pace ptx

links

http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/12/house-republicans-not-backing-down-from-criminal-intent-addition-
to-prison-reform-debate/

http://triblive.com/state/pennsylvania/9791542-74/wetzel-prison-obama#axzz3xzWhgeXC
 aff
No chance it passes – mens rea dispute kills the whole package
Siegel 1/12 (Josh, news editor at the Daily Caller, “House Republicans Not Backing Down From ‘Criminal
Intent’ Addition to Prison Reform Debate”, http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/12/house-republicans-not-
backing-down-from-criminal-intent-addition-to-prison-reform-debate/)

As President Barack Obama prepares to deliver a State of the Union address that is certain to include a
nudge for Congress to act on its pledge to reform the criminal justice system, some outstanding
roadblocks remain. That was made clear Tuesday, when the chairman of the influential House Judiciary
Committee said legislation won’t pass in the lower chamber of Congress unless it contains a
controversial provision requiring prosecutors to prove that certain criminal suspects knowingly intended
to break the law. “I think a deal that does not address this issue is not going anywhere in the House of
Representatives,” said Rep. Bob Goodlatte, Judiciary Committee chairman, who was speaking about
criminal justice reform at an event hosted by The Atlantic. A push by Obama and both parties in
Congress to reduce mandatory minimum prison sentences for low-level drug offenders is the
centerpiece of the larger criminal justice reform effort. But some influential Republicans believe that
their colleagues won’t agree to ease drug sentences unless it is included in a package that contains a
provision dealing with the intent requirement, known as “mens rea,” the Latin phrase for “guilty
knowledge” or “guilty mind.” The catch: The White House is opposed to expanding a requirement to
prove mens rea, arguing that it would make it harder to prosecute corporations that commit fraud, taint
food, or pollute the environment, because these violators could allege they didn’t intend to break the
law. The disagreement over mens rea could kill the entire effort, which is especially fragile because
some have suggested that Congress and Obama have a short time frame to act on criminal justice
reform as the rhetoric of the 2016 presidential campaign heats up. Goodlatte, R-Va., and other
supporters of mens rea believe that the issue is a matter of fairness, and that it is too easy for people to
unknowingly violate obscure federal laws. “To me, the core of criminal justice is the requirement that
someone not go to prison if they don’t have criminal intent,” Goodlatte said. “It is happening today, and
it should not happen, and it has to be part of the reforms we do.” The House Judiciary Committee, with
bipartisan support, has already approved a package of bills addressing the criminal justice system,
including one reducing mandatory minimum prison sentences—giving judges greater discretion in
imposing punishment—and another changing the criminal code to make more laws subject to proof of
criminal intent. Prosecutors already must prove that defendants intended to commit crimes such as
murder, robbery, and assault. The Senate Judiciary Committee, meanwhile, has passed its own criminal
justice reform legislation that does not add more mens rea requirements. The Senate’s bill would reduce
mandatory minimum prison sentences for certain nonviolent drug offenses and allow well-behaved
inmates to earn time off their prison terms. Its package would also require the government to conduct a
study demonstrating how often prosecutors obtained convictions for crimes without criminal intent
provisions. The full House and Senate have not yet taken up the reform bills, and the two chambers will
have to eventually reconcile their differences for legislation to get to the White House. House Speaker
Paul Ryan, R-Wis., has cited criminal justice reform as one of his main priorities this year, while Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has been non-committal. In a sign of the urgency to get
something done on the issue soon, advocates from both sides are portraying optimism. In December,
Mark Holden of Koch Industries, one of the biggest criminal justice reform proponents on the
conservative side, met with Obama’s senior adviser Valerie Jarrett to smooth over disagreements.
Brothers Charles and David Koch have been among the biggest supporters of the mens rea provision.
Some critics have questioned their motives, alleging that the conservative billionaires want to prevent
federal regulators from pursuing criminal complaints against the family’s energy and industrial
companies. Holden, in a recent interview with The Daily Signal, denied those allegations and said the
Kochs could support a criminal justice reform deal that does not include a mens rea provision. “We think
we need criminal intent standards,” Holden said. “No one should lose life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness unless they intend to commit a crime. We don’t think that’s just, moral, or constitutional. All
that being said, we have supported the Senate bill, and that does not deal with mens rea issues. Our
position is if it’s in there, great; if not, let’s get something done.” While Goodlatte said the House is
discussing with the Senate and the White House ways to find common ground on the mens rea issue,
the resistance to compromise is strong for some Republicans. “Mens rea is something that is non-
negotiable for us,” said Rep. Raúl Labrador, R-Idaho, a conservative member of the Judiciary Committee,
in an interview with The Daily Signal. “The president wants to only do what he likes, and we are telling
him there are concerns we also have, and one of those concerns is mens rea, and we have to make sure
we do it.” Goodlatte believes there is a way forward to send legislation the president will sign—even as
the mens rea issue threatens to tear the alliance apart—but the chairman won’t put a timeline on
solving the dispute. “Not only do I think it’s overcomable, but I think it has to be overcome,” Goodlatte
said. “With things that are truly bipartisan, I don’t think there is a time limit on that, but I do want to get
it done as quickly as possible. It is absolutely critical all of the elements are included in this process, or
the process will bog down and fail.”

Guns and mental health thump

Lartey 1/13 (Jamiles, “Criminal justice reform gets little mention in Obama's State of the Union”,
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/13/obama-state-of-the-union-criminal-justice-reform)

Also noticeably absent from the speech was any mention of efforts to curb gun violence, an issue on
which the president has expended a great deal of political capital in recent weeks. Speaking from the
East Room of the White House last week, Obama announced a series of executive actions, including
expanded background checks and universal licensing for gun sellers. Obama also called on Congress to
act by providing increased funding for mental healthcare.

PC fails and Obama’s not key to passage

Lartey 1/13 (Jamiles, “Criminal justice reform gets little mention in Obama's State of the Union”,
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/13/obama-state-of-the-union-criminal-justice-reform)

There was some belief that Obama, the first president to preside over a sustained decline in nationwide
incarceration rates in more than 50 years, would focus on an issue he has often embraced in his second
term. In July, the president commuted the sentences of 46 prisoners, and became the first sitting
president to visit a federal correctional facility. In December, he commuted another 95 sentences. The
last president to commute as many sentences as Obama was Lyndon Johnson. But in an address widely
seen as a legacy speech, Obama was loth to stake his legacy in criminal justice reform, or other issues
that have been central during his administration, like race and policing or the epidemic of gun violence.
Still, the advocates and activists that the president snubbed seem inclined to stay focused on the big
picture, rather than get tied up in the text of one address, even one as historically significant as this one.
Kevin Ring, the vice-president of the advocacy group Families Against Mandatory Minimums, wasn’t
overly dismayed by the glossing over. “Given what the climate is in terms of partisanship, the more he
embraces it, in some ways the more problem it creates,” Ring said. According to Ring, reform legislation
already pending in Congress, such as the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, has enough bipartisan
support to potentially pass as it is: “The politics have changed on this so much that [Obama’s support] is
not as important as people might once have thought.” The voices of many Republican legislators,
including Utah senator Mike Lee, have joined with longstanding cries from progressive Democrats to
substantially shorten prison sentences for many offenses.

PC fails and Obama’s not pushing

Neyfakh 1/12 (Leon, “Obama Barely Mentioned Criminal Justice Reform in His Speech Tuesday Night”,
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/01/12/during_state_of_the_union_speech_obama_barel
y_mentioned_criminal_justice.html)

While reform advocates might take solace in the fact that criminal justice came up mere seconds into
Obama’s remarks, it still got barely any airtime. Some experts in the field are speculating that it’s a
strategic move—that Obama doesn’t want to associate himself too closely with the ongoing efforts to
push a criminal justice bill through Congress, lest it scare off Republicans who would rather not be seen
supporting his agenda. There’s also an argument to be made that, given the federal government’s
relatively limited ability to make a dent on what is fundamentally a state issue, it’s only appropriate that
the president prioritize other topics. Important context for Tuesday night’s speech is an informal
summer deadline haunting the proposed criminal justice legislation that’s been working its way through
Congress in recent months. And while some lawmakers are expressing optimism that a bill will reach
Obama’s desk in time, advocates are worried that the moment will pass. Tuesday night, Obama elected
not to use his bully pulpit to move the ball forward tonight. Depending on where that ball lands, this
speech could end up looking like a turning point.
neg
 uq/link/at: thumpers
Bipartisan consensus on criminal justice reform – but the plan is seen as soft on crime which destroys
the fragile coalition – vote’s coming soon and no thumpers because it’s the only thing McConnell has
priced in
Berman 1/21 (Russell, The Atlantic, “Republicans Face a Big Decision on Criminal-Justice Reform”

What will Mitch McConnell do on criminal-justice reform? The fate of the years-long push to overhaul sentencing laws and federal prisons now rests
in the hands of the Senate majority leader, who must decide whether bringing legislation to the floor is worth the election-year risk to a Republican majority that he has vowed to protect.

Advocates for reform believe they have finally achieved a rare, bipartisan consensus in both chambers of
Congress on most of the policy particulars—reducing mandatory minimums, banning solitary confinement of juveniles, and boosting prisoner re-entry
programs, among other things. Their task now is to convince Republican leaders that acting on a justice bill in the middle of a highly volatile presidential campaign won’t be political suicide.

Top officials in the House seem ready to go, but the man on the fence is the famously risk-averse
McConnell. “Let’s not miss the forest for the trees here,” said Holly Harris, the executive director for the U.S. Justice Action Network, an umbrella advocacy group. “The big issue is to
prove to Leader McConnell that not only are these issues good policies that work and make us safer, but also that they make for good politics.” Harris’s organization is

partnering with conservative and liberal groups, including FreedomWorks and Americans for Tax Reform on the right and the ACLU and the Center
for American Progress on the left. She told me the network would be commissioning polls in states with hotly-contested Senate races—think Ohio, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin—as part of its lobbying campaign. And this week advocacy groups released a pair of letters signed by nearly 150 current and former law enforcement officials—including two former
FBI directors and ex-Attorney General Michael Mukasey—endorsing the Senate’s Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, part of an effort to build a public bulwark from soft-on-crime attacks

on the legislation. Advocates are also armed with positive results of state-level reform efforts in Republican bastions of Texas,
South Carolina, Georgia. After a productive first year as majority leader,McConnell has set modest goals for the Senate in 2016; his priority is to pass a dozen individual spending bills
in a bid to return to “regular order” appropriating. Like other Republican leaders, however, he has mentioned criminal-justice reform as one of

the few major items that could advance this year , and it was a big topic of discussion at the party’s annual retreat last week in Baltimore. Still,
McConnell has been steadfastly noncommittal on whether the bipartisan bill that passed out of the Judiciary Committee last fall would get a full floor vote. “It is an issue our members are

discussing, but I don’t have any announcements,” McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said. “ The big issue is to prove to Leader McConnell that not
only are these issues good policies that work and make us safer , but also that they make for good politics .”
Harris, a conservative strategist who formerly served in top GOP positions in McConnell’s home state of Kentucky, spun the majority leader’s openness as a positive sign. “I know Leader
McConnell well,” she said in a recent interview. “He’s a very cautious individual who’s very cognizant of all the positions of his members, and quite frankly, he’s gone further in his public

remarks than we ever hoped he would with respect to saying that these issues are deserving of floor time.” If the liberal-conservative consensus on
criminal-justice reform is so broad , what is there to be afraid of? Well, crime . Advocates know that isolated or
overblown spikes in murders or violent assaults are easily exploited during campaigns, and that fear is heightened even

more when the Republican frontrunners are Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Trump in particular has used highly-publicized attacks by immigrants to
fan concerns about border security. And it’s not hard to see him turning to the playbook of the late Lee Atwater, the George H. W. Bush campaign manager who created the infamous ad tying
Michael Dukakis to Willie Horton, the Massachusetts felon who raped a woman while on a weekend furlough from prison. Cruz, meanwhile, voted against the bill in committee and made a
point of trying to strike retroactive reforms that would have helped prisoners who committed a crime with a gun—signaling he might campaign against it if McConnell brings it up.
 ilaw impact
Reform solves over-criminalization and mass incarceration – it’s the biggest human rights issue
globally
Cox 15 (Todd, Senior Fellow @ Center for American Progress, 10/22, "Congress Should Act to Make
Criminal Justice Reform History," https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/guns-
crime/news/2015/10/22/123935/congress-should-act-to-make-criminal-justice-reform-history/)

The impact of mass incarceration on communities of color is particularly staggering and is a significant
driver of racial inequality in the United States. People of color comprise more than 60 percent of the population behind bars despite making up only approximately 39.9
percent of the U.S. population. Criminal justice reform is a central civil and human rights issue of this century . As such, it
is critical that policymakers act to end mass incarceration and overcriminalization—particularly with regard to how they
affect poor communities and communities of color— by creating an equitable and balanced justice system that removes

unnecessary barriers to opportunity for people with criminal records . Congress is now moving to address
some of these issues. The Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015, also known as the Sentencing Reform Act, and
the Fair Chance to Compete for Jobs Act of 2015, or Fair Chance Act, are focused, bipartisan pieces of legislation that tackle
many of the root causes and impacts of overincarceration and the overcriminalization of poor
communities and communities of color. The bipartisan Sentencing Reform Act includes several key recommendations proposed
by the Center for American Progress, including improving the accuracy of criminal history records and sealing or expunging juvenile records under certain circumstances. The bill takes a

number of steps to end the unnecessarily harsh penalties and outcomes that characterized the now-
discredited policies of the tough-on-crime era . These measures include: Expanding the existing safety valve and giving judges additional discretion to
relieve significant numbers of people from unnecessarily harsh mandatory minimum sentences Making the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 retroactive, thereby making the reductions in the
sentencing disparities between crack and powder cocaine—disparities that have a disproportionate racial impact—available for thousands of current federal prisoners Providing sentence
reductions and early releases for prisoners who successfully complete rehabilitation programs Limiting the use of solitary confinement for juveniles in federal custody Providing for the sealing
or expungement of juvenile criminal records under certain circumstances, which would help create opportunities for young people to overcome or avoid many of the barriers that confront
those with criminal records, including barriers to employment, housing, and education Requiring the attorney general to develop a process for individuals who are undergoing employment
criminal background checks to challenge the accuracy of their federal criminal records, which would help to address the well-documented problem of errant criminal records databases The
Sentencing Reform Act is a good first step and contains significant reforms that, taken together, would address many of the concerns with the U.S. criminal justice system. However, more
action is needed to bring these reforms to life and make them more complete. Among other things, lawmakers need to seriously address the barriers to opportunity confronted by those with

The bipartisan Fair Chance Act,

criminal records. Doing so would afford these individuals a second chance and, just as importantly, make communities safer.

introduced in both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives in September, would help remove barriers to employment in the

federal government for people with criminal records . Because employment status is an important predictor of an individual’s ability to remain crime
free, this legislation would offer an important tool for preventing recidivism. Following the example of several large and small companies, as well as some state and local governments, the Fair
Chance Act would prohibit the federal government and federal contractors from asking about criminal history until the final conditional offer stage. Notably, the Fair Chance Act would not
prevent the federal government or contractors from asking about criminal history outright. Instead, the act—which follows a CAP recommendation for the adoption of fair chance hiring
practices—would provide the opportunity for individuals with criminal records to be considered for federal employment on their own merit without being immediately disqualified. The federal
government and contractors would still have the opportunity to learn about applicants’ criminal histories before hiring them. Following bipartisan praise, this landmark legislation was voted

out of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs by voice vote and will advance to the Senate floor for consideration. Both of these bills are
important first steps. They are critically needed and long overdue . As the Sentencing Reform Act moves to markup and the Fair
Chance Act moves to the Senate floor, the Center for American Progress calls on congressional leaders to take this unprecedented opportunity to build on broad bipartisan momentum and
reform the nation’s broken criminal justice system by moving immediately to pass these bills. Congress should also quickly consider the additional actions needed to end the scourge of mass
incarceration and overcriminalization of poor communities and communities of color, such as reforms to how the United States polices its communities and reforms that remove additional
barriers for individuals with criminal records.

That solves global WMD conflict

Burke-White 4 (William W., Lecturer in Public and International Affairs and Senior Special Assistant to
the Dean at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University and
Ph.D. at Cambridge, “Human Rights and National Security: The Strategic Correlation”, The Harvard
Human Rights Journal, Spring, 17 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 249, Lexis)

This Article presents a strategic--as opposed to ideological or normative--argument that the promotion of human rights should
be given a more prominent place in U.S. foreign policy. It does so by suggesting a correlation between the domestic human
rights practices of states and their propensity to engage in aggressive international conduct. Among the chief threats to U.S.
national security are acts of aggression by other states. Aggressive acts of war may directly endanger the United States, as
did the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, or they may require U.S. military action overseas, as in Kuwait fifty years later. Evidence
from the post-Cold War period  [*250]  indicates that states that systematically abuse their own citizens' human rights

are also those most likely to engage in aggression. To the degree that improvements in various states'
human rights records decrease the likelihood of aggressive war, a foreign policy informed by human
rights can significantly enhance U.S. and global security . Since 1990, a state's domestic human rights policy
appears to be a telling indicator of that state's propensity to engage in international aggression . A central
element of U.S. foreign policy has long been the preservation of peace and the prevention of such acts of aggression. 2 If the correlation

discussed herein is accurate, it provides U.S. policymakers with a powerful new tool to enhance national
security through the promotion of human rights . A strategic linkage between national security and human rights
would result in a number of important policy modifications. First, it changes the prioritization of those countries U.S. policymakers have
identified as presenting the greatest concern. Second, it alters some of the policy prescriptions for such states. Third, it offers states a means of
signaling benign international intent through the improvement of their domestic human rights records. Fourth, it provides
a way for a
current government to prevent future governments from aggressive international behavior through the
institutionalization of human rights protections. Fifth, it addresses the particular threat of human rights abusing
states obtaining weapons of mass destruction ( WMD ). Finally, it offers a mechanism for U.S.-U.N. cooperation on human rights issues.
 econ impact
Key to the economy
Rubin and Turner 14 (Robert and Nicholas, a former U.S. Treasury secretary/co-chairman of the Council
on Foreign Relations + president and director of the Vera Institute of Justice, "The Steep Cost of
America’s High Incarceration Rate," 12/25, http://www.wsj.com/articles/robert-rubin-and-nicholas-
turner-the-steep-cost-of-americas-high-incarceration-rate-1419543410)

One of us is a former Treasury secretary, the other directs a criminal-justice institute. But we’ve reached the same conclusions. America’s
overreliance on incarceration is exacting excessive costs on individuals and communities, as well as on the
national economy . Sentences are too long, and parole and probation policies too inflexible. There is too little rehabilitation in prison
and inadequate support for life after prison. Crime itself has a terrible human cost and a serious economic cost. But appropriate punishment for

those who are a risk to public safety shouldn’t obscure the vast deficiencies in the criminal-justice system that impose a
significant drag on the economy . The U.S. rate of incarceration , with nearly one of every 100 adults in prison or jail, is
five to 10 times higher than the rates in Western Europe and other democracies , according to a groundbreaking,
464-page report released this year by the National Academy of Sciences. America puts people in prison for crimes that other nations don’t,
mostly minor drug offenses, and keeps them in prison much longer. Yet these long sentences have had at best a marginal impact on crime

reduction. This is not only a serious humanitarian and social issue, but one with profound economic and
fiscal consequences . In an increasingly competitive global economy, equipping Americans for the
modern workforce is an economic imperative. Excessive incarceration harms productivity . People in
prison are people who aren’t working . And without effective rehabilitation, many are ill-equipped to work after release. For the
more than 600,000 people who leave prison and re-enter society every year, finding employment can be a severe challenge. Prison time carries
a social stigma, which makes finding any job, let alone a good job, all too difficult. The Labor Department doesn’t track the unemployment rate
for people with prison records. But a 2006 study by the Independent Committee on Reentry and Employment found that up to 60% of formerly
incarcerated people are unemployed one year after release, with their unemployment rates rising to above 65% during the 2008-09 recession,
according to a study in the Journal of Correctional Education. And even when they find employment, people who have been incarcerated earn
40% less than people of similar circumstances who have never been imprisoned, according to a study by the Massachusetts Criminal Justice
Reform Coalition. Faced with obstacles to gainful employment, it’s no surprise that 43% of people released from prison end up back behind bars
within three years, according to a recent Pew study on recidivism. The costs of incarceration extend across generations .
Nearly three million American children have a parent in prison or jail. Growing up with an incarcerated parent can harm childhood
development. Research by Pew shows that children with fathers who have been incarcerated are nearly six times more likely to be expelled or
suspended from school. Incarceration therefore helps perpetuate the cycle of family poverty and increases the potential for next generation
criminal activity. A 2009 study by two Villanova sociologists found that, from 1980 to 2004, the official poverty rate would have
fallen by more than 10% had it not been for our nation’s incarceration policies . Many of the people who end up
in prison are already acutely disadvantaged to begin with. In terms of basic education, more than a third of people in prison do not have a high-
school diploma or GED, according to the Justice Department. And Columbia University researchers in 2010 found that two-thirds of people in
prison struggled with drug addiction before incarceration. A study released in 2006 by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that 45% of federal
prisoners, 56% of state prisoners and 64% of local jail inmates suffered from mental-health problems. Instead of allowing these
disadvantages to fester in prison, we need new policies that are designed to foster positive change,
giving those who are incarcerated the skills they need to re-enter society as productive members of the
workforce. For example, the government currently bars people in prison from receiving Pell Grants, a counterproductive policy that should be
reversed. Substance abuse and mental-health treatment programs, along with educational support, can help people leave prison healthier and
better-equipped to make socially productive choices. Model programs are being piloted at the state level. For example, the Vera Institute of
Justice’s Pathways from Prison to Post-Secondary Education project is working with more than 900 students in 14 prisons. The program
provides college classes and re-entry support such as financial literacy training, legal services, employment counseling and workshops on family
reintegration. A 2013 meta-analysis by RAND has already found that recidivism decreases when a former inmate graduates from college, which
also boosts lifetime earning potential. And clearly, we need significant sentencing and parole reform. There is
widespread bipartisan agreement that we are using prison for too many crimes and for too long, with
concentrated effects in many communities. One possibility for reform is the Smarter Sentencing Act , introduced by Democratic Sen.
Dick Durbin and Republican Sen. Mike Lee, which boasts 30 co-sponsors and was successfully reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee
this spring. The bill’s House companion also enjoys strong bipartisan support. There are also examples of progress in statehouses
around the country. In 2013, 35 states passed bills to change some aspect of how their criminal justice systems address sentencing and parole;
since 2009, more than 30 states have reformed existing drug laws and sentencing practices, according to reports from Vera this year. The
time has come to make sensible reform in these four areas—sentencing, parole, rehabilitation and re-entry—a national
priority. Doing so could accomplish a tremendous amount for families, communities and the U.S. economy .

Extinction
Auslin 9 (Michael, Resident Scholar – American Enterprise Institute, and Desmond Lachman – Resident
Fellow – American Enterprise Institute, “The Global Economy Unravels”, Forbes, 3-6,
http://www.aei.org/article/100187)

What do these trends mean in the short and medium term? The Great Depression showed how social and global chaos followed hard
on economic collapse. The mere fact that parliaments across the globe, from America to Japan, are unable to make responsible,
economically sound recovery plans suggests that they do not know what to do and are simply hoping for the least disruption. Equally
worrisome is the adoption of more statist economic programs around the globe, and the concurrent decline of trust in free-market systems.
The threat of instability is a pressing concern . China, until last year the world's fastest growing economy, just reported that 20
million migrant laborers lost their jobs. Even in the flush times of recent years, China faced upward of 70,000 labor uprisings a
year. A sustained downturn poses grave and possibly immediate threats to Chinese internal stability . The
regime in Beijing may be faced with a choice of repressing its own people or diverting their energies outward, leading to conflict with China's
neighbors. Russia, an oil state completely dependent on energy sales, has had to put down riots in its Far East as well as in
downtown Moscow. Vladimir Putin's rule has been predicated on squeezing civil liberties while providing economic largesse. If that
devil's bargain falls apart, then wide-scale repression inside Russia, along with a continuing threatening posture
toward Russia's neighbors, is likely. Even apparently stable societies face increasing risk and the threat of internal or possibly external
conflict. As Japan's exports have plummeted by nearly 50%, one-third of the country's prefectures have passed emergency economic
stabilization plans. Hundreds of thousands of temporary employees hired during the first part of this decade are being laid off. Spain's
unemployment rate is expected to climb to nearly 20% by the end of 2010; Spanish unions are already protesting the lack of jobs, and the
specter of violence, as occurred in the 1980s, is haunting the country. Meanwhile, in Greece, workers have already taken to the streets.
Europe as a whole will face dangerously increasing tensions between native citizens and immigrants, largely from poorer
Muslim nations, who have increased the labor pool in the past several decades. Spain has absorbed five million immigrants since 1999, while
nearly 9% of Germany's residents have foreign citizenship, including almost 2 million Turks. The xenophobic labor strikes in the U.K. do not
bode well for the rest of Europe. A
prolonged global downturn, let alone a collapse, would dramatically raise
tensions inside these countries. Couple that with possible protectionist legislation in the United States, unresolved
ethnic and territorial disputes in all regions of the globe and a loss of confidence that world leaders actually know what
they are doing. The result may be a series of small explosions that coalesce into a big bang .