality. Passing big trade bills
though Congress has always been difficult, relying on a coalition of a
majority of pro-business Republicans and a strong minority of Democrats
willing to buck their base. The first part of that equation is shakier than
usual, with Tea Party and conservative Republicans shying away from giving Mr
Obama any victory. Securing the second part remains a big challenge.
Obama administration officials including cabinet members, Mr Froman and the
White House chief of staff have stepped up efforts to stoke political
momentum for trade on Capitol Hill. According to people familiar with the
meetings, the president made strong pitches in favour of his trade agenda
at private gatherings of congressional Democrats last week. But many
believe he will have to do a lot more private arm-twisting and even deliver
some high-profile speeches on trade to the American public if he really wants to
change the political dynamic in his favour. If the president wants to get
these trade deals done...he is going to have to work harder to pick up
Democratic votes, says Jim Manley, a former senior aide to Mr Reid. People up
for [re-election] in 2014 dont want to deal with this, and many rank-and-file

Democrats have a hard time supporting trade deals that may lead to job losses at
home. Despite Mr Reids comments, there is a path to congressional
approval of trade legislation to which optimists can point. A bipartisan fast-track
bill introduced last month by Max Baucus, a Democratic senator, and Orrin Hatch, a
Republican senator, is on hold because of Mr Baucuss looming departure to
become ambassador to Beijing. Ron Wyden, Mr Baucuss successor as Senate
finance committee chairman, may well want to make a few changes to the
legislation to make it more palatable to the Democratic base. But if he succeeds,
the finance committee could vote to advance it, sending it to Mr Reid and
putting pressure on him to at least bring it to the floor for a final vote. At
that point the business community lobbying would kick into gear and help
carry the legislation over the finishing line.

c) PC shapes uniqueness
Landler and Weisman 2/14

Mark and Jonathan, Reporters, NYT, Trade Pact With Asia Faces Imposing Hurdle:
Midterm Politics, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/us/politics/biden-remarkcasts-doubt-on-pillar-of-us-trade-agenda.html?_r=0
Mr. Obama, who spoke to Democrats after Mr. Biden, did not mention trade in his
brief remarks and instead focused on issues on which the Democrats are generally
united, like raising the federal minimum wage and overhauling the nations
immigration laws. Some analysts credited the administration for working hard to
promote the trade deals. Last year the White House moved Michael B. Froman, a
top-ranking international economic official, to be the United States trade
representative. Mr. Obama plans to travel to Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, and the
Philippines next month for a trip that will focus heavily on trade. If the Democrats
on the Hill seem to be reluctant to embrace the deal, and they do, the only
question is whether the White House is willing to use the tools at their
disposal to change some minds , said David Rothkopf, who worked on trade
issues in the Clinton administration. Trade has long divided Democrats, pitting
their business-friendly moderate wing against key allies in organized labor. And in
the midterm elections, when key Democratic voting blocs tend to stay home, the
party badly needs the unions to get out the vote in November. The remarks
by the president and the vice president come as both parties paper over divisions
before the election season. Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio heeded warnings from
his Republican members and postponed efforts for an immigration overhaul to avoid
the spectacle of intraparty warfare on the issue. Fast-track trade authority is
the issue on which the White House and congressional Democratic leaders
are most obviously at loggerheads. In the past two weeks, Republicans have
taken to publicly goading Mr. Obama to move forward on it, saying it was
an area in which Republicans and the White House could work together to
create jobs. With our economy in such dire straits these days, opening new
opportunities for American goods through trade should just be a no-brainer, said
Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader.

2nc Thumpers
TPA is the top priority Obama is pushing
Reuters 2/18
Reporter, Obama to continue to push for trade deals: White House,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/18/us-usa-obama-tradeidUSBREA1H1RN20140218
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama will continue to press for legislation
needed to conclude trade agreements because those accords are
beneficial to the economy even if they are controversial politically, White
House spokesman Jay Carney said on Tuesday. "We're going to continue to
press for this priority as we have in the past, mindful of course in recognizing
that there are differing views on these issues in both political parties, not
just the Democratic Party," he told reporters at a briefing.

No thumpers all about the Dems

Raum 1/25
Tom, Reporter, Foes of Obama trade pacts mostly fellow Democrats,
http://thetandd.com/news/national/government-and-politics/foes-of-obama-tradepacts-mostly-fellow-democrats/article_5fa63adb-c60c-5113-97f7-bfe92c9f653b.html
Debates on lowering trade barriers can turn Congress upside down for
Democratic presidents promoting such legislation. Business-minded
Republicans suddenly turn into allies and Democrats aligned with
organized labor can become outspoken foes. It's a reversal of the usual
order of things, where a Democratic president can generally count on
plenty of support from fellow Democrats in Congress along with varying
levels of resistance from Republicans. Now it is President Barack Obama's
turn to experience such a role reversal. Already, he is encountering pockets of
Democratic resistance , especially from those representing manufacturing states,
to his efforts to win congressional approval for renewal of "fast track"
negotiating authority.
<Insert specific thumper answers>

Yes Pass at: Reid

Only Obamas PC overcomes Reids opposition
Frenzel 2/9
Bill, Contributor, Forbes, These Are The Deals That Only President Obama Can
Close, http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrenzel/2014/02/09/these-are-the-deals-thatonly-president-obama-can-close/
But it only took a few days before the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, blew
the TPA, TPP, and our Asia policy out of the water. He doesnt like TPA. We
knew that. But, he also threatened to prevent a Senate vote on it this year.
Thats bad news for the Republic, but also bad news for the President. His USTR has
been working to assure negotiating partners that the President will get his TPA.
Since the Reid threat, that story seems suddenly less reassuring. So, if the Senate
leader has his way, there will be no TPA, no TPP, nor any other trade bill
this year. The press seems to assume that Reid is stifling the trade vote to
protect his Senate majority in the November elections. That would be
consistent with his previous actions in preventing any Senate votes on the budget
for a couple of years, and in regularly loading up the amendment tree. Those
ploys are intended to stifle any possibly embarrassing votes for his majority
colleagues. The Senate Majority Leader regularly assails Republicans for stopping
legislative progress. So it is more than ironic that he has the biggest thumb in the
legislative bottle. The feeble efforts of Republicans to defer Obamacare look like
childs play compared to the highly effective veto tactics of Senator Reid. These
kinds of games are never over until they are over, but the Reid veto appears
to be convincing at this time. The President, if he really wants his Asia pivot
and his TPP, is going to have to work a lot harder on them. Presidential
spokespeople can make the pitch, but presidents have to make their own
sales. That may not be enough, but nothing else will do it .

More ev
Washington Post 2/2
Reporter, The Washington Post: Reid can undermine Obama on TPP,
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/57477685-82/obama-trade-reid-tpp.html.csp
Apparently, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has other ideas. "Im
against fast track, " he announced Wednesday, using a colloquial term for
trade promotion authority. "I think everyone would be well-advised just not to push
this right now." The day after Mr. Obama made his plea, Mr. Reid sounded as if he
were rejecting it thus imperiling the entire TPP project. That might be a stretch:
Mr. Reid has never supported trade promotion authority, and he has never been
much for free-trade deals, either. He has nevertheless permitted such legislation to
move through the Senate in the past, and he stopped short of an explicit threat to
block it this time. Still, Mr. Reids remarks emboldened free-trade opponents and
gave Republican lawmakers, whose support the president will eventually need, a
ready-made excuse not to cooperate. This cant help but sow confusion among the
TPP negotiating partners about the United States true intentions and about Mr.
Obamas capacity to work his will. Mr. Reids language was ham-handed, given that
Mr. Obama is counting on other leaders, especially Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo
Abe, to stand up to domestic protectionists. Yet the majority leaders obvious

election-year interest in appeasing opponents of trade promotion authority within

his party, notably organized labor, makes it that much harder for Mr. Obama to ask
Mr. Abe to take political risks. In the wake of Mr. Reids comment, White House
spokesman Jay Carney called the TPP "a very important opportunity to expand
trade" and insisted that "the president will continue to press to get it
done." That response was consistent with the administrations generally
low-key lobbying effort with a Congress that hates tough votes on trade.
So was Mr. Obamas brief and mild pitch in the State of the Union. The majority
leaders attitude suggests, however, that the president may need to step up
the pressure and that the Republicans arent the only ones on Capitol
Hill who can undermine his agenda.

Yes Pass at: Pelosi

Pelosi opposes the current bill Obamas PC would solve
Needham 2/19
Vicki, Reporter, The Hill, US Chamber presses for trade expansion,
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/trade/198762-us-chamber-presses-for-tradeexpansion
In his State of the Union address, Obama called for Congress to grant him
trade promotion authority (TPA) but Democrats have pushed back against
the idea, instead, calling for more time to collaborate on legislation that would
provide a framework for lawmakers to be closely involved with shaping the trade
deal. "Renewing TPA would help restore fair competition in trade, and put economic
growth in the U.S. ahead of partisan politics," Brilliant said. He argued that the TPA
allows each branch to perform its constitutional role in the process of forging new
trade agreements. "Without TPA, U.S. exports will remain at a profound
disadvantage," he wrote. "Renewing TPA would help restore fair competition in
trade, and put economic growth in the U.S. ahead of partisan politics." Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has cautioned that "everyone would be
well-advised not to push this right now," however. House Minority Leader
Nancy Pelosi said last week that she is opposed to the TPA bill introduced by
former Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and House
Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.). But she isn't
against the president's push for expanded trade.

Pelosi doesnt support the TPA as is PC solves her opposition

Needham 2/12
Vicki, Reporter, The Hill, Pelosi comes out against fast track bill,
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/198297-pelosi-comes-out-against-fast-track-bill
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said Wednesday that she doesnt
support a measure authored by two Republicans and former Senate Finance
Committee Chairman Max Baucus that would provide President Obama with
ramped up powers to help smooth the passage of trade deals. Pelosi
made clear on Wednesday night that she isnt opposed to the concept of
TPA , also known as fast-track authority, but she cant support a bill introduced by
Baucus, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) and
Senate Finance Committee ranking member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). Baucus was
confirmed as U.S. ambassador to China last week and has left the Senate. At the
Democratic retreat Wednesday night, Pelosi clarified that her remarks from
earlier Wednesday were directed at the Camp-Baucus-Hatch bill introduced in
January, and were not a rejection of Obamas trade agenda . We weren't
talking about President Obama's trade initiative, she told reporters. We
were talking about Camp-Baucus, and I said then that Camp-Baucus, in its present
form, is unacceptable to me. Democrats have come out en masse against the
measure. Obama will address Democrats on Friday at their three-day retreat on the
Eastern Shore of Maryland. Pelosi said trade is extremely important to
Democrats and it should get some attention at the retreat. We're the party of

free trade, fair trade, and we believe that the global economy is here to stay, and
we're part of it, she said. She argued that the tax code has to be changed to
reward businesses that create jobs in the United States instead of sending jobs
overseas. As Mr. Van Hollen said, we want to export products overseas, not
transport jobs overseas. Earlier on Wednesday, Pelosi told a group of labor leaders
and environmentalists that supporting the Camp-BaucusHatch bill was out of the
question. Newly tapped Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)
has indicated that he is in no hurry to take up the Camp-Baucus-Hatch bill and
instead will talk to lawmakers about how they want to proceed. It seems clear that
the committee will work up new legislation that would provide an updated strategy
that considers the complexities of global trade, which have changed dramatically
since the last bill was passed in 2002. That measure expired in 2007. Last month,
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced his opposition to the
measure. Reid has opposed trade deals in the past so his opposition to fast-track
wasnt a surprise to the White House. Still, it is a hurdle the White House will
need to scale. Republicans have said that Obama will have to work with
Democrats if he wants to get fast-track authority through Congress. The
White House has an aggressive and ambitious trade agenda that includes
the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and a U.S.-European Union deal in the
works.

Yes Pass at: Biden

Biden was misquoted Obamas PC solves
Palmer 2/14
Doug, Reporter, Politico, Joe Biden draws GOP fire for trade delay remarks,
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/trade-promotion-authority-mitch-mcconnell103542.html#ixzz2tLbkvxEN
Vice President Joe Biden acknowledged Friday that a bill to advance the U.S.
trade agenda was not going to pass for a while, prompting Minority Leader
Mitch McConnell to pounce on the comments as evidence of weak leadership from
the White House on the economy. I know its not coming up now, Biden said at a
House Democratic retreat in Cambridge, Md., according to a Democratic aide in the
room. But a Biden spokesperson denounced initial press accounts of the
meeting as inaccurate and expressed frustration that they did not mention
Biden pressing the need for trade legislation to boost U.S. security and economic
interests in the fast-growing Asia-Pacific region. While the vice president said he
understands where some members of the House and Senate are coming from, he
made a clear case for the administrations trade priorities, including the
Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, which he stated are very much in the
economic and strategic interest of the U.S., the spokesperson said. McConnell
quickly seized on Bidens reported remarks, and also criticized President Barack
Obama for failing to push for the trade promotion authority legislation in a speech
at the retreat. The measure would allow the president to wrap up two big trade
deals he is negotiating with 11 countries in the Asia-Pacific region and the 28
nations of the European Union, leading Obama to call for the bill in his State of the
Union speech as something that would help the United States grow and create jobs.
But you have to wonder how serious he is about these jobs since he didnt even
mention it at all when he spoke to House Democrats today, McConnell said in a
statement. Congressional Democrats are the biggest hurdle to growing these job
opportunities and [he] didnt even raise the issue with them? The jobs they seem
to care most about are Democrats in Congress not families across the country
eager to join the ranks of the employed. Both Senate and House Democrats
have responded warily to Obamas past calls for trade promotion
authority, worried a vote on the bill could hurt them with labor groups and other
core constituencies ahead of the November congressional election. Congress last
voted on the controversial trade legislation in 2002, when Biden was still a senator.
He voted no to giving President George W. Bush the authority. Still, with no
indication that TPA is about to move quickly, McConnells basic criticism remained.
With our economy in such dire straits these days, opening new opportunities for
American goods through trade should just be a no-brainer, he said. Its an issue
that used to be fairly bipartisan around here, and it can be again if the
president is willing to lead. Millions of middle-class families and small
businesses are counting on him to do just that.

Yes Pass PC Key

Obama push overcomes Reid and Pelosi opposition
Feldman 2/19
Linda, Staff Writer, CSM, Trade deals: why Obama is stymied by members of his
own party, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2014/0219/Trade-dealswhy-Obama-is-stymied-by-members-of-his-own-party
Usually, the rap on Washington is that Democrats and Republicans are so polarized,
they cant agree on much. But as President Obama met Wednesday with the
leaders of Mexico and Canada to talk trade, it was Mr. Obamas top
Democratic allies in Congress who were making life difficult. Republican
leaders, normally his adversaries, have been his allies, goading him to make the
pro-trade argument more forcefully. Both Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D) of
Nevada and House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D) of California oppose giving
the president trade-promotion authority also known as fast track to
allow international trade deals to pass Congress with no amendments and on a
simple majority vote. Labor leaders, too, oppose fast track, saying big international
trade deals threaten American jobs. Conservationists worry such deals may not
contain adequate environmental protections. Both movements are crucial to
Democrats chances in the November midterms. And it is those midterms that make
congressional Democrats especially wary of the emerging trade deals with Europe
and Asia. Americans have conflicting views of international trade generally, but a
negative view of NAFTA the North American Free Trade Agreement, which the
United States entered into 20 years ago with Mexico and Canada. As a presidential
candidate, Obama promised to fix NAFTA. Now as president, he is hoping to amend
NAFTA as part of the larger Trans-Pacific Partnership, which links countries in Asia,
North America, and South America. To do that, he says, he needs fast track. We
need to work together on tools like bipartisan trade promotion authority to protect
our workers, protect our environment, and open new markets to new goods
stamped 'Made in the USA,' Obama said last month in his State of the Union
address. China and Europe arent standing on the sidelines. Neither should we.
The next day, Senator Reid presiding over a precarious Democratic majority in the
upper chamber threw cold water on fast track. Everyone would be well advised
just to not push this right now, he said. At a House Democratic retreat last Friday,
Obama didnt bring up trade, which sparked taunting from Senate minority leader
Mitch McConnell (R) of Kentucky. You have to wonder how serious he is about these
jobs since he didnt even mention it at all when he spoke to House Democrats
today, Senator McConnell said in a statement. The jobs they seem to care most
about are Democrats in Congress not families across the country eager to join the
ranks of the employed. Complicating matters are Republican tea party members
who oppose fast track creating a realignment of sorts, at least on trade, with the
populist left and populist right joining forces. Late last year, 151 House Democrats
about three-quarters of the caucus sent Obama a letter opposing fast track,
saying it usurps Congresss authority on trade matters. About two dozen House
Republicans also sent the president a letter opposing fast track. Any eventual
agreement on fast track will have to be bipartisan, probably with mostly
Republican votes, and it may have to wait until the lame-duck period after the
midterms -- or beyond -- to get a vote. Administration officials express
confidence that fast track will pass, though they dont offer a timeline. Some

say Obama could be doing more to talk up the benefits of trade. The president
probably needs to make a better case to show how trade benefits the
average American, says Stephen Kelly, a visiting public policy professor at Duke
University in Durham, N.C. One of the problems with NAFTA is that when a factory
employing 300 people closes down and moves to Mexico, thats news, Professor
Kelly says. But, he adds, in North Carolinas region known as the Research Triangle,
if each [company] hires five more people, because they have new contracts to sell
goods to Canada or Mexico, thats not news.

Obamas push is key

Raum 2/18

Tom, Reporter, AP, Obama, fellow Dems are at odds on big trade bills,
http://www.twincities.com/business/ci_25171415/obama-fellow-dems-are-at-oddsbig-trade
Meanwhile, some European allies are pushing back, still peeved over disclosures of
National Security Agency surveillance of them. Obama had hoped an agreement
could be reached on the trans-Pacific talks before he visited Japan and other Asian
nations in April. The Pacific talks are further along than the Atlantic ones. But the
trans-Pacific talks have been complicated by disputes over environmental issues
and resistance in some Asian countries to a wholesale lowering of trade barriers.
Also, U.S. standing in the region took a hit when Obama missed the Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation meeting last October because of the American government
shutdown. At home, clearly more Republicans support free-trade agreements than
do Democrats. Business interests generally favor such pacts, while labor unions
tend to oppose them. Lower-priced imported goods and services may be welcomed
by U.S. consumers, but one consequence can be the loss of U.S. manufacturing and
service jobs. Fast-track authority speeds up congressional action on trade
deals by barring amendments. Boehner, R-Ohio, taunts Obama by asserting
that "Trade Promotion Authority is ready to go. So why isn't it done?" "It isn't
done because the president hasn't lifted a finger to get Democrats in
Congress to support it," Boehner said, answering his own question. "And with
jobs on the line, the president needs to pick up his phone and call his own
party, so that we can get this done." It isn't yet clear whether Boehner's retreat
from years of political brinkmanship in pushing a debt limit increase through the
House last week will help to forge a bipartisan consensus on the trade deals. A
fast-track bill may be "ready to go" in the GOP-controlled House but
certainly isn't in the Democratic-led Senate, where Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid has given it a thumbs-down. "I'm against fast track," Reid says flatly.
"Everyone would be well advised just to not push this right now." White House
press secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday that, "We're going to continue to
press for this priority, as we have in the past. Mindful, of course, and recognizing
that there are differing views on these issues in both parties, not just the
Democratic Party."

Only presidential leadership leads to passage

Wood 2/17

Barry, Reporter, Market Watch, Obamas half-hearted effort on trade deals not
enough, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obamas-half-hearted-effort-on-tradedeals-not-enough-2014-02-17

Assuming the president gets TPA a heroic assumption will he emulate

Bill Clinton and fight for TPP and perhaps TTIP in 2015? Some trade analysts,
including Fred Bergsten and Jeffrey Schott, say yes. They argue that after the midterm elections an administration short on big achievements will turn to freer trade
with Europe and Asia as a positive and durable legacy of the Obama presidency.
The jury is out and the debate is only now beginning. One by one the
president will have to win the battle of the acronyms. And without vocal,
decisive presidential leadership , even the first TPA is unlikely to be
won.

PC is key to passage Obama arm twisting gets Dems on board

and sends an international signal
Atkinson 2/6
Robert D., President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation,
Huffington Post, Selling the President's Ambitious Trade Agenda,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-d-atkinson-phd/selling-the-presidentsam_b_4733087.html?utm_hp_ref=state-of-the-union
Judging by congressional reaction to the trade elements in the State of the Union,
President Obama still has his work cut out for him if he's going to sell his
plan to reticent Democrats (who remain unconvinced of the benefits of trade)
and Republicans (who may not want to give him a big "win" in an election year).
The bottom line is that the president is going to have to become far more
involved if he wants to see movement on his top trade priorities this year.
To be clear, there's plenty at stake. Apart from removing the most obvious barriers
to trade, like tariffs, U.S. negotiators are pushing for the TPP to contain strong and
enforceable protections for intellectual property (IP), as well as reductions in nontariff barriers in order to help ensure the U.S. maintains its global edge in
innovation. This push is especially important in areas such as life sciences and
information technology, where growth in exports means growth in high-paying jobs.
According to the Department of Commerce, IP-intensive industries account for over
27 percent of all jobs in the U.S. economy. By enabling U.S. innovation, we lay the
groundwork for future innovation, as companies reinvest in the substantial R&D
necessary to develop new medicines, software and other cutting-edge products that
the world needs and wants. Unfortunately, there's certainly cause for concern
where IP rights are concerned regarding the TPP. Five participants in the TPP
negotiations, Canada, Chile, Peru, Mexico and Vietnam, are on the USTR's Watch or
Priority Watch List of the 2013 Special 301 Report, which annually reviews countries
that maintain inadequate and ineffective intellectual property protection and
enforcement. In addition, ITIF's Global Innovation Policy Index lists Chile, Malaysia,
Mexico, Peru and Vietnam in either its lower-middle or lower tier of innovation policy
capacity. In order to ensure we realize the potential of the TPP, our negotiators must
guarantee IP rights and global trade rules will be respected, protected and enforced
the way we do here in the United States. The only way we can do that is if the
President shows he's serious about concluding a high-standard agreement. How
can this be accomplished in 2014? First, President Obama needs to
personally lobby hesitant members of Congress to pass Trade Promotion
Authority legislation with broad bipartisan support. This action will send a
clear signal to the rest of the world that the United States is serious about
its belief that open and fair trade benefits producers and consumers both in the

United States and in our partner nations around the world. Second, the president
and USTR must use all their leverage to encourage an agreement that ensures
robust IP rights and free trade enforcement mechanisms in the TPP. ITIF has written
about what a "High-Standard" TPP would look like and, frankly, no deal on TPP would
be better than a substandard one that fails to include these provisions. If the U.S.
fails in this regard, not only does congressional ratification of TPP become far less
certain, but the United States risks putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage
for many years to come. Two lines in a major speech is certainly better than
nothing. However, there's a lot more work to do before President Obama's
growth-promoting trade agenda can be fully realized.

Obama needs to PC to convince Dems

Kennedy and McLarty 2/16

Mark and Mack, Mark Kennedy, director of George Washington University's Graduate
School of Political Management and the chairman of the Economic Club of
Minnesota was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 2001-2007.
Mack McLarty, White House chief of staff and Special Envoy for the Americas under
President Bill Clinton is chairman of McLarty Associates, Guampdn.com, Renew
economic vitality with trade,
http://www.guampdn.com/article/20140217/OPINION02/302170007/Reneweconomic-vitality-trade
Passing TPA will require significant attention and effort from President
Obama and Congress. Over 500 advocacy groups have written to lawmakers urging
a vote against it. To date, 49 more House Democrats are on record opposing
fast track than supported NAFTA in 1994. Advocating for free trade will
require the president to stand up to members of his own party to further
his economic agenda. It will take courage to forcefully advocate for an
issue that splits one's party, but the benefits to the nation will far outweigh any
intra-party strife. That is what presidential leadership is all about.

Obama is key to convince Dems

Post and Courier 2/19

Reporter, Obama's free-trade challenge,

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20140219/PC1002/140219338/1021/obamasfree-trade-challenge
The Obama administration is negotiating new trade and investment
agreements with 28 European nations and 11 Asian nations. These huge
trade deals are vitally important to South Carolina and all other states seeking
economic growth and jobs. But they will languish if, contrary to President Barack
Obama's request, Congress wraps them in red tape. Unfortunately, that is just
what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi
have promised to do. There is little question that they are trying to kill
these trade deals in order to keep union funds flowing into the Democrats'
war chest for the 2014 Congressional elections. The president should
remind his party colleagues that their best chances in November lie in
fostering more economic prosperity as soon as possible - and that free
trade is a crucial asset in that task. Last fall, President Obama asked
Congress to renew his Trade Promotion Authority, a procedure known as "fast
track" that requires Congress to have a single up-or-down vote on proposed trade
agreements. Having the authority in hand, the president's negotiators can promise

potential trade partners that Congress will not unravel agreements they have
reached. Of course, there is no guarantee that Congress will accept the
agreements, and in the past the legislative body has sent some trade pacts back
for renegotiation. But in the absence of the "fast track" status, U.S. trade
negotiators work at a disadvantage.

Obamas push is key TPA solves the Asia Pivot

OKeefe 2/19

Ed, Reporter, Washington Post, The Trans Pacific Partnership is in trouble on Capitol
Hill. Heres why., http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/02/19/whythe-trans-pacific-partnership-is-in-trouble-on-capitol-hill/
President Obama is meeting Wednesday with the leaders of Mexico and Canada and
a major new trade pact with Asian countries is among several important topics of
discussion. The trade agreement, known as the Trans Pacific Partnership, has been
in the works for nearly a decade and would more closely align the economies of the
U.S., Canada, Mexico and nine other countries in South America and Asia. The deal
would eliminate tariffs on goods and services and generally harmonize dozens of
regulations that can often complicate doing business across borders. (Everything
you need to know about the Trans Pacific Partnership, explained by The Post's Lydia
DePillis, can be read here.) The White House is eager to finish the talks with
its would-be trading partners and has been pushing to earn the authority to
bypass Congress and quickly approve the deal. But most Democratic
lawmakers don't want to give Obama "fast track" trade authority to quickly
negotiate and approve the deal. The resistance could complicate things for Obama
on two fronts. First, any sign of serious opposition in Washington will make
countries involved in the talks nervous that the American president can't
seal the deal back home. But second -- and more importantly for The Fix's
purposes -- Obama has to balance his desire to get a deal with the political
needs of congressional Democrats, dozens of whom run the risk of losing their
seats in November. Already, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) are opposed to moving forward
with granting Obama fast-track authority. "Everyone would be well-advised just
to not push this right now," Reid said late last month. He's generally opposed to
large global trade agreements. Pelosi doesn't oppose the concept of fast-track, but
said last week that she is against a bipartisan measure introduced by Sens. Max
Baucus (D-Mont.), Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.) that would
give Obama the authority. Resistance from Reid and Pelosi usually would be
enough to at least ease the White House push. But Obama and Vice President
Biden have also been directly confronted on the issue in recent weeks by
rank-and-file members. But 151 House Democrats co-signed a letter late last year
written by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) to voice opposition to fast track authority
and the TPP -- more than half of the caucus. And during a recent closed-door
meeting at the White House, Obama took two questions on the subject, while Biden
faced a grilling on the subject at the House Democratic policy retreat last week. At
the White House, Obama heard an earful from from Reps. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio)
and Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), two outspoken liberals with close ties to the labor
movement and other liberal constituencies. Kaptur said she had a simple request
for Obama: Let Congress and the public see the details of the TPP before Congress
is asked to give him fast track authority. "He did not say yes," she said in a recent
interview. "That means that we would be faced with a fast-track vote that would

lock our ability to amend without even knowing whats in the agreement. I cant do
that. Not when we have $9 trillion of accumulated trade deficit, which is the reason
for our budget deficit, because were losing middle-class jobs in our country and
weve outsourced millions of our jobs, a third of our manufacturing base is gone."
Grayson said he wanted to remind Obama that the U.S. faces hundreds of billions of
dollars in trade deficits with other countries. In response, Obama "didnt give me
any sense that, any reason to believe that these free trade agreements that are
being negotiated now are going to be any different than the ones weve negotiated
in the past," Grayson said in a recent interview. "Theyve consistently, and almost to
an unbelievable extend, exacerbated our trade problems. I told the president
specifically this: That whats actually happening is that were buying goods and
services from foreigners and creating jobs in their countries and they are not buying
our goods nor our services. What they are doing is buying our assets and driving us
deeper and deeper into debt. So we lose twice, we lose because those jobs go
overseas and because we go deeper and deeper into debt." Despite the
Democratic opposition, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday
that were going to continue to press" for fast-track authority. But if
Obama pushes too hard, he risks upsetting rank-and-file Democrats and
key liberal support groups in the labor and environmental communities
that always have concerns with major international trade deals. Upsetting
those groups might prompt them to sit on their hands or not spend as
much money backing Democratic candidates in November. But if Obama
doesn't push hard enough for fast-track, he risks upending an historic
trade deal that would help advance his administration's long-sought
"pivot" to Asia and upending similar trade talks underway with European
countries. That's why for now, at least, the White House's push for fast-track trade
authority has slowed to a crawl on Capitol Hill.

Yes Pass PC Controls UQ

PC controls passage and prevents an Asia Pivot collapse
Miller and Hiebert 1/23
Scott Miller holds the William M. Scholl Chair in International Business at the Center
for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. Murray Hiebert is senior
fellow and deputy director of the Sumitro Chair for Southeast Asia Studies at CSIS,
Achieving Trade Promotion Authority Will Require a Heavy Lift from the President,
http://csis.org/publication/achieving-trade-promotion-authority-will-require-heavylift-president
Most observers agree the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement will be
tough to conclude because of the high-standard, comprehensive nature of the 12country accord and the diversity of negotiating partners, ranging from highly
developed Japan to lower-income Vietnam. Some U.S. partners in the
negotiations are reluctant to close the talks without assurances that a
deal with the United States will stick and will not be picked apart by
Congress. Officials from TPP negotiating countries, from Mexico to Japan and
Vietnam, say it will be difficult for them to make significant concessions on
issues such as market access until the U.S. president demonstrates that he
has the support of a majority in Congress. Before wrapping up the agreement,
U.S. partners want to understand that the administration can conclude a
deal without having Congress demand that negotiators reopen talks on
issues such as intellectual property rights and labor and environmental standards.
That is why President Barack Obama needs Trade Promotion Authority (TPA)
to achieve the key economic plank of the U.S. rebalance to Asia. Congressional
leaders have introduced bipartisan legislation in both the House of
Representatives and the Senate to renew TPA, but to get it past the post will
require a hefty dose of leadership , patience, and all-around goodwill.
Congress will only manage to pass TPA with effective, consistent, and
high-profile leadership from the president. While many members of Congress
say that every president deserves TPA, no House member or senator believes
advancing TPA will bolster his or her chances for reelection in November,
when the full House and a third of the Senate will be up for grabs. In fact, many
members of Congress would prefer never to cast a vote relating to the TPP to avoid
criticism from voters who fear that free trade agreements export jobs overseas.
TPA will become a priority in Congress only if the president makes it one.
He must begin to make a strong public case for his trade agenda, the TPP,
and its role in boosting the U.S. economy and U.S. ties with the most
dynamic region of the world, beginning with next weeks State of the Union
address. And he will have to keep repeating this call for TPA in speeches,
including in the heartland of the country, until the bill is passed and he hosts a
signing ceremony. The president must convince Congress that the TPP is a
critical component of his strategy of engaging Asia. He needs to spell out
the economic benefits of more open trade and investment and updated rules of
commercial engagement with this high-growth region because it will tie the
United States to a part of the world that is critical to both U.S. economic
growth and security. The TPPs potential is attracting attention from others, like

China, Korea, the Philippines, and Thailand, who want to make sure they are not left
out of moves in the region toward greater economic integration. The president must
make clear to Congress that delaying moves to ratify TPA and complete the TPP
could hurt Washingtons economic strategy and objectives in Asia. The
drive toward regional economic integration is charging ahead in the Asia
Pacific with or without the United States through vehicles like ASEAN+3, which
includes China, Japan, and Korea, and the Regional Comprehensive Economic
Partnership, an arrangement composed of the 10 ASEAN countries as well as
Australia, China, India, Japan, Korea, and New Zealand. U.S. economic and strategic
interests in the Asia Pacific are too important for TPA, and thus the TPP, to get
delayed by squabbling in Washington. Obamas arguments must address the free
trade skeptics in his own Democratic Party. The president needs to articulate why
the Republicans, who will supply the lions share of votes for TPA, should work with
him on trade. And this message needs to be reinforced by speeches and
congressional testimony by U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman, Secretary of
State John Kerry, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzer,
and other cabinet members. Any hesitation or lack of consistent messaging from
the president and his team will strengthen the opposition and communicate a lack
of seriousness to allies who wonder why they should put serious market access
offers on the table before the president has the authority from Congress to
complete the agreement. The last time TPA was enacted, in 2002, the
congressional legislative process took 10 months to complete. This time may be
different, but advocates need to work patiently to address concerns and build
support. U.S. trade policy has a much larger effect on the lives of Americans today
than it did in 1974, 1988, or even 2002. Voting on TPA is made more complicated
today because most current members of Congress were not serving the last time
TPA legislation was debated. Members of Congress will have much to say about
issues like consultation beyond the committees of jurisdiction, and a winning
coalition will not be formed overnight. Support for the legislation will need to be
built one member at a time. Partisan rivalry has reached a new high in Washington
and will only increase as elections in November draw closer. But trade policy finds
majority support in the political center. So far, the legislative process for TPA
has been careful and centrist. It will need an outsized dose of goodwill to stay that
way. TPA is essentially an agreement that cements cooperation between
Congress and the administration. Members of Congress will need to take the
long view to get past suspicions and concerns, and the president will need to
choose cooperation over confrontation and pursue high-level, consistent
engagement and prodding if the efforts to achieve TPA are to succeed.

PC controls uniqueness Obama is key to pressure Dems

Boyer 2/16

Dave, Reporter, The Washington Times, Dems desert faltering Obama amid
election year disarray, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/16/in-anelection-year-obama-finds-democrats-desertin/?page=all#pagebreak
The vice presidents office said later that Mr. Biden made a clear case for the
administrations trade priorities, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership
negotiations, which he stated are very much in the economic and strategic interest
of the U.S. The topic is the latest example of the limits facing an
increasingly unpopular president as he tries to promote his agenda with
the help of lawmakers who are concerned about their own political prospects.

While Democrats have held together on other big issues, that doesnt
mean that there arent going to be some situations where certain
Democrats are going to go out of their way to distance themselves from
the White House, said Democratic strategist Jim Manley. On fast track, if the
president wants to push for it, hes going to have to fight for it because
theres a lot of folks in the House and Senate with pretty serious
concerns, he said. In his public remarks to Democrats on Friday, Mr. Obama never
raised the topic of trade. Republicans noticed the omission and questioned the
presidents commitment to creating jobs. You have to wonder how serious he is
about these jobs since he didnt even mention it at all when he spoke to House
Democrats, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, said in
a statement. Congressional Democrats are the biggest hurdle to growing
these job opportunities and [Mr. Obama] didnt even raise the issue with them?
The jobs they seem to care most about are Democrats in Congress not families
across the country eager to join the ranks of the employed. While Democrats have
some major rifts with the administration, Republicans appear to be even more
fractured. After Mr. McConnell and Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, broke
with most of their party to help Democrats raise the nations debt limit last week,
tea party leaders blasted top Republicans.

Yes Pass at: no push

Obama is pushing the TPA PC is key
Brander 2/19
Eric, Reporter, Politico, Specter of NAFTA haunts Obamas trade dreams,
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/nafta-barack-obama-trade-mexico103701.html?hp=f3
Obama is pushing to complete the 12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership, which
would link North America with Asian countries like Japan. But to get his way, the
president will have to sell the American public and the congressional leaders
of his own party on the notion that the deal is an escape from NAFTAs mistakes,
rather than just an expansion of its reach. Whats his fellow Democrats take on the
likelihood of that happening? Nonsense, said Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York.
In all the time Ive been in Congress, I have never seen a trade bill that benefited
the American producer or the American worker. Its all been give-away, and we
really cant afford that anymore, she said. People are sick and tired of the one-way
trade deal. The pressure is building as the administrations top trade
negotiators head to Singapore for meetings this week, where theyll try to break the
remaining impasses and finish the deal, and the White House lobbies Congress
for the authority to fast-track the agreement to a vote without
amendments.

Obama is pushing for TPA passage

Raum 2/18
Tom, Reporter, AP, Obama, fellow Dems are at odds on big trade bills,
http://www.twincities.com/business/ci_25171415/obama-fellow-dems-are-at-oddsbig-trade
U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman says that, regardless of the political
season, the administration will continue to push for fast-track authority.
"You can't negotiate (trade deals) with our partners and you can't implement
(them) here in the United S if you don't have TPA," Froman said. But Alan
Tonelson, an economist with the United States Business and Industry Council,
argues that "American workers on the whole have been leading victims" of such
free-trade agreements, beginning with NAFTA. "Rather than rushing to conclude and
endorse new trade initiatives, Congress and the administration should first figure
out how to ensure that they serve as engines of domestic growth and job creation,
rather than of offshoring and lower living standards," he said.

Obama is still pushing can get it done this year

AFP 2/15
Reporter, US govt insists it's still pushing TTP,
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2014/02/15/14/08/us-govt-insists-it-s-stillpushing-ttp
But the top Democrats in the Senate and the House of Representatives have
signalled that they oppose granting trade promotion authority (TPA) - which
would effectively allow President Barack Obama to negotiate trade deals
which cannot be later modified by Congress. A report on Friday quoted Vice
President Joe Biden in a closed-door meeting with Democratic lawmakers

acknowledging the push for granting TPA, for four years, was on hold. But a
senior administration official argued forcibly that the bid to secure TPA,
which expired in 2007, and the TPP remained on track. "I would not suggest in
any way we are not committed to concluding a TPP this year ," the official
said on condition of anonymity. " We are going to keep at this . TPA is part of
that broader context. "People are referring to second hand accounts of
something that the vice president may have said in a closed door session,"
the official said. The Huffington Post on Friday quoted Biden as indicating that the
drive for TPA - difficult for Democrats fearing a backlash from pro-trade union
constituents, was on hold. "Nancy, I know it's not coming up now," Biden told House
Democratic minority leader Nancy Pelosi, the website said, quoting a Democrat
source attending the party retreat in Cambridge, Maryland. Opponents of the 12nation TPP worry that it would weaken labour and environmental standards - putting
US manufacturing at a disadvantage - and would spark a new flight of local jobs to
low wage developing economies. But advocates of the deal argue that countries
negotiating the pact with the US are unlikely to make difficult political
concessions unless they are guaranteed that corresponding agreements
made by the administration are not undone by congress. The White House
argues that it did manage to ratify trade deals with Panama and South
Korea in Obama's first term. Negotiators missed a 2013 deadline to finish the
TPP but have pledged to keep trying. The talks involve Australia, Brunei, Canada,
Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and
Vietnam. Obama will update his Mexican and Canadian counterparts on the push
for TPP when he meets them in Mexico for a North American leaders summit next
week. The deal will also form a key part of his agenda when he makes a four-nation
tour of Asia in April. The US is also pushing for a Transatlantic Trade and Investment
partnership with the European Union - which would also require him to have fast
tracking or TPA powers. Opponents of that deal have similar worries about its
impact on US employment.

TPA is the top priority Obama is still pushing despite the

speech he gave to Dems
WSJ 2/14
Colleen McCain Nelson, Reporter, Obama Praises Democrats, Skips Fast Track,
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/02/14/obama-praises-democrats-on-debtceiling-fight/
President Barack Obama delivered a pep talk to House Democrats Friday,
urging them to help advance his agenda. But the president made no
mention of a key White House priority : enacting legislation aimed at
easing passage of free-trade agreements. The presidents speech at the
House Democrats annual retreat in Cambridge, Md., came on the heels of House
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosis rejection this week of the so-called fast-track
bill. The top House Democrat joined Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.,
Nev.) in opposing the legislation. Even as Democratic opposition to the
measure has begun to build, White House officials have said that Mr.
Obama would continue to press for whats formally known as trade promotion
authority, which would prevent trade agreements with foreign partners from being
amended during the congressional approval process. But when the president
stood before Ms. Pelosi and other House Democrats Friday, he didnt ask them

to support the legislation. Instead, Mr. Obama offered a short to-do list for
Congress, urging lawmakers to raise the minimum wage and overhaul
immigration laws. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Friday that the
presidents position on fast-track legislation had not changed, noting that
this has been an issue that has never been easy for either party.

Yes Pass at: TPP

PC solves the TPP and gets the international community on
board cements U.S. leadership and economic engagement
Denyer 2/17

Simon, Reporter, The Washington Post, Kerry worried about Asias sea disputes,
citing moves by China, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/kerry-worried-aboutasias-sea-disputes-citing-moves-by-china/2014/02/17/852b0376-97b3-11e3-ae45458927ccedb6_story.html
While many in China see this U.S. strategy as a thinly veiled attempt at
containment, the Obama administration insists that it is as much about
economics as security, citing negotiations to establish a 12-nation regional
trade pact called the Transpacific Partnership, or TPP, as an important foundation
stone for the new regional policy. That argument appears to have come
slightly unstuck in recent weeks, as it became increasingly apparent that
congressional Democrats were reluctant to grant President Obama the
negotiating authority he needs to conclude such a pact, wary of labor
interests and ahead of Senate elections. The TPP could encompass 40 percent
of the worlds economic output and cement U.S. economic engagement
with the region and its leadership. Asian allies, as well as regional experts in
Washington, have expressed frustration that Obama has not been able to
overcome that congressional reluctance and sell the idea of trade with Asia
directly to the American people. The rebalance, they say, is in danger of being
reduced to a marginal rearrangement of military deployments, rather than a grand
vision of Asian opportunity. Trade is politically harder, but absolutely
necessary, said Ernest Bower, a Southeast Asian expert at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies, adding that Asian countries would not make
the tough compromises needed to conclude TPP talks unless they see
political capital has been spent and they dont see it yet. If [U.S.
officials] want to signal this is a sustained engagement and a constructive
engagement with Asia, the best thing they can do is to have the president
of the United States talk to the American people about how important Asia is
economically, and in security terms, to our future, Bower said. He
continues to fail to do that. Kerry said trade deals have always been tough
to get through Congress, but he promised that he and Obama would continue
to stress to lawmakers the importance of such a deal. In the end, I believe
people will come to the appropriate judgment, Kerry said.

2nc at: Minimum Wage Thumper

Obamas minimum wage push is over wasnt controversial
TLE 2/18
Haridos Apostolides, US Correspondent, State of the Union,
http://www.thelondoneconomic.com/2014/02/18/state-of-the-union/
But what can be expected of Obama? This is the question being posed, as there
is much doubt over Congress ability to achieve much more than stonewalling
Obamas ambitious agenda. First up: Minimum Wage The minimum wage
amounts to $7.25 per hour, which the left believes is unsustainable for those who
are just trying to get by. The growth of the middle class is the main Democratic
focus; a strong middle allows for those who are lower to easily work their way up.
The more money in this class breeds more consumerism, which appeases those in
the highest brackets as their profits increase. On the other side, many Republicans
question the practicality of a rise. Some claim that thousands of jobs would be lost
due to businesses trying to cope with increasing corporate taxes. Speaker of the
House John Boehner stated, When you raise the cost of something, you get less of
it. Others ask that since certain workers, such as fast-food employees, didnt need
to gain qualifications to work why would they need a higher wage? Those from the
far right declare that an increase would encourage both greed and laziness from
people who are the bottom feeders of society, already cashing in on the
governments generous hand-outs. While Obama puts more pressure on a
Congress intent on stalling this issue, the president has already issued an
executive order to increase the pay for future federal workers to $10.10.
Although those already in service will lose out on a hike, the general consensus
of the presidents action has been good. New hope for the rest of the nation
now rests on the representatives on Capitol Hill.

2nc at: Iran Thumper

No vote on sanctions, Obama isnt spending PC and its just
political posturing
Mascaro 1/14

Lisa, Reporter, LA Times, Iran sanctions bill standoff may not amount to much,
http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-iran-senate20140115,0,4947167.story#axzz2tkGzcAPm
WASHINGTON In public, the White House has unleashed scathing criticism
of Senate backers of a bill that would slap additional sanctions on Iran,
calling the bipartisan effort a march toward war that could upend negotiations to
halt the Islamic Republic's nuclear ambitions. But privately the political divide
between President Obama and his Democratic allies may be less dramatic
than it appears and more an exercise in political theater. Both the
administration and the senators stand to benefit by staking out seemingly
opposing views, which could work to achieve the common goal of a
nuclear-free Iran without upsetting the delicate talks underway by the
U.S., Iran and five major foreign powers. The public standoff allows the White
House to send a strong message to the Iranians that Obama is willing to
confront allies in his party to protect the interim agreement reached in
November, expected to go into effect Monday, which requires the Iranians to halt
some of their nuclear activity in exchange for modest sanctions relief while a final
deal is negotiated. It's also a not-so-subtle reminder to Iran that if it reneges
on the deal, U.S. lawmakers are poised to get tougher. At the same time, the
senators who have signed on to the bill a robust, nearly filibuster-proof majority
of 59 that includes at least 16 Democrats can bolster their national security
credentials, boost their standing with constituents in an election year and curry
favor with American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, a pro-Israel lobby. But
an actual vote on the bill does not appear imminent and, in fact, may never
come. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has no immediate plan to
bring the bill for debate before the president's Jan. 28 State of the Union
address, and the chamber's calendar is likely to prevent any action until
February at the earliest, or even March, those involved say. Top Democrats in the
Senate oppose the bill and even those who support it do not appear ready
to force Obama to issue a rare veto over Iran. So Reid appears to have time on
his side, aides say. Neither Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert
Menendez of New Jersey, the bill's chief Democratic sponsor, nor Sen. Charles E.
Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate and a key sponsor of the
legislation, are engaged in the type of vote-whipping operation that would precede
imminent action on the floor. The fuzzy timeline appears to be fine with many
Democratic senators who are backing the bill. Some say privately they would prefer
to let the diplomatic efforts play out than to take a vote at all. AIPAC continues to
push Congress to act, but senators say they are not feeling the pressure
from the Israel lobby that would force an immediate vote, those involved
said. Nevertheless, the White House is not taking any chances, voicing firm
opposition to the measure. "My preference is for peace and diplomacy, and this is
one of the reasons why I've sent the message to Congress that now is not the time
for us to impose new sanctions," Obama said Monday during a White House event.

"Now is the time for us to allow the diplomats and technical experts to do their
work."

2nc at: No Impact to TPA

Delays kill trade deals the U.S. cant negotiate without them
The Economist 2/22
Reporter, How to make the world $600 billion poorer,
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21596934-barack-obamas-unwillingnessfight-free-trade-expensive-mistake-how-make-world
First, shoot yourself in the foot. Then repeat The hitch is that Congress must
approve trade agreements. Previous presidents had the advantage of
fast-track trade promotion authority, which let them present deals to
Congress for a simple yes or no vote. Without it, lawmakers can wreck
carefully negotiated deals with toxic amendments. No country would
engage in serious talks with America under such circumstances. Fast-track
is therefore essential and elusive. Congress last granted it in 2002; it expired in
2007. The Obama administration blithely asserted that Congress would renew it, but
many lawmakers, primarily Democrats, have signed letters opposing it. Harry
Reid, the Senate majority leader, has all but ruled out a vote this year. And on
February 14th Joe Biden, the vice-president, told a gathering of Democratic leaders
that he understood their opposition. The White House appears to have given
up with scarcely a fight. A fast-track vote before Novembers mid-term
elections seems unlikely (see article). Why panic about this? Tactically, it could
just be another piece of Washington politicking: some optimists claim that Congress
will return after the mid-terms ready to back fast-track, providing Mr Obama allows
some boilerplate language in the bill chiding China for allegedly manipulating its
currency. Others wonder whether the trade deals are really so vital. Indeed, the idea
that they will not do much to help the economy is one excuse for Democrats
undermining their president. In fact, the deals on the table are big. Reasonable
estimates say that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and
the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) could boost the worlds annual output by
$600 billionequivalent to adding another Saudi Arabia. Some $200 billion of that
would accrue to America. And the actual gains could be even larger. The
agreements would clear the way for freer trade in services, which account
for most of rich countries GDP but only a small share of trade. Opening up
trade in services could help reduce the cost of everything from shipping to banking,
education and health care. Exposing professional occupations to the same global
competition that factory workers have faced for decades could even strike a blow
against the income inequality that Mr Obama so often decries. Tactically, even a
short delay could prove fatal to both deals. Pacific negotiations have been
extended while America and Japan hammer out compromises on agriculture. Why
should Japanese politicians risk infuriating their farmers when any
agreement can be torn up on Capitol Hill? The deal with the EU was meant
to be done swiftlyperhaps in as little as two yearsto keep politics from
mucking it up. Europes leaders will now doubt Americas commitment,
given how feebly Mr Obama has fought for fast-track. Trade sceptics, such
as French farmers, are drooling. Angela Merkel, Germanys chancellor, who is
already furious about American spying, may decide that a trade deal is not
worth battling for.

2nc TPA k2 Econ

TPA is key to growth
a) key to recovery
Hoover 2/6

Kent, Washington Bureau Chief, The Business Journals, Wider trade deficit makes
TPA harder to sell,
http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/washingtonbureau/2014/02/06/wider-tradedeficit-makes-tpa-harder.html?page=all
Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, said America's
huge trade deficit "represents a shrinking middle class, fewer good job
opportunities, and further proof that our economic policies -- including a lack of
enforcement of existing trade laws -- contribute to outsourcing." Tonelson and Paul
both represent organizations that are opposed to fast-tracking trade deals through
TPA. The National Association of Manufacturers, by contrast, contends the
legislation is needed to open new markets for U.S. exports. NAM Chief
Economist Chad Moutray noted that growth in U.S. manufactured goods
exports was "disappointingly slow last year" -- up only 1.6 percent from 2012.
The National Foreign Trade Council, however, noted that overall U.S. exports
grew for the fourth year in a row in 2013. "More exports mean more
American jobs and economic growth nationwide, all of which are critical to
driving sustained economic recovery ," said NFTC President Bill Reinsch.
Passing TPA is important for keeping this export momentum going, he
said, because that will pave the way for new trade deals such as the TransPacific Partnership. These trade agreements will "give the United States
greater access to some of the largest economies in the world," Reinsch said.

b) competitiveness
Lowrey 1/31

Annie, Reporter, NYT, Obama and G.O.P. Facing Opposition to Trade Pacts,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/31/business/reid-pushes-back-on-fast-track-tradeauthority.html?
hpw&rref=us&_r=0&gwh=6AC5F8D4ADCDB4FF0165BA25F0978AC4&gwt=pay
Mr. Obama and many moderate Democrats, supported by business leaders and
many economists, argue that the deals would lift exports and help create
more valuable jobs in manufacturing and services, even if some other jobs
were lost to cheaper foreign producers. The authority "is critical to
completing new trade agreements that have the potential to unleash U.S.
economic growth and investment," Randall L. Stephenson, the chairman of
AT&T and leader of the Business Roundtable, a major lobbying group, said in a
statement. But many Democrats, joined by some economists, fear that any new
trade deals, whatever their overall benefit to the economy, are likely to exacerbate
the income inequality that Mr. Obama has made the banner economic issue of his
remaining years in office. "Trade should be making industries more productive,"
said David Rosnick of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a left-leaning
research group in Washington. "But there's a lot of literature indicating that trade-

deepening increases inequality." Ultimately, he said, the Pacific Rim trade deal
might mean "lower wages for most workers." Jason Furman, chairman of the
president's Council of Economic Advisers, agreed that globalization and
technological change had eroded American jobs. "That's a fact," he said. But,
he added, that does not mean the country should be backing away from the
global economy. "The question is what are your policies doing," Mr. Furman
said, adding that the whole point of the Pacific Rim trade deal "is not just to sit
back and passively accept globalization, including the challenges it poses,
but to try to reshape it and move it in a positive direction." He said the
United States might become less competitive globally if it disengaged
from seeking further trade openings . "If you're not in an agreement -- that
trade will be diverted from us to someone else -- we will lose out to
another country," Mr. Furman said.

c) growth and investment

Oberhelman 13

Doug, chairman and CEO of Caterpillar and chairman of Business Roundtables

International Engagement Committee, Pro: Expanded trade creates more American
jobs and economic growth,
http://www.gazettextra.com/article/20131226/ARTICLES/131229864/1034
EDITORS NOTE: The writer is addressing the question, Should Congress give
President Obama authority to allow the U.S. to pursue a wide range of trade
deals? WASHINGTON -- Like most Americans, Im frustrated with the slow
rate of economic growth in the United States over the last several years. Most
proposals to fix the problem focus on domestic issuesgovernment spending, taxes
and infrastructure projects, to name a few. As the chairman and CEO of Caterpillar, I
particularly like to talk about the need to invest in our nations infrastructure, which
helps to make America more competitive in the world economy. But while all of
these issues are critically important to the U.S. economy, the opportunity to
increase U.S. investment, growth and jobs requires us to go beyond Americas
border. Ninety-six percent of the worlds consumers live outside of the United
States. In fact, in the last five years, Caterpillar has exported more than $82 billion
in products manufactured at our factories in the United States, supporting tens of
thousands of jobs. Creating opportunities for American companies to reach these
consumers through new and expanded free-trade agreements can help to get our
economy back on track and keep our nation globally competitive. Today, trade
supports more than one in five American jobs. U.S. exports have grown more than
twice as fast as GDP since 2002, accounting for 14 percent of GDP in 2012. And
workers in U.S. companies that export goods earn on average up to 18 percent
more than those in similar jobs in non-exporting companies. The United States is
pursuing one of the most ambitious trade agendas in a generation, trade
agreements that will open markets in the Asia-Pacific region and in
Europe. Also being negotiated is an agreement aimed at knocking down
barriers to boost the global competitiveness of U.S. services companies.
But to realize the economic benefits of these pending trade deals,
Congress must update and pass Trade Promotion Authority legislation. A
partnership between Congress and the Administration, TPA legislation helps shape a
strategic vision for U.S. trade policy and the goals the United States wants to
accomplish in trade negotiations. It provides a framework for Congress and the

president to work together to craft that vision, and it helps define the critical
constitutional relationship between Congress and the president with respect to
foreign commerce. From the 1930s until 2007, Congress has authorized every
president to pursue trade agreements that open markets for U.S. goods and
services. Such authority was last passed by Congress in 2002 and expired in 2007.
Updated TPA legislation will provide clear guidance on Congress
requirements for trade agreements. It will also provide our trade
negotiating partners with a degree of comfort that the United States is
committed to the international trade negotiating process and the trade
agreements we negotiate. In the coming weeks it is expected that Congress will
introduce updated TPA legislation. Congress should seize the opportunity to
shore up the benefits of current and future trade agreementsincreased
U.S. investment, growth and jobsby passing updated TPA legislation.
Working with the president to do so will ensure that the United States continues to
pursue trade agreements that not only will allow companies like Caterpillar to
remain globally competitive, but also will benefit America.

d) signaling
Cleveland 1/17

Peter, ice president of global public policy at Intel, Mercury News, Free trade: A
resolution for the U.S. economy: Pass Trade Promotion Authority,
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_24926968/free-trade-resolution-u-seconomy-pass-trade
Congress has a historic opportunity to signal to the world that the
country is open for business by passing Trade Promotion Authority, a bill
introduced last week in Congress. The legislation creates a new template for
future free trade agreements and requires the White House to fulfill specific
congressional guidance when negotiating the agreements. It also provides an
expedited timeline for congressional consideration so that these critical agreements
can be implemented quickly. In short, this bill paves the way for American
companies to sell more goods and services and create more jobs for
American workers. It sounds logical, but it is surprising how many skeptics still
question the value of requiring countries abroad to dismantle their trade barriers so
that U.S. companies can better access the 96 percent of the world's population
outside our borders. New trade agreements will create opportunities for
American business in every sector of our economy. From digital services to
agriculture, they are a crucial engine of U.S. economic growth . The United
States is negotiating two major trade agreements now: one with 11 Asia-Pacific
countries in the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the other with the European Union
under the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Combined, these
agreements account for 65 percent of the world's goods and services trade and
potentially 69 percent of U.S. exports. The Trade Promotion Authority bill will
expedite these agreements. The technology sector is a prime example of why trade
agreements need to be modernized. Trade is no longer limited to things packed into
a shipping container, but rather now reflects more intangible economic
commodities, such as data and Internet services in the cloud, which are growing
rapidly in even the poorest of countries. This legislation is significant for the
tech industry because it requires all U.S. free trade agreements to
strengthen rules on digital trade and obliges our trading partners to let

data flow freely. It also creates stronger intellectual property standards for
digital trade and emerging technologies and prohibits countries from mandating
that companies reveal sensitive details about the composition of their technology.
With the majority of Intel's customers located outside U.S. borders, we need greater
market access for continued growth. Over three-quarters of our revenue is
generated outside the United States, while three-quarters of our advanced
manufacturing and R&D is inside the U.S. Our ability to sell internationally creates
high-tech, high-wage jobs here, in states such as Arizona, California, Colorado, New
Mexico, Oregon and Texas. We would not tell a child selling lemonade that she could
only sell cups to people living in her own neighborhood, when people passing
through are excellent customers and would help her grow sales. Limiting the
business of this enterprising child would not be acceptable, and is not any different
from the United States letting other trading partners strike deals with each other
while we take our time contemplating the benefits of free trade. In the last decade,
U.S. jobs supported by trade have grown from 14 million to 38 million, and exportsupported jobs pay an average of 13 percent to 18 percent more than the U.S.
average wage. With trade now supporting 1 in 5 U.S. jobs, imagine the benefit of
additional free-trade agreements. We are simply leaving opportunity on the table.
As the American economy inches toward recovery, Congress should not let
other trading partners sign trade deals with each other while we continue
to talk about the benefits of free trade and American companies are
locked out of much of the global marketplace.

2nc Impact Decline = War

Collapses power projection leads to nuclear war
Harris and Burrows 9
Mathew, PhD European History @ Cambridge, counselor in the National Intelligence
Council (NIC) and Jennifer is a member of the NICs Long Range Analysis Unit
Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis
http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf
Increased Potential for Global Conflict
Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes
the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking
forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample
Revisiting the Future opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a
growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than
ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to
be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful
effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think
Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of
multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There
is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as
in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for
greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a
constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change
would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood
that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource
issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorisms appeal will decline
if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth
unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in
2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will
place some of the worlds most dangerous capabilities within their reach.
Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long
established groups_inheriting organizational structures, command and control
processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated
attacks_and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that
become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets
that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous
casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military
presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Irans
acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nucleararmed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security
arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and
consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the
type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great
powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle
East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism
taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended
escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states
involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear
rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile

dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in

achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The
lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and
missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more
focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to
escalating crises.

Statistics
Royal 10

Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of

Defense, 2010, Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of
Economic Crises, in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political
Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-214
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the
likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a
moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the
security and defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein
has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable
contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances
Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that
rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of
a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one preeminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic
crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin. 1981)
that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of
miscalculation (Feaver, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain
redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for
conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner.
1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles
combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict
among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the
causes and connections between global economic conditions and security
conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996,
2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of
trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions
and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are
likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic
view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade
decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the
likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force
to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger
for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers
protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered
the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national
level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between
internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of
economic downturn. They write: The linkages between internal and external
conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict
tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the
presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international

and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89)
Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood
of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to
spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises
generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. "Diversionary
theory" suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from
economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to
fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag'
effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker
(2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of
force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and
Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards
diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states,
due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to
being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000)
has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic
performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential
popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In
summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic
integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas
political science scholarship links economic decline with external
conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This implied connection
between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in
the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.

2nc Internal Link Trade

Obama cant negotiate trade deals without the TPA crushes
growth
Kennedy and Penny 2/18

Mark Kennedy is professor and director of the Graduate School of Political

Management at George Washington University. Tim Penny is the president of the
Southern Minnesota Initiative Foundation. Both are former members of the U.S.
House from Minnesota, Star Tribune, Trade talks? NAFTA is a guide,
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/246068341.html
Opponents argue that fast-track authority, which ensures that Congress can
only vote the agreements up or down without amending them, is unnecessary.
They claim that the administration should just negotiate its best deal and
bring it to Congress for approval or amendment. That specious proposal
will doom any potential agreement. With 535 members of the House and
Senate, the potential for amendments is almost infinite. Our trading
partners will not put their final negotiating positions on the table and risk
antagonizing domestic audiences unless they know that they are striking a
final deal with the Obama administration. The world wants us to lead, but
it will not wait. It is time for Congress to pass fast-track and give our
nations economy a much-needed boost. We look forward to another
anniversary 20 years from now, when we will celebrate the economic and political
gains accomplished through TPP and TTIP.

2nc Asia Pivot Extension

TPP is key to the Asia Pivot failure crushes its effectiveness
Chandler 1/23
Marc, Global Head of Currency Strategy at Brown Brothers Harriman, The TransPacific Partnership: Why The US Will Be The Biggest Loser If Talks Fail,
http://www.economywatch.com/features/what-if-transpacific-partnership-talksfail.23-01.html
The Trans-Pacific Partnership was always an ambitious goal. Negotiations were
supposed to have been completed last year, but have dragged on. The US Congress
is now attaching new conditions to its willingness to consider granting Obama fasttrack authority to negotiate a trade agreement. If talks fail, it would deal a blow
to the nations policy pivot to Asia. The Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement
was supposed to have been completed last year. Not only was the self-imposed
deadline missed, but the next ministerial meeting has been postponed and no new
date has been announced. It was always an ambitious goal. It would cover twelve
countries initially (US, Japan,C anada, Mexico, Peru, Chile, New Zealand, Australia,
Singapore, Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam) that account for about 40 percent of the
world's GDP. It intends to go well beyond past trade agreements to include
controversial issues like preferential treatment of state-owned enterprises
and other government procurement issues and intellectual property
rights. What it in effect does, from one level of analysis, is to marry the old TransPacific Strategic Economic Partnership (2005 agreement between Brunei, Chile,
Singapore and New Zealand) to NAFTA (US, Mexico and Canada) and it throws in
Japan, Australia and Peru for good measure). For the US, it compliments the
Obama Administration's Asian Pivot. Japan's Prime Minister Abe was initially not
very supportive, but he came around. In fact, Japanese officials now seem to be
more ardent supporters than the Obama Administration and have made little secret
of the fact that it has been disappointed with the US effort. And the US position just
got more complicated. The US Congress is attaching new conditions to its
willingness to consider granting Obama, fast-track authority ("trade promotion
authority), which allows the executive branch to negotiate a trade agreement and
gives Congress 90-days to review it with an accept/reject vote. For all the important
trade agreements reached through Republican and Democrat Administrations, the
president was granted such authority. In particular, the bill that authorizes Obama
that has been proposed in a bipartisan fashion raises the significance of foreign
exchange manipulation to a "principal negotiating objective". Previously it had been
simply an objective. There has been growing Congressional frustration with the
executive branch's conduct of currency policy that at least goes back into the Bush
Administration. The Treasury's semi-annual report has not cited any country for
manipulating its currency for more a decade, which seems to defy logic, given vast
amount of reserve amassed and the frequency of intervention. Last year, a letter
seeking greater enforcement was signed by 60 Senators and 230 Representatives.
From a trade perspective, the ideal solution is for other countries to adopt best
practices in the foreign exchange market as agreed up by the IMF and G20. In lieu
of this, companies (and their lobbying arms) either want to penalize the companies
the benefit, or in some other way made whole, or as Fred Bergsten at the Peter G.
Peterson Institute for International Economics advocates, counter the foreign central
bank intervention with offsetting intervention by the US. The only thing worse that

not getting trade promotion authority, would be to get it with such conditions
attached that make it less likely for parliaments of other countries to accept it. Not
securing TPA would likely signal the end of the TPP, but securing a strict
conditionality could also jeopardize it, especially, as US negotiators, who have the
biggest market to open further for others, has seen by many others to be, using its
size to make demands rather than truly negotiate. Investors should monitor two
things. The first is when the TPP negotiations resume and the enthusiasm by the US.
Second is the progress toward granting Obama trade promotion authority. Japan is
working hard to improve trade and investment ties to the ASEAN countries. It would
continue to do so even if TPP negotiations fail. Still, Prime Minister Abe is likely
counting of the some of the changes that would be required to further strengthen
the third and most elusive arrow (structural reform) of Abenomics. If TPP fails, some
of the smaller countries would be forgoing an early opportunity to be on the cutting
edge. However, arguably, the US stands to lose the most by the failure of
TPP. China is not included in the original negotiators (either is South Korea,
which has indicated it would joining), and would give it the opportunity to form
an alternative bloc. It would be embarrassing for the US and would raise
questions what the Asian Pivot really means. It would hollow out the
dream of American political and economic leaders that the 21st century is
America's Pacific Century.

Signals commitment to Asia key to heg

Zoelick 1/13

Robert B., former World Bank Group president, Leading From the Front on Free
Trade,
http://search.proquest.com.www2.lib.ku.edu:2048/docview/1476741150/ECB187F31
B5E44C0PQ/1?accountid=14556
America's commitment to free trade will be tested in 2014. After years of
indifference to trade policy, the Obama administration now has an agenda.
Congress must decide whether the U.S. will lead in opening markets and creating
fair rules for free enterprise in a new international economy. Where will Republicans
stand? The starting point will be Congress's consideration of Trade
Promotion Authority, which enables the president to negotiate agreements
subject to an up-or-down vote by Congress. Through TPA, Congress sets goals,
procedures for working with the executive branch, and controls the details of the
enabling legislation. The Obama administration has been slow to press for
negotiating authority. Fortunately, Sens. Max Baucus and Orrin Hatch, the
Democratic chairman and ranking Republican on trade in the Senate, respectively,
and Rep. Dave Camp, Republican chairman in the House, introduced their bipartisan
Trade Promotion Authority bill last Thursday. Chairman Baucus would like to move
the bill through the Senate Finance Committee this month before his confirmation
as ambassador to China. Successful action would offer a substantive thank you to
Congress's Democratic leader on trade. The Obama administration hopes to
close a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal this year. Of the 11 other countries in
this trade pact, six already have U.S. free-trade agreements, which were negotiated
and passed by Republicans. TPP would add important economies -- especially
Japan and Vietnam -- while modernizing rules and better integrating all 12
economies. In addition to the growth benefits, TPP recommits America's
strategic economic interests in the Asia-Pacific, complementing the U.S.
security presence. The U.S. is also combining geoeconomics with geopolitics by

negotiating a Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the

European Union. Together, TPP and TTIP could forge modern trade and investment
rules with major economies of western and eastern Eurasia. To offer opportunities
for global trade liberalization, the U.S. is also negotiating in the World Trade
Organization freer trade for services businesses and a Digital Economy compact
that would update the successful Information Technology Agreement of the 1990s.
These openings would be especially valuable for middle-income economies that
want to boost productivity and reach high incomes through more competitive
service and information industries. The economic record of America's free-trade
agreements argues for expansion. America's free-trade partners account for
about 45% of all U.S. exports, even though their economies amount to only 10%
of global GDP. On average, in the first five years of a new free-trade
agreement, U.S. exports grew three to four times as rapidly as U.S.
exports to others. The U.S. has a trade surplus with its 20 free-trade partners -- in
manufacturing, agriculture, and services -- instead of the large deficit it runs with
the world. These trade agreements serve principally to bring down the barriers of
other countries, because U.S. restrictions are already relatively low. U.S. free-trade
agreements are also comprehensive -- covering not only manufacturing and almost
all agriculture, but also services, government procurement and transparency,
investment and intellectual property, as well as dispute resolution. These trade
agreements encourage others to move toward greater compatibility with the U.S.
economy and legal framework. Republicans have provided most of the votes in
Congress for free-trade accords in the past. Here is why: The deals cut taxes on
trade. They expand individual freedom, consumer choice and opportunities for
innovation. They reduce governmental barriers. They boost the private sector. They
enhance the rule of law and foster civil society. An active trade agenda also
signals America's interest in the rest of the world at a time others are
worried about U.S. withdrawal. Free trade boosts development and
economic reformers around the world, while supporting U.S. growth. For
much of the world, America's commitment to stability seems more credible
if built upon an economic foundation. Economic diplomacy can be the
basis for hard, soft and smart power.

TPA failure kills the TPP that destroys U.S. Asian leadership
Barfield 2/12

Claude, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, Free Trade in Asia:
Obama at Fork in Road, http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/free-trade-asiaobama-fork-road-9863?page=1
Trade policy stands at the intersection of a nations diplomatic and
security strategies and its broad economic goals. By this token, decisions
regarding trade agreements, with both individual nations and groups of nations, are
calculated to advance US national interests strategically as well as the fortunes of
US businesses and workers. Though not necessarily in conflict, security imperatives
and economic realities exist in two very different universes, inhabited by very
different constituencies and interest groups. The recent history of the free-trade
agreements with Korea and Colombia are telling examples of the uneasy
juxtaposition of diplomatic priorities with domestic economic interests. In both
cases, there were strong regional diplomatic/security rationales to buttress an
important ally in a dangerous territory; yet in both cases, US domestic conflicts

delayed the advancement of US national interests for some years. Diplomacy and
security goals, thus, often must bow to former House Speaker Tip ONeills wise
observation that all politics is local. Though the successful ratification of FTAs with
Korea and Colombia are examples of important breakthroughs, the drive to
conclude and execute the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement with twelve
nations of the Asia Pacific represents a struggle with vastly greater
strategic implications for the United Statesand it vividly highlights the
difficulties of melding the competing diplomatic/security and domestic economic
political universes. The difficulty is compounded by the deep divisions in the
Democratic party over trade policy and globalization. President Obama, after
having trashed past US trade agreements during his 2008 campaign, belatedly
endorsed the TPP negotiations at the end of 2009. The reversal on TPP was part
and parcel of the much hyped Obama administration pivot to Asia: in Secretary
of State Hillary Clintons words (later often echoed by the president): The future
of politics will be decided in Asia...and the United States will be right at the
center of the actionWe are back to stay. There was certainly a military and
strategic element to the pivot: the stationing of a revolving unit of 2400 Marines on
the west coast of Australia and decision to shift 60 per cent of US naval forces to the
Pacific were important elements of the administrations forward-deployed
diplomacy. And all this has been played out against the background of
increased Chinese belligerence and bullying over conflicts in the East and
South China seas, combined with the highly erratic and dangerous
behavior of the new North Korean regime under Kim Jong-un. Symbolically ,
however, it is the TPP negotiations and the drive to conclude these negotiations
expeditiously that stands as the central focal point of the pivot . A
successful TPP and the resulting benefits to US businesses and workers will form
the economic anchor to persuade Congress and the public that Asias security and
economic well-being is inextricably linked to US security and prosperity.
There are now twelve Asia Pacific nations negotiating the TPP, with a thirteenth,
Korea, standing in the wings. The membership (adding Korea) represents over 40
percent of world GDP and more than one-third of total world trade. Substantively,
the TPP aims to create a gold standard agreement: meaning that it will set
the standard for a twenty-first-century trade regime, including rules for services and
investment, intellectual property, health and safety, state-owned enterprises,
regulatory transparency and due process, labor and the environment. The key
tradeoffs will include balancing the twenty-first-century demands of the US and
others against the more traditional twentieth-century priorities of developing TPP
nations in areas like textiles, clothes, shoes, sugar, cotton and dairy products. On
TPP, we have reached the endgame negotiations, where all twelve nations will be
expected to finally put their bottom line positions on the table. And it is here at this
crucial juncture that US domestic politics have crashed the party with as yet
incalculable consequences. In his State of the Union address, President Obama
called upon Congress to give him so-called trade-promotion authority
(expedited rules for Congress to ratify FTAs) in order for conclude the TPP and to
move forward on parallel negotiations with Europe. Within twenty-four hours of
Obamas plea, the Democratic majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) defied the
president by signaling opposition to granting trade-promotion authority and
warning the administration not to send up such a bill. In the all politics is local
tradition, Reids eye is focused narrowly on holding the Senate in the midterm

elections and retaining key support from union and environmental groups who
strongly oppose the TPP. This leaves the ball squarely in Obamas court: he
must quickly decide whether to tackle Reid head on and mobilize other
Democratic senators against their own majority leaderor attempt to get an
ironclad agreement from Reid to allow a vote on TPP in a lame duck session after
the election. He must also forge an alliance with congressional Republicans
whowhatever Reid decideswill provide the majority of votes for TPP in
both houses of Congress. Other TPP nations will be closely monitoring the
administrations decisions and Congress in coming weeksas a guide to their own
negotiating positions. The outcome of this debate and political battle will
have far-reaching consequences. Failure of the US to continue to lead in a
successful conclusion of the TPP will likely destroy the possibility of a
broader US-led and -anchored Trans-Pacific regional economic structure. In
its place, the Chinese are already assiduously pushing for a narrower intraEast Asian architecture that does not include the US. And well beyond the
economic consequences, future US diplomatic and security leadership and
alliances in Asia will be severely jeopardized as US regional allies come to
doubt our ability to overcome local forces in order to pursue vital national
interests.

TPA is key to a successful Asia pivot

WSJ 2/11

Bates Gill and Tom Switzer, Mr. Gill is chief executive of the United States Studies
Center at the University of Sydney, where Mr. Switzer is a research associate, Don't
Write Off Obama's Asian Pivot,
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100014240527023045588045793765110575
23646
To be sure, uncertainties remain. Without "fast track," for instance, it will be
difficult for Washington to conclude and ratify the TPP, a key component of
the pivot to Asia. But although many House and Senate Democrats appear
unlikely to support TPA, the president might receive enough votes from
pro-trade Republicans and moderate Democrats to override his party's
skeptics.
TPA sends a signal which makes the Asia Pivot credible Obama is key

Japan Times 2/8

Editorial, Democrat rocks Obamas boat,
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2014/02/08/editorials/democrat-rocks-obamasboat/#.UwWRAEJdVcQ
Finally the U.S. hopes to make the TPP a strategic arrangement, not just a
trade deal. TPP is intended to so tightly tie the U.S to Asia that it will
eliminate doubts about Americas commitment to the region, by allies and
adversaries an important consideration at a time when nations are
talking about a shifting balance of power in Asia and when there are
questions about the U.S. readiness to honor its commitments to come to the
defense of its allies and partners in Asia. Given this broader strategic aspect of
the TPP, the statement on Jan. 29 by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, topranking Democrat in the upper house of Congress, that he opposes Trade
Promotion Authority (TPA) is a blow to his own presidents plans. TPA is known
as fast-track authority, which allows trade bills submitted to Congress to have

limited debate and no amendments, the second of which is critical or so the

administration, like many of its predecessors, argues to the U.S. ability to
conclude such agreements. In theory, say TPA proponents, no other country will
finalize a deal with the U.S. if it knows the details can be later changed by
Congress. Reid is unwilling to cede his authority to protect the trade and
environmental groups that he sees as critical constituencies. As Senate majority
leader, Reid is in a position to kill any trade legislation by refusing to let it get to the
floor. While it is difficult to believe that he would sabotage one of the presidents
signature initiatives, he is going to play hardball since he enjoys the support
of other Democrats on this issue. The week before last, 550 labor,
environmental and consumer advocacy groups, which have previously backed free
trade deals, cosigned a letter to Congress calling on it to reject the TPA. Ironically
this is one of the few issues on which the Republican Party is prepared to back
Obama, and the GOP relishes the prospect of a fight within the Democratic Party.
They have accused the president of lukewarm support for the TPA and are eager to
goad Obama into challenging his base. A divided Democratic Party will strengthen
Republican prospects in Novembers midterm elections regardless of the outcome of
the TPA squabble. Nevertheless, the chief U.S. trade negotiator, Michael Froman,
insists that a deal on the TPA and the TPP is possible. While securing
Congressional passage will not be easy, he is convinced that a deal can be
negotiated that will protect the interests that Reid is worried about and
still pass muster with U.S. trade partners. As U.S. Secretary of State John
Kerry has noted, many categorical statements in Congress get muted during
the legislative process. He may be right, but it appears as though Obama has
another front on the fight for freer trade.

TPA is the most important part of the pivot

AP 2/4

Staff Writer, Barack Obama's Asia pivot threatened by his own party,
http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/1420073/barack-obamas-asia-pivotthreatened-his-own-party
US President Barack Obama's foreign policy pivot to Asia has taken a hit, and
it came from a stalwart of his own party. Democratic Senate leader Senator Harry
Reid last week announced that he opposed legislation key to a trans-Pacific
trade pact. That agreement is arguably the most important part of
Obama's effort to step up US engagement in Asia. Since Obama rolled out
the policy, most attention has been on the military aspect, billed as a rebalance of
US priorities after a decade of costly wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. But officials have
increasingly stressed that the shift is about more than military might, saying it
would cement US stature as the pre-eminent Asia-Pacific power as China
grows in strength, and capitalise on the region's rapid economic growth.
Hence the importance of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a free-trade agreement
being negotiated by 12 nations that account for 40 per cent of global gross
domestic product.

2nc Asia Pivot Impact China War/Asian Stability

Credible commitment key to prevent China war and maintain
Asian stability
Rudd 13

Kevin, Member of the Australian Parliament, Beyond the Pivot: A New Road Map for
U.S.-Chinese Relations Feb 26,
http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/beyond-the-pivot-a-new-road-map-for-us-chinese-relations/ ///cmf
Debate about the future of U.S.-Chinese relations is currently being
driven by a more assertive Chinese foreign and security policy over the
last decade, the region's reaction to this, and Washington's response -the "pivot," or "rebalance," to Asia. The Obama administration's renewed
focus on the strategic significance of Asia has been entirely
appropriate. Without such a move, there was a danger that China,
with its hard-line, realist view of international relations, would conclude that
an economically exhausted United States was losing its staying power
in the Pacific. But now that it is clear that the United States will remain in
Asia for the long haul, the time has come for both Washington and Beijing to
take stock, look ahead, and reach some long-term conclusions as to what sort
of world they want to see beyond the barricades. Asia's central tasks in the
decades ahead are avoiding a major confrontation between the United
States and China and preserving the strategic stability that has
underpinned regional prosperity. These tasks are difficult but doable.
They will require both parties to understand each other thoroughly, to
act calmly despite multiple provocations, and to manage the domestic and
regional forces that threaten to pull them apart. This, in turn, will require a
deeper and more institutionalized relationship -- one anchored in a
strategic framework that accepts the reality of competition, the importance of
cooperation, and the fact that these are not mutually exclusive propositions.
Such a new approach, furthermore, should be given practical effect through a
structured agenda driven by regular direct meetings between the two
countries' leaders.

Obamas attention and continued pursuit of engagement and

presence in Asia key to credible pivot and stability
Munoz 13
Carlos, Donilon: US remains 'all in' on shift to Asia, March-11,
http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/287377-donilon-us-remainsall-in-on-shift-to-asia-#ixzz2YD4zH0FP ///cmf
The Obama administration remains fully committed to seeing though
the Pentagon's proposed strategic shift from the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan to the Asia-Pacific region, a top White House official said
this week. "President Obama has been clear about the future that the
United States seeks . . . when it comes to the Asia-Pacific, the United
States is 'all in,'" National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon said during a
speech at the Asia Society in New York on Monday. President Obama

announced the strategic shift to Asia last February, as part of the

administration's realignment of national security priorities for a postAfghanistan and post-Iraq world. However, the recent rise of Islamic
extremists groups in North and West Africa have prompted some inside the
beltway to question whether a strategic shift to the Pacific is the right move.
On Monday, Donilon pushed back on such assertions, arguing Asia's influence
on the world stage will only increase in the coming years. According to
Donilon, nearly half of all economic growth and subsequent global politicall
influence will emanate from regional Pacific powers over the next five years.
That growth, he added, "is fueling powerful geopolitical forces that are
reshaping the region" including Chinas ascent as a world power, North Korea's
continued pursuit of nuclear weapons and India's expanding influence in South
Asia and beyond. "These changes are unfolding at a time when Asias
economic, diplomatic and political rules of the road are still taking shape," he
added. "The stakes for people on both sides of the Pacific are profound."
Recognizing that sea change of global influence based in the Asia-Pacific
region, the Obama administration has taken great strides to solidify
the United States' position in that corner of the world, according to
Donilon. "Perhaps most telling [of] this rebalance is reflected in the
most valuable commodity in Washington, the Presidents time ," he
said. The Obama administration officials have held bilateral talks with each
regional partner in the Pacific, as well as fully participated in the multilateral
summits held by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Specifically, the
White House has engaged "at an unprecedented pace" with Washington's
counterparts in China, holding formal and informal talks with Beijing on a slew
of regional security issued, according to Donilon. "The United States
welcomes the rise of a peaceful, prosperous China. We do not want our
relationship to become defined by rivalry and confrontation," Donilon
said, reiterating the administration's line on the Asian powerhouse. "There is
nothing preordained about such an outcome," he said regarding a
possible boiling over of tensions between Washington and Beijing.
China took a step forward toward that burgeoning relationship with the United
States, backing Washington on new United Nations sanctions against North
Korea's nuclear program. In response, Pyongyang on Monday officially nullified
the 1953 armistice deal with the United States that ended the Korean War.
Since North and South Korea are still technically at war, it remains to be seen if
the decision will result in conflict breaking out on the peninsula. However
tensions continue over Beijing's continued efforts to launch cyberattacks
against American government and commercial networks. In February, security
firm Mandiant released a report on Chinese cyberwarfare capabilities, claiming
elite military unit of Chinese hackers have been working to break into U.S.
networks from their headquarters in Shanghai. Weeks after the Mandiant
report, Senate intelligence committee chair Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
said classified intelligence documents supported the claims made by the
security firm. Despite those reports, Donilon said the United States
continued cooperation with Beijing and its influence in Asia is and will
be key to maintaining stability among the regional Pacific powers.
"The regions success . . . and the United States security and
prosperity in the 21st century, still depend on the presence and

engagement of the United States in Asia," he said. " We are a resident

Pacific power, resilient and indispensable."

Asian instability escalates to global nuclear war

Landay, National Security and Intelligence Correspondent, 2K
(Jonathan S., Top administration officials warn stakes for U.S. are high in Asian
conflicts, 3-10, Knight Ridder/Tribune News) Accessed on LexisNexis 12-29-09
Few if any experts think China and Taiwan, North Korea and South
Korea, or India and Pakistan are spoiling to fight. But even a minor
miscalculation by any of them could destabilize Asia, jolt the global
economy and even start a nuclear war. India, Pakistan and China all
have nuclear weapons, and North Korea may have a few, too. Asia
lacks the kinds of organizations, negotiations and diplomatic
relationships that helped keep an uneasy peace for five decades in
Cold War Europe. "Nowhere else on Earth are the stakes as high and
relationships so fragile," said Bates Gill, director of northeast Asian policy
studies at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. "We see the
convergence of great power interest overlaid with lingering confrontations with
no institutionalized security mechanism in place. There are elements for
potential disaster." In an effort to cool the region's tempers, President Clinton,
Defense Secretary William S. Cohen and National Security Adviser Samuel R.
Berger all will hopscotch Asia's capitals this month. For America, the stakes
could hardly be higher. There are 100,000 U.S. troops in Asia committed
to defending Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, and the United States would
instantly become embroiled if Beijing moved against Taiwan or North
Korea attacked South Korea. While Washington has no defense
commitments to either India or Pakistan, a conflict between the two
could end the global taboo against using nuclear weapons and
demolish the already shaky international nonproliferation regime. In
addition, globalization has made a stable Asia _ with its massive
markets, cheap labor, exports and resources _ indispensable to the
U.S. economy. Numerous U.S. firms and millions of American jobs depend on
trade with Asia that totaled $600 billion last year, according to the Commerce
Department.

2nc Asia Pivot Impact Allied Prolif

Asia pivot key to assure allies and prevent adventurism and
prolif
Greitens 13

Sheena Chestnut Greitens, U.S.-China Relations and Americas Alliances in Asia

june-13, http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/06/11-us-china-relationsasia-alliances-greitens /// cmf
Less fear and more trust are indeed likely to contribute to a constructive U.S.China relationship. But the principal foreign policy challenge facing the
United States in Asia today is not the creation of strategic trust between
Barack Obama and Xi Jinping, or between the United States and China. It is
the challenge of alliance management : to reassure Americas allies
without emboldening them toward unnecessary adventurism, and to
use those alliances to deter potential adversaries without provoking
them into spirals of conflict. Wise and steady management of U.S.
alliances in Asia will make Americas interests and commitments
clear, and help shape the level of conflict or cooperation in the U.S.China relationship for years to come.

Allied prolif causes nuclear war

Lee 93

Steven Lee, Professor, Ethics, Hobart and Smith College, Morality, Prudence, and
Nuclear Weapons, 1993, p. 299.
First, nuclear war could result from the behavior of other states,
especially those that had formerly seen themselves as receiving
protection from the nation's opponent under the nuclear umbrella.
Some of theses states might well seek to acquire nuclear weapons, or
to enlarge their arsenals if they were already nuclear powers, in order to
provide better protection of their own against the opponent. Were such
armament to occur, the uncertainties on all sides may make major
nuclear war more likely that it was prior to the nation's unilateral nuclear
disarmament.

AT: Not Reverse Causal

Global trade is on the brink of collapse-rising US protectionism
risks global escalation.
Lincicome 12 (Scott, trade attorney, Is Missing American Trade Leadership
Beginning to Bear Protectionist Fruit? (Hint: Kinda Looks Like It), June 12,
http://lincicome.blogspot.com/2012/06/is-missing-american-trade-leadership.html)

Over the past few years, I and several other US trade-watchers have lamented
the United States' dwindling leadership on global trade and economic issues
and warned of that trend's troubling potential ramifications. It appears that
at least one of our breathless predictions may finally be coming true. Starting in
mid-2009 - when it became depressingly clear that the Obama administration
viewed trade in mostly political terms and thus would not be advancing a robust,
proactive free trade agenda - we free traders expressed grave concern that
US recalcitrance could harm not only US companies and workers, but also
the entire global free trade system. As I explained in a 2009 oped urging the
President to adopt a robust pro-trade agenda (as outlined in this contemporary Cato
Institute paper): Since the 1940s, the US has led the charge to remove international
barriers to goods, services and investment. The result: a global trade explosion that
has enriched American families, spurred innovation, enhanced our security and
helped millions escape poverty. Every US president since Herbert Hoover has
championed free trade because of its proven benefits.... Because of today's rulesbased multilateral trading system and the interdependence of global markets, US
fecklessness on trade shouldn't lead to devastating protectionism akin to the
Smoot-Hawley-induced tariff wars of the 1930s. But it's still a problem. In 2008,
global trade contracted for the first time since 1982, and protectionist pressures
abound. The WTO's Doha Round is comatose, even though an ambitious deal could
inject US$2 trillion into the reeling global economy. Considering the US has
steered every major trade initiative in modern history, any chance for
significant progress on trade will disappear without strong American
leadership - in word and deed. Since that time, the President has clearly not taken
free traders' advice. The WTO's Doha Round is dead, despite a pretty good
opportunity to force the issue back in late 2010. The Obama administration took
three years to implement already-dusty FTAs with Korea, Panama and
Colombia and actually insisted on watering the deals down with new protectionist
provisions in order to finally agree to move them. And while countries around the
world are signing new trade agreements left and right, we've signed exactly zero
and have eschewed important new participants and demanded absurd domestic
protectionism in the one agreement that we are negotiating (the TPP). Meanwhile,
on the home front the President has publicly championed mercantilism, as
his minions quietly pursued myriad efforts to restrict import competition and
consumer freedom, embraced competitive devaluation and maintained WTO-illegal
policies (while publicly denouncing protectionism, of course). Pretty stark when you
lay it all out like that, huh? Despite this depressing state of affairs, it did not appear
that the United States' diversion from its long free trade legacy had resulted in a
tangible increase in global protectionism (although the death of Doha certainly isn't
a good thing). Unfortunately, a new blog post from the FT's Alan Beattie indicates
that those chickens may finally be coming home to roost: One of the very few bright

spots in governments generally grim recent performance of managing the world

economy has been that trade protectionism, rampant during the Great Depression,
has been relatively absent. That may no longer be the case. The WTO, fairly
sanguine about the use of trade barriers over the past few years, warns today that
things are getting worrying. The EU made a similar point yesterday. And this
monitoring service has been pointing out for a long time that a lot of the new forms
of protectionism arent counted under the traditional categories, thanks to gaping
holes in international trade law. After glancing at the bi-partisan protectionism on
display in the 2012 US presidential campaign, Beattie concludes that, on the
global trade stage, "things are looking scarier than they have for a while."
I'm certainly inclined to agree, and one need only look South to Brazil's frighteningly
rapid transition from once-burgeoning free trade star to economically-stagnant,
unabashed protectionist to see a scary example of why. And while I agree with
Beattie that the world still isn't likely to descend into a 1930s-style trade war - we
can thank the WTO and the proliferation of free market economics for that - the
rising specter of global protectionism is undoubtedly distressing. And, of
course, it has risen just as America's free trade leadership has faded away. Now, as
we all know, correlation does not necessarily mean causation, and it's frankly
impossible to know just how much the dearth of US trade leadership has actually
affected global trade policies. But I think it's pretty safe to say that it certainly
hasn't helped matters. Just ask yourself this: how can the US admonish Brazil or
any other country about its distressing mercantilism when the President is
himself routinely preaching - and his administration is busy implementing similar policies? How can we decry the global "currency wars" when we're
discretely advocating a similar strategy? How can we push back against nations'
increasing use of market-distorting subsidies or regulatory protectionism when
we're.... I think you get the idea. As I've frequently noted here, it was a Democrat Secretary of State Cordell Hull - who over 70 years ago began a global free trade
movement that until very recently had been led - in word and deed - by Republican
and Democratic administrations alike. And while the distressing recent spike in
global protectionism may not have been caused by a lack of American
trade leadership, it is very, very likely not going to recede until the United
States regains its long-held place at the front of the trade liberalization
pack.

Passing TPA is critical to the future viability of the WTO which

will collapse now.
Jeffrey Schott 6/14/13 Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International
Economics Payoff from the World Trade Agenda
Peterson Institute for International Economics, Washington, DC
June 14, 2013 http://www.piie.com/publications/papers/transcript-20130614.pdf
Now, what are the prospects for Bali? Well, theyre not so good. Trade
ministers are prone to accentuate the positive. But when APEC trade leaders met in
Surabaya, Indonesia in April of this year, they admitted, and I need to quote this.
This is what they said: The negotiation as it stands now is not on course to lead to
a successful outcome at the Ministerial Conference 9 in Bali. And then even more
ominously they said: The continued viability of the WTOs negotiating
function is at serious risk. So thats what our trade leaders, our

optimistic trade leaders are saying about the prospects for moving
forward later this year in Bali. And it underscores the task that Terry and others
have. And it has to be more than the business community, but as Fred said it has to
be certainly pushed hard by the business community to just get the officials and the
negotiators to recognize that theres a lot at stake and a big window of opportunity
to make progress, but a big cost if they dont. Now, what are the reasons for the
impasse? And this is something that goes beyond what we put in our study. Its
more of a postscript to our study to look at the task going forward. And there are a
number of problems that beset the preparations for the Bali Ministerial. You can call
them Bali aches if you like. Oh, yeah, I was wondering whether to say that, and
obviously I shouldnt have. The first is issue with linkages. These are tactical
gambits that risk blocking agreement like similar moves blocked agreement on the
overall DOHA agenda over the past 10 years. And the key problem going forward for
Bali is linking what is called food security subsidies with the trade facilitation
agreement. There are important issues with regard to food security. There are
important issues with regard to agricultural subsidies. But they should not be used
in a way that blocks the ability to get the big deliverable out of Bali. And negotiators
are still tied up in knots on how to do that. The second problem regards imbalances.
Each country has a different idea of what is a balanced accord. Now, the
terminology is important. In the past, we talked in trade negotiations about
reciprocity. Reciprocity is an ambiguous term, but its a lot clearer than talking about
balanced because each country hastheir own idea of what balanced is and theres
no consistent standard to set it on. So the first imbalance derives from differences in
how countries value the benefit of policy change, basically taking whats going on
now and changing what countries do in order to open up more opportunities from
trade and investment and how they value the increase in policy predictability that
comes when new obligations constrain the ability of governments to reverse
liberalization and to add new protectionism. So those are important. How do you
value those things? In fact, the appreciation of the value of those two aspects is
sometimes not well understood. The second imbalance comes between the level of
progress that is needed on market access across agriculture and manufacturing and
services, and the progress on commitments to new rule-making obligations, which
often also encompass reforms that result in improved market access. This is part of
the problem with the duty-free, quota-free issue and the resistance to going to a
100 percent coverage of tariff lines in a number of countries. There needs to be
progress both on the coverage of the tariff preferences for the least developed
countries. But there also needs to be progress on the eligibility rules for qualifying
for the preferential rates. I mean, there are some countries that provide a 100
percent duty-free, quota-free treatment for least developed countries, but those
countries dont get access to that market because the eligibility rules, the content
requirements and the like, basically block them from access to those markets. So
those two things have to be done. There has to be a greater liberalization of the
eligibility requirements to make those LDC preferences meaningful. And third, there
are leadership lapses. And this has been throughout the DOHA Round, so
this is nothing new. The big players, developed and developing, need to put
their chips on the table. For the U.S. and the EU, this means real constraints on
farm supports and real new access for the exports of the least developed countries.
These countries should be more responsive with regards to cuts of agricultural
export subsidiesthats one of our initiatives in our study. And indeed, there has
been suggestions for 16 Bali that developing countries want the U.S. and Europe to

commit to a 50 percent down payment on reductions of agricultural export

subsidies, but thats actually doable given the current climate of high commodity
prices and should be acceptable if the deal included a snapback clause. But it
seems to be resisted so far. And this is one area where the negotiators are being a
bit too risk-averse. For China, it means dropping the charade that they are recently
a ceded member to the WTO, and therefore, dont have to do anymore. They need
to do more. They need to commit to broader liberalization than other developing
countries. And they have the ability to do that. For all the BRICs, it means advancing
services negotiations as a means to unblock the negotiating impasse on agriculture
and on NAMA. Now, this audience probably is focusing on, well, how the heck is
the United States going to do in any of this. And it leads to the question of
what about trade promotion authority . For the U.S., passage of new trade
promotion authority would send a very positive signal that we were
willing and able to make these commitments and follow through on them,
and it should be done soon .

1nc EU soft power

TPA is key to TTIP
Nawaguna, 12-10 -- Reuters staff
[Elvina, "U.S. Congress could OK trade promotion bill in early 2014, lawmaker says,"
Reuters, 12-10-13, www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/10/us-usa-tradeidUSBRE9B919020131210, accessed 1-3-14]
The Obama administration has said it needs Congress to approve TPA, which would
allow any trade deal to move swiftly through Congress. With TPA, lawmakers cannot
amend or filibuster trade deals but can still vote for or against them. The
administration needs that fast-track rule to clinch two huge trade deals, the TransPacific Partnership (TPP) with 11 other Pacific Rim countries, and the Transatlantic
Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the European Union. The
administration argues that TPA, which expired in 2007, is useful in coaxing countries
to put their best deal on the table without fearing that Congress could reopen and
amend them.

TTIP key to EU soft power

Brattberg, 13 Swedish Institute of International Affairs analyst
[Erik, currently Visiting Fellow at the Atlantic Council of the United States and a NonResident Fellow at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS)
at Johns Hopkins University, "The Geopolitical Importance of TTIP," 11-8-13,
www.euglobalstrategy.eu/nyheter/opinions/reinventing-the-west-the-geopoliticalimportance-of-ttip, accessed 1-3-14]
Although the obstacles remain several, European and American leaders have very
good reasons to keep pushing for a TTIP deal. Besides the immediate positive
economic effects for both sides, the agreement could also give spark to a more
strategic transatlantic relationship something that is desperately needed. As
former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has observed, TTIP could potentially serve
as a second anchor, in addition to NATO, binding together the US and the EU. Along
similar lines, the European Global Strategy report correctly notes that TTIP, if
successful, could spill over into more robust political and security cooperation
between the US and Europe. There is a great sense of urgency to this task. 2015 will
mark the ten-year anniversary of the New Transatlantic Agenda (NTA). Originally
established by the Clinton White House, this framework was designed to bring the
US and EU together. While some progress has been made over the past decade, the
US-EU relationship remains far from strategic in nature. Washington still prefers to
deal with European countries on a strictly bilateral level, rather than with Brussels.
Clearly, a New Transatlantic Compact requires a new set of leadership structures.
Moreover, the disappointments as of late with creating a robust EU security and
defense policy has reinforced the notion that NATO is the only Euro-Atlantic security
organization that really matters. While the US wants a strong EU as its core partner,
it is uncertain about Brussels level of ambition. In fact, Washington currently thinks
the EU has no ambition whatsoever. If Europe and the US can agree on TTIP it would
send a signal to Washington that Brussels is indeed a serious strategic partner. If so,
this could be the start of a recreated and re-invented transatlantic relationship. The

development of a more strategic EU-US relationship could also help allay fears
regarding the US abandonment of Europe. While US strategic thinking is changing
and fast (the so-called Asian pivot is only the beginning) a more strategic
transatlantic relationship would still serve a critical function for Washington, and not
just on the security side of things. The drawdown of the military mission in
Afghanistan means that the US will have less need for Europe in coming years.
Focusing more on global economic and trade issues could constitute a new strategic
imperative for closer EU-US ties. At the same time, for the EU, which still views itself
predominantly as a global soft power, TTIP could help the union utilize its role as the
worlds single largest trading bloc in a more strategic way. The EGS report correctly
notes that the EU must seek to maximize the opportunities that trade and
development provide as a means of pursuing its strategic objectives. TTIP is
accordingly an opportunity for Europe to reinforce its role as a global trading
superpower. In summary, Europe must strive for an ambitious and comprehensive
TTIP. Such an agreement would not only generate economic growth on both sides of
the Atlantic, it would also pave the way for a more strategic transatlantic
partnership. As US strategic attention is quickly fading away from Europe toward the
global East and South, an agreement could send a message to Washington that
Europe remains Americas core partner in the world. In doing so, Europe could also
draw on its unique strengths as a global trading superpower, but apply these
strengths more strategically.

Strong EU key to solve multiple scenarios for extinction

Burton 01 (John,- Ambassador for the European Commission Delegation
http://www.irlgov.ie/committees-02/c-europeanaffairs/future/page1.htm)

2.5 As the Laeken Declaration put it, "Europe needs to shoulder its responsibilities in the governance of globalisation" adding that Europe must exercise its power in order "to set
globalisation within a moral framework, in other words to anchor it in solidarity and sustainable development". 2.6 Only a strong

E uropean U nion is big enough to

create a space, and a stable set of rules, within which all Europeans can live securely, move freely, and provide for themselves, for their families and for their old age. Individual states
are too small to do that on their own. Only a strong European Union is big enough to deal with the globalised human diseases, such as AIDS and tuberculosis. Only a strong
European Union is big enough to deal with globalised criminal conspiracies, like the Mafia, that threaten the security of all Europeans. Only a strong European Union is big enough
to deal with globalised environmental threats, such as global warming, which threaten our continent and generations of its future inhabitants. Only a strong European Union is
big enough to deal with globalised economic forces, which could spread recession from one country to another and destroy millions of jobs. Only a strong European Union
is big enough to regulate, in the interests of society as a whole, the activities of profit seeking private corporations, some of which now have more spending power than many individual
states. 2.7 These tasks are too large for individual states. 2.8 Only by coming together in the
as individuals, truly human, prevail over blind global forces that will otherwise overwhelm us.

E uropean U nion can we ensure that humanity, and the values which make us,

Territorial Disputes

Trades key to stop territorial disputes

Vaughan 9-3

[Martin. US Trade Rep Confident about Trans-Pacific

Partnership Dow Jones News, 9/3/12 ln]
The top U.S. trade negotiator said he doesn't see plans for an Asia-only trade pact
that would bind China and Japan to other economies throughout the region as a
threat to U.S. economic interests. Instead, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said
he wants to accelerate efforts to conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, which
includes a handful of Southeast Asian countries but excludes China and Japan, at
least for now. "I am reasonably confident we'll get the TPP finished before
the [Asia-wide free trade zone] comes into being" Mr. Kirk said in a
telephone interview Sunday, even though discussions about a free trade area across
Asia have gathered momentum recently. Mr. Kirk spoke from Hanoi, where he met
with Vietnamese officials after taking part in a meeting of economic chiefs from the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations in Cambodia. The Southeast Asia visit by
Mr. Kirk is part of a broader effort by the Obama administration to cement
U.S. ties in Asia--and to counter China's rising influence in the region. It
comes as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton swings through the region, during
which she will seek to defuse tensions in territorial disputes that have
flared up in the South China Sea and in North Asia . Mr. Kirk said he
believes trade has a role to play in ensuring such disputes don't get out
of hand . "One way to inoculate yourself against strategic conflagrations is
to make sure you have strong commercial relations. Countries that trade
with one another don't go to war with one another," he said. Mr. Kirk's
participation in last week's Asean trade meeting, relatively rare for a U.S. envoy,
was overshadowed by an announcement that the group has agreed in principle with
China, Japan, Australia and others to launch negotiations on a region-wide free trade
zone. "The United States is operating under a mandate from President Obama that
we will use every avenue available to us to create new markets for American jobs at
home," said Mr. Kirk. "We cannot and don't begrudge any other economies from
doing the same."

Goes nuclear
Emmott 8

[Bill. Editor of the Economist. Power Rises in the East The

Australian, 6/4/8 ln]
As well as knitting them, however, this drama is also grinding together Asian powers
that had previously kept a strict economic and political separation from one another.
China, India and Japan are bumping against each other because their national
interests are overlapping and in part competing. Each is suspicious of the others'
motives and intentions and all three hope to get their own way in Asia and further

afield. To have three great powers at the same time may be unprecedented for Asia
but it is not for the world. There was a similar situation in Europe during the 19th
century, when Britain, France, Russia, Austria and, until German unification, Prussia,
existed in an uneasy balance in which none was dominant and none was entirely
comfortable, but which nevertheless coincided with a period during which Europe
prospered and became firmly established as the world's dominant region. Whether
you consider Europe's 19th-century experience with balance-of-power politics as a
good or bad omen for Asia depends on how long a sweep of history you consider
and on what you think are the most crucial differences between modern times and
the world of 150 years ago. If you take a long sweep, then the precedent is bad,
since Europe's power balance ended in two devastating world wars. On the other
hand, it kept the peace on the continent for about half a century, which would count
as an optimistic prospect today. Today the barriers against the use of war as a tool
of national policy are far higher: nuclear weapons, public opinion, international law,
instant communication and transparency all militate against conflict, though they do
not rule it out altogether. The barriers against colonial or quasi-colonial ambitions
are higher still. China and India may battle for influence over Burma, but neither is
likely to invade it and turn it into a colony. Nevertheless, Asia is piled high with
historical bitterness, unresolved territorial disputes, potential flashpoints and
strategic competition that could readily ignite. There are at least five known
flashpoints where it is already clear that any could involve the major powers: the
Sino-Indian border and Tibet, North and South Korea, the East China Sea and the
Senkaku-Diaoyutai islands, Taiwan and Pakistan.

Trade Impact Quick

TPA key to finalize critical free trade deals
Hughes, 1/9 (Krista, 1/9/2014, Reuters News, UPDATE 1-U.S.
lawmakers propose fast-track bill for trade agreements,
Factiva))
WASHINGTON, Jan 9 (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers on Thursday proposed a bill to
give the White House power to fast-track international trade agreements
as the United States gears up for a hectic year of trade negotiations. The bill would
let the administration put trade deals before Congress for an up or down vote
without amendments, a move backed by big business and farmers but viewed with
caution by others. Without that assurance, trading partners could be less
willing to sign deals. The fast-track power would help the U nited S tates in
negotiations this year with Pacific Rim and European Union countries on
two separate pacts that would encompass nearly two-thirds of the global
economy and trade flows .

A new wave of protectionism would erupt into nuclear conflict

Spicer 96, The Challenge from the East and the Rebirth of the
West, 1996, p. 121

The choice facing the West today is much the same as that which faced the Soviet
bloc after World War II: between meeting head-on the challenge of world trade with
the adjustments and the benefits that it will bring, or of attempting to shut out
markets that are growing and where a dynamic new pace is being set for innovative
production. The problem about the second approach is not simply that it won't
hold: satellite technology alone will ensure that he consumers will begin to demand
those goods that the East is able to provide most cheaply. More fundamentally, it
will guarantee the emergence of a fragmented world in which natural fears will be
fanned and inflamed. A world divided into rigid trade blocs will be a deeply
troubled and unstable place in which suspicion and ultimately envy will
possibly erupt into a major war. I do not say that the converse will necessarily
be true, that in a free trading world there will be an absence of all strife. Such a
proposition would manifestly be absurd. But to trade is to become
interdependent, and that is a good step in the direction of world stability.
With nuclear weapons at two a penny, stability will be at a premium in the
years ahead.

1nc War
Free trade solves war
Girswold, 2007 (Daniel T., Associate Director of the Cato Institutes Center for
Trade Policy Studies, Trade, Democracy, and Peace: the Virtuous Cycle, Peace
through Trade Conference, April 20, http://www.freetrade.org/node/681)
The Peace Dividend of Globalization The good news does not stop there. Buried
beneath the daily stories about suicide bombings and insurgency movements is an
underappreciated but encouraging fact: The world has somehow become a more
peaceful place. A little-noticed headline on an Associated Press story a while back
reported, "War declining worldwide, studies say." In 2006, a survey by the
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute found that the number of armed
conflicts around the world has been in decline for the past half-century. Since the
early 1990s, ongoing conflicts have dropped from 33 to 17, with all of them now
civil conflicts within countries. The Institute's latest report found that 2005 marked
the second year in a row that no two nations were at war with one another. What a
remarkable and wonderful fact. The death toll from war has also been falling.
According to the Associated Press report, "The number killed in battle has fallen to
its lowest point in the post-World War II period, dipping below 20,000 a year by one
measure. Peacemaking missions, meanwhile, are growing in number." Current
estimates of people killed by war are down sharply from annual tolls ranging from
40,000 to 100,000 in the 1990s, and from a peak of 700,000 in 1951 during the
Korean War. Many causes lie behind the good news--the end of the Cold War and the
spread of democracy, among them--but expanding trade and globalization appear
to be playing a major role in promoting world peace. Far from stoking a "World on
Fire," as one misguided American author argued in a forgettable book, growing
commercial ties between nations have had a dampening effect on armed conflict
and war. I would argue that free trade and globalization have promoted peace in
three main ways. First, as I argued a moment ago, trade and globalization have
reinforced the trend toward democracy, and democracies tend not to pick fights
with each other. Thanks in part to globalization, almost two thirds of the world's
countries today are democracies--a record high. Some studies have cast doubt on
the idea that democracies are less likely to fight wars. While it's true that
democracies rarely if ever war with each other, it is not such a rare occurrence for
democracies to engage in wars with non-democracies. We can still hope that has
more countries turn to democracy, there will be fewer provocations for war by nondemocracies. A second and even more potent way that trade has promoted peace is
by promoting more economic integration. As national economies become more
intertwined with each other, those nations have more to lose should war break out.
War in a globalized world not only means human casualties and bigger government,
but also ruptured trade and investment ties that impose lasting damage on the
economy. In short, globalization has dramatically raised the economic cost of war.
The 2005 Economic Freedom of the World Report contains an insightful chapter on
"Economic Freedom and Peace" by Dr. Erik Gartzke, a professor of political science
at Columbia University. Dr. Gartzke compares the propensity of countries to engage
in wars and their level of economic freedom and concludes that economic freedom,
including the freedom to trade, significantly decreases the probability that a country
will experience a military dispute with another country. Through econometric

analysis, he found that, "Making economies freer translates into making countries
more peaceful. At the extremes, the least free states are about 14 times as conflict
prone as the most free." By the way, Dr. Gartzke's analysis found that economic
freedom was a far more important variable in determining a countries propensity to
go to war than democracy.

Extinction
Pazner 8 (Michael J., Faculty New York Institute of Finance, Financial
Armageddon: Protect Your Future from Economic Collapse, p. 137-138)

The rise in isolationism and protectionism will bring about ever more heated arguments and dangerous
confrontations over shared sources of oil, gas, and other key commodities as well as factors of production that must, out of necessity, be

acquired from less-than-friendly nations. Whether involving raw materials used in strategic industries or basic necessities such as food, water, and energy,

Disputes
will become more commonplace. Around the
world, such tensions will give rise to full-scale military encounters , often with minimal provocation. In
efforts to secure adequate supplies will take increasing precedence in a world where demand seems constantly out of kilter with supply.
over the misuse, overuse, and pollution of the environment and natural resources

some instances, economic conditions will serve as a convenient pretext for conflicts that stem from cultural and religious differences. Alternatively,

nations may look to divert attention away from domestic problems by channeling frustration and
populist sentiment toward other countries and cultures. Enabled by cheap technology and the waning threat of
American retribution, terrorist groups will likely boost the frequency and scale of their horrifying
attacks, bringing the threat of random violence to a whole new level. Turbulent conditions will encourage
aggressive saber rattling and interdictions by rogue nations running amok. Age-old clashes will also take on a new,
more heated sense of urgency. China will likely assume an increasingly belligerent posture toward
Taiwan, while Iran may embark on overt colonization of its neighbors in the Mideast. Israel, for its part, may
look to draw a dwindling list of allies from around the world into a growing number of conflicts. Some observers, like John Mearsheimer, a political
scientists at the University of Chicago, have even speculated that an intense confrontation between the United States and China is inevitable at some
point. More than a few disputes will turn out to be almost wholly ideological. Growing cultural and religious differences will be transformed from wars of
words to battles soaked in blood. Long-simmering resentments could also degenerate quickly, spurring the basest of human instincts and triggering

Terrorists employing biological or nuclear weapons will vie with conventional forces using
cause widespread destruction. Many will interpret steppedup conflicts between Muslims and Western societies as the beginnings of a new world war .
genocidal acts.

jets, cruise missiles, and bunker-busting bombs to

Turns Case Escalation

Trade prevents wars from escalating
Boudreaux, 2006 (Donald J., Chairman of the Economics Department at George
Mason University, Want World Peace? Support Free Trade, Christian Science Monitor,
November 20)
Plenty of empirical evidence confirms the wisdom of Montesquieu's insight: Trade
does indeed promote peace. During the past 30 years, Solomon Polachek, an
economist at the State University of New York at Binghamton, has researched the
relationship between trade and peace. In his most recent paper on the topic, he and
co-author Carlos Seiglie of Rutgers University review the massive amount of
research on trade, war, and peace. They find that "the overwhelming evidence
indicates that trade reduces conflict." Likewise for foreign investment. The greater
the amounts that foreigners invest in the United States, or the more that Americans
invest abroad, the lower is the likelihood of war between America and those
countries with which it has investment relationships. Professors Polachek and Seiglie
conclude that, "The policy implication of our finding is that further international
cooperation in reducing barriers to both trade and capital flows can promote a more
peaceful world."

Turns Case Norms

No norm development when trade collapses
Blatt, Book Reviewer for Futurecast, 2 (Dan, Book Review of Joseph S. Nyes The
Paradox of American Power, http://www.futurecasts.com/book%20review%20402.htm )
Coalitions against particular U.S. international interests have occurred and
are made more likely by unilateralist, arrogant, and parochial U.S. conduct.
Protectionism is undoubtedly the most dangerous and divisive form of
such conduct. "The United States must resist protectionism at home and
support international economic institutions" that facilitate international
commerce. Trade disputes must not be permitted to explode into disastrous
trade wars (such as the trade war during the 1920s and 1930s that played a
major role in the Great Depression). U.S. economic and cultural supremacy may
indeed erode as Asian and European markets prosper and grow. They may
ultimately "loom larger than the American market." In several particular areas such as international trade, antitrust regulation, the establishment of technical
standards, and protection of intellectual property - Europe already shares
predominance with the U.S. Defining our national interest broadly to include
global interests will be crucial to the longevity of our power and whether others
see hegemony as benign or not. The various aspects of soft power must be
a part of any effective foreign policy - and multilateralism is essential for
the development and maintenance of the attributes of soft power.

Turns Case Terrorism

Free trade solves terrorism
Lindsey, 2001 (Brink, Director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at Cato,
Free Trade and Our National Security, December 5,
http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/articles/bl-12-5-01.html)
President Kennedy was no less forceful in linking free trade and national security.
World trade is more than ever essential to world peace, stated the 1960
Democratic Party platform. We therefore must resist the temptation to accept
remedies that deny American producers and consumers access to world markets
and destroy the prosperity of our friends in the noncommunist world. Kennedy put
those words into action with his 1962 Trade Expansion Act, which made possible the
breakthrough Kennedy Round of world trade talks. He praised the legislation as
an important new weapon to advance the cause of freedom, since a vital
expanding economy in the free world is a strong counter to the threat of the world
communist movement. In the wake of September 11, the national security
dimension of trade policy is once again plainly visible. It is now painfully clear that
Americans live in a dangerous worldand that the primary danger at present
emanates from the economic and political failures of the Muslim world. Those
failures breed the despair on which violent Islamic extremism feeds; no
comprehensive campaign against terrorism can leave them unaddressed. Market
opening in the Muslim world is desperately needed. Trade and investment barriers
are pervasive, and exports other than oil remain puny. Its true that scrapping
protectionist policies, by itself, will not guarantee economic revitalization. But the
fact is that integration into the larger world economy has been central to every
developing-country success story of recent times. Exposing the economy to foreign
competition and capital acts as a catalyst for more systemic reforms. And over the
longer term, such far-flung examples as Chile, Mexico, Taiwan, and South Korea
demonstrate the interconnectedness of globalization, economic dynamism, and
eventual democratization.

***Aff

2ac No Pass
TPA wont pass
a) Democratic leadership, PC ineffective, and Obama can
negotiate without it
AP 2/19
Reporter, Ambitious free trade deals divide Obama, Democrats,
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/ambitious-free-trade-deals-divide-obamademocrats.aspx?pageID=238&nID=62686&NewsCatID=344
International pressure Politically, what it means is that Republican House Speaker
John Boehner is on President Barack Obamas side this time. Fast-track critics
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and former House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi,
the Democratic congressional leaders, are working against the president
from their own party and opposition to the trade deals is more
pronounced on the Democratic side. Late last year, 151 House Democrats,
roughly three-quarters of the chambers Democratic membership, signed a letter
to Obama signaling their opposition to granting him fast-track trade
authority. In the past, Obama has not been an ardent supporter of the fast-track
process. Even without fast track, Obama was able to win congressional
passage of free-trade pacts with Colombia, Panama and South Korea the
old-fashioned way in 2011. And he has yet to make a high-profile major
push for renewal of the powers since his State of the Union comments. If
ratified, the proposals, the Trans-Atlantic and Trans-Pacific Trade and Investment
Partnerships, would create the largest free-trade zone in the world, covering roughly
half of global trade. But the free-trade talks are generating strong emotions at
home and abroad. Many Democrats up for re-election in November are
concerned about lost jobs that are important to labor unions and are
abandoning Obama on this issue. Meanwhile, some European allies are pushing
back, still peeved over recent disclosures of National Security Agency surveillance
of them. A fast-track bill may be ready to go in the Republican-controlled
House of Representatives but certainly isnt in the Democratic-led Senate.

b) Europe
Grobe 2/19
Dr. Stefan, Political Correspondent, Euro News, EU warns US: no lowering of
standards in future trade deal, http://www.euronews.com/2014/02/19/eu-warns-usno-lowering-of-standards-in-future-trade-deal/
The two sides are seeking to bridge differences on issues including financial
regulation, agriculture subsidies and country-of-origin labeling. De Gucht said he
and Froman still believe the talks are on track. The next round of talks takes place
in Brussels the week of March 10. However, political barriers have been rising
on both sides of the Atlantic. In the US, President Barack Obamas
Democratic Party does not seem to be enthusiastic about TTIP. Senate
majority leader Harry Reid recently came out against giving his administration
a fast-track negotiating authority to conclude trade deals. Washington
observers dont believe that Congress is inclined to pass wide-ranging
trade agreements ahead of the November elections. The political

environment in many states is such that job losses are routinely blamed
on the effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) twenty
years after that deal came into force. And there is electoral uncertainty in
Europe as well. EU elections in May could change the complexion of the
European Parliament, stacking it with more populist sceptics who could
torpedo a deal with Washington.

c) Elections
Raum 2/18

Tom, Reporter, AP, Obama, fellow Dems are at odds on big trade bills,
http://www.twincities.com/business/ci_25171415/obama-fellow-dems-are-at-oddsbig-trade
WASHINGTONPresident Barack Obama wants to put major emerging trade
deals with Europe and Asia on a "fast track" to congressional passage. But
with midterm elections looming, many fellow Democrats are working to
sidetrack them instead. At the same time, Obama has found an ally in a
traditional foe, Republican House Speaker John Boehner. If ratified, the proposals
the Trans-Atlantic and Trans-Pacific Trade and Investment Partnershipswould
create the largest free-trade zone in the world, covering roughly half of all global
trade. In his State of the Union address, Obama asked Congress to give him "trade
promotion authority," usually known as fast track, to negotiate the twin trade deals.
But the separate negotiations with the European Union and 11 Pacific Rim nations
are generating strong emotions at home and abroad. Many Democrats up for reelection in November are fearful of drawing primary-election opposition
over the trade talks. Concerned about lost jobs that are important to labor
unions, they're abandoning Obama on this issue. Late last year in fact, 151
House Democrats, roughly three quarters of the chamber's Democratic
membership, signed a letter to Obama signaling their opposition to
granting him fast-track trade authority. Obama said his goal in requesting such
authority was "to protect our workers, protect our environment and open new
markets to new goods stamped 'Made in the USA.'" But the president, never
known as an enthusiastic free-trader in the past, has yet to make an allout push for the authority, which was last approved by Congress in 2002 for
President George W. Bush but expired in 2007.

1ar No Pass
Wont pass key Dems wont support experts confirm
Wood 2/17
Barry, Reporter, Market Watch, Obamas half-hearted effort on trade deals not
enough, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obamas-half-hearted-effort-on-tradedeals-not-enough-2014-02-17
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) At their Feb. 11 White House press conference,
President Barack Obama and French President Francois Hollande voiced strong
support for a trade expansion deal now being negotiated, the Trans-Atlantic
Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Obama said a successful TTIP, could
increase exports by tens of billions of dollars and support hundreds of thousands of
additional jobs. It was the presidents strongest endorsement in favor of trade
liberalization, which is opposed by several leading Democrats in Congress. Calling
TTIP a tough negotiation, the president said, Im confident we can actually
get it done. Independent analysts are not so sure. The unfolding trade
debate involves three confusing acronyms. TTIP or T-tip, as its called, is the
least immediate. The first challenge is TPA, trade promotion authority or fast
track, a measure mandating that trade deals be voted up or down without
crippling amendments that would force negotiations to be reopened.
Presidents have routinely had fast track and, without it, any big trade deal
is unlikely. Previous fast track authority expired in 2007. TPA is now being
considered in both the House and Senate but early passage is unlikely.
Harry Reid, the presidents ally in the Democratic-controlled Senate, is against it.
He dissented the day after the January State of the Union address in which the
president only mildly appealed for TPA. His sole mention of trade buried in the
middle was hardly a clarion call for action. We need to work together, said the
president, on tools like bipartisan trade promotion authority to protect our workers,
protect our environment and open new markets.. This past week Obama lost
another important ally as House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi came out
against it. No on fast track out of the question , she told the steel workers
union. Then on Friday Vice President Joe Biden told Democrats that he understands
their reticence on TPA, acknowledging that the measure wont come to a vote
in the next few weeks. Congressional Republicans generally favor freer
trade and their support is vital for TPA to win. Experts say with decisive
leadership the president could still build a winning bipartisan coalition.
But as yet it isnt happening. Gary Hufbauer, trade specialist at Washingtons
Peterson Institute for International Economics, says in order for trade deals to
get done the president needs TPA this spring, preferably before his April visit
to Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Malaysia. That delayed visit is intended to
solidify the administrations pivot to Asia, of which TPP, the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, is the centerpiece. TPP would broaden market access and promote
trade by standardizing disparate regulations on hundreds of products and services.
The negotiations involving 12 Asia and Pacific nations are well advanced but the
sensitive issues like opening up Japans rice market, say trade experts, wont be put
on the table without the U.S. administration having fast track.

No vote until after the elections, Dems wont support passage,

PC failed, and no support for the TPP
Huffington Post 2/14
Michael McAuliff, Sam Stein, and Sabrina Siddiqui, Reporters, Joe Biden Admits Vast
Obama Trade Deals Are On Hold, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/14/whitehouse-trade-deal_n_4790338.html
WASHINGTON -- The White House's trade plans are on hold, at least for now,
Vice President Joe Biden said Friday, in welcome news to many Democrats
who oppose the sweeping deals. President Barack Obama has been pushing
for ambitious free-trade deals with Europe and 11 Pacific nations. But those
deals depend first on Congress granting the president so-called fast-track
trade authority. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has already said he
opposes recently proposed legislation from former Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.)
and Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.) that would grant that authority, and House
Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi rejected the Baucus-Camp proposal on
Wednesday. After speaking to lawmakers at a Democratic policy retreat in
Cambridge, Md., Biden acknowledged that Obama would not get his trade
authority any time soon , in spite of having pushed for it in his recent State
of the Union address. "Nancy, I know it's not coming up now, Biden said to Pelosi,
according to a Democratic aide in the room. An aide to the vice president said later
Friday that reports that Biden had indicated the administration's trade agenda was
on hold were "inaccurate." "While the Vice President said he understands where
some members of the House and Senate are coming from, he made a clear case for
the Administrations trade priorities, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership
negotiations, which he stated are very much in the economic and strategic interest
of the U.S," the aide said in an email to The Huffington Post. "He explained our
national trade priorities in detail." Opposition to the trade deals -- especially the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is a major part of Obama's pivot toward Asia -- runs
across the political spectrum. Opponents fear the TPP will undermine
labor and environmental standards in the United States, and cost American
workers' jobs. Many Democrats are also worried that if the White House were
to pursue huge trade treaties that remind people of NAFTA and its subsequent
job losses, it would undercut their pro-middle class message in the 2014
election. Democrats and many others are also angry that the talks crafting the
deals have been shrouded in secrecy, with the details hidden from the public.
Biden also assured the lawmakers in the Friday address that the administration
would be transparent about its plans. "Look at me, I promise," Biden said, according
to an aide. It was unclear if Biden meant transparent to the general public, or just
lawmakers, who already have access to the sealed information about the deals.
Obama's trade representative recently cut off a briefing to Vermont lawmakers
when they insisted that the public be allowed to listen in. While Biden seemed to be
admitting the trade plans are on hold, neither he nor Pelosi has ruled out pushing
for them in the future. Indeed, Pelosi told reporters Wednesday that while she
opposes the fast-track bill from Baucus and Camp, she favors trade deals if they are
done right. "I have worked with many of our colleagues to try to find some common
ground, but in its present form, it is unacceptable. That is not ... a rejection of the
president's trade agenda. It's a rejection of the current form of the Camp-Baucus
[bill]," Pelosi said. "But the trade issue is a very important one, because we're the
party of John F. Kennedy, we're the party of free trade, fair trade, and we believe

that the global economy is here to stay, and we're part of it." Still, Biden's remarks
show the White House understands neither chamber of Congress is likely
to push ahead with a fast-track bill in the current climate. And that means
the administration's best chance for success will not come until after the
elections .

1ar No Pass Reid/Pelosi

Reid and Pelosi wont allow a vote
Landler and Weisman 2/14
Mark and Jonathan, Reporters, NYT, Trade Pact With Asia Faces Imposing Hurdle:
Midterm Politics, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/us/politics/biden-remarkcasts-doubt-on-pillar-of-us-trade-agenda.html?_r=0
WASHINGTON President Obamas ambitious trade agenda appeared to fall
further victim to election-year politics on Capitol Hill on Friday when Vice
President Joseph R. Biden Jr., in a closed-door retreat with House Democrats, said
he understood why they would not grant Mr. Obama the crucial authority
he needs to conclude large trade deals with Asia and Europe. Mr. Bidens
comments most immediately called into question the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a
regional pact among 12 nations that would be one of the worlds biggest trade
agreements. It is a central element of Mr. Obamas strategic shift toward Asia, and
the White House had hoped to complete it last year. Responding to a question at the
policy retreat for House Democratic leaders in Cambridge, Md., Mr. Biden said he
understood that legislation for expedited consideration in Congress for free-trade
agreements, known as fast-track authority, was not coming up for a vote
now, according to several people who were in the meeting. Winning that authority
is viewed as necessary for Mr. Obama to extract politically difficult concessions from
Japan, Singapore and other Pacific Rim countries. The Trans-Pacific Partnership aims
to reduce tariffs on a vast array of goods and services and to harmonize regulations.
It would affect 40 percent of Americas exports and imports. For Mr. Obama, the
trade deal would also lend economic substance to a policy on Asia that is otherwise
largely about shifting some military forces to the region as a counterweight to a
rising China. But with Democrats facing a difficult midterm election in nine
months, Mr. Biden appeared sensitive to their more parochial concerns,
including the pressures they face from organized labor. He took a hard line against
the largest American trading partners in the Pacific and told the Democrats, for
example, that he had warned the Japanese on a recent trip to Tokyo that the pact
could not go forward if the American auto industry continued to have only 1 percent
market penetration in Japan. Many Democrats typically oppose trade deals,
along with their allies in unions and environmental and consumer groups, because
they do not want to encourage free-trade agreements that they say would
siphon off manufacturing jobs in the United States and create pollution.
White House officials insisted that Mr. Obama was not ceding the battle, either
to win fast-track authority or to pass the broader trade deals. The European
trade deal, the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, is also affected by
fast-track authority, which is viewed as essential to passing any agreements, and it
is one area on which the president and Republicans agree. While the vice
president said he understands where some members of the House and Senate are
coming from, said a senior administration official, he made a clear case for the
administrations trade priorities, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership
negotiations. The pact, Mr. Biden said, would allow the United States to respond to
the growing economic muscle of China, which he said was affecting the economic
calculations of its neighbors. When the vice president was finished, one House
member responded, Thanks for your explanation of geopolitical priorities,
according to another member who was in the room, and who like other lawmakers

spoke on condition of anonymity because the meeting was closed. Mr. Biden
replied, But I also get local political priorities. At another point, the vice president
glanced at the House minority leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, and
in a specific reference to trade promotion authority, said, Nancy, I know its not
coming up now , according to a person in the room. Last month, the Senate
majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said he had no plans to schedule a
vote on trade promotion authority. On Wednesday, Ms. Pelosi told
reporters that giving Mr. Obama that authority was out of the
question. Economists say that with the United States on the mend and the
international trading system still open, the volume of global trade would most likely
increase, even if these trade deals were never completed. But it would make U.S.
trade policy dead in the water, probably for the rest of the Obama administration,
said I.M. Destler, an expert on global trade at the University of Maryland.

Pelosi blocks passage in the House

Mauldin 2/12

William, Reporter, WSJ, Pelosi Puts Obama Trade Powers on Slow Track,
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/02/12/pelosi-puts-obama-trade-powers-on-slowtrack/
The top Democrat in the House of Representatives rejected outright a bill
that would help the Obama administration ease the passage of trade
agreements with foreign partners, dealing a further blow to ongoing
negotiations with Asia-Pacific and European countries. Rep. Nancy Pelosi of
California explicitly condemned the so-called fast track bill at a gathering of
union members and environmentalists on Wednesday. Ms. Pelosi had previously
expressed doubts about the current version of the bill, which doesnt have a
Democratic co-sponsor in the House, and she has been skeptical of free-trade
measures in the past. Still, her comments Wednesday make it clear she wont
help the White House rally support for the current legislation, further
imperiling its progress in the House. While most Republicans back fast track
and the administrations trade policy, a significant number of conservative
lawmakers oppose giving special trade negotiating authority to President
Barack Obama, according to people following the legislation. The Senates
top Democrat, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) last month stunned
supporters of trade agreements by voicing opposition to fast track just
hours after Mr. Obama had requested the legislation in his State of the Union
address.

1ar No Pass No Vote

Obama will wait until after the midterms most likely scenario
Paletta 2/18
Damian, Reporter, WSJ, On Trade Politics, White House Is In No-Mans Land,
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/02/18/on-trade-politics-white-house-is-in-nomans-land/
With Congress divided on virtually every policy initiative ahead of the
November midterm elections, a rare opening for bipartisanship came
roughly six weeks ago. Thats when Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max
Baucus (D., Mont.) and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp
(R., Mich.) reached an agreement on legislation that would make it easier
for the White House to negotiate trade agreements. But the process has
hit one roadblock after another ever since. Many Democrats and labor
groups revolted. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) essentially told
the White House to not even think about it. And then Mr. Baucus was swiftly
confirmed to be the next U.S. ambassador to China. The White House, meanwhile,
is trying to negotiate big trade deals with allies in Europe and Asia, something
Obama administration officials believe will be very difficult if not impossible to
codify without the fast-track authority that is on life support in Congress.
So what is the White House to do? It could keep pushing, and risk further
inflaming Democrats ahead of the November elections (not likely to happen). It
could tell European and Asian allies to be patient and let the U.S. political process
play out (might happen; result uncertain). Or the White House could let the
dust settle and then take its chances after the November midterms ( most
likely scenario , but much could change depending on who controls the Senate).
The current trade debate creates an unusual dynamic, because House Speaker John
Boehner (R., Ohio) and other top Republicans want Congress to pass whats known
as Trade Promotion Authority. Its the Democrats who are skittish. How hard the
White House decides to fight for these changes could be a key factor that
foreshadows whether Democrats plan to be unified heading into the midterm
elections, or whether splinters within the party deepen.

No vote until after the midterms

Politi 2/18
James, Reporter, Financial Times, Enforcer of Obamas trade agenda seeks
consensus, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/98cde658-97f6-11e3-8c0e00144feab7de.html#axzz2tgvXT0wi
The early signal has been that Mr Wyden wants to press the pause button on
legislation known as Trade Promotion Authority or fast track that would
make it easier and faster for Mr Obama to get the deals through Congress. A
bill was introduced in January by his predecessor Max Baucus, the Montana senator
who left to become US ambassador to Beijing. But Mr Wyden wants to reopen
negotiations on the legislation, which is backed by Republicans but failed to
garner the support of many powerful Democrats on Capitol Hill, who say it
fails to address concerns about transparency, labour and environmental
standards, and the issue of currency manipulation. Ron is going to reach out
broadly to develop the consensus and see what changes in policy are necessary,

says Michael Wessel, a former senior aide to Dick Gephardt, the former House
Democratic leader and a key player in previous US political battles over trade. Hes
going to be making sure he threads the needle in the caucus. Over his
congressional career, Mr Wyden has generally supported more open trade, voting in
favour of the North American and Central American Free Trade agreements, Chinas
accession to the World Trade Organisation and recent deals with Panama, South
Korea and Colombia that were opposed by many in his party. On the other hand, he
has rejected smaller agreements with Oman, Chile and Singapore and voted to
punish China for undervaluing the renminbi in 2011. Now Mr Wyden will have to
convince sceptics within his own party, including members of the finance committee
such as rust-belt liberals Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.
Throughout his career, Mr Wyden whose political life began in the 1970s as an
activist for the Oregon chapter of Gray Panthers, a group of liberal activists aiding
the elderly has been able to endear himself to many leftwing campaigners, or at
least not incur their wrath. He has forged ties with environmental groups and
supporters of internet freedom during the Sopa debate. But he cannot venture too
far towards forcing strict conditions on currency, labour and environmental
standards on US trade negotiators, which could make Republicans balk. With such
a delicate balancing act ahead, backers of Mr Obamas trade agenda
particularly in corporate America are adjusting their expectations on the
timing of a fast track bill. They had hoped to see it advance early this
year, but the best Mr Wyden may be able to do is set the stage for passage
in the so-called lame duck congressional session after the November
midterm elections. The worst position to be in as a chairman is to discover that
youre leading and nobody is following. You move too quickly at your peril, says Bill
Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council, which backs Mr Obamas
trade push. In the short term the bill is not on fast track no pun intended.
But when its time to move, it will, Mr Reinsch says.

1ar No Pass Europe

Europe wont agree to a deal
Chandler 2/19
Marc, Reporter, Seeking Alpha, Transatlantic Trade And Investment Partnership:
DOA?, http://seekingalpha.com/article/2030701-transatlantic-trade-andinvestment-partnership-doa
In Europe, the political climate also is not conducive for a large trade deal.
The populism from the right appears to be on the ascent. This is not simply
the story of peripheral countries who are tired of what many see as Brussels
or Berlin inspired austerity, such as Greece, but is has in the core as well, such
as France, Austria and The Netherlands. It is evident with the UKIP. The same
forces in Germany are likely to be energized by the German Constitutional Court
that cast dispersions on the ECB's OMT program that has not even been
operationalized. The strength of the populist right that is more nationalistic
than pro-Europe, is likely to be manifest in the May EU Parliamentary
elections. In a word, the TTIP, like the TPP, may flounder because of the lack
of sufficient will. Of the numerous challenges that America and Europe
face, there are many larger and more pressing concerns. While the tactics
are understandable, what may be sacrificed is the long game strategy.

2ac Thumpers
Other issues thump and Obama isnt pushing trade

Babington 2/14

Charles, Reporter, AP, Obama says immigration, minimum wage top agenda for
Congress, http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765647773/Obama-saysimmigration-minimum-wage-top-agenda.html
CAMBRIDGE, Md. President Barack Obama said Friday that top priorities for
Congress should be increasing the minimum wage and overhauling the
immigration system, while acknowledging that election year politics could
complicate the effort. Obama and Vice President Joe Biden delivered pep talks to a
House Democratic retreat on Maryland's Eastern Shore, less than nine months
before the lawmakers face re-election amid widespread voter disapproval of
Congress. The president and vice president called for sweeping changes to
immigration laws, but Republican leaders have all but ruled out passage before
the midterm election. Obama urged the Democratic crowd to keep working
for it and insisted some Republicans want a deal. "But they're worried, and
they're scared about the political blowback. And look, everybody here is an elected
official and we can all appreciate the maneuverings that take place, particularly in
an election year," Obama said. But he argued that putting off the matter "hurts
people. It hurts our economy. It hurts families." Biden was more partisan in his
remarks, suggesting the Republican Party is too fractured to be effective. He urged
the Democrats not to focus "on the few things we do have problems with" and
argued that Americans back them on issues including raising the minimum
wage, expanding early childhood education, immigration reform, gay
marriage and even health care. "Let's go out and make every single effort
not just to defend but to aggressively push our agenda ," Biden said. "They are
with us." And for any lawmaker who might not be feeling so confident, Biden said, "I
can imagine our prospects being viewed by the press and everyone else as being a
whole hell of a lot brighter by the time we turn to September than now." The
president also thanked lawmakers for banding together to increase the
government's debt with no strings attached in legislation that Congress approved
this week, and standing behind his health care law through its troubled rollout. "I
just want to say thank you for all of you hanging in there tough on an issue that I
think 10 years from now, five years from now, we're going to look back and say this
was a monumental achievement that could not have happened had it not been for
this caucus," Obama said. The president did not mention an issue that has
caused divisions within his party. Obama wants greater leeway to make trade
deals. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said this week that it's "out of the
question." Obama's and Biden's remarks came in brief appearances before
Democrats before reporters were ushered out of the room as they took questions.
The large ballroom was not full, with some empty tables, as some lawmakers
apparently skipped the retreat because of the East Coast snow storm.

1ar Thumpers
Immigration and minimum wage thump the da
AP 2/14
Reporter, Obama says immigration, minimum wage top agenda for Congress,
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/politics/immigration-minimum-wage-toppresident-obamas-agenda-for-congress
CAMBRIDGE, Md. - President Barack Obama says top priorities for Congress
should be increasing the minimum wage and reforming immigration.
Obama told a House Democratic retreat Friday that the party needs to
stand up for the American dream of getting ahead. He congratulates
lawmakers for standing together to support increasing the government's debt with
no strings attached, which Congress approved this week. He also thanks his party
for supporting the "tough issue" of his health care law. He predicts people will look
back on the troubled law and consider it "a monumental achievement." Obama
did not mention an issue that's created disagreement in the party. Obama wants
greater leeway to make trade deals. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said
this week that's out of the question.

1ar No Push/PC Fails

Obama isnt pushing, PC fails and the TPA wont pass
McKenna 2/10
Barrie, Reporter, The Global and Mail Canada, Washington's tangled politics could
slow Trans-Pacific Partnership, Lexis
For many, TPA is the international airport code for Tampa. But to the world's traders
and policy makers, TPA stands for trade promotion authority - U.S. legislation that
holds the key to almost every major trade deal in play right now. The TransPacific Partnership free-trade deal? It might not happen at all if the U.S.
Congress fails to pass a new TPA bill in coming months. The same goes for
U.S.-European free trade, as well as global trade negotiations at the World
Trade Organization. The TPA is pivotal because of a quirk in the U.S. political
system. Constitutionally, it is the job of Congress to regulate trade. But that's not
practical in the real world. So, since the 1970s, Congress has periodically granted
the president trade-negotiating authority. This allows the administration to make
deals, confident the legislative branch won't later rip them apart. The most recent
TPA expired in 2007, leaving President Barack Obama in an awkward spot. He, along
with trading partners such as Canada, have no certainty that Congress will sanction
what he negotiates. The doubt over Congress approval is doubly problematic with
complex modern trade deals such as the TPP that go far beyond tariff reductions to
encompass regulatory regimes and intellectual property. The Trans-Pacific
Partnership and other negotiations will meander along, but countries aren't likely
to bring their best offers to the table until they know that Congress and
Mr. Obama are on the same page. A new TPA bill is now before Congress
but the odds of it being approved don't look good. Mr. Obama's popularity
has been dented by the Obamacare debate and its troubled implementation.
It's tougher for him to get what he wants. Many key Democrats in
Congress, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, along with a key slice
of Mr. Obama's voter base - environmentalists and labour unions - are
opposed to the legislation. Free-trade advocates and political watchers say Mr.
Obama has been slow to use his political muscle to push the TPA bill. "This
should have been driven by presidential leadership a year ago, and as a result it's
going to be an enormous challenge," said Philip English, a former Republican
House member from Pennsylvania and now co-chair of government relations at the
Arent Fox law firm in Washington, D.C. "The White House and [the U.S. Trade
Representative] will have to expend political capital to make the progress
necessary." Mr. English reckons the chance of passage may be less than 50
per cent. Mr. Obama will need at least 50 Democratic votes in the House of
Representatives and whole lot more co-operation from allies in the Senate,
including Ron Wyden, the incoming chairman of the Senate finance committee.
"There are a lot of moving parts in TPA and a lot of legitimate cause of concern," he
added. Compounding the murky outlook of the TPA bill, the United States is now
negotiating entry of Canada, Japan and, perhaps soon, South Korea into the transPacific pact, which would tie 12 countries around the Pacific rim into a massive freetrade area. As Mr. Obama trolls for votes in a skeptical Congress, he is
forced to push other countries to make deeper trade concessions. That
might involve pain for Canada. U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman, for

example, wants Canada to put more on the table in the TPP negotiations, apparently
including looser dairy-import controls. He told Dow Jones last week that he's still
looking for a "high level of ambition in market access" from both Canada and Japan coded language that suggests he isn't satisfied with what the two countries have
put on the table so far. Last month, Ottawa angered a coalition of House
representatives from dairy-producing states when it moved to close a loophole that
has allowed mozzarella pizza kits to enter Canada duty-free for years. Those
legislators want Mr. Froman to play hardball with Canada. They are also upset about
a threatened clampdown on imports of milk protein from the United States. It is not
clear if the U.S. is also pushing Canada to lower the massive tariff wall that protects
the dairy, poultry and egg sectors, or to increase the small amount of duty-free
imports of chicken and dairy that Canada allows. But it is clear that the TPP has
become hopelessly tangled in the thorny politics of TPA in Washington.

1ar No I/L
Obama can negotiate without TPA
Panetta 2/20
Alexander, Reporter, The Canadian Press, This weeks hot trend in Washington:
dissing NAFTA for political gain, http://www.570news.com/2014/02/20/this-weekshot-trend-in-washington-dissing-nafta-for-political-gain/
Facing headwinds in Congress, the Obama administration now seems poised
to enter the upcoming round of TPP talks without fast-track authority. That
means that any pact could be tossed into disarray at the 11th hour, with Congress
rejecting or amending parts of it. The Democratic-controlled Senate has all but
extinguished any hope that it might relinquish its constitutional right to amend and
revise trade agreements via a fast-track bill. But some trade-watchers have
downplayed the importance of that. Robert Wolfe, a professor at Queens
University and former Canadian foreign-service officer, said in a recent interview
that the administration appears to be keeping Congress in the loop during
negotiations in order to limit the chance of a late-stage rejection. He also
said fast-track bills can actually make things more difficult by imposing
on U.S. negotiators specific, tough demands that limit the chance of an
agreement. In this case, he said, negotiators can enter TPP talks without
being shackled to the positions laid out by Congress in a fast-track bill.

TPA isnt needed to negotiate the TPP countries will still

negotiate and Congress wont object
Ham 2/18

Peter Van Ham, Senior Research Fellow at the Clingendael Institute of International
Relations, Dutch academic: TTIP needed to save 'crumbling' transatlantic
relationship, http://www.euractiv.com/trade/dutch-academic-ttip-needed-saveinterview-533540
What time-frame do you see as realistic for the agreement to be concluded?
Considering an American president becomes a lame duck officially during the last
year of his term - for Obama 2016. Then there will be new European Parliament
elections in May of this year. The Commission is on the way out, then we will have a
new Commission. Another important point is that opinion polls in most of the EU
member states, are showing that Euro-critical political flanks on the left and right
are likely to win a substantial amount of votes in the European Parliament elections
for the first time. I'm not sure what the new Parliament's attitude will be on TTIP
because both the left and the right Euro-critical parties are not in favour of the EU
doing anything. This is not going to help the process. In the US, the Senate is
much more in favour of free trade while the House of Representatives is
traditionally much more critical. But in this case they will probably vote yes.
They haven't got a TPA in place yet and it is not likely to happen quickly. Still,
I'm not sure if this is really important because they have been negotiating
a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) without it for a long time. It is actually similar
to Europe: if you come forward with something that is 'yes' or 'no', it has
this momentum and this political clout of something urgent and necessary.
It will be very hard both in the US Congress and the European Parliament
to say 'no' to that. I'm not really sure about what trajectory we are looking at, but

I never believed the 'one tank of gas' story. That would have meant the whole thing
lasting only 18 months or so. That is without precedent and technically almost
impossible to negotiate. I never really believed the optimism about the time frame
envisioned. But the alternative is not without its problems, let's just put it that way.
But the TTIP seems to be the priority right now in the US as the negotiations have
been going on longer. Yes, it was almost finished. And although it is not entirely a
precedent, it is interesting because all the negotiating problems people
foresaw for TPP without the TPA have not really materialised. The American
negotiators have simply negotiated the TPP as if they had an agreement
with Congress already. And the idea that third parties would not negotiate
with the US if they could not count on Congress to ratify it, has also not
held up. A lot of other countries have asked to be included.
Fast track doesnt solve and hurts the presidents ability to negotiate
trade agreements

Roh and Posner 2/17

Chip and Ted, partners @ Weil, Gotshal & Manges and former counsel to US trade
negotiators and trade committees in the US Congress, Fast track is a slow route to
a trade deal, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/65c402a2-97e1-11e3-ab6000144feab7de.html#axzz2tgvXT0wi
To some, the prospects for the proposed transatlantic and transpacific trade
pacts appear to have dimmed. Harry Reid, who leads the Democratic majority in
the Senate, announced his opposition to taking up proposed legislation to
restore a fast-track process for congressional approval of such
agreements. At a retreat last Friday, Democrats in the House of Representatives
are reported to have expressed similar reservations. The previous legislation, which
had been instrumental in almost every significant trade agreement signed by the
US since 1974, expired six years ago and has not been replaced. This has caused
consternation among advocates of trade agreements. It should not. The
fast track has become so congested with conditions and bureaucracy that it
now offers few benefits over the conventional legislative process. Fasttrack negotiating authority was devised in the mid-1970s to help deal with the risk
that the constitutional separation of powers would lead to stalemate in trade talks.
Only the president can negotiate with foreign governments. But implementing an
agreement involves passing laws, which only Congress has the power to do. The
fast track was supposed to solve this. Congress would put forward a list of
objectives and the president would pursue them, consulting lawmakers and
business leaders along the way. Legislation to implement the resulting treaties
would then be subject to a vote, with no possibility of amendment or filibuster. This
ensured that the president could deliver on promises, providing the credibility
needed to negotiate with foreign leaders. That arrangement worked well for the
Tokyo round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, a multilateral deal that
was concluded in 1979. It worked well, too, when agreements were signed with
Israel in 1985 and Canada in 1988. All passed Congress by overwhelming majorities.
But starting with the North American Free Trade Agreement, and the treaty that
established the World Trade Organisation in the mid-1990s, the political consensus
on which this process was founded began to erode, and agreements were passed by
Congress by much narrower margins. In the past decade trade agreements with
Colombia, Peru, South Korea and five Central American countries plus the
Dominican Republic all encountered hurdles in Congress of the very sort that

the fast track was meant to prevent. Significant changes had to be made
long after the negotiations had formally concluded. When the agreement
with Colombia was first presented to Congress by President George W Bush, the
House went so far as to amend its rules to take the agreements implementing
legislation off the fast track. Against this backdrop, the caution of Mr Reid and other
Democratic leaders should not have been a surprise. These days trade agreements
deal with far more than just import duties. They involve undertakings on intellectual
property rights, financial services regulations, food safety standards and much,
much more. These commitments constrain not only federal law but the actions of
state and local governments, too. It is understandable that legislators want to
scrutinise such measures carefully and unrealistic to expect them to be waved
through. The fast-track procedure is a means, not an end. It may now be
more trouble than it is worth. To secure special negotiating authority from
Congress, the president would probably have to agree in advance to a
long list of constraints. These would be public knowledge, weakening his
negotiating position . It may be better to negotiate without special
authority than to accept conditions that hobble the presidents efforts to
negotiate a good deal for the American people. Any deal is likely to face
hurdles in Congress. But these will be easier to clear when the details of
an agreement are known, and Americans can see what they stand to gain
by approving it. By contrast, a fight with Congress over fast-track authority
would probably be bloody. It would also be pointless, since the issue would
have to be revisited once an agreement has been reached. If President
Barack Obama wants to make progress on trade, he should start work on
negotiating a deal that Americans will support.

2ac No Impact Trade

TPA isnt needed to negotiate free trade deals
Ponnuru 2/10
Ramesh, Reporter, Bloomberg, Obama on Free Trade: Doing It Wrong,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-10/obama-on-free-trade-doing-itwrong.html
Supporters of free trade should hope that Obama and Camp win this one. But
they should also reconsider whether trade-promotion authority ought to be as
central to their game plan as it has been for the last few decades. When
Congress passes trade-promotion authority, it says that if the president submits a
trade agreement it will get an up-or-down vote, with no amendments, within three
months. The idea is that other countries will be more likely to make a trade deal
with the U.S. if they know the terms won't be renegotiated on Capitol Hill. For a long
time, this procedure really did promote trade liberalization, and Camp appeals to
this record in making his case. "Every president since FDR has had this authority,"
he told me. He thinks renewing the authority will help talks over a Trans-Pacific
Partnership -- a free-trade deal among 12 Pacific Rim countries -- succeed, and
enable other agreements in the future. And if presidents aren't given that
authority? "There are other avenues to negotiate new markets with, and
other countries don't have our systems of government," he said. In other
words: Countries will make deals with China or Russia instead of with the
U.S. Even so, the old argument for trade-promotion authority has lost some
of its force. K. William Watson, who studies trade for the Cato Institute, a
libertarian research group, argued in December that passing the trade-promotion
authority just to conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership didn't make sense.
Talks were already well under way, and could be slowed down by the new
negotiating demands Congress would make as a condition for passing the
authority. Watson points out that the standard procedure for freeing trade requires
winning two votes in Congress: First the authority has to be granted, and then the
final deal passed. "Why have the same debate twice?" he asks. It's actually worse
than that, because it's harder to get the trade-promotion authority than to
enact a deal. Congress hasn't granted the authority since 2002, when a
Republican House passed it by a 215-212 vote. It lapsed in 2007. Yet Congress
has been able to pass several notable trade agreements by wide margins
since then. In 2011, a free-trade deal with Colombia got 262 votes in the House,
one with South Korea got 278, and one with Panama got 300. The congressional
debate over trade-promotion authority tends to turn on the abstract question of
whether free trade is a good idea. Protectionists can conjure up all kinds of grim
scenarios about where liberalization will lead. In the debate over actual trade
agreements, on the other hand, proponents can point to concrete benefits -- this
specific market will be opened in this specific way to our exports -- to set against
such fears. It's an easier fight for the pro-trade side. And other countries can't count
on trade-promotion authority to mitigate the risks of negotiating with the U.S. When
Democrats had control of the House in 2008, they voted against complying with the
commitment to make a quick decision on trade agreements. The "fast track" took
three more years. Watson concedes that, at this point, the Obama administration
can't walk away from its demand for trade-promotion authority without sending a

bad signal about its resolve to complete trade deals. But that resolve is, in fact, in
question. A few days after Reid said trade-promotion authority was going nowhere,
he had a long meeting with Obama. Afterward, Reid said that trade hadn't even
come up. Camp refused to comment on whether Obama was doing enough, saying
only, "That's going to be the administration's job, to get support from Democrats in
Congress." If he wants the authority, Obama will have to lean on Reid to allow a
vote. Which brings us back to Watson's point. If Obama negotiates a free-trade
deal in the Pacific, he will have to hit up his fellow Democrats in Congress
again to approve it. It might have been better for the president to
dispense with trade-promotion authority altogether: to get an agreement
and then move straight to a vote. That way he wouldn't have to make so
many requests, and create so many chances to be turned down. It might
have been better for free trade, too.

2ac Asia Pivot

Asia Pivot fails independent of the TPP Obama cant recover
Auslin 2/3
Michael, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, The
Slow Death of Obama's Asia Pivot,
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100014240527023039424045793602822408
92994
The latest bad news for President Obama's Asia policy at first doesn't seem
to have much to do with Asia. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid last week
announced he will not allow the Senate to consider Trade Promotion
Authority, or "fast track" legislation. Fast track would allow the White House
to negotiate trade deals that would then be guaranteed an up or down
vote in Congress with no scope for amendments. Mr. Reid was motivated as much
by domestic political concerns as by anything else in nixing a fast-track bill. But his
decision also upends years of work on the Trans-Pacific Partnership
multilateral trade deal. Any deal arising from those talks now faces an uncertain
future in Washington. The episode is a revealing commentary why Mr.
Obama's pivot to Asia is on the rocks. In short, the problem is that the White
House promised too much, assumed its rhetoric alone would sell the deal, and
showed little appetite for the politicking required to execute a complex
strategic shift. Much of the blame for Mr. Reid's trade action must be laid at the
doorstep of the Oval Office. Both congressional supporters of free trade and
business leaders openly bemoan how little time Mr. Obama has personally invested
in such a crucial matter. In other ways, too, the pivot is falling victim to a
combination of distraction and disinterest in Washington. TPP was
supposed to be the economic leg of the rebalance tripod, while an
increased military presence and renewed political engagement formed the
other two supports. Those other two legs of the tripod aren't particularly
sturdy, either. Lack of a coherent security strategy has allowed China to
take the initiative in the waters and skies of East Asia. Beijing's decision
to establish a controversial air defense identification zone over a large part of
the East China Sea last November led to little more than a subdued
Washington response from a White House that seemed less concerned
than its Asian allies. Likewise, China's recent demands that fishing boats in the
South China Sea identify themselves to its patrol boats have been met with nearsilence from the Americans. The U.S. Navy's announcement last week that it will
drop down to just two aircraft carriers deployed globally raises new concerns about
the U.S. ability to live up to its manifold commitments around the world and respond
to unforeseen crises. And Mr. Obama seems to grow less focused by the day
on Asia's dangers. It was bad enough that he chose to skip last year's
major Association of Southeast Asian Nations meetings due to domestic budget
battles back home. Now Secretary of State John Kerry is prioritizing Middle East
issues. Washington seems almost entirely missing in action as America's
top two allies in Asia, Japan and South Korea, are barely on speaking
terms, while Chinese newspapers openly muse about war with Japan. The
real danger for Washington is that it becomes seen as a paper tiger. The
Obama administration has never made clear just what its goals are in Asia. Is it to

promote democracy and liberalism? That certainly doesn't seem to be high on the
list, given the failure to confront Chinese human rights abuses or link together other
democracies. Is it to contain China? Such words will never pass the lips of anyone in
Washington, though everyone knows that deterring Chinese adventurism was the
impetus behind the pivot in the first place. Instead, Washington is revealing
itself as a status quo power, hoping that things don't get worse while
failing to come up with any compelling rationale for its continued
presence. The idea of keeping open the sea lanes doesn't rouse an American
public that has seen no threat to free passage on the high seas since 1945.
Meanwhile America's alliances, except for that with South Korea, seem
outdated and geared more to the 1950s than the 2010s. Even a China that is far
more assertive and coercive does little to rile up a war-weary U.S. public
that doubts that Beijing would be so stupid as to try to unilaterally change
borders through force. Everyone knows that their iPhones are assembled in
China, or that Beijing and Tokyo own close to $2 trillion worth of U.S. Treasurys. But
the average U.S. citizen is unconvinced that it is worth American blood, and maybe
not even the continued expense of American treasure, to keep Asia stable and safe.
They question why rich allies like Japan and South Korea don't do more to play a
regional role. They resist the idea of fighting over rocky outlets in far-away seas.
Little wonder, then, that when it comes to related areas such as free trade, Mr.
Obama struggles to articulate a case for pro-Asia policies such as fast-track trade
authority. Having failed to persuade voters and members of his own party
on a broader vision for America's relationship with Asia, it's well-nigh
impossible to sell the components of such a policy. In this way, TPP is just
the latest, indirect, victim of Mr. Obama's penchant for sound and fury,
signifying nothing.

2ac China War

China doesnt have the military capabilities to start a conflict
Logan 13
Justin, director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, China, America, and
the Pivot to Asia, Policy Analysis No. 717, Jan-8 /// cmf
The broader problem with U.S. China policy is that it takes as a given that
a more powerful and activist China would be bad for U.S. national security,
but no one has detailed precisely how. The American Enterprise Institutes
Dan Blumenthal and his coauthors write that China is a threat to the
United States because its ambitions threaten Americas Asian allies, raise
questions about the credibility of U.S. alliance pledges, and imperil the U.S.
military strategy that underpins its global primacy.84 It is telling how
prominently alliances figure in this formulation, but Blumenthals logic is
backward. The United States should form alliances with countries
when it needs to fight a common enemy. It shouldnt litter the globe
with alliance commitments during peacetime, and then threaten war
for the sake of those alliances. In the modern era, Washingtons alliances
exist pri- marily to defend the allies and the credibility of other alliances, not
the United States. At the bottom of realist theories of international relations,
such as Mearsheimers, is the prospect of being conquered or otherwise losing
political sovereignty. Just as it is terrifically difficult to envision the United
States conquering China today, it is similarly difficult to imagine China
conquering the United States, given the Pacific Ocean and the
massive American nuclear arsenal. Even Chinese naval dominance
over a good chunk of the Pacific seems like a fantasy for the foreseeable future. Currently the PLA is struggling to acquire the ability to control
its near seas. Its highly touted first aircraft carrier is, in the apt phrasing
of one analyst, a piece of junk,85 and China is decades from having a
bona fide blue-water navy, let alone one that could challenge the
United States. Of course, a number of smaller problems are more
likely. A much more powerful China could attempt to use its navy to exclude
the United States from engaging in commerce with states in Asia. If it could
overwhelm neighboring states, China could hold hostage the sea lanes in Asia
to extract concessions from other states in the region. But it bears asking
how likely those scenarios are, especially considering the sizable
costs China would incur to achieve such results.

AT Solves Credibility
Asia pivot bad for credibilityforces us into conflict or be seen
as a paper tiger
Raine and Miere 13
Sarah and Christian, Transatlantic Fellow @ the German Marshall Fund and Senior
Fellow for Naval Forces and Maritime Security
@ IISS, Chapter Four: The US in the South China Sea, Adelphi Series, 53:436-437,
151-178, Taylor and Francis /// cmf
Another further constraint on US engagement is the limit on alliancebuilding in Southeast Asia demanded by US national interests beyond the
South China Sea. As Germany and the UK manoeuvred before the First World
War to construct alliances designed to deter conflict, the dominoes of
commitments engendered ended up actually helping to fan the flames
of war.34 The danger for the US is that it ends up creating
expectations it may not want to meet, taking on actual or perceived
commitments that force it towards a crossroads it might otherwise
seek to avoid: the decision to stand by an ally or partner on principle and
risk an escalation on a matter not of fundamental national interest, or to be
seen to have their bluff called, thereby bringing into question the core
credibility of US commitments in the region. This is particularly the case
with regard to the Philippines, with whom the US has a Mutual Defence
Agreement, certainly applicable to the Western Pacific but questionably
applicable to the South China Sea. As the Philippines sent its US-donated
cutter to arrest Chinese fisher- men off Scarborough Reef in April 2012, the US
had a delicate balance to strike in the support it proffered. A 2+2 meeting in
May between the foreign and defence ministers of the two coun- tries stressed
Washingtons strategic ambiguity on the issue: while reaffirming the 1951 San
Francisco Treaty, US diplomats also highlighted their countrys neutrality on
the South China Sea sovereignty disputes. Whilst Secretary of State Clinton
therefore explicitly stated that the US would protect freedom of navigation in
the South China Sea, she notably neglected to mention whether the defence
treaty extended to disputed areas of the sea. The message sent was clear in
its equivocality and is similar to the US position on Taiwan: while the US will
help the Philippines develop its military and will protect undisputed Philippine
territory, it cannot afford to provide a carte blanche for defending disputed
areas claimed by the Philippines.

Asia Prolif Inev

Asian prolif inevitableeven a credible Asia pivot isnt enough
to assuage allies fears
Karl 13
David, president of the Asia Strategy Initiative and director of studies at the Pacific
Council on International Policy, U.S. Strategic Credibility in Asia: An Update, April1, http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2013/04/01/u-s-strategic-credibility-in-asia-anupdate/ ///cmf
In a post two weeks ago, I argued that the Obama administration
confronts a serious credibility gap in Asia and cited as one example the
small but growing number of influential South Koreans calling for their
country to develop its own nuclear weapons because of renewed
doubts about Washingtons commitment to South Koreas security.
This specific problem involves what is known in strategic policy circles as
extended deterrence that is, the convincing projection of U.S. nuclear
deterrence power over far-flung allies confronted with menacing enemies.
Extended deterrence entails a two-fold challenge: Dissuading hostile states
from taking offensive action while also persuading allies that there is no need
to bolster their security through nuclear proliferation. Washington spent a
great deal of treasure and psychic energy during the Cold War coming to grips
with these problems, mainly in Europe as it tried to reassure NATO countries
that America had their back even as Soviet nuclear forces grew in size and
capacity. To a much lesser extent the problems of extended deterrence were
also at work in East Asia during the Cold War. But they are now cropping up
again as the regional security order becomes more complex. This can be seen
most clearly in the drama now playing out with North Korea. The United States
has responded to Pyongyangs increasing bellicosity in a way straight out of
the Cold War playbook: 1.) by beefing up missile defense capabilities in Alaska;
and 2.) sending nuclear-capable B-2 and B-52 bombers on practice runs over
the Korean peninsula. As illustrated in a Pentagon press conference following
the bomber runs, the intended audience for these moves is not just
Pyongyang. General Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff made a point of emphasizing: The reaction to the B-2 that were most
concerned about is not necessarily the reaction it might elicit in North Korea,
but rather among our Japanese and Korean allies. Those exercises are mostly
to assure our allies that they can count on us to be prepared and to help them
deter conflict. As the mission was being announced in an official statement,
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel was also on the phone with his South Korean
counterpart, reaffirming the United States unwavering commitment to
defend the South. Regardless of how the current North Korean crisis ends or
the Obama administrations success in dealing with the broader
credibility problems of its Asia pivot, Washingtons challenges with
extended deterrence will only grow in the years ahead as nuclear
proliferation expands in the region and what some (here and here) are
calling the Second Nuclear Age takes more concrete shape.