Spending DA

1NCUS spending down—heading for a surplusBoak 7/11 (Josh Boak, AP Economics Writer, 7/11/14, “US Records $71 Billion Budget Surplus in June,” ABC News, http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/us-records-71-billion-budget-surplus-june-24525694, Accessed 7/13/14, MX)

The U.S. government ran a monthly budget surplus in June, putting it on course to record the lowest annual deficit since 2008. The Treasury Department said Friday that its June surplus totaled $71 billion, following a $130 billion deficit in May. The government also ran a surplus in June 2013, bolstered by dividends from Fannie Mae, the mortgage giant under federal conservatorship for the past six years. For the first nine months of this budget year, the deficit totals $366 billion, down 28 percent from the same period in 2013. Tax receipts are up 8 percent compared to the prior year-to-date, while spending has increased 1 percent. The Congressional Budget Office is forecasting a deficit of $492 billion for the full budget year ending Sept. 30. That would be the narrowest gap since 2008. In 2008, the government recorded a deficit of $458.6 billion, which was the record high for deficits up to that time. But with the outbreak of the recession, deficits soared to unprecedented levels, exceeding $1 trillion for four consecutive years. Tax revenues fell during that period, while government boosted spending in an attempt to stabilize the financial system and provide relief to people who had lost jobs. The yearly deficit peaked at $1.4 trillion in 2009 during the worst of the financial crisis. It gradually fell from there, plunging to $680.2 billion last year.

<<Insert Specific Link>>

Increased spending collapses growthBoccia, Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, The Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity at The Heritage Foundation, 13(Romina, 11/20/13, “Cutting the US Budget would help the economy grow”, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/11/cutting-the-us-budget-would-help-the-economy-grow, AL)

Lawmakers face a choice of either confronting the nation’s spending crisis head-on by reforming entitlement and other structural spending or continuing to operate with their heads in the sand, waiting for a spending and debt tsunami to wash over the nation and drown economic growth.Research shows that reductions in government spending free resources in the economy for investment and job creation, thus spurring economic growth. For example, the CBO assessed three different deficit scenarios and their impact on the economy: a $2 trillion increase in primary deficits, a $2 trillion decrease in primary deficits, and a $4 trillion decrease in primary deficits. The CBO’s results show that any short-term boost in gross national product (GNP)[13] from higher deficit spending in the short term would be more than offset by the long-term reduction in economic growth from higher interest rates and a crowding-out effect of private investment. Equally, any short-term dip in GNP from additional deficit reduction would be followed by stronger economic growth over the long term.[14]

Government spending changes the composition of total demand, such as by increasing consumption at the expense of investment. Poorly targeted deficit spending would boost GNP in the short term, but leave less available for productive investments in the future. Deficit spending shifts economic resources from the future to the present, leaving younger generations with a larger tax burden and fewer resources to invest. In reverse, lower government spending frees economic resources for investment in the private sector, which improves consumer wealth. In sum, additional government spending today harms economic growth in the long term, while budget cuts today would enable the economy to grow much faster tomorrow.

Diversionary theory means nations will go to warRoyal 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. 213-215)

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 pre-eminent 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. This observation is not contradictory to other perspectives that link economic interdependence with a decrease in the likelihood of external conflict, such as those mentioned in the first paragraph of this chapter. Those studies tend to focus on dyadic interdependence instead of global interdependence and do not specifically consider the occurrence of and conditions created by economic crises. As such, the view presented here should be considered ancillary to those views.

Uniqueness

Spending Down NOw

US heading for budget surplusPresta 7/10 (John Presta, Chicago Finance Examiner, 7/10/14, “Is Obama administration heading toward a budget surplus over the next two years?” Examiner, http://www.examiner.com/article/is-obama-administration-heading-toward-a-budget-surplus-over-the-next-two-years, Accessed 7/13/14, MX)

There is a quiet murmur in financial circles that the United States government may be headed once again toward a surplus budget, opined 24/7Wall Street.com yesterday. That has not happened since the final few years of the Clinton administration and during George W. Bush's first year in office. However, Bush managed to decimate the budget surplus in short order, with the first of his two inadvisable tax cuts. Add to that the launching of two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Counting the increased government expenditures incurred by the Bush administration it all added up to record deficits that at the end of the Bush years, the economy was damaged and went into a deep recession. Going forward, government expenditures are expected to stay under control, led by reduced military spending because of the wind down of the two wars, and the expiration of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation program. The improving economy means increased numbers are returning to work, thus increasing tax revenues. The most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics released showed total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 288,000, dropping the unemployment rate to a declining to 6.1 percent. The unemployment rate is the best since Sept. of 2008. Adding fuel to the argument of the returning budget surplus during the Obama administration is a report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), that said the United States federal government had a budget surplus of $70 billion in the month of June (2014). That surplus eclipses the budget surplus from last June (2013). Marketwatch reported that the CBO reported receipts in June (2014) that were $324 billion, $37 billion more than in June 2013. Spending came in at $253 billion in June, $83 billion more than a year ago. For the fiscal year to date, the total deficit is $366 billion, $144 billion less than in the same nine months of fiscal 2013. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently estimated that the federal deficit through the first nine months was $366 billion, which was significantly better than the $510 billion deficit for the same period during the 2013 fiscal year. The primary reason for the improvement was receipts, which improved by $172 billion. Total receipts were up by 8 percent in the first nine months of fiscal year 2014 and were lead by individual income taxes and social insurance (payroll) taxes, which together rose by $123 billion, or 7 percent. In addition, receipts from corporate income taxes rose by $29 billion (or 14 percent), because of growth in taxable profits in calendar years 2013 and 2014. Receipts from April through June—largely representing corporations’ first two quarterly estimated tax payments for the 2014 tax year—increased by about $12 billion (or 11 percent). Also, receipts from the Federal Reserve rose by $18 billion, or 32 percent. The increase was attributable in part to the larger size of the central bank’s portfolio of securities and to a higher yield on that portfolio. Almost all gains occurred from January through June.

US spending low nowBoak 7/11 (Josh Boak, AP Economics Writer, 7/11/14, “US Records $71 Billion Budget Surplus in June,” ABC News, http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/us-records-71-billion-budget-surplus-june-24525694, Accessed 7/13/14, MX)

The U.S. government ran a monthly budget surplus in June, putting it on course to record the lowest annual deficit since 2008. The Treasury Department said Friday that its June surplus totaled $71 billion, following a $130 billion deficit in May. The government also ran a surplus in June 2013, bolstered by dividends from Fannie Mae, the mortgage giant under federal conservatorship for the past six years. For the first nine months of this budget year, the deficit totals $366 billion, down 28 percent from the same period in 2013. Tax receipts are up 8 percent compared to the prior year-to-date, while spending has increased 1 percent. The Congressional Budget Office is forecasting a deficit of $492 billion for the full budget year ending Sept. 30. That would be the narrowest gap since 2008. In 2008, the government recorded a deficit of $458.6 billion, which was the record high for deficits up to that time. But with the outbreak of the recession, deficits soared to unprecedented levels, exceeding $1 trillion for four consecutive years. Tax revenues fell during that period, while government boosted spending in an attempt to stabilize the financial system and provide relief to people who had lost jobs. The yearly deficit peaked at $1.4 trillion in 2009 during the worst of the financial crisis. It gradually fell from there, plunging to $680.2 billion last year.

US spending low nowBoak 7/11 (Josh Boak, AP Economics Writer, 7/11/14, “US reports $71 billion surplus in June; projected to have smallest annual deficit in 6 years,” US News, http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2014/07/11/us-records-71-billion-budget-surplus-in-june, Accessed 7/12/14, MX)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. government ran a monthly budget surplus in June, putting it on course to record the lowest annual deficit since 2008. The Treasury Department says the June surplus totaled $71 billion, following a $130 billion deficit in May. The government also ran a surplus in June 2013, bolstered by dividends from Fannie Mae, the mortgage giant under federal conservatorship for the past six years. For the first nine months of this budget year, the deficit totals $366 billion, down 28 percent from the same period in 2013. Tax receipts are up 8 percent compared to the prior year-to-date, while spending has increased 1 percent. The Congressional Budget Office is forecasting a deficit of $492 billion for the full budget year ending Sept. 30.

US deficit is decliningFelsenthal 7/12 (Mark Felsenthal, Journalist, 7/12/14, “White House trims 2014 deficit projection to $583 billion,” BDN Main Nation, https://bangordailynews.com/2014/07/12/news/nation/white-house-trims-2014-deficit-projection-to-583-billion/, Accessed 7/12/14, MX)

WASHINGTON — The White House lowered its U.S. federal deficit forecast for the 2014 fiscal year by $66 billion to $583 billion on Friday on the basis of gathering economic momentum as evidenced by gains in hiring. “The deficit has been cut by more than half as a share of the economy, representing the most rapid sustained deficit reduction since World War II, and it continues to fall,” acting White House budget director Brian Deese said in a statement. Despite the narrower deficit, Republicans and analysts raised concerns about high levels of debt over the long term. The White House projection shows that, even though the debt is on a declining path, it would reach 72 percent of GDP in 2024 instead of 69 percent as originally estimated, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget noted. The Obama administration projected a $649 billion deficit for the fiscal year ending on Sept. 30 when it delivered its budget proposal to Congress in March. The deficit peaked at $1.4 trillion in 2009 in the aftermath of the recession that ended that year. The White House said it revised its forecast in the mid-session review because the national unemployment rate has come down more

rapidly than expected. The jobless rate fell to 6.1 percent in June from 6.7 percent in March, a six-year low. The administration said it expects the deficit to be 3.4 percent of gross domestic product for the year, down from 3.7 percent, and to fall to below 3 percent of GDP in 2015. President Barack Obama in recent speeches has pointed to an improving economic climate, citing gains in hiring, housing and manufacturing. But wages have lagged and polls show many Americans remain downbeat about their prospects five years into the recovery from the recession.

US deficit is decliningMcIntyre 7/9 (Douglas A. McIntyre, Host of Mcintyre in the Morning; Winner of the Best Columnist award in 2011, “Is the U.S. Headed Toward a Budget Surplus?” 24/7 Wall St, http://247wallst.com/economy/2014/07/09/is-the-u-s-headed-toward-a-budget-surplus/, Accessed 7/13/14, MX)

The last time the United States had a budget surplus was in 2001, according the White House. Unimaginably, it may have one again, and within a very few years. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently estimated that the federal deficit through the first nine months was $366 billion, which was significantly better than the $510 billion deficit for the same period during the 2013 fiscal year. The primary reason for the improvement was receipts, which improved by $172 billion.

US deficit is decliningTaylor 7/13 (Andrew Taylor, journalist for Associated Press, 7/13/14, “US deficit in 2014 forecast to drop by US$100 billion: White House,” The China Post, http://www.chinapost.com.tw/international/americas/2014/07/13/412241/US-deficit.htm, Accessed 7/13/14, MX)

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. government's budget deficit will drop to US$583 billion this year, the lowest

level of President Barack Obama's tenure, the White House said Friday. Last year's deficit was US$680 billion. The latest update from the White House budget office is also US$66 billion less than the administration predicted earlier this year when releasing the president's budget. Obama presided over trillion-dollar-plus deficits during his first term as the economy struggled to recover from a deep recession and financial crisis. Attempts to strike deals on spending cuts and revenue increases with GOP leaders

such as House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio have failed, though Obama was successful in muscling through a tax increase on wealthier earners in early 2013. Tight spending on annual agency budgets is also responsible for lower deficits. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects an even lower deficit of US$492 billion for the budget year ending Sept. 30. “Under the president's leadership, the deficit has been cut by more than half as a share of the economy, representing the

most rapid sustained deficit reduction since World War II, and it continues to fall,” said acting White House budget director Brian Deese. “At the same time, our economy is moving forward and businesses are creating jobs. Businesses have added nearly 10 million new jobs over the past 52 months.”

Budget Surplus nowAP, 7/11/14 (7/11/14, “Untied Sttaes Records 71 Billion Budget Surplus in June”, http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/united-states-records-71-billion-budget-surplus-in-june-557217, AL)

Washington: The US government ran a monthly budget surplus in June, putting it on course to record the lowest

annual deficit since 2008.¶ The Treasury Department said Friday that its June surplus totaled $71 billion, following a $130 billion deficit in May. The government also ran a surplus in June 2013, bolstered by dividends from Fannie Mae, the mortgage giant under federal conservatorship for the past six years.¶ For the first nine months of this budget year, the deficit

totals $366 billion, down 28 percent from the same period in 2013. Tax receipts are up 8 percent compared to the prior year-to-

date, while spending has increased 1 percent.¶ The Congressional Budget Office is forecasting a deficit of $492 billion for the full budget year ending Sept. 30. That would be the narrowest gap since 2008.¶ In 2008, the government recorded a deficit of $458.6 billion, which was the record high for deficits up to that time.¶ But with the outbreak of the recession, deficits soared to unprecedented levels, exceeding $1 trillion for four consecutive years. Tax revenues fell during that period, while government boosted spending in an attempt to stabilize the financial system and provide relief to people who had lost jobs.¶ The yearly deficit peaked at $1.4 trillion in 2009 during the worst of the financial crisis. It gradually fell from there, plunging to $680.2 billion last year.¶ Over the next decade, CBO is projecting that the deficits will total $7.6

trillion.¶ The deficit will fall to $469 billion in 2015 before rising again and topping $1 trillion

annually starting in 2023, according to the CBO. Spending on the government's major benefit programs, including Social Security and Medicare, will drive those increases as more baby boomers retire.

Fiscal Discipline nowSparshott, Reporter at The Wall Street Journal, 1/13/14(Jeffrey, 1/13/14, “US Posts December Budget Surplus of $53.22 Billion”, http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303595404579318742766736128, AL)

WASHINGTON—The federal government posted a budget surplus in December after mortgage giants Fannie

Mae FNMA -0.25% and Freddie Mac FMCC +0.25% posted big payments to the Treasury, further narrowing the deficit in the first quarter of the fiscal year.¶ Revenues outpaced spending by $53.22 billion in December, the first surplus for the month since the 2007 fiscal year and the biggest on record. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones had forecast a $44.5 billion surplus.¶ Federal finances have been improving steadily as spending remains contained and revenues rise.¶ Federal revenue climbed by 8% to $664.60 billion in the first three months of the latest fiscal year. Individual income and payroll taxes accounted for the bulk of the increase, largely a

result of higher tax rates that kicked in during the 2013 calendar year.¶ Spending fell 8% in the first quarter to $838.20 billion,

in large part because of improving finances at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The two companies paid $39.57 billion to the Treasury at the end of last year. Because of the way the government accounts for the funds, they are deducted

from spending, rather than included in revenues.¶ The latest budget figures follow trends from 2013, when the deficit fell below $1 trillion for the first time in five years. The $680.28 billion shortfall for the full year

was down by more than one-third from 2012 as a slowly recovering economy and higher tax rates boosted receipts.¶ U.S. lawmakers in December negotiated a two-year budget deal, setting a $1.012 trillion spending ceiling for the 2014 fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.

Falling deficits but we still need to curb spendingBoccia, Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs,Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, The Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity at The Heritage Foundation, Fraser, Heritage Expert, and Goff, Policy analyst, transportation and infrastructure, Thomas A Roe for Economic Policy Studies 13(Romina, Alison, Emily, “Federal spending by the numbers, 2013: Government spending trends in graphics, tables, and key points”, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/08/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2013, AL)

In 2013, federal spending approached $3.5 trillion and the deficit dropped to “only” $642 billion. Some are using this small improvement in the nation’s fiscal situation to avoid further budget tightening. But as the figures and graphics in this report show, this is the wrong conclusion to draw. Following four years of trillion-dollar deficits, the national debt will still reach nearly $17 trillion and exceed 100 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) at the end of the year. Publicly held debt (the debt borrowed in credit markets, excluding Social Security’s trust fund, for example), is alarmingly high at three-quarters of GDP. Without

further spending cuts, it is on track to rise to a level last seen after World War II.¶ Deficits fell in 2013 because President

Obama and Congress raised taxes on all Americans, the economy saw slight improvement which

helped to bring in more revenue, and spending cuts from sequestration and spending caps under the Budget

Control Act of 2011 took effect.¶ The nation should not take this short-term and modest deficit improvement as a signal to

grow complacent about reining in exploding spending. Though deficits will decline for a few more years, existing spending cuts and tax increases will not prevent them from rising soon, and within a decade exceeding $1 trillion once again. Driving this is federal spending which, despite sequestration cuts, will grow 69 percent by 2023.¶ The nation’s long-term spending trajectory remains on a fiscal collision course. Total spending has exploded by 40 percent since 2002, even after inflation. Some programs have grown far in excess of that. Defense, however, has been slashed. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare are so large and growing that they are on track to overwhelm the federal budget. While the Budget Control Act of 2011

and sequestration are modestly restraining the discretionary budget, mandatory spending—including entitlements—

continues growing nearly unabated. Without any changes, mandatory spending, including net interest, will consume three-fourths of the budget in just one decade.

Deficits decreasing nowJohn, Staff Writer at The Wire, 14(Arit, 7/11/14, “This year’s deficit will probably be the smallest since 2008”, http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/07/this-years-deficit-will-probably-be-the-smallest-since-2008/374322/, AL)

The federal government ran on a $71 billion surplus in June, putting the country on track for the lowest deficit since 2008, according to The Associated Press. For the first nine months of fiscal year 2014 the deficit was $366 billion, 28 percent lower than it was at this point last year. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the deficit will be $492 billion, the lowest deficit since 2008's $459 billion ($498

billion counting inflation).¶ Meanwhile, the White House gave a more conservative estimate of a $583 billion

deficit, according to the AP. That still puts the deficit down nearly $100 billion from $680 billion last year.¶ If you've been following the ebb and flow of the deficit, you know that last fiscal year was the first time the deficit was as low as its been since 2008, and down from the trillion dollar deficits of every year of Obama's presidency. In October The Wire laid out how to

argue about the decreased based on your political beliefs: Republicans credit the sequester and decreased spending and Democrats credit their policies. The difference is that, so far this year, revenues have increased 8 percent and spending has also gone up 1 percent.

Budget Surplus comingPyke, Deputy Economic Policy Editor for ThinkProgress.org, 14(Alan, 1/14/14, “United States Notches Record $53 Billion Budget Surplus in December”, http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/01/14/3158271/december-surplus-record-austerity/, AL)

Revenue exceeded spending by $53 billion in December, a record budget surplus for the month that reflects the U.S. government’s success at cutting deficits in recent years.The record surprised analysts, who had expected a $44 billion surplus for the month. The jump is due in large part to big payments from the government-backed housing finance agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, according to Bloomberg. Those companies have now paid the government over $185 billion since they were taken over by taxpayers in 2008, including $34 billion in December. Rising tax revenues from the gradually improving economy have also been helping to shrink deficits in recent years.

Congressional Budget Office plans long term spending reductionShadi 2014(“How spending has fallen under Obama” By Jeanne Sahadi @CNNMoney January 27, 2014: 10:18 AM ET, http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/27/news/economy/spending-obama/)

As a share of the economy, spending on domestic and defense programs has been on the decline since 2010, and is on track to reach the lowest level in more than 50 years by 2023. At its height in 2010, "discretionary spending" under Obama reached 9.1% of GDP. That was largely due to the stimulus law intended to dig the country out of a deep recession. But even at that high level, it wasn't that much higher than the 40-year average of 8.4% and was still below the 40-year peak of 10% reached in 1983. Today, levels are well below the long-term average. And the Congressional Budget Office projects that by 2023 discretionary spending will fall to 5.3% of GDP, the lowest since 1962.

New fiscal policy plans on cutting $5 trillion in federal spending over the next decade O’Keefe 2014(BY ED O’KEEFE April 1, O’Keefe holds a Bachelor of political science from American University. “Paul Ryan’s final budget plan would slash $5 trillion in next decade” http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/paul-ryans-final-budget-plan-would-slash-5-trillion-in-next-decade/2014/04/01/9ee12c04-b9ba-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html)

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) introduced a budget proposal Tuesday that would cut more than $5 trillion in federal spending over the next decade, primarily by effectively repealing President Obama’s signature health-care law and greatly reducing funding for social programs. The 99-page plan is Ryan’s last manifesto on government austerity as head of the Budget Committee. He has emerged as the GOP’s leading light on fiscal policy in recent years, but he is term-limited as head of the budget panel and vying to become chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee next year while considering a 2016 presidential bid. Congress approved a bipartisan two-year budget agreement late last year, but Ryan said he drafted a separate proposal because the current plan “is nowhere near what we need” to cut spending.

Links

Exploration General

Exploring ocean depths is expensive and pointlessCarlyle 13 (Ryan Carlyle, BSChE; Subsea Hydraulics Engineer, 1/31/14, “Why Don’t We Spend More on Exploring the Oceans, Rather than on Space Exploration?” Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/01/31/why-dont-we-spend-more-on-exploring-the-oceans-rather-than-on-space-exploration/, Accessed 7/7/14, MX)

So as someone whose job deals with exploring the ocean deeps — see my answer to Careers: What kinds of problems does a subsea

hydraulics engineer solve? — I can tell you that the ocean is excruciatingly boring. The vast majority of the seafloor once you get >50 miles offshore is barren, featureless mud. On face, this is pretty similar to the empty expanses of outer space, but in space you can see all the way through the nothing, letting you identify targets for probes or telescopes. The goals

of space exploration are visible from the Earth, so we can dream and imagine reaching into the heavens. But in the deep oceans, visibility is less than 100 feet and travel speed is measured in single-digit knots. A simple seafloor survey to run a 100 mile pipeline costs a cool $50 million. The oceans are vast, boring, and difficult/expensive to explore — so why bother? Sure, there are beautiful and interesting features like geothermal vents and coral reefs. But throughout most of the ocean these are few and far between. This is a pretty normal view from a subsea robot:

Deep sea research is expensiveArico 12 (Salvatore Arico, Programme Specialist for Biodiversity at UNESCO, 21/5/12, “Deep sea: the last frontier,” Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, Accessed 7/8/14, MX)

Deep-sea research is a costly business. From interviews with deep-sea scientists and administrators, it would seem

that the cost of sampling operations by a manned deep- sea vehicle down to a depth of a few thousand metres and

back to the surface can be as high as US$l million per day, excluding maintenance costs. Although costs are steadily decreasing due to greater efficiency, reliability and simplicity in operating deep-sea equipment, they remain relatively high. If it is true that scientific collaboration has involved a non-trivial number of scientists from developing countries, these are normally visiting scientists. Moreover, developing countries lack the necessary capabilities, including in terms of knowledge and skills, to handle land-based deep-sea research, with the notable exception of molecular biology techniques, which have become

increasingly available worldwide. Deep-sea research therefore remains an ‘extravagance’ only a handful of

countries and companies can afford.

Observing the Ocean Floor is expensiveWitze 13 (Alexandra Witze, Earth reporter for Science News and Nature, 9/25/13, “Marine science: Oceanography's billion-dollar baby,” Nature, http://www.nature.com/news/marine-science-oceanography-s-billion-dollar-baby-1.13803, Accessed 7/7/14, MX)

Delaney is the architect behind a 925-kilometre network of fibre-optic cable and instruments being installed on the seabed off the coast of Washington and Oregon. If all goes according to plan, these will stream real-time data back to shore by 2015, delivering some of the first live video footage of an underwater volcano erupting, hydrothermal vents growing and clouds of microbes billowing from the sea floor. The cabled network is a key part of the massive US Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI), which aims to create a flood of continuous information from select sites. Oceanographers have long relied on brief glimpses of data from single research cruises or isolated buoys or moorings. The OOI, and Delaney, aim to exchange those flashes of insight for a constant spotlight. “The goal is to launch an era of scientific discovery,”

Delaney says, thumping his fist on the ship's deck rail. “This is a game-changer.”Many US oceanographers have not yet considered just how the OOI's broad scope and potential might affect their research. But some who have been watching its

development closely warn that the project is an expensive gamble. Construction costs will run to US$386 million, and the programme will then consume about $55 million per year for operations and maintenance. By the end of its planned 25-year lifetime, the OOI will have cost

nearly $1.8 billion — an unprecedented price tag in oceanography. The running costs will eat up about one-sixth of the annual budget for ocean sciences at the US National Science Foundation (NSF), and that proportion could increase. “That money is being pulled right out of what could otherwise be allocated for peer-reviewed science,” says Charles Eriksen, an oceanographer at the University of Washington who is not involved with the project. Critics also

complain that the OOI sites cover only a fraction of a per cent of the world's oceans.

Deep-sea marine research requires expensive technology Ben-Avraham 13 (Zvi, 11/19/2013, Professor at Haifa University and renowned researcher in the field of geosciences, “THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA RESEARCH CENTER OF ISRAEL AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HAIFA”, http://www.haifa-univ.ca/images/Mediterranean%20Sea%20Research%20Center%20of%20Israel.pdf)

Deep-sea marine research is difficult and complex, even with today’s advanced technologies. Investigating the deep-sea floor requires expensive infrastructures that can withstand pressure at great depths and are difficult to finance and maintain. Most of Israel’s marine research infrastructure is non-existent or antiquated at best.

Deep sea marine research is dependent on purchasing expensive deep sea exploration equipment (such as manned and unmanned submersibles, trawls and towed camera platforms), upgrading our national marine research infrastructure, securing appropriate levels of technical support and ensuring ongoing maintenance.

Deep sea-research is expensive Etnoyer 09 (Peter, 8/11/2009, Marine Biologist at NOAA, “The Policy and Politics of Deep Sea Corals”, http://deepseanews.com/2009/08/policy-behind-deep-sea-corals/)

President Obama’s FY 2010 budget seeks an increase of $1 million to $2.5 million, and Hourigan says the

increase – which Congress seems likely to approve – will enable the new program to expand its research to the West Coast. But deep-sea research is expensive, and $2.5 million does not go far when it costs several hundred thousand dollars just to lease an ROV for a few weeks of field work.

One deep sea research ship would cost approx. $6.5 million Ruth 06 (Laura, January 2006, Biotechnology Expert, “Gambling in the deep sea”, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1369241/)

One reason why academic scientists and institutions team up with commercial partners is the high cost of deep-sea research. Few countries can afford dedicated academic deep-sea research programmes and equipment such as specialized ships and submarines (see Fig 3): namely

the USA and Japan, although France, the UK and Russia also have deep-sea research capabilities. A 30-day expedition cruise costs roughly US$1 million, with an average daily operating cost of about US$30,000.

Diversa, which collaborates with Deep Ocean Expeditions, estimate its annual costs to be approximately US$5–6.5 million to operate the RV Akademik Keldysh ship, owned and operated by the PP Shirshov Institute of Oceanology in Moscow, Russia. These high costs usually require academic and commercial partnerships—academic institutions have the equipment and the knowledge, and the commercial partners provide funds and other useful capabilities.

Federal dollars for deep sea research unpopular because of maintenance costs Schrope 13 (Mark, 5/27/2013, Mark Schrope is a freelance writer and editor based in Florida, “Wealthy backers support scientific efforts to explore deep seas”, http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/wealthy-backers-support-scientific-efforts-to-explore-deep-seas/2013/05/24/486c6430-b716-11e2-aa9e-a02b765ff0ea_story.html)

Funding pure ocean exploration - going where no person has gone before - has always been hard for researchers. Federal agencies do support exploratory work, but they generally award grants to pursue answers to well-formed questions. This can create a Catch-22, in which scientists don't know which

questions to ask until they get into unexplored areas. Beginning in 2001, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had an Ocean Exploration program that provided grants for open-ended work, but the program's priorities have shifted toward more limited work aboard

the agency's exploration vessel Okeanos Explorer. Most oceanographers rely on support from the National Science Foundation, but its budget, level at best for several years, has had to deal with rising fuel prices and other costs required to maintain its fleet of research vessels, leaving less available for grants. The challenge of raising money for sea exploration "is the hardest it's ever been in my career," says Edith Widder, a deep-sea biologist and founder of the Ocean Research and Conservation Association in Fort Pierce, Fla.

Coral Reefs

Restoring coral reefs with cultures is either expensive or a failureEdwards and Gomez 07 (Alasdair J. Edwards, Edgardo D. Gomez, Professor of Coral Reef Ecology; PhD in Zoology; BA in Natural Sciences, PhD in Marine Biology; BA in English, “Reef Restoration Concepts & Guidelines: Making sensible management choices in the fact of uncertainty,” pg 15, MX)

Methods for both asexual and sexual propagation of large numbers of corals have now been successfully demonstrated. As will be

seen from the discussions below, the main scientific unknown is whether the cultured corals can be successfully deployed on degraded reefs and will survive well there. The cheapest option for transplantation

is to transplant directly: culture may make better use of coral material but it does so at a financial cost. The more sophisticated the culture, the greater the costs: also, the longer the time in culture, the greater the costs (Figure 7). Reef restoration is already expensive compared to seagrass or mangrove restoration. Thus the drive is towards low-cost methods, and maximizing the efficiency and cost-

effectiveness of coral culture is a key challenge. Ex situ culture in aquaria is generally more expensive than in situ culture in the sea in either mid-water or benthic nurseries. However, survivorship of very early stages

or very small transplants (e.g. nubbins of <5-10 mm diameter) is generally only satisfactory in ex situ aquaria. There are thus a range of trade-offs between survival, type of culture, and costs, which are as yet not well quantified.

Coral reef restoration is expensiveSpurgeon and Lindahl 2k (James P.G. Spurgeon, Ulf Lindahl, Head of Sustain Value; BSc in Zoology, PhD, 2000, “Economics of Coral Reef Restoration,” Ocean Docs, http://www.oceandocs.net/bitstream/1834/564/1/cesar_12.pdf, Accessed 7/7/14, MX, note: ha = hectare)

This chapter provides an introduction to the economics of coral reef restoration. A comparison of coral restoration schemes from four countries indicates that costs can vary from some US$ 13,000 per ha to over a hundred million US$ per ha. However, it also reveals that cost estimates in the literature are not readily comparable, and that many cost components of restoration are ignored. Little work has been conducted into the potential benefits of coral restoration. This issue is briefly considered with reference to the case studies. The chapter suggests that a benefit-cost analysis approach should be used more often to help assess the justification for coral reef restoration and to improve the elliciency of any such expendi- ture. It is clear that a greater understanding of the economics and biology of coral reef restoration is required, as well as consideration of alternative management options, before being able to determine with confidence whether coral reef restora- tion really is an effective use of available funds.

Desalination

Ocean desalination is expensive Food and Water Watch 07 (Food and Water Watch, Food & Water Watch is a non-profit organization that advocates for common sense policies that will result in healthy, safe food and access to safe and affordable drinking water, September 2007, “ TOP TEN REASONS TO OPPOSE OCEAN DESALINATION”, http://coldmoon.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/top10desal.pdf)

2. it’s expensive. Ocean desalinated water is the most expensive water supply. To produce ocean desal water it costs at least 5 times what conserved water costs. Conservation can be as little as zero for lifestyle changes to $250 per acre-foot, according to the San Diego County Water Authority, while the full costs of implementing ocean desal including infrastructure could be as high as $3,000 per acre-foot. An acre-foot of Water is 326,000 gallons, or approximately a third of a million gallons. An acre-foot is approximately enough Water for four families of four for one year. The fill cost of operation of desal is still being debated since we have no track record with an operating large-scale plant in the U.S. Ocean desal requires multiple subsidies of both water and electricity to try to break even, as well as high upfront construction, and long-term operation and maintenance costs. Some proponents, such as CAL AM's Coastal Water Project in the Monterey area and Elkhorn Slough, are requesting upfront rate increases to provide for construction of the plant before producing any water.

Ocean desalination costs twice as much as imported water Cavanaugh 13 (Kerry, Editorial Writer at Los Angeles Times, November 13th, 2013 “Desalination isn't the answer to California's water problem”, /articles.latimes.com/2013/nov/13/news/la-ol-ocean-water-desalination-20131112) Ocean water desalination doesn’t pencil out. It’s far too expensive to produce potable water from seawater — about $2,000 an acre foot, compared to about $1,000 an acre foot for imported water. It requires a tremendous amount of energy to purify saltwater. And there are potentially serious environmental impacts from sucking in millions of gallons of ocean water and pumping the leftover brine back into the ocean. That’s why Long Beach shelved plans for a desalination project with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. It’s a lot cheaper to conserve water or recycle it. In fact, Orange County has a model water recycling operation down the road in Fountain Valley, where sewage water is purified in a treatment plant and then pumped to large ponds to percolate into the groundwater supply. This costs about $900 an acre foot and uses one-third the amount of electricity of a desalination plant, according to the Orange County Water District. And it reuses wastewater rather than sticking a straw in the ocean. Climate change will affect the reliability of California’s water supply. Utilities throughout the state should be thinking about how to use less water imported from Northern California and the Colorado River, and developing “homegrown” water through recycling and conservation. Desalination should be a last resort.

Drilling

All forms or Oil Drilling is expensive – There is no reason offshore is different Flower 12 (Merlin Flower, Editor in Chief for oil-price.net, 12/16/09, “Oil Drilling – an Expensive Business,” OIL-PRICE.NET, http://www.oil-price.net/en/articles/oil-drilling-expensive-business.php, Accessed 7/5/14, MX)

Among all the undertakings in the world, this could rank as one of the riskiest ventures-oil drilling. Here's a

sampler for what we are talking about from Mukluk Island: In 1983, twelve companies spent nearly $2 billion drilling for oil in the Beaufort Sea, North of Alaska. The exploration was based on oil stains found. But the well turned out to be a dry hole with no oil. Little wonder then that oil drilling is risky and expensive. According to Arizona Geological Survey, Oil drilling in Arizona costs between $400,000 to $1,000,000, depending on the depth of the hole and its location. A rig capable of drilling most exploratory holes typically costs $8,000-15,000 per day. Well then, why is drilling for oil so expensive? It is because of

some of the costs involved: Payments for the contractors, welders, engineers, supervisors, mud loggers, geologists, scientists Personnel for drilling, logging, cementing, casing and other logistics Clearing all the dues with the landowner (territorial payments if offshore), payment of taxes, fee for attorney, permit to drill the well Costs for maintenance: There will be three shifts with personnel

employed 24 hours a day, so amenities for the crew like motels, restaurants, transport, water and food.

Offshore Oil Drilling is the most expensive form of drilling (meh)Schaefer 12 (Keith Schaefer, editor and publisher of the Oil & Gas Investments Bulletin; degree in journalism, 3/14/12, “Investing in Offshore Drilling & Deepwater Exploration,” Oil and Gas Investments Bulletin, http://oilandgas-investments.com/2012/investing/offshore-drilling-exploration-investing/, Accessed 7/5/14, MX)

Offshore drilling is the most complex and expensive way of accessing oil and gas reserves, particularly when it comes to deep water and ultra-deep water exploration activities. While presenting the industry with its biggest challenges, deep water exploration and development yields the greatest potential rewards

and healthy profit margins to the oil service companies involved. The rising complexity and costs of such endeavours demands huge capital investments, long term commitments, higher efficiencies and a growing reliance on technology in order to reduce uncertainties.The market fundamentals for oil service companies remain solid, oil prices are stubbornly holding their ground above $100 per barrel in a tough macroeconomic environment. The resiliency of high oil prices is fuelling increasing exploration and production spending by operators as the industry pushes further offshore into ever-deeper water. By 2020, offshore oil production is expected to account for 34% of the global output up from 25% in 1990. Offshore drilling companies are seeing a significant increase in tenders and requests from customers, particularly for the ultra-deep water rigs which are commanding higher daily rates for its units. The brightening outlook mirrored by record backlog orders and rising rates encouraged the industry to focus on adding new equipment in all market segments in a bid to provide the most versatile fleets of mobile offshore drilling units. Jack-up rigs are mobile, self-elevating drilling platforms that are towed by tugboats to the drill site with water depth of up to 400 feet. Jack-Ups are equipped with tubular structure legs that are lowered to the sea floor where jacking elevates the hull above the water surface before drilling operations begin. Semi-submersible rigs operate in a semi-submerged position with the lower hull ballasted down below the waterline. The rig consists of a deck which contains working areas, equipment and living quarters that is able to carry drilling operations in deep and ultra-deep waters of up to 10,000 feet in water depth. Drill Ships are self-propelled ships equipped for drilling in water depths in which jack-up rigs are incapable of working. They can drill in

deep and ultra-deep waters in up to 12,000 feet of water depth. Rising oil prices have also spurred a construction boom in drilling rigs; the cost for a drilling ship easily surpasses $600M per unit where it is leased at $500k/day or more on 2 or 3 year contracts. The Jack-up market is seeing increased demand in Mexico, the North Sea, the Middle East and Asia while the floaters market which includes ultra-deep water rigs has been improving markedly in Brazil, Africa and the Gulf of Mexico.

Offshore Drilling is expensiveGagliardi 13 (Lou Gagliardi, Guest blogger, 2/7/13, “Why oil and gas drilling is going deeper and further offshore,” The Christian Science Monitor, http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/0702/Why-oil-and-gas-drilling-is-going-deeper-and-further-offshore, Accessed 7/5/14, MX)

The added incentive here is that these more remote basins may hold the promise of significant deposits of hydrocarbons with 200 million barrels or more of recoverable reserves. This is attractive for the Majors, since it affords them with economies of scale, the ability to lower their operating cost per barrel, and produce profitably in very high cost areas.

Unfortunately, these types of discoveries are occurring in more remote, highly technically difficult, and highly expensive to produce regions, areas of deeper waters further offshore, and in areas of extreme wind and temperatures such as the Arctic. Indeed, the cost of a deepwater exploratory and production rig operating in ultra-deep waters over 7,000 feet today is averaging over U.S. $500,000 per day, with other deep water rigs operating in less than 7,000 ft. commanding from U.S.

$300,000 to $400,000 per day.

Offshore Wind

Offshore wind is expensive Goreham 13 (Steve, Executive Director Climate Science Coalition of America, June 7th 2013, “Offshore wind: The enormously expensive energy alternative”, http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/climatism-watching-climate-science/2013/jun/7/offshore-wind-enormously-expensive-energy-alternat/)

CHICAGO, June 7, 2013— The US Department of the Interior announced the first offshore wind energy lease sale earlier this month. Interior plans a July auction of 164,750 acres off the southern coasts of Rhode Island and Massachusetts for commercial wind farms. But why are federal and state governments promoting expensive offshore wind energy? The auction is a continuation of the “Smart from the Start” program for expediting offshore wind begun by former Energy Secretary Steven Chu and former Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar in 2011. Sally Jewell, the new Secretary of the Interior, has embraced the program, stating, “This is history in the making as we mark yet another major milestone in the President’s all-of-the-above energy strategy. Today we are moving closer to tapping into the enormous potential offered by offshore wind to create jobs, increase our sustainability, and strengthen our nation’s competitiveness in this new energy frontier.” Several governors joined the chorus for offshore wind. Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick supports the program, “The U.S. Department of Energy projects 20,000 jobs by 2020 in offshore wind. Why not host those jobs here in Massachusetts?” Maryland governor Martin O’Malley agreed, “Offshore wind is a potential win-win-win for Maryland. Today’s vote positions our State for greater job creation and opportunity, while moving us forward toward securing a more sustainable energy future.” Governors also voicing strong support are Paul LePage of Maine, Pat McCrory of North Carolina, Bob McDonnell of Virginia, and even Ted Strickland of Ohio, who would place wind turbines in Lake Erie. In 2010, governors from ten states, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Virginia, signed a Memorandum of Understanding to establish the Atlantic Offshore Wind Energy Consortium to promote offshore

wind development. Unfortunately, offshore wind is enormously expensive. The US Department of Energy (DOE) estimates the levelized cost of wind-generated electricity at more than double the cost of coal-fired electricity and more than three times the cost of power from natural gas. For example, the proposed Cape Wind project off the coast of southeast Massachusetts will initially deliver electricity at 18.7 cents per kilowatt-hour with a built-in increase of 3.5 percent per year over a fifteen-year contract. This is more than triple the wholesale cost of electricity in New England. Offshore wind is only possible because of generous subsidies, tax breaks, and mandates from government. Today, 38 states offer property tax incentives, 28 states offer sales tax incentives, and 24 states offer tax credits for renewable energy sources. Twenty-nine states have Renewable Portfolio Standards laws requiring utilities to buy an increasing share

of electricity from renewable sources, including all ten states in the Offshore Wind Energy Consortium. At the start of the year, the US government extended the Wind Energy Production Tax Credit (PTC), providing 2.2 cents per

kilowatt-hour for electricity generated from wind. The PTC will cost taxpayers $12 billion this year. Look for the

DOE to offer loan guarantees to offshore wind developers. Altogether, government incentives pay 30 to 50 percent of the cost of a wind installation. The consumer pays twice for offshore wind. First, consumer taxes fund wind energy subsidies and tax breaks. Second, states like Massachusetts force utilities to buy high-cost offshore wind electricity, which then increase electricity rates so the consumer pays again. At the same time, we’re in the midst of a hydrocarbon revolution. Advances in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling will provide more than 100 years of natural gas at current usage rates. With electricity from natural gas at less than one-third the price of offshore wind, why the support for offshore wind from our political leaders? Electricity from your wall outlet is standard voltage and current. No one can tell the difference between electricity from hydrocarbon sources or “green” sources such as wind. Would governors Patrick and O’Malley repurchase their current car at three times the price? Wind energy backers claim that if the government subsidizes wind systems, the cost will come down. But that idea is false. Wind turbines are not new technology. After 25 years of installations, about 185,000 wind turbine towers were operating across the world at the end of 2011. Wind technology is

already well down the cost learning curve. In fact, data from the DOE shows that the installed cost of US wind systems has been rising, not falling. Installed costs have risen 65 percent over the last six years, from $1,300 per kilowatt in 2004 to over $2,100 per kilowatt in 2010.

Wind and solar thermal electricity are way more expensive than fossil fuels Wald 09 (Matthew L., 3/28/2009, Reporter at The New York Times, where he has been writing about energy topics for 30 years, “Cost Works Against Alternative and Renewable Energy

Sources in Time of Recession”, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/business/energy-environment/29renew.html?_r=0)

And wind and solar power are generally more expensive than the fossil fuels they are meant to supplant. If carbon dioxide penalties made coal power more expensive, as some environmentalists argue is inevitable, the relative cost of renewable energy might decrease. But consumers will still pay more. One big question is how much it currently costs companies to produce coal-fired energy, and the answers are often colored by ideology or self-interest. Companies that sell coal or rely on coal-fired electricity often pick a low number; environmentalists cite the indirect costs to society, like strip mining or spills of coal ash. And since the electricity industry became more competitive, the utilities, even municipal ones, have become more

secretive about their costs. Some experts not aligned with either camp estimate that wind power is currently more than 50 percent more expensive than power generated by a traditional coal plant. Built into the calculation is the need for utilities that rely heavily on wind power to build backup plants fired by natural gas to meet electricity demand when winds are calm. Another obstacle to nailing the numbers is that prices for coal and natural gas go through market swings. If the price of natural gas gets high enough, wind could look cheap by comparison, but right now natural gas is down sharply — a sign that the recession will not be kind to renewable energy. Organizations that profess to be neutral about what new technology gets built suggest that renewable energy probably has a steep hill to climb. For example, the Electric Power Research Institute, a nonprofit consortium financed by investor-

and publicly-owned utilities, predicted in November that even for plants coming on line in 2015, wind energy would cost nearly one-third more than coal and about 14 percent more than natural gas. The cost of solar thermal electricity, made by using the sun’s heat to boil water and spin a turbine, would be nearly three times that of coal and more than twice that of natural gas. (It would be almost double the cost of wind energy, too.)

Renewable energy subsidies waste money and hurt governments Michaels 12 (Patrick J., December 2011, Senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a senior research fellow for policy and economic development at George Mason University, “Sustainability Is Too Expensive”, http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2011/12/sustainability_is_too_expensive.html)

Former Washington Redskins quarterback Sunny Jurgenson, now a sportscaster, often derides the so-called prevent defense by

saying, “the prevent defense doesn’t.” Ditto for “sustainability.” It does not sustain. It spends resources that would much more likely go into market efficiency. It wastes public monies and costs jobs. This is obvious when examining the economics of the environmentalists’ favorite “sustainable” or “renewable” energy sources, solar power and windmills. According to the Energy Information Administration’s 2011 summary,

the total cost per megawatt-hour of an average of solar thermal and photovoltaic will exceed four times that of advanced combined-cycle natural gas in 2016. For combined onshore and offshore wind, the cost exceeds 2.5 times that of gas. Spain has already demonstrated the “unsustainability” of “sustainable” distributed energy. The government bought support there by paying everyone who placed a solar panel on his or her roof an exorbitant amount. According to Gabriel Calzada, of Spain’s King Juan Carlos

University, each “green job” that was created cost approximately $800,000 per year. Soon the solar subsidies began to gnaw away at Spain’s economy, and they were drastically reduced. Spain’s unemployment now stands at 21 percent, and there is a chance the government will default on its sovereign debt. Throwing money at solar energy and windmills has real costs and economic consequences that reverberate worldwide. People may tell pollsters they favor “sustainable” projects, but they don’t buy them. Fewer than 7,000 private individuals have purchased the Chevrolet Volt, despite state and federal

subsidies that approach $10,000 per car and that are transferred to the purchaser. All “sustainability” does is reward inefficiency and promote development of politically correct technologies people do not want. As the people of Spain and the stockholders of General Motors (that would be you, reader) know, sustainable development isn’t.

OTEC

OTEC costs at least 80 million Ocean Energy Council 14 (Ocean Energy Council, A not for profit organization dedicated to the development and implementation of ocean energy, March 2014, “Examining the future of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion”, http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/examining-future-ocean-thermal-energy-conversion/)

Despite the sound science, a fully functioning OTEC prototype has yet to be developed. The high costs of building even a model pose the main barrier. Although piecemeal experiments have proven the effectiveness of the individual components, a large-scale plant

has never been built. Luis Vega of the Pacific International Center for High Technology Research estimated in an OTEC summary presentation that a commercial-size five-megawatt OTEC plant could cost from 80 to 100 million dollars over five years. According to Terry Penney, the Technology Manager at the National Renewable

Energy Laboratory, the combination of cost and risk is OTEC’s main liability. “We’ve talked to inventors and other constituents over the years, and it’s still a matter of huge capital investment and a huge risk, and there are many [alternate forms of energy] that are less risky that could produce power with the same certainty,” Penney told the HPR.

OTEC is expensive, even developers say soLockheed Martin 13 (Lockheed Martin Corporation, 6/20/13, US Patent & Trademark Office, http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=20130153171.PGNR., Accessed 7/3/14, MX)

Each of the thermal processes includes a heat exchanger which is generally used to transfer heat from steam or humid air to cooler seawater. By transferring heat from the steam or humid air, freshwater condenses onto the heat transfer surfaces of the heat

exchanger. As in the case of OTEC, expensive materials drive up heat exchanger capital costs an d often eliminate the thermal desalination process from consideration. Large heat exchangers are required for Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) for producing power based on the temperature difference between deep seawater and seawater near the surface of the ocean. A closed Rankine cycle using ammonia as the working fluid is commonly used in OTEC. Warm seawater is used to transfer heat to the boil liquid ammonia in the evaporator of the Rankine cycle. The cold seawater is used to remove heat from ammonia gas during a substantially constant pressure transfer of heat from the ammonia gas as it condenses in

the condenser. Both the evaporator and the condenser each comprise one or more heat exchangers. Expensive corrosion

resistant metals are normally required for these heat exchangers since sea water is corrosive. The ammonia working fluid is used in the discussed application, but is incompatible with alloys containing copper, and titanium has been cited as the baseline material in past studies for OTEC plants but this idea is not restricted to ammonia as the working fluid. Many of the heat

exchangers employ shell and tube technology; while others incorporate more compact plate-fin geometries. The expensive materials drive up the capital expenditure associated with OTEC heat exchangers to largely restrict locations where plants can be economically deployed.

Material cost for OTEC is expensiveEnergy.gov 13 (Energy.gov, 8/16/13, “Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Basics,” Energy.gov, http://energy.gov/eere/energybasics/articles/ocean-thermal-energy-conversion-basics, Accessed 7/7/14, MX)

OTEC works best when the temperature difference between the warmer, top layer of the ocean and the colder,

deep ocean water is about 36°F (20°C). These conditions exist in tropical coastal areas, roughly between the Tropic of Capricorn

and the Tropic of Cancer. To bring the cold water to the surface, ocean thermal energy conversion plants

require an expensive, large-diameter intake pipe, which is submerged a mile or more into the ocean's depths.

Wave Power

Wave and Tidal Power are more expensive than other forms of clean energyFehrenbacher 09 (Katie Fehrenbacher, Senior Writer and Editor for GigaOM; has been covering green tech for 5 years, 5/8/09, “Why Wave and Tidal Power Are Lost At Sea — It's Darn Expensive,” GigaOM, http://gigaom.com/2009/06/08/why-wave-and-tidal-power-are-lost-at-sea-darn-expensive/, Accessed 7/5/13, MX)

Despite many companies’ best efforts, wave and tidal power installations have been largely stuck in the pilot stage — bigger projects in particular have faced technical glitches and a lack of funding. Tom

Konrad over on AltEnergyStocks points out research done last year showing ocean power’s most vulnerable

point: It’s one of the most expensive clean energy generation options out there. That’s according to a study developed last year by infrastructure consulting firm Black and Veatch (B&V) for the California Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative, a state initiative focused on research to build transmission lines for clean

power. The report says that within California specifically, wave and marine current power generation can cost as much as $445 per MWH and $410 per MWH, respectively. Other renewables like wind, solid biomass, hydroelectric and geothermal have clean energy generation costs nearing $150 per MWH. It’s not ground-breaking info, but the chart shows how stark the difference is between ocean power and other forms of

clean power generation. Ocean power is a popular idea, given there’s so much available ocean space. Politicians like San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom (including via an editorial on our site) have written about how we should invest more in ocean power to “[H]elp secure our future prosperity, create thousands of new jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil,” and

suggested federal policies to boost the industry. I’m all for helping usher along a technology that has the potential to drop in price, but the cost of ocean power should definitely factor into how much federal support this industry gets.

Ocean wave energy is too expensive – projects are getting abandonedBoddie 4/28 (Ken Boddie, Anchor and reporter for KOIN 6, 4/28/14, “Ocean wave energy project abandoned due to costs,” KOIN 6, http://koin.com/2014/04/28/ocean-wave-energy-project-abandoned-due-costs/, Accessed 7/5/14, MX)

The company behind a project meant to harness the ocean’s energy to create electricity for Oregon

has backed out after an expensive setback. Ocean Power Technology built a 26-ton buoy, which is

lodged at Vigor Shipyards on Swan Island, that was supposed to create electric from ocean waves for

Oregonians much like a buoy the company deployed in Scotland. The company decided to abandon the buoy

project in Oregon after nearly $9 million dollars of mostly federal government funds were spent on it partly because they could not afford to finish it. Instead, the company is moving its work to Australia, which gave them $62 million for the same project. However, KOIN 6 News’ Ken Boddie learned

Oregon is out $430,000 in lottery funds for Ocean Power Technology’s abandoned project.

Ocean energy is the most expensive form of renewable energyMercurio 5/13 (Richmond Mercurio, Reporter at People’s Independent Media, 5/13/14, “Ocean Energy Fails to Make Waves,” Malaya Business Insights, http://www.malaya.com.ph/business-news/business/ocean-energy-fails-make-waves, Accessed 7/5/14, MX)

Cerezo said benchmark investment for ocean energy projects is about $5 million per megawatt

(MW), making it among the most expensive renewable energy projects to construct at present.

Investment for solar is currently placed at $3 million per MW, wind at $2.5 to $3.5 million per MW,

hydro at $2.5 to $3 million per MW, and biomass at $2.8 to $3 million per MW. “The technology for ocean power is proven to work but it is still very expensive,” Cerezo said. Mario Marasigan, DOE’s Renewable Energy Management Bureau director, however, said the Philippines is not alone in its dilemma when it comes to ocean energy given that the industry is still at its nascent stage. “There are very limited ocean energy installations in the world, commercialization is difficult. Also, pricing mechanism is difficult to establish without sufficient basis and with limited comparative

studies not only in the Philippines but also around the world,” Marasigan said. Ocean energy capacity in commercial operations worldwide to date is only about 527 MW, with France currently having the largest existing ocean power facility with a generating capacity of 240 MW.

Whaling

Scientific whaling programs are expensive and unnecessaryNormile 13 (Dennis Normile, Contributing Correspondent, 6/1/13, “Japan's Scientific Whaling: An Expensive Proposition,” Science Insider, http://news.sciencemag.org/people-events/2013/02/japans-scientific-whaling-expensive-proposition, Accessed 7/6/14, MX)

Japan's scientific whaling effort has cost taxpayers $378 million since 1987, even as demand for whale meat has shrunk and the research has proven of little value, according to a report released here

on 5 February by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW). A moratorium has suspended commercial whaling since 1986, but a clause in the International Whaling Commission (IWC) convention allows countries to hunt whales for research purposes. The meat can be sold to cover the cost of research, which in Japan is overseen by the Institute of Cetacean Research located here. Critics contend that scientific whale hunts by Japan and a few other countries are thinly disguised

commercial whaling. A quarter century of scientific whaling has shed little light on the creatures, said IFAW Japan Representative Naoko Funahashi at a press conference here to unveil the report. "There are very, very few findings which meet [scientific] aims," said Funahashi, a member of IWC's Scientific Committee. "Results from 'scientific whaling' are scant," agrees Leah Gerber, a marine

conservation biologist at Arizona State University, Tempe. She says she doesn't know of any marine researchers—apart from those involved with the research whaling programs of Japan, Norway, and Iceland -- who believe that scientific whaling produces valuable results. A telephone receptionist at the Institute of Cetacean Research said the institute will not comment on the report and declined to pass the call to public relations or other officials. But other backers of the scientific whaling program insist it has value. Masayuki Komatsu, a former Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries official who is now at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies here, says that if the research results are weak, it is because the number of whales taken "is far too small to achieve scientific significance." Komatsu, who helped plan the scientific whaling program, says the numbers actually taken in Antarctic waters have been far short of Japan's current official target of 850 minke, 50 fin, and 50 humpback whales annually. (According to IWC data, the take has come close to those numbers only once: in 2005, when Japan harvested 866 whales in the Southern Ocean. Japan has also refrained from taking humpbacks in response to IWC pressure.) Numbers have dropped precipitously in the last 2 years because of interference by antiwhaling activists. If the planned number of whales could be killed and analyzed, Komatsu says, the data would shed light on the

size and health of stocks, and the interaction of whales with their prey and the ecosystem. Critics disagree. "It is well established in the scientific literature that there are many ways to study whale diet and condition without killing them," Gerber says. Most IWC science committee members, Funahashi adds,

"do not see any reason to kill whales." Opponents have also long condemned research whaling on conservation and

humanitarian grounds. The IFAW report seeks to undermine the economic argument. "Whaling is an economic loser," said Patrick Ramage, IFAW's whale program director, at the press conference. In addition to an average of $9.8 million a year in subsidies, Japan's scientific whaling program in 2011 received $28.6 million from a supplemental budget intended to fund earthquake and tsunami relief, according to the report

compiled by E-Square Inc., a Japanese public interest consultancy hired by IFAW. In the meantime, whale meat consumption in Japan has slumped to 1% of its 1960s peak and stockpiles of unsold whale meat have quadrupled over the past 15 years despite attempts to auction it off at bargain prices. As a result, the gap is growing between the Institute of Cetacean Research's expenses and its revenues from selling whale meat, states the report, which adds that the Fisheries Agency of Japan has had to steadily ramp up subsidies for

research whaling. The IFAW investigation shows "that this industry is in the red, that it is losing money and that it is getting worse every year," Ramage said.

Whaling is just an expensive hobbyMarsland 13(Robbie Marsland, UK Director of the IFAW, 5/14/13, “Icelandic fin whaling - an expensive and dangerous hobby, in more ways than one,” International Fund for Animal

Welfare, http://www.ifaw.org/united-states/news/icelandic-fin-whaling-expensive-and-dangerous-hobby-more-ways-one, Accessed 7/8/14, MX)

It’s been a busy week or so for those following the dying whaling industry in Iceland. The lone Icelandic fin whaler, Kristjan Loftsson’s boats last killed a fin whale almost three years ago in 2010. At the beginning of May he announced plans to send his boats out for another season of killing of this endangered species. No-one really

knows why he wants to continue spending a large part of his considerable fortune on killing whales. When he first recommenced whaling in 2009 he said he would make US $40 million a year from these bloody efforts.

Although his boats killed 273 fin whales in 2009 and 2010 he still hasn’t sold all the meat to Japan

and he remains resolutely quiet about whether he is even breaking even from the whaling. All this whale killing simply appears to be the hobby of a successful businessman who has a fondness for an industry

that captures what he thinks is a sense of being Icelandic. If so, it’s an expensive and cruel hobby that threatens the existence of the world’s second largest whale. It also threatens to drive a damaging wedge between Iceland and potential international allies. The response to his recent announcement within Iceland also shows that he is driving a wedge between the tiny number of people who make a living from whaling and those organisations that represent the enormous tourism and whale watching industry.

Japan stopped whaling for economic purposesNasu 4/7 (Hitoshi Nasu, PhD; senior lecturer in law at the Australian National University, 4/7/14, “Japan has bigger problems than an end to whaling,” The Drum, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-07/nasu-japan-has-more-pressing-problems-than-whaling/5368154, Accessed 7/8/14, MX)

The Japanese government immediately announced its intention to abide by the ruling and to stop whaling in the Southern Ocean, at least until next year. But why has Japan so easily and so suddenly abandoned its decades-long whaling program? Under the ruling, Japan is still allowed to continue so-called "scientific whaling", although in a significantly reduced capacity. Japan has even threatened to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission on many occasions in the past. Is it just international pressure that has now forced Japan to end whaling in the Southern Ocean? In my view, it is a bit naive to believe that, and instead we need to take into consideration Japan's more pressing problems. There has already

been speculation that the Japanese government did not have an intention to win this case - or if it did,

not as strongly as before. The domestic market demand for whale meat has remained low despite various

attempts to encourage consumers to buy and cook them at home. The public scandal in 2012 revealing that part of the reconstruction budget in the aftermath of the Great East Japan Earthquake was spent for a fisheries

agency to protect Japan's whaling fleet from harassment led many people to reconsider the value of public funding to support expensive whaling activities. The ever-growing government debt that rose to a record high at the end of last year is another contributing factor that weakened the political interest in financially supporting whaling activities at the current level.

Zoning

Oceanic surveys and/or zoning is expensiveBoehnert 13 (Jon M. Boehnert, 9/25/13, Rhode Island Property Law, “Zoning the Oceans,” http://www.rhodeislandpropertylaw.com/tags/national-ocean-policy/, Accessed 7/3/14, MX)

Ocean zoning is in many ways similar to land based zoning, with which we are all familiar. In land based

zoning, designated areas may be restricted to certain uses, such as industrial, commercial or residential, and these restrictions may, and usually do, come with numerous qualifications. The density, area, specific type of uses, even designs, setbacks, height, location and other components of facilities

are often regulated. Land based zoning may also have floating zone or overlay districts, as well as provisions for

special exceptions or variances to allow certain types of uses in certain areas only upon meeting certain

qualifications. Similar requirements can be established for coastal regions. That process usually starts with something called “marine spatial planning”, which sounds arcane but really means nothing more than

gathering detailed information about the ecosystems in the study area, the uses that now occur in the

study area, and making recommendations based on the ecology and ecosystems and current and proposed uses. But

this is far more difficult than it sounds, given we are dealing with coastal areas and open oceans, and with

uses, not to mention fish and marine life, which may move through various areas at different times of

the year. Often the study efforts can be extensive, expensive, and time consuming.

Internals

Spending Bad—Downgrade

The time to act is now, any new spending will be economically damaging. Boccia, 2013 (Romina Boccia; Senior policy analyst at Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, “How the United States’ High Debt Will Weaken the Economy and Hurt Americans”; 2/2/2013; http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/how-the-united-states-high-debt-will-weaken-the-economy-and-hurt-americans; Date Accessed 7/3/2014)

By neglecting the regular budget order—the institutional schedule to assess government spending and allocate taxpayer dollars with prudence—Congress and the President are increasingly failing to govern. Congress has only budgeted when forced to do so. Reaching the debt ceiling should be such an occasion, and

Congress should not delay the decision again on necessary reforms and spending reductions. The

President’s and Congress’s failure to establish a credible strategy for reining in massive deficits and debts in 2011 led Standard & Poor’s to downgrade the U.S. credit rating,[22] Moody’s, another major rating agency, warned Congress early in 2013 that failure to provide a basis for meaningful improvement in the government’s debt ratios over the medium term could “affect the rating negatively.”[23] Ratings agencies provide important signals to investors about the risks associated with investing

in government bonds. Further downgrades of the U.S. debt and demand by capital markets will eventually lead to higher interest rates, whose costs would drive up federal spending and debt even more. As U.S. debt is quickly approaching economically damaging debt levels, U.S. lawmakers should delay no more. The time to act is now.

New Spending would cause a downgrade. Newman 2013 (Rick Newman; the author of Rebounders: How Winners Pivot From Setback to Success and the co-author of two other books; “What Will Cause the Next U.S. Credit Downgrade”; 1/3/2013; http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2013/01/03/what-will-cause-the-next-us-credit-downgrade; Date Accessed: 7/3/2014)

A failure to cut spending in 2013. Just about everybody agrees that Washington still has to axe hundreds of billions in annual spending to stabilize its finances. Some hope it will happen as part of a deal to extend the debt ceiling. The problem is that most government spending actually benefits somebody—seniors, home buyers, the poor, defense contractors—

and Congress has proven itself particularly reluctant to reduce anybody's benefits. Moody's wants to see spending cuts, and perhaps even more tax hikes, as part of a big budget deal in the first few months of 2013 that would convincingly improve the government's long-termfinances. "The debt trajectory resulting from this process is likely to determine whether the Aaa

rating is returned to a stable outlook or downgraded," Moody's said in a statement following the January 1 fiscal-cliff deal. If Congress continually delays spending cuts—the habit in recent years—a downgrade could come by summer. A rise in interest rates. Historically low interest rates are a huge break for taxpayers, because they help keep the interest payments on $16 trillion worth of national debt lower than they'd otherwise be. If interest rates were to rise, the Treasury would have to fork over more money to borrow, which would have to come from money spent elsewhere, higher taxes, or even more borrowing. Standard & Poor's says that higher interest rates are one scenario that could it to downgrade U.S. debt a second time. The Federal Reserve has considerable power to keep interest rates low, but it can't necessarily overcome market forces

if there's strong upward pressure on rates. That's not a problem now, but it could be in the future, especially if inflation picks up, as some economists expect. A recession. Another economic downturn would put more people out of work, lower government revenue from income taxes,

and possibly require more federal stimulus spending. Any of those things would make the U.S. debt burden more intractable, leading to another downgrade. That's why policymakers are in such a tricky spot now. They must simultaneously raise taxes and cut spending, but not so abruptly that it torpedoes the economy. The best

plan would be one that phases in adequate austerity measures over time, so everybody knows what's coming, with minimal disruption today. But that sort of deftness may be beyond the capabilities of a bare-knuckle Congress.

Spending Bad—Empirics

European countries prove that increased spending would tank the economy. Boccia, 2013 (Romina Boccia; Senior policy analyst at Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, “How the United States’ High Debt Will Weaken the Economy and Hurt Americans”; 2/2/2013; http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/how-the-united-states-high-debt-will-weaken-the-economy-and-hurt-americans; Date Accessed 7/4/2014)

Europe’s Fiscal Crisis: Precursor for the United States? Europe is experiencing an extended fiscal and economic crisis with no end in sight. In addition to adopting a common currency regime lacking most of the institutional trappings necessary for its survival, many countries in Europe have lived beyond their means for many years. Many racked up massive government debts while benefiting from artificially low interest rates, as the euro signaled to markets that all European debts were alike. The poster child for this behavior, of course, is Greece. Greece racked up a debt-to-GDP ratio of 145 percent in 2010 and 165 percent in 2011.[18] Not surprisingly, investors eventually lost confidence in Greece’s ability to service its debts. European lawmakers responded in early 2011 with a combination of a bailout and fiscal austerity. Nevertheless, Greece defaulted on its debts to the detriment of investors and other European taxpayers. Many other European countries also amassed public debts beyond 90 percent of their economies—for instance Italy (100 percent) and Portugal (97 percent) in 2011—and are now undergoing wrenching austerity and prolonged recessions. In addition to disastrous currency policy, these countries also have a fiscal policy culprit in common: high levels of government spending on entitlements—a fiscal situation by no means foreign to the U.S. government.

Japan proves that increased spending has lead to a suffering economy; the only way for the US to avoid a similar crisis is to stop spending. Boccia, 2013 (Romina Boccia; Senior policy analyst at Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, “How the United States’ High Debt Will Weaken the Economy and Hurt Americans”; 2/2/2013; http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/how-the-united-states-high-debt-will-weaken-the-economy-and-hurt-americans; Date Accessed 7/4/2014)

Avoiding Japan’s “Lost Decades” for America Not all countries that build debt mountains suffer from a lack in investor confidence

and go into default. Japan is arguably the world’s most indebted major economy, with net public debt at 126 percent of GDP, and yet creditors continue to lend to the Japanese government. Japan amassed this public debt to a large extent in the midst of its “lost decades”—1991 to 2010—while falling again and again for the wishful thinking that government deficits stimulate economic growth. History and economic fundamentals have shown this thinking to be wrong. This misguided policy is standing in

the way of a Japanese recovery. As The Heritage Foundation’s Derek Scissors and J. D. Foster explain: Japan’s debt is almost

entirely domestically financed, which means gigantic sums are shifted from the private sector to the public sector, where the social return on investment is almost nil and the yields paid on the debt are only slightly better. The huge debt and oversized government has sapped Japan’s domestic sources of growth.[19] Japan is experiencing a prolonged debt overhang episode with, as yet, no debt crisis drama because Japanese citizens are prodigious savers. The Japanese mostly owe their debt to themselves as Japanese citizens have been willing to forgo consumption and have been buying government bonds for a long time, enabling the Japanese government to accumulate

gross debt levels more than twice the size of the Japanese economy. Instead, the country suffers from persistently weak economic growth. The IMF warned the United States and Japan against a further buildup of risk by failing to lower

their debt levels. U.S. policymakers should not allow themselves to be lulled into complacency by low

interest rates. Policymakers must act now to allow an orderly and controlled mechanism to reduce public debt—not wait for a sovereign debt crisis to force their hands.[20] A full-fledged fiscal crisis hits a country with the same force as a patient suffering severe trauma. However, a no-drama

debt overhang that reduces growth slowly drains the life from the patient, like a long-term disease. The U.S. should not delay adopting a credible strategy to resolve chronic deficits and debt, lest it find itself on the stretcher.

Spending Bad—Growth

US federal spending creates an economic crisis.Boccia, 2013 (Romina Boccia; Senior policy analyst at Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, “How the United States’ High Debt Will Weaken the Economy and Hurt Americans”; 2/2/2013; http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/how-the-united-states-high-debt-will-weaken-the-economy-and-hurt-americans; Date Accessed 7/3/2014)

U.S. federal spending in 2013, combined with depressed receipts from a weak economy, is on track to result in a deficit of

$850 billion. Publicly held debt in the United States will exceed 76 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2013, and chronic deficits are projected to push U.S. debt to 87 percent of the economy in 10 years.[1] Debt is projected to grow even more rapidly after 2023. Recent economic research, especially the work of Carmen Reinhart, Vincent

Reinhart, and Kenneth Rogoff, confirms that federal debt at such high levels puts the United States at risk for a number of harmful economic consequences, including slower economic growth, a weakened ability to respond to unexpected challenges, and quite possibly a debt-driven financial crisis.[2]

Spending would increase the possibility of a fiscal crisis. Boccia, 2013 (Romina Boccia; Senior policy analyst at Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, “How the United States’ High Debt Will Weaken the Economy and Hurt Americans”; 2/2/2013; http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/how-the-united-states-high-debt-will-weaken-the-economy-and-hurt-americans; Date Accessed 7/3/2014)

America is on a dangerous budget path. Current spending and debt are dangerously high, and future spending and debt are on track to rise even higher in large part due to increasing entitlement spending. Academic research shows that advanced economies like the United States are at risk of significant and prolonged reductions in economic growth when public debt reaches levels of 90 percent of GDP. High public debt threatens to drive interest rates up, to crowd out private investment, and to raise price inflation. The implications would be severe and pronounced for all Americans, but most especially for the poor, the elderly, and the middle class. U.S. policymakers should learn from Greece and Japan and avoid a fiscal crisis and

economic stagnation brought about by public debt overhang. “Growing federal debt also would increase the probability of a sudden fiscal crisis, during which investors would lose confidence in the government’s ability to manage the budget and the government would thereby lose its ability to borrow at affordable rates. Such a crisis would…probably have a very significant negative impact on the country.”-Congressional Budget Office, 2012 Long-Term Budget Outlook

Any new spending would increase the GDP and have a negative effect on long term economic growth. Furth, 2013 (Salim Furth, Ph.D.; Senior Policy Analyst, Macroeconomics-Center for Data Analysis @ The Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity at The Heritage Foundation, a doctorate in economics with concentrations in macroeconomics and international economics, a master of arts degree in economics, a bachelor of science in economics and international affairs; “High Debt Is a Real Drag”; 2/22/2013; http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/how-a-high-national-debt-impacts-the-economy; Date Accessed: 7/5/13)

Three teams of economists have separately shown that high government debt has a negative effect on long-term economic growth. When government debt grows, private investment shrinks, lowering future

growth and future wages. Estimates across advanced economies show that debt drag reaches large and statistically significant levels as debt grows, with the worst effects occurring after debt reaches 90 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). With U.S. federal, state, and local government debt at 84 percent of GDP and rising, policymakers should begin taking debt drag into account when considering new deficit spending.

Multiple studies show that Increased spending would decrease economic growth. Furth, 2013 (Salim Furth, Ph.D.; Senior Policy Analyst, Macroeconomics-Center for Data Analysis @ The Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity at The Heritage Foundation, a doctorate in economics with concentrations in macroeconomics and international economics, a master of arts degree in economics, a bachelor of science in economics and international affairs; “High Debt Is a Real Drag”; 2/22/2013; http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/how-a-high-national-debt-impacts-the-economy; Date Accessed: 7/5/13)

Two studies—one by Manmohan Kumar and Jaejoon Woo of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)[1]

and one by Carmen Reinhart, Vincent Reinhart, and Kenneth Rogoff published by the National Bureau of Economic Research[2]—illustrate that once countries reached higher-debt status, they tended to suffer lower subsequent growth. Looking at annual data, Reinhart, Reinhart, and Rogoff show that annual growth after inflation averaged 3.5 percent among countries with central government debt below 90 percent of GDP in the previous year and 2.3 percent among countries with debt above 90 percent of GDP. Kumar and Woo look at five-year averages and report that high-debt advanced economies grew 1.3 percentage points slower annually than their low-debt (below 30 percent) counterparts. Kumar and Woo note that the negative effects of debt build steadily as debt grows from 30 percent to 90 percent. At intermediate debt levels, debt drag is

already substantial.[3] Another study—by Stephen Cecchetti, Madhusudan Mohanty, and Fabrizio Zampolli of

the Bank for International Settlements[4]—shows that total public debt in 18 advanced economies almost doubled as a share of GDP from 1980 to 2010. In addition, public, household, and corporate debt all increased by about the same degree. These authors found about the same negative effects on economic growth from high debt levels. What makes these results especially compelling is that the different author groups used different statistical and methodological approaches yet found very similar results. Kumar and Woo use growth regressions to find

that “on average, a 10 percentage point increase in the initial debt-to-GDP ratio is associated with a slowdown in annual real per capita GDP growth” of 0.19 percentage points per year in advanced

economies with debt greater than 90 percent of GDP. Cecchetti, Mohanty, and Zampolli use a different econometric approach but

arrive at substantially the same conclusion: At high debt levels, a 10 percentage point increase in initial debt-to-GDP ratio is associated with 0.18 percentage points less GDP growth over the next five years. They also use an econometric technique to find the best cutoff level above which debt is harmful: They find that 84

percent of GDP is the best cutoff. At debt levels less than 84 percent of GDP, the evidence is less clear, and neither study can make

statistically significant conclusions. Kumar and Woo estimate that at debt levels between 60 percent and 90 percent of GDP, the effect of 10 percentage points of debt on GDP growth is around –0.16 percentage point per year.

Government spending will lead to economic devastation. Payne, 2013 (Amy Payne; staff member at the heritage foundation; “We Need a Balanced Budget in 10 Years”; 2/27/2013; http://dailysignal.com/2013/02/27/demint-on-kudlow-balanced-budget-and-sequestration/; Date Accessed: 7/5/2013 )

All this talk of “spending cuts” in sequestration is forgetting one important point: These aren’t true spending cuts. They are

reductions in the rate at which government spending is continuing to grow, said Heritage President-elect Jim

DeMint on “The Kudlow Report.” He told host Larry Kudlow, “You can see…there’s no cuts in spending. In fact, it will continue to increase at a rather dramatic pace.” While President Obama runs around warning everyone of economic devastation, it’s the President’s policies that are truly harmful to the economy, DeMint said. “He’s tried to discredit capitalism over the last four years, and now he’s trying to make a case that the only way to grow the economy is to continue to grow spending.” Heritage recommends an approach to budgeting that would set the country back on a prosperous track. “We want to see the country on a 10-year path to a

balanced budget that creates some financial stability,” DeMint said. “We need some pro-growth policies like good, simple tax reform and entitlement reform to give some certainty out over the next 10 years.”

Spending kills the economy-leads to higher taxes, borrowing, and a greater deficit. Knudsen, 2011 (Patrick Louis Knudsen; staff writer at the heritage foundation; The Imperative of Spending Control; 10/12/2013; http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/2011/10/the-imperative-of-spending-control; Date Accessed: 7/5/2013)

Spending control has never been more important than it is today. All of you are well aware of the extraordinary deficit and debt crisis the government faces; and although you may differ on the causes of this problem, and how best to solve it,

surely you all agree it must be addressed. My own view is that the root problem is spending. It is spending that creates the need for taxes and borrowing, and so curtailing the growth of spending is indispensable for shrinking deficits and debt. Therefore, if a President offers credible proposals to reduce spending, Congress should give them serious consideration. In light of today’s immense budget challenge, this hearing—which amounts to budget oversight—is precisely the kind of activity that should be going on much more broadly and regularly in Congress. Year after year, Congresses create new programs and expand government activities, but rarely go back to review how they are working. Consequently, programs that are ineffective,

inefficient, bloated, obsolete, or just plain unnecessary gain immortality—while Congress looks the other way. This hearing is a refreshing departure from that pattern, and some of my recommendations today aim at making it a model for other committees—

to make a routine of the process you are pursuing today, as one step toward breaking the culture of spending. Similarly,

over the years various administrations have proposed terminations and reductions, and in some cases have done so repeatedly. But there tends to be inadequate follow up, unless the administration chooses to report the results. During the Bush Administration, only once, in 2005, did the Administration present a summary of what had happened with its recommendations. The Obama Administration has summarized the results of its proposals annually, but it may be difficult to confirm those accounts

independently. In any case, all too often the recommendations end up just collecting dust on a shelf somewhere. Moreover, the

current Administration’s proposals are deeply inadequate, considering the more than trillion-dollar deficits the government is running these days.

New spending would negatively effect the economy long term. Furth, 2013 (Salim Furth, Ph.D.; Senior Policy Analyst, Macroeconomics-Center for Data Analysis @ The Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity at The Heritage Foundation, a doctorate in economics with concentrations in macroeconomics and international economics, a master of arts degree in economics, a bachelor of science in economics and international affairs; “High Debt Is a Real Drag”; 2/22/2013; http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/how-a-high-national-debt-impacts-the-economy; Date Accessed: 7/5/13)

Policymakers should take the long-term contractionary effects of debt into account when calculating the costs and benefits of government spending. For instance, Cecchetti, Mohanty, and Zampolli’s estimate implies that an additional, one-time $100 billion expenditure in 2013 would cumulatively shave $27 billion off GDP over the

next five years and $102 billion off GDP over the next 10 years. High national debt can seriously slow economic growth. Slow growth is in important respects worse than a recession—it lowers incomes and well-being permanently, not just temporarily. Among the unpleasant features of debt is that it is easy to grow and difficult

to shrink. Thus, a one-time increase in government debt is typically a permanent addition, and the drag effects on the economy are long-lasting. Short-term policies can dramatically affect long-term growth.

Spending now would crush the economyBoccia, 2013 (Romina Boccia; Senior policy analyst at Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, “How the United States’ High Debt Will Weaken the Economy and Hurt Americans”; 2/2/2013; http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/how-the-united-states-high-debt-will-weaken-the-economy-and-hurt-americans; Date Accessed 7/3/2014)

The authors’ results should serve as a sobering wake-up call for policymakers. Reinhart, Reinhart, and Rogoff

discovered that the average growth rate in countries experiencing public debt overhang is 1.2 percentage points lower than in periods with debt below 90 percent of GDP.[13] These public debt overhang episodes last an

average of about 23 years. Thus, the cumulative effect of lower growth by one percentage point or more means that national income at the end of the period would be lower by roughly one-fourth. The growth rate of countries with exceptionally high levels of debt—more than 120 percent of the economy—drops even lower, by an

average of 2.3 percentage points, which is roughly two-thirds. These figures indicate just how dire the U.S. situation could become: According to the Congressional Budget Office baseline economic forecast, U.S. GDP is projected to be $25.9 trillion in fiscal year 2023. U.S. publicly held debt is projected to reach nearly 90 percent of GDP that year. Assuming a 2.2 percent growth rate over 23 years, U.S. GDP would reach $42.7 trillion in 2046 if there was no impact

from the debt overhang. Applying the crude assumption that GDP would be reduced by 1.2 percentage points, in each year of the assumed 23-year debt overhang period, U.S. GDP growth would be slashed by more than half to a mere 1

percent. This would reduce U.S. GDP by more than $10 trillion, to only $32.6 trillion in 2046. The cumulative effect from the debt overhang would result in a level of GDP lower by nearly one-quarter at the end of the period.

Spending Bad—Inflation

New spending leads to inflation- causing the economy to erode Boccia, 2013 (Romina Boccia; Senior policy analyst at Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, “How the United States’ High Debt Will Weaken the Economy and Hurt Americans”; 2/2/2013; http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/how-the-united-states-high-debt-will-weaken-the-economy-and-hurt-americans; Date Accessed 7/3/2014)

Higher Inflation. The United States has, as do other countries with independent currencies, an additional option to monetize its debts: replacing a substantial portion of outstanding debt with another form of federal liability—currency. The government could, through the Federal Reserve, inflate the money supply. The resulting increase in the rate of price inflation would

devalue the principal of the remaining public debt. The resulting inflation would also destabilize the private economy, increase uncertainty, increase real interest rates, and slow economic growth markedly. Inflation is particularly harmful for those Americans on fixed incomes, such as the elderly who rely on Social Security checks, pensions, and their own savings in retirement. By

raising the cost of essential goods and services, like food and medical care, inflation can push seniors into poverty. Inflation and longer life expectancies can mean that some seniors run out of their savings sooner than anticipated, then becoming completely dependent on Social Security. Inflation inflicts the most pain on the poor and middle class by reducing the purchasing power of the cash savings of American families. Inflation also means that everyone has to pay more for goods and services, including essentials like food and clothing. Moreover, severe inflation could dethrone the U.S. dollar as the world’s primary reserve currency. Thus far, a major saving grace for the U.S. government has been that, in comparison with other advanced nations with major currencies, such as Europe and China, the U.S. dollar has retained its

status as the best currency option for finance and commerce.[16] If Washington policies continue on their current path of ever-higher sovereign debt and a risky Federal Reserve policy, both of which lack a credible crisis

coping strategy, confidence in the U.S. economy and monetary policy regime could erode. Such a development would be unprecedented in size and magnitude and the impact on Americans and the economy would be massive and severe.

A2: Krugman

Krugman’s theories on spending are wrong and only reduction in future spending is key to avert an economic crisis. Foster, 2013 (J.D. Foster; the Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy at The Heritage Foundation. His primary focus is studying long-term changes in tax policy to ensure a strong economy. He also examines changes in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security so they are both affordable and more effective; “Krugman Still Wrong on Federal Spending and the Economy”; 2/15/13; http://dailysignal.com/2013/02/15/krugmans-conscience-no-substitute-for-reason/; Date Accessed: 7/3/2014)

A not-so-small cottage industry has grown up refuting liberal economist Paul Krugman’s public pronouncements. It’s not a hard

industry to join, and there’s plenty of work, but it can be repetitive. Even so, Krugman’s recent writings opposing federal spending cuts for the sake of the economy are sufficiently troubling to warrant yet

another go. Krugman’s misguided conclusion is simple enough: Increasing budget deficits by increasing spending helps a weak economy, while cutting spending and budget deficits hurts the economy. The key to deriving this conclusion is what Krugman refers to as “excess saving.” Specifically, total demand in the economy is too low because individuals and businesses are saving too much. Government deficits can soak up this excess saving and turn it into demand, thus moving the economy back toward full employment.mWould that it were so, but it’s not. If excess saving existed, and if that saving were

in a form government borrowing could tap, then the theory would have merit. But as explained elsewhere in more detail, there is no excess saving in the sense Krugman means. Krugman’s theory breaks down because it ignores another little industry known as financial markets. Financial markets are vastly complicated and wonderfully efficient most of the time. They evaluate asset prices, assess risk, and sometimes overpay executives. But above all, the central role of financial markets is fairly simple. It’s called “intermediation.” As the term suggests, intermediation involves acting to intermediate between two other parties. It means facilitating some manner of economic arrangement. And what is that economic arrangement precisely? It is putting those with excess saving today in contact with those who need capital today. Financial markets connect savers to borrowers, turning excess saving into demand-boosting purchases—all miraculously without the hand of government lifting a finger. Financial markets provide loans and equity to those who want to borrow to buy a car or a home, to businesses that want to expand or upgrade their facilities, and so forth. Where does that money come from? Former savings

become current investments. The upshot of this discussion is that steady, sustained reductions in federal spending are not a threat to the recovery, though they are essential to economic growth in the years ahead.

Impacts

Impact – War Extinction

Economic collapse causes a nuclear disasterBurrows, counselor in the NIC, and Harris, member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit, 09 [Mathew J. Burrows is a counselor in the National Intelligence Council (NIC), the principal drafter of Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World, Jennifer Harris is a member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit, “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis”, The Washington Quarterly, April, http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf, accessed: 7/13/13]

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 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. Terrorism’s 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 world’s 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 attack 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 Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear- armed 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. Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications.

Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these

countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will

create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world. What Kind of World will 2025 Be? Perhaps more than lessons, history loves patterns. Despite widespread changes in the world today, there is little to suggest that

the future will not resemble the past in several respects. The report asserts that, under most scenarios, the trend toward greater diffusion of authority and power that has been ongoing for a couple of decades is likely to accelerate because of the emergence of new global players, the worsening institutional deficit, potential growth in regional blocs, and enhanced strength of non-state actors and networks. The multiplicity of actors on the international scene could either strengthen the international system, by filling gaps left by aging post-World War II institutions, or could further fragment it and incapacitate international cooperation. The diversity in both type and kind of actor raises the likelihood of fragmentation occurring over the next two decades, particularly given the wide array of transnational challenges facing the international community. Because of their growing geopolitical and economic clout, the rising powers will enjoy a high degree of freedom to customize their political and economic policies rather than fully adopting Western norms. They are also likely to cherish their policy freedom to maneuver, allowing others to carry the primary burden for dealing with terrorism, climate change, proliferation, energy security, and other system maintenance issues. Existing multilateral institutions, designed for a different geopolitical order, appear too rigid and cumbersome to undertake new missions, accommodate changing memberships, and augment their resources. Nongovernmental organizations and philanthropic foundations, concentrating on specific issues, increasingly will populate the landscape but are unlikely to affect change in the absence of concerted efforts by multilateral institutions or governments. Efforts at greater inclusiveness, to reflect the emergence of the newer powers, may make it harder for international organizations to tackle transnational challenges. Respect for the dissenting views of member nations will continue to

shape the agenda of organizations and limit the kinds of solutions that can be attempted. An ongoing financial crisis and prolonged recession would tilt the scales even further in the direction of a fragmented and dysfunctional international system with a heightened risk of conflict . The report concluded that the rising BRIC powers (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) seem averse to challenging the international system, as Germany and Japan did in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but this of course could change if their widespread hopes for greater prosperity become frustrated and the current benefits they derive from a globalizing world turn negative .

Both recent and historical analysis prove thisGreen and Schrage 09 (Senior Advisor and Japan Chair @ CSIS and Associate Professor @ Georgetown University AND CSIS School Chair in International Business and Former Senior Official with the US Trade Representative’s Office (Michael J. and Steven P., “It’s not just the economy,” State Department and Ways & Means Committee, Asia Times, 3/26, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/asian_economy/kc26dk01.html)

Facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, analysts at the World Bank and the US Central Intelligence Agency are just beginning to contemplate the ramifications for international stability if there is not a recovery in the next year. For the most part, the focus has been on fragile states such as some in Eastern Europe. However, the Great Depression taught us that a downward global economic spiral can even have jarring impacts on great powers. It is no mere coincidence that the last great global economic downturn was followed by the most destructive war in human history. In the 1930s, economic desperation helped fuel autocratic regimes and protectionism in a downward economic-security death spiral that engulfed the world in conflict. This spiral was aided by the preoccupation of the United States and other leading nations with economic troubles at home and insufficient attention to working with other powers to maintain stability abroad. Today's challenges are different, yet 1933's London Economic Conference, which failed to stop the drift toward deeper depression

and world war, should be a cautionary tale for leaders heading to next month's London Group of 20 (G-20) meeting.

Economic decline guarantees multiple scenarios for nuclear war and turns every other impactHarris and Burrows ‘9 - PhD in European History @ Cambridge and Counselor of the US National Intelligence Council AND Member of the National Intelligence Council’s Long Range Analysis Unit (Mathew J. and Jennifer, “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis,” April, Washington Quarterly, http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_Burrows.pdf)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. Terrorism’s 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 world’s 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 Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed 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. 36 Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will

drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.

Impact – Economy - Asia

Economic collapse causes Asian instability and war - outweighs on probability and magnitudeAuslin 09 (resident scholar at AEI (Michael “Averting Disaster”, The Daily Standard, 2/6, http://www.aei.org/article/100044)

As they deal with a collapsing world economy, policymakers in Washington and around the globe must not forget that when a depression strikes, war can follow. Nowhere is this truer than in Asia, the most heavily armed region on earth and riven with ancient hatreds and territorial rivalries. Collapsing trade flows can lead to political tension, nationalist outbursts, growing distrust, and ultimately, military miscalculation. The result would be disaster on top of an already dire situation. No one should think that Asia is on the verge of conflict. But it is also important to remember what has helped keep the peace in this region for so long. Phenomenal growth rates in Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, China and elsewhere since the 1960s have naturally turned national attention inward, to development and stability. This has gradually led to increased political confidence, diplomatic initiatives, and in many nations the move toward more democratic systems. America has directly benefited as well, and not merely from years of lower consumer prices, but also from the general conditions of peace in Asia. Yet policymakers need to remember that even during these decades of growth, moments of economic shock, such as the 1973 Oil Crisis, led to instability and bursts of terrorist activity in Japan, while the uneven pace of growth in China has led to tens of thousands of armed clashes in the poor interior of the country. Now imagine such instability multiplied region-wide. The economic collapse Japan is facing, and China's potential slowdown, dwarfs any previous economic troubles, including the 1998 Asian Currency Crisis. Newly urbanized workers rioting for jobs or living wages, conflict over natural resources, further saber-rattling from North Korea, all can take on lives of their own. This is the nightmare of governments in the region, and particularly of democracies from newer ones like Thailand and Mongolia to established states like Japan and South Korea. How will overburdened political leaders react to internal unrest? What happens if Chinese shopkeepers in Indonesia are

attacked, or a Japanese naval ship collides with a Korean fishing vessel? Quite simply, Asia's political infrastructure may not be strong enough to resist the slide towards confrontation and conflict. This would be a political and humanitarian disaster turning the clock back decades in Asia. It would almost certainly drag America in at some point, as well. First of all, we have alliance responsibilities to Japan, South Korea, Australia, and the Philippines should any of them come under armed attack. Failure on our part to live up to those responsibilities could mean the end of America's credibility in Asia. Secondly, peace in Asia has been kept in good measure by the continued U.S. military presence since World War II. There have been terrible localized conflicts, of course, but nothing approaching a systemic conflagration like the 1940s. Today, such a conflict would be far more bloody, and it is unclear if the American military, already stretched too thin by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, could contain the crisis. Nor is it clear that the American people, worn out from war and economic distress, would be willing to shed even more blood and treasure for lands across the ocean. The result could be a historic changing of the geopolitical map in the world's most populous region. Perhaps China would emerge as the undisputed hegemon. Possibly democracies like Japan and South Korea would link up to oppose any aggressor. India might decide it could move into the vacuum. All of this is guess-work, of course, but it has happened

repeatedly throughout history. There is no reason to believe we are immune from the same types of miscalculation and greed that have destroyed international systems in the past.

Global nuclear warLanday 2k (Jonathon, National Security and Intelligence Correspondent with 15 Years of Experience for Night Ridder, “Top administration officials warn stakes for US are high in Asian conflicts,” March 11th, Lexis)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."

Impact – AT: US Not Key to Global

Financial crises in the US spills over - all markets are reliant on the USHarris and Burrows 09 (PhD in European History @ Cambridge and Counselor of the US National Intelligence Council AND Member of the National Intelligence Council’s Long Range Analysis Unit (Mathew J. and Jennifer, “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis,” April, Washington Quarterly, http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_Burrows.pdf)

Such was the world the NIC foresaw as the crisis unfolded. Now, emerging markets the world over have lost more than half of their value since September 2008 alone. Banks that have never reported a net loss earnings quarter were dissolved in a matter of days. Even with the one year anniversary of the Bear Stearns collapse approaching in March, markets may have yet to find a floor. The proportions of the current crisis hardly need familiarizing. As the panic has not yet given way to a lucid picture of the impacts, most economists and political forecasters are smart enough to shy away from sweeping

predictions amid the fog of crisis. Yet, in the post-crisis world, it seems conceivable that global growth will most likely be muted, deflation will remain a risk while any decoupling of the industrialized from developing countries is unlikely, the state will be the relative winner while authoritarianism may not, and U.S. consumption as the engine for global growth will slowly fade. Whether U.S. political and market clout will follow, and whether U.S. political leadership will come equipped with knowledge of the strategic forces affecting the United States remains to be seen. How Much of a Geopolitical ‘‘Game Changer’’ is the Financial

Crisis? Mapping the NIC’s predictions against early facts, one of the most interesting observations is less about any particular shock generated by the financial crisis and more about its global reach. If anything, the crisis has underscored the importance of globalization as the overriding force or ‘‘mega-driver’’ as it was characterized in both the NIC’s 2020 and 2025 Global Trends works. Developing countries have been hurt as decoupling theories, assertions that the emerging markets have appreciably weaned themselves from the U.S. economy, have been dispelled. This second epicenter of the crisis in emerging markets could also continue to exacerbate and prolong the crisis. Alongside foreseeable exposures, such as Pakistan with its large current account deficit, are less predictable panics like Dubai, whose debt was financed on suddenly expensive dollars. Even those with cash reserves, such as Russia and South Korea, have been severely buffeted.

The US is key to the global economyCaploe 09 (CEO of the American Centre for Applied Liberal Arts and Humanities in Asia, PhD in International Political Economy @ Princeton (David, “Focus still on America to lead global recovery”, April 7, The Strait Times)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. To put it simply, Mr Obama doesn't seem to understand that there is no other engine for the world economy - and 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. 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 the same time, 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.

Empirics proveSesit 08 (Michael, Bloomberg News Columnist, “The four myths of economic decoupling,” The Korea Herald, February 16, 2008, http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/returnTo.do?returnToKey=20_T6876616661, AD: 6-30-9)Myth No. 2: The rest of the world can escape the clutches of a U.S. slowdown. Not according to history. The United States has had five recessions since 1970. Each time, other economies' GDP growth also declined. The U.S. economy fell an average of 3.8 percent during the recessions of 1974-75, 1980, 1982, 1991 and 2001, with other industrial countries slowing an average of 2 percent, Latin America falling 1.7 percent and emerging Asia declining 1.3 percent, according to the International Monetary Fund. "Despite all the chatter about one region or another being

immune from problems in the United States, the reality is that in a globalized economy characterized by rising cross-border flows of goods, services and capital, only hermit economies like North Korea are truly de-linked from planet Earth," says Joseph Quinlan, New York-based chief market strategist at Bank of America Capital Management. "Every one, more or less, sinks or swims in the global village." Myth No. 3: Rising demand in the developing world will compensate for the expected drop in U.S. consumer spending.Emerging-market countries are consuming more, yet growth in many of them is still mostly driven by exports, not domestic demand. Moreover, 2.55 billion people -- almost half the population of the developing world -- lived on less than $2 a day in 2004, the latest year of available data, according to the

World Bank and Bank of America. U.S. consumers spent $9.27 trillion in 2006, or 3.5 times the aggregate $2.62 trillion personal-consumption expenditure of the so-called BRIC countries : Brazil, Russia, India and China. Myth No. 4: Growing intra-Asian trade -- especially that between China and other countries in the region -- will make up for lost exports caused by a steep U.S. slowdown. No doubt, intra-regional trade is growing rapidly, but much of it reflects shipments of intermediate goods. Still, 61 percent of emerging Asia's exports are ultimately consumed in the U.S., European Union and Japan, according to the Asian Development Bank, while Asian developing countries account for just 21 percent of final demand. "The U.S. is still more important to each Asian country's total output than demand from other ex-Japan Asian economies combined," the bank said in a recent report.Myth No. 5: Europe is becoming less dependent on the United States. True, America accounts for only 12 percent of EU exports to countries outside the 25-nation bloc, down from 18 percent in 2000. But exports aren't the whole story. Sales by U.S. affiliates of German companies totaled $352 billion in 2005, the last year of available data -- four times the $86 billion of German exports to America. Meanwhile, Dutch U.S. affiliate sales were 16 times exports, U.K.-affiliate sales 7.6 times British exports and French-affiliate sales 5.9 times. "If the U.S. economy heads south, so too will the earnings of many European firms," Quinlan says. What's more, Wall Street's pull on the world's financial markets is unrivaled. "U.S. equity returns remain the single biggest driver of global equity returns," says David Woo, London-based head of global currency strategy at

Barclays Capital. "A sizable U.S. equity correction, by precipitating a global equity correction, will likely lead to a synchronized global economic slowdown."

Aff Answers

Uniqueness Level

New Spending Now

The Treasury is accelerating government spendingCagahastian 7/8 (David Cagahastian, writer, 7/8/14, “Treasury claims to have accelerated government spending in June,” Business Mirror, http://businessmirror.com.ph/index.php/en/news/top-news/35134-treasury-claims-to-have-accelerated-government-spending-in-june, Accessed 7/12/14, MX)

The government on Tuesday claimed to have accelerated its spending activities in June by an undetermined amount, the event happening months after a slowdown in the disbursement of funds that enabled it to post a surplus in May

instead. This is significant in that the government is supposed to have engaged in a fiscal stimulus program that has yet to find fulfillment in a year when local output, measured as the gross domestic product (GDP), came out lower than expected and seen by some to disappoint, even the most conservative analyst. National Treasurer Rosalia de Leon said there had been an uptick in the expenditures in June, based on initial figures compiled by the Bureau of the Treasury. “For June, what we’ve seen is that there’s an acceleration in the disbursement program. There are no final numbers yet but there will be an improvement in terms of expenditures, although the deficit will still be within the program,” de Leon said. The latter pertains to the deliberately crafted program to spend far more than government expects to generate from its

collection activities and for this deficit to act as stimulus for accelerated growth. This fiscal imbalance or deficit was programmed to equal at least 2 percent of GDP. Figures from the Department of Finance (DOF) show the government posting an P11.8-billion surplus in May, or the five-month balance as budget excess totaling P8.5 billion. The DOF said the surplus position was due to buoyant revenue collection even as spending also slowed slightly during the January-to-May period. De Leon said the slowdown in spending, which some analysts believe could affect economic growth because government spending is a key growth driver, could be because of the

decreased need to disburse money in areas affected by Supertyphoon Yolanda which hit the country late last year. For the period January-to-May, government spending still increased by 5 percent from disbursement figures reported for the period in 2013. As of end-May, the government already spent P786.6 billion compared to P747.27 billion disbursed over five months by the government in 2013. Revenue collections from January to May 2014 were up to P795.1 billion, with the Bureau of Internal Revenue collecting the most with P549.1 billion for the five-month period.

The government is going to go on a spending spree between now and September Carrol 7/7 (Rebecca Carroll, Senior Correspondent; BA from University of Pennsylvania, 7/7/14, “Why the Government Is Probably about to Go on a Spending Spree,” Nextgov, http://www.nextgov.com/cio-briefing/2014/07/why-government-probably-about-go-spending-spree/88039/, Accessed 7/12/14, MX)

Agencies will make 35.4 percent of their 2014 purchases between this month and the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, with most of that activity occurring in September, Deltek predicted. In a typical recent year, 32.4 percent of all spending took place in the fourth quarter, and 18 percent occurred in September alone, Deltek found. The numbers are even higher for specific procurement types and at certain agencies. For instance, in the last five years, 39 percent of government information technology purchases were made in the fourth quarter. “Agencies can hold off on software and IT equipment upgrades,” Carey Webster, Deltek’s director of federal information solutions, explained in a webinar. “At the same time, it’s very easy to procure these types of services quickly when there is money to burn.” Large aerospace and defense acquisitions that take years to procure are less likely to take place quickly at the end of the year, which is why the Energy and Defense departments and NASA are the agencies least

prone to balloon spending in the final quarter, as a percentage of their overall spending. The State Department, meanwhile, makes more than half of its purchases -- 56 percent -- in the fourth quarter. Researchers didn’t know why this was the case; they checked for an anomalous year that may have thrown off the average, but larger fourth-quarter spending has been the norm at the department for the last five years, at least, Webster said. The departments of Interior and Health and Human Service and the U.S. Agency for International Development were the next most likely to save their purchases for the last quarter, spending an average of 47 percent, 46 percent and 44 percent of their contracting budgets at the yearend, respectively. Deltek based its analysis on this year’s enacted discretionary budget of $1,127 billion. In recent years, about 43 percent of the discretionary budget is contracted, the analysis found. Assuming the pattern holds this year, about $489.5 billion will have gone to contractors by the end of September. Because the year started off slow -- only about 17 percent of estimated expenditures were contracted out in the first quarter -- Deltek expects federal outlays of about $168.2 billion this quarter, or 35.4 percent.

Government spending remains highHood 7/1 (John Hood, President and Chairman of the John Locke Foundation President and Chairman of the John Locke Foundation, 7/1/14, “John Hood: Government spending remains high,” The Durhan News, http://www.thedurhamnews.com/2014/07/01/3975884/john-hood-government-spending.html, Accessed 7/13/14, MX)

Total state spending adjusted for inflation and population growth reached its highest point in 2011-12, at about $5,350 per person. It has declined slightly since then, primarily because of lower recession-related federal funding, but remains well over $5,000. That’s higher than any year before 2012, and about double what North Carolina spent as recently as the late 1980s.

Government spending high nowBilmes 2/5 (Linda Bilmes, Daniel Patrick Moynihan Senior Lecturer in Public Policy, 2/5/14, “Reforming the Budget: Four Steps to Restore Fiscal Discipline,” Brookings, http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2014/02/04-budget-reform-accounting-system-overhead-bilmes, Accessed 7/13/14, MX)

America’s dysfunctional budget process has been mired in federal shutdowns and debt ceiling brinksmanship for the past several years. No wonder citizens’ confidence in government is at its lowest in four decades. Conventional wisdom in Washington is that hyper-partisanship has infected appropriations along with everything else, and that barring a dramatic shift in political tone, the best we can do is to pass one-off deals such as the recent Ryan-Murray bill. But there are a series of structural reforms that could substantially improve the way the US does budgeting, and which could be enacted by a

bipartisan majority dedicated to good government. The current budget system is broken: it consumes far too much time for little gain. Every year, thousands of officials across government prepare detailed estimates of how much it will cost to run their organizations, which Congress mostly ignores. Instead, we enact budgets based on the previous year’s spending—not based on true need, shifting priorities or changing

realities. As a result, Congress has enacted 75 stopgap “continuing resolutions” during the past decade. In an effort to illustrate value, federal agencies also conduct an elaborate annual process to evaluate how well they are performing, but these assessments have almost no impact on Congressional appropriations. Meanwhile,

Congress has spent trillions for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan using more than 30 such “emergency supplemental" bills, which circumvent normal budget caps and scrutiny. Even

worse, we can’t keep track of where the money goes. Federal accounting systems provide little management information and are completely unsuited to rooting out overhead,

duplication and inefficiencies. Most agency budgets are simply long itemized lists of salaries and expenses. There is no mechanism for calculating costs by the type of service delivered, and no way for managers to obtain such information. The process lags far behind many local governments, which break down their spending into

“program budgeting”–providing much greater transparency over expenses, costs and overheads at each stage in the process. The lack of functional budgeting and accounting has lowered the quality, and increased the cost of federal government services. Agencies are unsure how much money they will have for next year, or even next month. A recent study by Philip Joyce of the University of Maryland showed that such funding delays result in a series of inefficiencies. Agencies pay higher prices than necessary to hire contractors because the government needs to use short-term contracts. Agencies too often delay maintenance, leading to higher costs in the future and significant harm to employee morale,

retention, hiring and training. In a separate study, my Harvard colleague Jeffrey Liebman found that federal agency spending spikes in the 52nd week of the fiscal year, and unsurprisingly, much of that spending goes to lower-quality items.

Spending high now – its being masked by tax collectionsManning, Vice president of public policy and communications for Americans for Limited Government, 14(Rick, Public Affairs Chief of Staff at the U.S. Department of Labor during the George W. Bush Administration, and has worked in numerous grassroots and political communications roles, most notably, as a state lobbyist for the National Rifle Association for nine years, 6/18/14, “Federal revenues and spending rise but no balanced budget”, http://netrightdaily.com/2014/06/federal-revenues-spending-rise-balanced-budget/, AL)

The federal government released the good news that revenue collections have reached an all-time high with total receipts of $1.935 trillion from October 1, 2013 to the end of May. The federal government projects that total federal government revenues for the entire year will reach just slightly more than $3 trillion. ¶ Yet, even with this unprecedented flow of cash into the nation’s Treasury, the October-May deficit is an astounding $436 billion with May’s deficit alone totaling almost $130 billion.¶ The problem is that the record revenue flows are largely driven by growth inhibiting tax increases and the restoration of the payroll tax after a short-term stimulus cut. Yet, rather than holding the spending line so revenues could catch up with spending, the federal government is projected to spend $3.65 trillion for the year, more than ever in history.¶ In fact, federal spending in this fiscal year is jumping by almost $200 billion according to Treasury Department projections.Year Receipts Outlays Surplus or Deficit (-)2009 2,104,989 3,517,677 -1,412,6882010 2,162,706 3,457,079 -1,294,3732011 2,303,466 3,603,059 -1,299,5932012 2,450,164 3,537,127 -1,086,9632013 2,775,103 3,454,605 -679,5022014 estimate 3,001,721 3,650,526 -648,8052015 estimate 3,337,425 3,900,989 -563,5642016 estimate 3,567,952 4,099,078 -531,1262017 estimate 3,810,779 4,268,606 -457,8272018 estimate 4,029,856 4,443,145 -413,2892019 estimate 4,226,119 4,728,791 -502,672With almost two/thirds of all federal government spending on automatic pilot, the above chart shows the mushrooming growth of outlays even with receipts projected to double from 2009 to

2019.¶ If the projected increase in federal government expenditures only rise by 2 percent over the next two years rather than the current 9.3 percent rise, and the receipts remained as projected, the deficit would be reduced to $256 billion in just those two years. Incredibly, this two percent increase in federal government spending over the next two years would lower the increase in the national debt by more than half a trillion dollars over that time.

NonUQ – billions spent on climate change activities now Clabough, Marketing Assistant at Job Corps, Writer at The New American, 13(Raven, 10/30/13, “Government to spend twice as much on global warming than border security”, http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/16836-govt-to-spend-twice-as-much-on-global-warming-than-border-security, AL)

Estimates reveal that the federal government will spend more money on fighting global warming than it will on tightening border security. Global-warming spending is estimated to cost approximately $22.2 billion this year, twice as much as the $12 billion estimated for customs and border enforcement.¶ According to the White House, there are currently 18 federal agencies engaged in activities related to global warming. Those agencies fund programs that include scientific research, international climate assistance, renewable energy technology, and subsidies for renewable energy producers. ¶ Republicans have criticized the administration for its global-warming efforts and have demanded more transparency. The online Daily Caller reported, “Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee have been calling on the heads of major federal agencies to testify on global warming activities.”¶ The efforts to acquire testimony have been mostly unsuccessful, however, with just the heads of the Energy Department and Environmental Protection Agency agreeing to testify in front of the House of Representatives.¶ “With billions of dollars currently being spent annually on climate change activities, Congress and the public should understand the scope of what the federal government is doing, how the billions of dollars are being spent, and what it will accomplish,” said Kentucky Republican Rep. Ed Whitfield. “Anyone who believes the committee ought to be focusing its attention on climate change related issues should be standing with us to get these answers.”

NonUQ- spending increasingDorfman, professor of economics at The University of Georgia, consultant on economic issues to a variety of corporations and local governments, author of Ending the Era of the Free Lunch, Contributor at Forbes, 14(3/6/14, “The federal reserve is enabling Obama and Congress’ Out of control spending”, http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2014/03/06/the-federal-reserve-is-enabling-obama-and-congress-out-of-control-spending/, AL)

In the past twelve months the federal government has increased the national debt held by the public by $697 billion while the total debt has grown by $820 billion. Since revenue collected by the government is at record highs, these enormous deficits must be due to spending. Among the many extraordinary measures taken by the Federal Reserve over the past five or so years are several that are serving to enable President Obama and Congress in continuing to spend with little, if any, restraint. If we hope to get spending under control, it would help if the Fed stopped encouraging so much wasteful spending.

Lavish spending nowBoccia, Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs,Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, The Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity at The Heritage Foundation, Fraser, Heritage Expert, and Goff, Policy analyst, transportation and infrastructure, Thomas A Roe for Economic Policy Studies 13(Romina, Alison, Emily, “Federal spending by the numbers, 2013: Government spending trends in graphics, tables, and key points”, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/08/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2013, AL)

Obamacare will add $1.8 trillion to federal health care spending by 2023. By 2015, health care spending will overtake Social Security as the largest budget item, including Obamacare’s coverage expansion provisions: a massive expansion of Medicaid and subsidies for the new health insurance exchanges.While mandatory spending is growing out of control and needs reform, there are also plenty of places to cut in the rest of the budget. For example, the Internal Revenue Service spent $4.1 million on a lavish conference in 2010 for 2,609 of its employees in Anaheim, California. Expenses included $50,000 for line-dancing and “Star Trek” parody videos, $135,350 for outside speakers, $64,000 in conference “swag” for the employees, plus free meals, cocktails, and hotel suite upgrades.Beyond waste, the federal government is too big. Energy spending increased over 2,000 percent since 2002—after adjusting for inflation. Today there are roughly 80 means-tested anti-poverty programs.Washington must stop kicking the can down the road, or we could soon find ourselves teetering on the edge of a Greece-style meltdown. Instead, lawmakers should eliminate waste, duplication, and inappropriate spending; privatize functions better left to the private sector; and leave areas best managed on a more local level to states and localities. And they should make important changes to the entitlement programs so that they become more affordable and benefits help those with the greatest needs.

Link Level

Coral Reefs

Restoring coral reefs is cheapStaff Reporter 5/14 (Staff Reporter, 5/14/14, “Coral Reef Restoration Cheap, Effective Way of Saving Coastlines; Researchers Say,” Nature World News, Accessed 7/9/14, MX)

Saving coral reefs could be an efficient and cheaper way of saving world's coastlines, a new study has found. Coral reefs are delicate ecosystems and provide shelter to 25 percent of all marine organisms. The latest study found that these reefs can act as the "tough guy" against waves and can dissipate around 97 percent of the wave energy. Researchers used data from 27 previous studies conducted in different regions around the world, from coasts that see normal waves to hurricane level waves. According to the researchers, coral reefs are as good as specially engineered structures that are placed near the coast to prevent wave-related damage. "It's obvious to the eye that waves inside a protected lagoon are much mellower than those crashing on the outer reef crest, but the extent and generality of the energy dissipation revealed by the data analysis for different locations and reef settings was surprising," said study co-author Fiorenza Micheli, a professor of biological sciences at Stanford and Stanford's Hopkins Marine Station,. "It is a huge reduction. The majority of wave energy is lost on the reef crest." Research has shown that human activities are negatively affecting coral reefs. James Cook University scientists recently found that rising ocean temperatures are causing corals to keep the larve close to the home-reef. This change in coral behavior has led to less interlocked structures. Coral reef restoration could benefit coastlines around the world. Around 100 to 200 million people live in areas that are less than 10 meters above sea level. Countries near the Pacific Ocean will reap the maximum benefits of saving the coral reefs, researchers

found. The team even estimated and compared the costs of saving the coasts. They report that building breakwaters will cost around $19,791 per meter (median cost). Saving coral reefs could be much cheaper, with the median cost coming up to $1,290 per meter for coral restoration projects. Also, coral reefs grow, meaning that they could become more valuable in the future. "Reef restoration can also provide additional benefits," Micheli said in a news release. "While reducing risk, coral reefs also support biodiversity, improve water quality, and support fisheries and tourism."

Desal

Nano chips make desalination cheapLaylin 14 (Taffline, 4/10/14, Freelance Environmental Journalist, “Nano Water Chip Could Make Desalination Affordable for Everyone” http://inhabitat.com/nano-water-chip-could-make-desalination-affordable-for-everyone/)

With freshwater declining throughout the globe, desalination looks increasingly attractive, but current technologies are expensive, demand far too much energy and are prone to contamination. Now researchers from the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Marburg in Germany have developed a “water chip” that creates a small electrical field that separates salt from seawater. The technology, which is still under development and works at the nano scale, uses so little energy it can run off a store-bought battery! Read more: Nano Water Chip Could Make Desalination Affordable for Everyone | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building The researchers apply a 3.0 volt electrical charge to the plastic water chip, which has a microchannel with two branches. By creating an “ion depletion zone” with an embedded electrode that neutralizes chloride ions, they are able to redirect the salts in the water down one channel, while the fresh water goes down another. “Like a troll at the foot of the bridge, the ion depletion zone prevents salt from passing through, resulting in the production of freshwater,” the team wrote in a recent press release. Less energy-intensive than current desalination plants, the water chip doesn’t rely on a membrane, and can be made portable so that just about anybody living near the sea can purify their own water at home.

Drilling

New tech makes offshore drilling cheapSchaefer 1/18(Keith Schaefer, Publisher of Oil and Gas, 1/18/14, “The Offshore Oil Drilling Revolution, and its Game-Changing Technologies,” Oil and Gas, http://oilandgas-investments.com/2014/energy-services/offshore-oil-drilling-revolution/, Accessed 7/9/14, MX)

But the energy sector is also using some funky technology from other industries—like Apple’s iPhone. The iPhone uses something called a “small-scale accelerometer”—a device that measures changes in movement around

them, telling it you’ve turned the screen sideways and should adjust the view accordingly. Petroleum engineers simply took this technology and applied it to the drill bit—designing “smart” tools that can tell exactly where they are in space as they move down a well bore. All this new technology does two

things: it makes the well cheaper, and improves aim

Wave Energy

Wave energy could soon be cost comparable to wind energy Ocean Energy Council No Date (A not for profit organization dedicated to the development and implementation of ocean energy, “WAVE ENERGY’, http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/ocean-energy/wave-energy/)

It has been estimated that improving technology and economies of scale will allow wave generators to produce electricity at a cost comparable to wind-driven turbines, which produce energy at about 4.5 cents kWh. For now, the best wave generator technology in place in the United Kingdom is producing energy at an average projected/assessed cost of 7.5 cents kWh. In comparison, electricity generated by large scale coal burning power plants costs about 2.6 cents per kilowatt-hour. Combined-cycle natural gas turbine technology, the primary source of new electric power capacity is about 3 cents per kilowatt hour or higher. It is not unusual to average costs of 5 cents per kilowatt-hour and up for municipal utilities districts.

Wind

Status quo solves wind farm expensesTully 7/8 (Andy Tully, news editor for Oilprice.com, 7/8/14, “Two-bladed Wind Turbines: Something Old Is New Again,” Oil Price, http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Two-bladed-Wind-Turbines-Something-Old-Is-New-Again.html, Accessed 7/9/14, MX)

Look at a picture of a wind turbine and you’ll see tower topped by a fan with three blades. A Chinese company is leading an effort to build two-bladed turbines. There’s nothing new about that. What’s new is that they finally seem to work properly. First the good news: As with all research into new, alternative energies, this focuses on economics. Some say

two-bladed turbines could cost 20 percent less to build and install than its conventional three-bladed siblings, while still equaling their power output. The bad news? The flexible blades mounted on the windward side of a turbine tower can bow backwards and strike the tower, ruining the blades. It was this snag, discovered 12 years

ago, that put two-bladed turbines on the shelf – until now. China’s Ming Yang Wind Power, the world’s ninth-largest wind-turbine manufacturer, plans the largest test ever of a two-bladed turbine design. It is building a six-megawatt, two-bladed turbine in China this year that is expected to generate as much power as the largest commercial offshore turbines. The company also plans to build another such

farm off the Norwegian coast next year. The reason for Ming Yang’s confidence in these projects is that turbine designers have discovered how to keep the blades intact. Peter Jamieson of Scotland’s Garrad Hassan & Partners mounted the turbines on the downwind side of the towers and applied a technique called roto-braking to lower their risk of striking the towers regardless of wind speed. Offshore wind farms enjoy steadier breezes than those based on land, but they’re about twice as

expensive to install and maintain. This, though, can be mitigated in part by the use of two-bladed turbines, which use fewer materials and so are lighter than three-bladed turbines.

Offshore wind costs per megawatt hour are identical to coalShahan 11 (Zachary, 3/11/2011, Site Director & Publishing Services Manager at Important Media, “Wind Energy Cost-Competitive with Coal in Some Regions”, http://cleantechnica.com/2011/03/09/wind-energy-cost-competitive-with-coal-in-some-regions/)Perhaps not in your part of the world, but according to the latest report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance, in many parts of the world, onshore wind power is now completely cost-competitive with coal. Reportedly, in some regions of Brazil, Mexico, Sweden and the United States, wind power has gotten down to $68/MWh. Coal power in those same regions — $67/MWh. And this isn’t even taking the tremendous health costs of coal into account. The DOE rolled out a 10-year plan last month aimed at making wind and solar power cost-competitive with coal. Clearly, in some regions, that won’t be a problem.

Internals

Spending Causes Growth

Spending helps the economyPyke, Deputy Economic Policy Editor for ThinkProgress.org, 14(Alan, 1/14/14, “United States Notches Record $53 Billion Budget Surplus in December”, http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/01/14/3158271/december-surplus-record-austerity/, AL)Last year’s deficit was the smallest since 2008 and less than half of what it was in 2009. The pullback in government spending has been a drag on economic growth for years.¶ While falling annual deficits and record monthly surpluses are a sign of success for spending hawks, it’s not a good thing for the American economy. With unemployment still very high and millions giving up on finding work after years of fruitless post-recession job hunting, many economists would argue the government needs to be spending aggressively to boost economic growth. Instead, the government is investing less in the economy now than at any time since World War II. The Federal Reserve’s radical bond-buying program — the only thing that kept the economy from sliding into a recession thanks to the trillions of dollars’ worth of austerity measures enacted since 2010 — begins to wind slowly down this month, potentially exacerbating the negative impacts of the government’s thriftiness.¶ News of the monthly surplus record comes just days after the paltry December jobs report showed only 74,000 net jobs gained nationwide in the final month of 2013. That was far below both what economists expected (200,000 jobs) and the monthly average for 2013 (182,000 jobs). Thanks to the spending cuts zeal of recent years, the immediate future is dim for the millions of Americans who have been out of work for more than six months and therefore rely upon Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) from the federal government. Congressional negotiators failed to extend that program in last year’s budget deal, and Republicans are now blocking efforts to reinstate the lapsed benefit program. State economies lost $400 million in economic activity in just the first week after the program dried up.

spending cuts hurts the econLiberto, senior writer for CNN, 13(Jennifer, 10/18/13, “Spending cuts are hurting economy”, http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/18/news/economy/sequester-economy-shutdown/, AL)The nation has been operating on a shrunken budget, slashed by $80 billion in forced spending cuts since March 1. And already, the so-called sequester has dragged down economic growth, experts say.¶ As government workers returned to work Thursday, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel warned employees that the economic pain could continue for his agency, because "Congress did not end the budget uncertainty that has cast such a shadow ... over this Department for much of the year."¶ The Bipartisan Policy Center too warned in a report this month that widespread economic pain is already beginning to kick in, as the money (or lack of it) is finally starting to pinch.¶ The brunt of the cuts have fallen in areas like medical and science research funding and services that help the poor, sick and elderly.¶ The sequester slashed 57,000 children this fall from the rolls of Head Start daycare and preschool programs, available for poor families nationwide.¶ About two-thirds of Meals on Wheels programs had to reduce the number of meals they served, by an average of 364 meals per week, a survey found.¶ The lack of government funds has also led to layoffs of hundreds of science and medical research jobs, according to a survey by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and 15

other scientific societies.¶ The cuts have also undermined federal public defenders' ability to defend those accused of federal crimes -- a constitutional right for people who can't afford a lawyer. Furloughs have delayed many cases -- prompting U.S. District Judge Richard George Kopf in Nebraska to declare: "It is time to tell Congress to go to hell."¶ The Bipartisan Policy Center suggests that if the cuts continue, economic impact on the defense industry will be double in 2014 what it was in 2013.¶ "The full brunt of the cuts hasn't hit, and if we go down the sequester path for too long, we won't be able to reverse the devastating impacts," according to the report.

Spending now is key to economic growth Krugman, 2014 (Paul Krugman; professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University; “Demography and the Bicycle Effect”; 5/19/2014; http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/19/demography-and-the-bicycle-effect/; Date Accessed: 7/7/14)

It’s a pretty straightforward point. To have more or less full employment, we need sufficient spending to make use of the economy’s potential. But one important component of spending, investment, is subject to the accelerator effect: the demand for new capital depends on the economy’s rate of growth, rather than the current level of output. So if growth slows due to a falloff in population growth, investment demand falls — potentially pushing the economy into a semi-permanent slump.

Spending stimulates the economy Krugman, 2014 (Paul Krugman; professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University; “Macroeconomics and Class Warfare”; 4/28/2014; http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/macroeconomics-and-class-warfare/; Date Accessed: 7/7/14)

Back when Obama was proposing a spending plan to boost the economy, and some of us were pleading for a bigger plan, it was common to hear people from both the right and the crazy center

declaring that it was all a ruse, an attempt to smuggle in liberal priorities under the guise of fiscal stimulus. This was, as it happens, completely false – and in the case of the right-wingers, a case of projection. After all, Obama didn’t try to sell permanent spending increases as short-run stimulus – but Bush did exactly that when pushing his tax cuts. And

what’s more, it wouldn’t have worked. If anything, your best bet is to try it the other way – to push proposals that will stimulate the economy while also building infrastructure and/or reducing inequality, and to make the long-run, class-warfare aspects the heart of your sales pitch. This may seem odd. Shouldn’t it be easier to sell win-win ideas, which will make

everyone or almost everyone better off? Well, it would be if the public “got” Keynesian economics. But even educated readers tend not to get the idea that the economy as a whole can suffer from inadequate demand (hey, lots of U. of Chicago professors don’t get it either.) And I don’t think it’s for want of efforts to get the point across.

The key sticking point is right at the beginning. Never mind monetary and fiscal policy; the very notion that the economy can suffer from too little spending turns out to be inherently difficult. When I give public talks, I get some traction (I think) by asking people what happens if everyone tries to cut his or her spending at the same time, then pointing out that my spending is your income and your spending is my income. But I don’t think it sticks for many people: the appeal of the economy-as-household metaphor usually takes over.

Spending lays the groundwork for economic expansion Amy, No Date (Douglas J. Amy; Professor of Politics at Mount Holyoke College; “The Deficit Scare: Myth vs. Reality”; http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=30&p=1; Date Accessed: 7/9/14)

Clearly this anti-deficit campaign is part of the larger “starving the beast” strategy that was discussed in another article. But

deficits and debt are complicated topics that merit some analysis on their own. This article takes on the “deficit hawks” and critically examines their arguments. It will show that (1) Republicans only care about deficits when the

money is being spent on liberal programs; (2) our current large deficits have not been caused by overspending by the Obama administration; (3) deficit spending is an essential tool for combating economic recessions and depressions; (4) public debt can fuel vital public investments in education, technology, and infrastructure that lay the groundwork for future economic expansion; (5) the inflated and misleading right-wing rhetoric about deficits and debt is distracting from a more rational and helpful discussion of the financial problems that we do face as a nation.

Spending provides a large economic boost and prevents collapse. Amy, No Date (Douglas J. Amy; Professor of Politics at Mount Holyoke College; “The Deficit Scare: Myth vs. Reality”; http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=30&p=1; Date Accessed: 7/9/14)

But irrespective of their motivations, aren’t Republicans right that deficit spending is a terrible idea and we must stop doing it? Aren’t balanced budgets just a matter of common sense? The answer is “No.” In fact, a good case can be

made that deficit spending is an indispensable government tool in addressing serious economic problems. For example, most economists agree that deficit spending during a recession, especially a severe one, is a very good thing to do. Even though tax revenues are decreasing, the best thing for the economy is for the government to keep spending money, and even increase spending. When consumer and corporate spending are swooning, only the government is in the position to spend money and stimulate economic activity. The market will not take care of this problem, so the government must step in. Government spending has a multiplier effect that provides a large economic boost during recessions. If it spends money on building schools and roads, for example, that money first helps constructions companies. These companies in turn will hire more workers who will then spend more money on goods and services, thus helping other businesses. The construction companies will also purchase more tools and materials from other businesses, who will then hire more workers, and so

on. In this way, deficit spending spreads through the economy, lessening the impact of recessions and helping to speed economic recovery. And as the economy rebounds, this produces higher tax revenues, which eventually

lessens the need for deficit spending. Contrary to the wildly erroneous claims of the political right, most economists agree that the deficit spending and economic stimulus programs of the Obama administration provided enormous benefits. A 2010 study by Alan Blinder of Princeton and Mark Zandy of Moody’s Analytics found that the combined effect of the fiscal stimulus package, TARP, and the actions of the Federal Reserve Board raised real GDP 11% over where it would have been, saved an estimated 8 million jobs, and probably averted deflation and a depression. They concluded: “It is clear that laissez faire was not an option; policymakers had to act. Not responding would have left both the economy and the government’s fiscal situation in far graver condition. We conclude that Ben Bernanke was probably right when he said that ‘We came very close in October [2008] to Depression 2.0.’”

Spending is key—with out it economies would suffer another great depression. Amy, No Date (Douglas J. Amy; Professor of Politics at Mount Holyoke College; “The Deficit Scare: Myth vs. Reality”; http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=30&p=1; Date Accessed: 7/9/14)

The worst thing the federal government could have done was to listen to the deficit hawks and curtailed spending in the face of a severe recession. To see why, you simply need to look at state governments that did this in recent years. As their economies were tanking, many state governments – which are constitutionally required to balance their budgets – had to lay off workers, cut benefits to individuals, and curtail purchases of goods from the private sector. This simply made a bad economic situation worse. It created a kind of reverse multiplier effect,. taking money and jobs out of the economy and lowering demand for goods and services in an already weak economy Instead of speeding an economic recovery, this kind of frugal spending policy actually slows it down. It hardly makes sense to kick the economy when it is down, but this is what happens if governments are forced

to balance their budgets every year. If the Republicans continue to be successful in blocking further stimulus spending,

this will only hurt the economy. At best, it will delay recovery from the recession, and at worst, it might actually precipitate a dip back into more severe recession. Either way, this will only add up to more suffering for millions of American workers. Chronic long term unemployment has reached heights not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s. This is the real crisis facing many Americans. They are out of a job, out of savings, and losing their

house. Their American dream is fading fast. Only the government is in the position to help – to stimulate the economy to produce more jobs. And yet the Republicans keep insisting that budget balancing must be our first priority – thus leaving millions of jobless working class and middle class Americans hung out to dry.

Spending causes an economic boom-WWII proves.Amy, No Date (Douglas J. Amy; Professor of Politics at Mount Holyoke College; “The Deficit Scare: Myth vs. Reality”; http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=30&p=1; Date Accessed: 7/9/14)

Conservatives are also wrong when they argue that deficit spending and a large national debt will inevitably undermine economic growth. To see why, we need to simply look back at times when we have run

up large deficits and increased the national debt. The best example is World War II when the national debt soared to 120% of GDP – nearly twice the size of today’s debt. This spending not only got us out of the Great Depression but set the stage for a prolonged period of sustained economic growth in the 50s and 60s. Massive investments were made in science and technology, American workers were re-trained and re-employed, private investment was encouraged, and consumer purchasing power was increased. That 25-year post-war economic boom, with the most

rapid increase in living standards in our history, would not have happened without the stimulus of all this deficit spending.

Spending is a major stimulus to economic growth Amy, No Date (Douglas J. Amy; Professor of Politics at Mount Holyoke College; “The Deficit Scare: Myth vs. Reality”; http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=30&p=1; Date Accessed: 7/11/14)

But there is even a more important issue here – one often brought up by Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winning economist. He argues that deficit spending, when it is done right, can be a major stimulus to economic growth and actually lower long term government debt.7 When economic growth is back on healthy terms, this

leads to increased tax revenues, which eventually lessen the need for government to borrow money. For Stiglitz, the key is to spend that deficit money on things like education, technology, and infrastructure that lay the groundwork for future economic expansion. We will not remain competitive with other countries for long if we don’t have decent roads, efficient airports, adequate clean water supplies, and sufficient school facilities. Recently the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated that over the next five years it would take at least $1.6 trillion to bring our national

infrastructure into an acceptable state. These are huge investments that the private sector is unwilling to make. Going into debt to pay for these things is a good investment in our collective futures.

Spending ensures a growing economy Amy, No Date (Douglas J. Amy; Professor of Politics at Mount Holyoke College; “The Deficit Scare: Myth vs. Reality”; http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=30&p=1; Date Accessed: 7/11/14)

Finally, as noted earlier, government spending can be crucial for ensuring a prosperous and growing economy. A large part of the economic growth in the last twenty years has been fueled by various kinds of private sector economic bubbles. This is hardly desirable or sustainable. In the 1990s, there was a large technology bubble that created billions in apparent investment profits. Later, it was the housing bubble which encouraged consumers to borrow and spend much more money because of the rapidly increasing value of their homes. When these

bubbles burst, they took the economy down with them. Today, we need a more stable and reliable way of encouraging economic growth. Public investments in emerging technologies, like alternative energy, could prove to be a valuable part of that economic strategy. If we can leave our children a sustainable growing economy, this could be their greatest inheritance.

A2: Spending Causes Collapse

Spending aids governments and averts collapse Krugman, 2011 (Paul Krugman; professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University; “The Truth About Federal Spending”; 7/29/2011; http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/the-truth-about-federal-spending/; Date Accessed: 7/7/14)

Whenever someone like me or Bruce Bartlett points out how little Obama resembles the right’s portrait of a raging leftist, someone

is sure to come back with the assertion that Obama has presided over a vast expansion of federal spending. Even people who really should know better, like John Taylor, do it. So what’s the truth? I’ve written about this before, but here’s

another take. The fact is that federal spending rose from 19.6% of GDP in fiscal 2007 to 23.8% of GDP in fiscal 2010. So isn’t that a huge spending spree? Well, no. First of all, the size of a ratio depends on the denominator as well as the numerator. GDP has fallen sharply relative to the economy’s potential; here’s the ratio of real GDP to the CBO’s estimate of

potential GDP: A 6 percent fall in GDP relative to trend, all by itself, would have raised the ratio of spending to GDP from 19.6 to 20.8, or about 30 percent of the actual rise. That still leaves a rise in spending; but most of that is safety-net programs, which spend more in hard times because more people are in

distress. The CBO breaks out “income security” (Table E-10 in Historical Budget Tables), which is unemployment insurance, food stamps, etc., and also gives us numbers on Medicaid; here’s what they look like as percentages of GDP: That’s

another 2 points of GDP, or about half the rise. So we’re still left with a bit, around 1 point of GDP. That’s the stimulus, more or less. And there are two things you need to know about it. First, it’s temporary, and already fading out

fast. Second, a large part of the stimulus “spending” was actually aid to state and local governments, intended not to expand spending but to avert a fall — that is, it was about maintaining government, not expanding it.

Spending myths are wrong-Spending actually has a ‘large positive multiplier’ Krugman, 2014 (Paul Krugman; professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University; “No Time For Sargent”; 4/21/2014; http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/no-time-for-sargent/; Date Accessed: 7/7/14)

So when Sargent reminds us that communities face trade-offs, that’s much less clear at a time when the community is not at all like an individual – in which there are substantial amounts of unemployed resources, and putting those resources to work would be

pure gain, not a tradeoff. And then he tells us this: When a government spends, its citizens eventually pay, either today or tomorrow, either through explicit taxes or implicit ones like inflation. There

are very good reasons to believe that this is just wrong under current conditions. There’s overwhelming evidence that in an economy against the zero lower bound government spending has a large, positive multiplier, so the goods the government buys don’t come at the expense of other consumption or investment; and there’s a reasonable argument to the effect that even in purely fiscal terms spending more than pays for itself.

Spending helps sustain the economy and prevents a second Great Depression Krugman, 2013 (Paul Krugman; professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University; “Dwindling Deficit Disorder”; 3/10/2013; http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/11/opinion/krugman-dwindling-deficit-disorder.html?_r=0; Date Accessed: 7/8/14)

For three years and more, policy debate in Washington has been dominated by warnings about the dangers of budget deficits. A few lonely economists have tried from the beginning to point out that this fixation is

all wrong, that deficit spending is actually appropriate in a depressed economy. But even though the deficit scolds have been wrong about everything so far — where are the soaring interest rates we were promised? — protests that we are having the wrong conversation have consistently fallen on deaf ears. What’s really remarkable at this point, however, is the persistence of the deficit fixation in the face of rapidly changing facts. People still talk as if the deficit were exploding, as if the United States budget were on an unsustainable path; in fact, the deficit is falling more rapidly than it has for generations, it is already down

to sustainable levels, and it is too small given the state of the economy. Start with the raw numbers. America’s budget deficit soared after the 2008 financial crisis and the recession that went with it, as revenue plunged and spending on unemployment benefits and other safety-net programs rose. And this rise in the deficit was a good thing! Federal spending helped sustain the economy at a time when the private sector was in panicked retreat; arguably, the stabilizing role of a large government was the main reason the Great Recession didn’t turn into a full replay of the Great Depression. But after peaking in 2009 at $1.4 trillion, the deficit began coming down. The Congressional Budget Office expects the deficit for fiscal 2013 (which began in October and is almost half over) to be $845 billion. That may still sound like a big number, but given the state of the economy it really isn’t. Bear in mind that the budget doesn’t have to be balanced to put us on a fiscally sustainable path; all we need is a deficit small enough that debt grows more slowly than the economy. To take the classic example, America never did pay off the debt from World War II — in fact, our debt doubled in the 30 years that followed the war. But debt as a percentage of G.D.P. fell by three-quarters over the same period. Right now, a sustainable deficit would be around $460 billion. The actual deficit is bigger than that. But according to new estimates by the budget office, half of our current deficit reflects the effects of a still-depressed economy. The “cyclically adjusted” deficit — what the deficit would be if we were near full employment — is only about $423 billion, which puts it in the sustainable range; next year the budget office expects that number to fall to just $172 billion. And that’s why budget office projections show the nation’s debt position more or less stable over the next decade. So we do not, repeat do not, face any kind of deficit crisis either now or for years to come. There are, of course, longer-term fiscal issues: rising health costs and an aging population will put the budget under growing pressure over the course of the 2020s. But I have yet to see any coherent explanation of why these longer-run concerns should determine budget policy right now. And as I said, given the needs of

the economy, the deficit is currently too small. Put it this way: Smart fiscal policy involves having the government spend when the private sector won’t, supporting the economy when it is weak and reducing debt only when it is strong. Yet the cyclically adjusted deficit as a share of G.D.P. is currently about what it

was in 2006, at the height of the housing boom — and it is headed down. Yes, we’ll want to reduce deficits once the economy recovers, and there are gratifying signs that a solid recovery is finally under way. But unemployment, especially long-term

unemployment, is still unacceptably high. “The boom, not the slump, is the time for austerity,” John Maynard Keynes declared many years ago. He was right — all you have to do is look at Europe to see the disastrous effects of austerity on weak economies. And this is still nothing like a boom. Now, I’m aware that the facts about our dwindling deficit are unwelcome in many quarters. Fiscal fearmongering is a major industry inside the Beltway, especially among those looking for excuses to do what

they really want, namely dismantle Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. People whose careers are heavily invested in the deficit-scold industry don’t want to let evidence undermine their scare tactics; as the deficit dwindles, we’re sure to encounter a blizzard of bogus numbers purporting to show that we’re still in some kind of fiscal crisis. But we aren’t. The deficit is indeed dwindling, and the case for making the deficit a central policy concern, which was never very strong given low borrowing costs and high unemployment, has now completely vanished.

Spending averts a great depressionStiglitz, 2010 (Joseph E. Stiglitz; University Professor at Columbia University and recipient of the 2001 Nobel Prize in Economics; ”Stiglitz: The Dangers of Deficit Reduction”; 3/5/10; http://www.sfbg.com/bruce/2010/03/05/stiglitz-dangers-deficit-reduction; Date Accessed: 7/11/14)

NEW YORK – A wave of fiscal austerity is rushing over Europe and America. The magnitude of budget deficits – like the magnitude of the downturn – has taken many by surprise. But despite protests by the yesterday’s proponents of deregulation, who would like the

government to remain passive, most economists believe that government spending has made a difference, helping to avert another Great Depression. Most economists also agree that it is a mistake to look at only one side of a balance sheet (whether for the public or private sector). One has to look not only at what a country or firm owes, but also at its assets. This should help answer those financial sector hawks who are raising alarms about government spending. After all, even deficit hawks acknowledge that we should be focusing not on today’s deficit, but on the long-term national

debt. Spending, especially on investments in education, technology, and infrastructure, can actually lead to lower long-term deficits. Banks’ short-sightedness helped create the crisis; we cannot let government short-sightedness –

prodded by the financial sector – prolong it. Faster growth and returns on public investment yield higher tax revenues, and a 5 to 6% return is more than enough to offset temporary increases in the national debt. A social cost-benefit analysis (taking into account impacts other than on the budget) makes such expenditures, even when debt-financed, even more attractive. Finally, most economists agree that, apart from these considerations, the appropriate size of a deficit depends in part on the state of the economy. A weaker economy calls for a larger deficit, and the appropriate size of the deficit in the face of a recession depends on the precise circumstances. It is here that economists disagree. Forecasting is always difficult, but especially so in troubled times. What has happened is (fortunately) not an everyday occurrence; it would be foolish to look at past recoveries to predict this one. In America, for instance, bad debt and foreclosures are at levels not seen for three-quarters of a century; the decline in credit in 2009 was the largest since 1942. Comparisons to the Great Depression are also deceptive, because the economy today is so different in so many ways. And nearly all so-called experts have proven highly fallible –

witness the United States Federal Reserve’s dismal forecasting record before the crisis. Yet, even with large deficits, economic growth in the US and Europe is anemic, and forecasts of private-sector growth suggest that in the absence of continued government support, there is risk of continued stagnation – of growth too weak to return unemployment to normal levels anytime soon. The risks are asymmetric: if these forecasts are wrong, and there is a more robust recovery, then, of course, expenditures can be cut back and/or taxes increased. But

if these forecasts are right, then a premature “exit” from deficit spending risks pushing the economy back into recession. This is one of the lessons we should have learned from America’s experience in the Great Depression; it is also one of the lessons to emerge from Japan’s experience in the late 1990’s. These points are particularly germane for the hardest-hit economies. The United Kingdom, for example, has had a harder time than other countries for an obvious reason: it had a real-estate bubble (though of less consequence than in Spain), and finance, which was at the epicenter of the crisis, played a more important role in its economy than it does in other countries. The UK’s weaker performance is not the result of worse policies; indeed, compared to the US, its bank bailouts and labor-market policies were, in many ways, far better. It avoided the massive waste of human resources associated with high unemployment in America, where almost one out of five people who would like a full-time job cannot find one.

As the global economy returns to growth, governments should, of course, have plans on the drawing board to raise taxes and cut expenditures. The right balance will inevitably be a subject of dispute. Principles like “it is better to tax bad things than good things” might suggest imposing environmental taxes. The financial sector has imposed huge externalities on the rest of society. America’s financial industry polluted the world with toxic mortgages, and, in line with the well established “polluter pays” principle, taxes should be imposed on it. Besides, well-designed taxes on the financial sector might help alleviate problems caused by excessive leverage and banks that are too big to fail. Taxes on speculative activity might encourage banks to focus greater

attention on performing their key societal role of providing credit. Over the longer term, most economists agree that governments, especially in advanced industrial countries with aging populations, should be concerned about the sustainability of their policies. But we must be wary of deficit fetishism. Deficits to finance wars or give-aways to the financial sector (as happened on a massive scale in the US) lead to liabilities without corresponding assets, imposing a burden on

future generations. But high-return public investments that more than pay for themselves can actually improve the well-being of future generations, and it would be doubly foolish to burden them with debts from unproductive spending and then cut back on productive investments. These are questions for a later day – at least in many countries, prospects of a robust recovery are, at best, a year

or two away. For now, the economics is clear: reducing government spending is a risk not worth taking.

A2: Downgrade

U.S. downgrade wouldn’t hurt the economy—markets already know the risks, the impacts should have happened, ratings don’t make sense in terms of treasuries, and there is no where else to invest—there is literally ZERO risk of the DAHough 2011(Jack, Smart Money Staff, July 27, "S&P, Moody's U.S. Downgrade Irrelevant ", http://www.smartmoney.com/invest/stocks/sp-moodys-downgraded-to-irrelevant-1311719817477/)

Given that Treasury bonds have historically served as a benchmark against which the safety of other investments is judged, the spillover effects would be "extremely damaging" for the world economy, a senior advisor for the International Monetary Fund said this week.¶ Someone forgot to tell the investors who stake actual money in Treasury bonds, however. The closely watched 10-year Treasury has gained since the beginning of the year, dropping its yield from 3.4% to 3.0%. That means interest rates on the things the president mentioned aren't expected to "skyrocket" soon--not even if the rocket he had in mind is only one of those backyard balsa-wood-and-gunpowder fliers. ¶ Maybe financial markets are waiting for the actual downgrades. But that would contradict an investment law as basic as gravity: Markets are forward-looking. At any given moment, they anticipate information that's known or even suspected. S&P announced a negative outlook on the U.S. (warning of a possible downgrade) in April, and Moody's announced something similar earlier this month. By now, anything that would have happened has happened.¶ It's not that investors doubt the judgment of raters, although the latter have attracted plenty of jeers in recent years, partly because their pay-me-to-rate-you business models are inherently awkward, and partly because they have missed some colossal collapses. Enron had an investment-grade credit rating four days before it went bankrupt. During the recent housing bust, mortgage securities that were sold as Parmigiano-Reggiano turned out to be a notch below Cheez Whiz. That has led some outside analysts to mutiny. In December, Meredith Whitney, who made her name covering banks, told CBS's "60 Minutes" that 50 to 100 "sizeable" municipalities could default on amounts totaling "hundreds of billions of dollars," directly contradicting the ratings agencies, who expect that municipal defaults will be isolated and manageable. ¶ So far, the ratings agencies have been right on municipalities. I suspect that they've taken recent criticism to heart and are working hard to produce good research. And in fairness, creditworthiness is a complicated thing to judge, depending as it does on human behavior, and the agencies get plenty of calls right. If they say the U.S. is bucking for a downgrade, I'll take their word for it. I'm unfashionably bullish on America, but I'm not sure anything deserves a perfect credit rating, least of all something that can make its own money.¶

But I also think the opinions of S&P and Moody's (and Fitch, which says it will decide its opinion of the U.S. in August) are irrelevant when it comes to Treasurys. These firms add value by tracking a universe of bond issuers too vast for most investors to watch. Their opinions on Ford Motor or the city of Rochester, N.Y., matter greatly to bond buyers. ¶ The world doesn't need help analyzing Treasurys, though. No entity in the world is more closely watched than the United States government, not even Lady Gaga. And none publishes more and better information on its financial condition. The sort of investors who decide Treasury prices--foreign governments, giant mutual funds, the Social Security Trust Fund--don't wait for S&P or Moody's to tell them whether to buy. They do the math themselves.¶ They also have limited choices. In

a recent report for Wells Fargo Securities, economist Jay Bryson writes that investors aren't likely to dump Treasurys, simply because Europe has no unified debt security and most Asian capital markets are small and illiquid, save for that of Japan, which is in worse shape than the U.S. What about the fear that large investment funds, bound by prospectus to buy only AAA-rated bonds, would be forced to sell? Bryson calls this "overblown" for two reasons. Mutual funds hold just 7% of Treasurys. Also, Bryson's team reviewed prospectuses for the largest ones and found no such mandate. ¶ So fear the debt and the deficit a little and political intransigence a lot, but don't fear the alphabetical Armageddon of a dozen researchers swapping their As for Bs. I'm guessing about the number, by the way. None of the agencies would tell me how many analysts decide their U.S. rating or even how much of the decision is based on perceptions rather than numbers. A document provided by Fitch says its minimum committee size is generally four analysts including one "senior director," and that those average six to seven years of tenure. That's comforting. If I'm wrong, I'd hate for the world's financial system to be brought down by new hires.

Downgrade has ZERO IMPACT—markets don’t care about ratings because it’s a risk-free asset Detrixhe 10/9(John, Bloomberg Staff, 2012, "U.S. Downgrade Seen as Upgrade as U.S. Debt Dissolved", http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-09/u-s-downgrade-seen-as-upgrade-as-u-s-debt-dissolved.html)

Reduced borrowing means there is less competition for the U.S. Treasury Department as it sells debt to fund spending programs to help the nation recover from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Credit-rating firms are discounting the improvement even as debt, equity and currency markets suggest the U.S. is more creditworthy than before Standard & Poor’s stripped the nation of its AAA grade in 2011. ¶ “Most people don’t pay much attention to ratings when it comes to Treasuries, as they are still considered to be risk- free assets,” Donald Ellenberger, who oversees about $10 billion as co-head of government and mortgage-backed securities at Federated Investors in Pittsburgh, said Oct. 5 in a telephone interview. “Until that perception changes Treasuries will continue to be” in demand, he said.

Impact Level

No Impact to Collapse

No impact to economyDrezner 14 (Daniel Drezner, IR prof at Tufts, The System Worked: Global Economic Governance during the Great Recession, World Politics, Volume 66. Number 1, January 2014, pp. 123-164)The final significant outcome addresses a dog that hasn't barked: the effect of the Great Recession on cross-border conflict and violence. During the initial stages of the crisis, multiple analysts asserted that the financial crisis would lead states to increase their use of force as a tool for staying in power.42 They voiced genuine concern that the global economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflict—whether through greater internal repression, diversionary wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up of great power conflict. Violence in the Middle East, border disputes in the South China Sea, and even the disruptions of the Occupy movement fueled impressions of a surge in global public disorder. The aggregate data suggest otherwise, however. The Institute for Economics and Peace has concluded that "the average level of peacefulness in 2012 is approximately the same as it was in 2007."43 Interstate violence in particular has declined since the start of the financial crisis, as have military expenditures in most sampled countries. Other studies confirm that the Great Recession has not triggered any increase in violent conflict, as Lotta Themner and Peter Wallensteen conclude: "[T]he pattern is one of relative stability when we consider the trend for the past five years."44 The secular decline in violence that started with the end of the Cold War has not been reversed. Rogers Brubaker observes that "the crisis has not to date generated the surge in protectionist nationalism or ethnic exclusion that might have been expected."43

Impact empirically deniedBarnett 09 (Thomas P.M. Barnett, senior managing director of Enterra Solutions LLC, “The New Rules: Security Remains Stable Amid Financial Crisis,” 8/25/2009)When the global financial crisis struck roughly a year ago, the blogosphere was ablaze with all sorts of scary predictions of, and commentary regarding, ensuing conflict and wars -- a rerun of the Great Depression leading to world war, as it were. Now, as global economic news brightens and recovery -- surprisingly led by China and emerging markets -- is the talk of the day, it's interesting to look back over the past year and realize how globalization's first truly worldwide recession has had virtually no impact whatsoever on the international security landscape. None of the more than three-dozen ongoing conflicts listed by GlobalSecurity.org can be clearly attributed to the global recession. Indeed, the last new entry (civil conflict between Hamas and Fatah in the Palestine) predates the economic crisis by a year, and three quarters of the chronic struggles began in the last century. Ditto for the 15 low-intensity conflicts listed by Wikipedia (where the latest entry is the Mexican "drug war" begun in 2006). Certainly, the Russia-Georgia conflict last August was specifically timed, but by most accounts the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics was the most important external trigger (followed by the U.S. presidential campaign) for that sudden spike in an almost two-decade long struggle between Georgia and its two breakaway regions. Looking over the various databases, then, we see a most familiar picture: the usual mix of civil conflicts, insurgencies, and liberation-themed terrorist movements. Besides the recent Russia-Georgia dust-up, the only two potential state-on-state wars (North v. South Korea, Israel v. Iran) are both tied to one side acquiring a nuclear weapon

capacity -- a process wholly unrelated to global economic trends. And with the United States effectively tied down by its two ongoing major interventions (Iraq and Afghanistan-bleeding-into-Pakistan), our involvement elsewhere around the planet has been quite modest, both leading up to and following the onset of the economic crisis: e.g., the usual counter-drug efforts in Latin America, the usual military exercises with allies across Asia, mixing it up with pirates off Somalia's coast). Everywhere else we find serious instability we pretty much let it burn, occasionally pressing the Chinese -- unsuccessfully -- to do something. Our new Africa Command, for example, hasn't led us to anything beyond advising and training local forces. So, to sum up: * No significant uptick in mass violence or unrest (remember the smattering of urban riots last year in places like Greece, Moldova and Latvia?); * The usual frequency maintained in civil conflicts (in all the usual places); * Not a single state-on-state war directly caused (and no great-power-on-great-power crises even triggered); * No great improvement or disruption in great-power cooperation regarding the emergence of new nuclear powers (despite all that diplomacy); * A modest scaling back of international policing efforts by the system's acknowledged Leviathan power (inevitable given the strain); and * No serious efforts by any rising great power to challenge that Leviathan or supplant its role. (The worst things we can cite are Moscow's occasional deployments of strategic assets to the Western hemisphere and its weak efforts to outbid the United States on basing rights in Kyrgyzstan; but the best include China and India stepping up their aid and investments in Afghanistan and Iraq.) Sure, we've finally seen global defense spending surpass the previous world record set in the late 1980s, but even that is likely to wane given the stress on public budgets created by all this unprecedented "stimulus" spending. If anything, the friendly cooperation on such stimulus packaging was the most notable great-power dynamic caused by the crisis. Can we say that the world has suffered a distinct shift to political radicalism as a result of the economic crisis? Indeed, no. The world's major economies remain governed by center-left or center-right political factions that remain decidedly friendly to both markets and trade. In the short run, there were attempts across the board to insulate economies from immediate damage (in effect, as much protectionism as allowed under current trade rules), but there was no great slide into "trade wars." Instead, the World Trade Organization is functioning as it was designed to function, and regional efforts toward free-trade agreements have not slowed. Can we say Islamic radicalism was inflamed by the economic crisis? If it was, that shift was clearly overwhelmed by the Islamic world's growing disenchantment with the brutality displayed by violent extremist groups such as al-Qaida. And looking forward, austere economic times are just as likely to breed connecting evangelicalism as disconnecting fundamentalism. At the end of the day, the economic crisis did not prove to be sufficiently frightening to provoke major economies into establishing global regulatory schemes, even as it has sparked a spirited -- and much needed, as I argued last week -- discussion of the continuing viability of the U.S. dollar as the world's primary reserve currency. Naturally, plenty of experts and pundits have attached great significance to this debate, seeing in it the beginning of "economic warfare" and the like between "fading" America and "rising" China. And yet, in a world of globally integrated production chains and interconnected financial markets, such "diverging interests" hardly constitute signposts for wars up ahead. Frankly, I don't welcome a world in which America's fiscal profligacy goes undisciplined, so bring it on -- please! Add it all up and it's fair to say that this global financial crisis has proven the great resilience of America's post-World War II international liberal trade order.

No rational for warJervis ’11 (Robert Jervis, Professor in the Department of Political Science and School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, “Force in Our Times,” Survival, Vol. 25, No. 4, p. 403-425, December 2011)Even if war is still seen as evil, the security community could be dissolved if severe conflicts of interest were to arise. Could the more peaceful world generate new interests that would bring the members of the community into sharp disputes? 45 A zero-sum sense of status would be one example, perhaps linked to a steep rise in nationalism. More likely would be a worsening of the current economic difficulties, which could itself produce greater nationalism, undermine democracy and bring back old-fashioned beggar-my-neighbor economic policies. While these dangers are real, it is hard to believe that the conflicts could be great enough to lead the members of the community to contemplate fighting each other. It is not so much that economic interdependence has proceeded to the point where it could not be reversed – states that were more internally interdependent than anything seen internationally have fought bloody civil wars. Rather it is that even if the more extreme versions of free trade and economic liberalism become discredited, it is hard to see how without building on a preexisting high level of political conflict leaders and mass opinion would come to believe that their countries could prosper by impoverishing or even attacking others. Is it possible that problems will not only become severe, but that people will entertain the thought that they have to be solved by war? While a pessimist could note that this argument does not appear as outlandish as it did before the financial crisis, an optimist could reply (correctly, in my view) that the very fact that we have seen such a sharp economic down-turn without anyone suggesting that force of arms is the solution shows that even if bad times bring about greater economic conflict, it will not make war thinkable.

Trade still happens- wars don’t escalateLamy 11 (Pascal Lamy, Director-General of the World Trade Organization. Lamy is Honorary President of Paris-based think tank Notre Europe. Lamy graduated from the prestigious Sciences Po Paris, from HEC and ÉNA, graduating second in his year of those specializing in economics. “System Upgrade” BY PASCAL LAMY | APRIL 18, 2011)The bigger test came with the 2008-2009 Great Recession, the first truly global recession since World War II. When the international economy went into free fall, trade went right along with it. Production and supply are today thoroughly global in nature, with most manufactured products made from parts and materials imported from many other countries. These global value chains have a multiplier effect on trade statistics, which explains why, as the global economy contracted by 2 percent in 2009, trade volume shrank by more than 12 percent. This multiplier effect works the other way around as well: Growth returned to 4.6 percent and trade volume grew by a record 14.5 percent over the course of 2010. Projections for trade in 2011 are also strong, with WTO economists predicting that trade volume will rise 6.5 percent during the current year. This sharp rebound in trade has proved two essential things: Markets stayed open despite ever-stronger pressures to close them, and trade is an indispensible tool for economic recovery, particularly for developing countries, which are more dependent on trade. Shortly after the crisis broke out, we in the WTO began to closely monitor the trade policy response of our member governments. Many were fearful that pressures to impose trade restrictions would prove too powerful for governments to resist. But this is not what happened. Instead, the system of rules and disciplines, agreed to over 60 years of

negotiations, held firm. In a series of reports prepared for WTO members and the G-20, we found that governments acted with great restraint. At no time did the trade-restrictive measures imposed cover more than 2 percent of world imports. Moreover, the measures used -- anti-dumping duties, safeguards, and countervailing duties to offset export or production subsidies -- were those which, in the right circumstances, are permissible under WTO rules . I am not suggesting that every safeguard measure or countervailing duty imposed during those difficult days was in compliance with WTO rules, but responses to trade pressures were generally undertaken within an internationally agreed-upon framework. Countries by and large resisted overtly noncompliant measures, such as breaking legally binding tariff ceilings or imposing import bans or quotas. As markets stayed open, trade flows began to shift, and countries that shrugged off the impact of the crisis and continued to grow -- notably China, India, and Brazil -- became ever-more attractive markets for countries that were struggling, including those in Europe and North America. Trade has been a powerful engine for growth in the developing world, a fact reflected in the far greater trade-to-GDP ratios we see there. In 2010, developing countries' share of world trade expanded to a record 45 percent, and this trend looks set to continue. Decisions made in Brasilia, Beijing, and New Delhi to open their respective economies to trade have been instrumental in enabling these countries to lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.

Collapse doesn’t cause war- the upswing doesFerguson 06 (Niall, Professor of History – Harvard University, Foreign Affairs, 85(5), September / October, Lexis)Nor can economic crises explain the bloodshed. What may be the most familiar causal chain in modern historiography links the Great Depression to the rise of fascism and the outbreak of World War II. But that simple story leaves too much out. Nazi Germany started the war in Europe only after its economy had recovered. Not all the countries affected by the Great Depression were taken over by fascist regimes, nor did all such regimes start wars of aggression. In fact, no general relationship between economics and conflict is discernible for the century as a whole. Some wars came after periods of growth, others were the causes rather than the consequences of economic catastrophe, and some severe economic crises were not followed by wars.

no econ war empirics disprove warPickering 7 (Assistant Professor of Political Science at Kansas State University (Jeffrey, Emizet F. Kisangani, “Diverting with Benevolent Military Force: Reducing Risks and Rising above Strategic Behavior,” International Studies Quarterly 51, 277–299, JSTOR)

Our results underscore the utility of broadening the conception of diversionary force and using the agenda setting framework to understand leaders’ decisions to divert. As the agenda setting approach anticipates, we find that leaders in democracies and mixed regimes tend to prefer a comparatively low-risk, low-profile type of military force when they attempt diversion. They use what we term SEI in their attempt to clear the domestic policy agenda. They presumably hope that the use of such seemingly controllable, low-scale force will provide a brief reprieve from the public and the media’s focus on issues that have damaged their political reputations and threatened their terms in office. If low politics force succeeds in providing leaders with the window they seek, they can be expected to do all they can to reshape the policy agenda in the

hope of saving their political careers. Autocratic leaders, in contrast, do not appear to use any form of external armed force to bolster their domestic standing when they encounter domestic unrest or economic difficulty. Our results also highlight the need for further theoretical development of the SCA framework. In our cross-national sample of democracies, SCA does not seem to constrain democratic leaders to the extent that is implied in the literature. For example, we find no evidence that SCA prevents democratic leaders from using PSI, and democratic leaders often used SEI even when SCA was present (see especially Table 5). The only time SCA seems to obstruct democratic leaders is when they attempt SEI in the face of rising levels of inflation or mass unrest. We did not expect target states to be able to employ SCA to inhibit SEI, but this result at least provides some evidence for the theoretically compelling and logical influence of SCA on democracies. This outcome and the unanticipated influence of SCA on autocracies suggest that the SCA framework requires greater precision. As noted previously, adding measures that capture extant relations or affinity levels among potential actors and targets may enhance the explanatory power of SCA. Another possibility is that we are trying to generalize a phenomenon that has limited scope. It may be that target states only worry about diversion from extremely powerful states and perhaps some unstable, unpredictable autocracies, which might explain why David Clark (2003) and Benjamin Fordham’s (2005) results diverge from those found in this paper and by Christopher Sprecher and Karl DeRouen (2005). Careful empirical study will have to determine if this is the case, and if it is not why SCA appears to constrain certain types of actors experiencing certain types of domestic troubles but not others. Different methods will have to be used to pinpoint the prevalence and the impact of SCA. While powerful and suggestive, the ZIP method is based on a theoretical assumption: that SCA is the exogenous influence that prevents leaders from using military force. Although this is plausible and the evidence presented by David Clark (2003) and Benjamin Fordham (2005) is extremely compelling for the United States case, there could be other exogenous influences that have similar effects on leaders in other countries. Powerful opposition parties (Schultz 1998) or increasing tensions or instability within the government itself could, for example, tie leaders’ hands in a way that prevents the use of military force. Given the significant institutional variation that characterizes democracies and mixed regimes across the globe, both detailed qualitative and country-specific quantitative analyses will be necessary to trace the empirical boundaries of SCA and to refine the theory. In sum, this paper adds to the growing body of literature that suggests that leaders in democracies and mixed regimes use armed forces overseas for diversionary purposes. It just may not be the type of high profile, confrontational military force we typically envision. It is often armed force deployed over low politics issues like humanitarian suffering. Making this simple distinction between the types of armed force states use abroad may go some way toward uniting extant empirical research on diversion and perhaps even producing more cumulative research in the future.

Econ Resilient

Its 2013- proves global economic resilient- Sandy and EU proveEberly ’13 (Jan Eberly, Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy for the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, “Statement by Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy Jan Eberly for the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association”, February 4, 2013)

WASHINGTON - Economic recovery in the U.S. continued at a moderate pace over the course of 2012, with real GDP expanding by 1.5 percent following a 2.6 percent increase during 2011. After thirteen straight quarters of growth, real GDP edged down slightly in the final quarter of last year, as sharply lower defense spending, slower inventory growth, and a widening of the trade deficit offset a solid increase in consumer spending and strong growth of both residential investment and business capital spending. Job creation has accelerated in recent months. The unemployment rate declined notably over the first nine months of 2012 and has been little changed since September. The economy sustained a number of temporary shocks last year , such as a jump in energy prices early in 2012, a severe drought during the summer, and Hurricane Sandy in late October, and also contended with the ongoing sovereign debt crisis in

Europe and a more general slowdown in global growth . Growth is expected to pick up in the first quarter of 2013, despite some fiscal drag. Other potential challenges this year include the risk of renewed setbacks in Europe, the impact of continued uncertainty about the U.S. fiscal situation, and the possibility of additional, sequester-related fiscal tightening. Even so, private forecasters anticipate a gradual acceleration in the pace of expansion as 2013 unfolds, as well as further progress in reducing unemployment. According to the advance report released last week, real GDP edged down 0.1 percent at an annual rate in the fourth quarter, compared with a 3.1 percent advance in the third quarter. The swing was due in part to a 6.6 decline in government spending. Federal outlays fell 15.0 percent – the largest quarterly decline in four decades – as federal defense purchases plummeted 22.2 percent. In the third quarter, federal spending rose sharply, boosted by a jump in defense outlays. The composition of the pronounced swing between Q3 and Q4 suggests that uncertainty about the impending sequester played a role. State and local government spending, which has been falling nearly continuously since late 2009, declined 0.7 percent in Q4. Altogether, the decline in government expenditures cut 1¼ percentage points from real GDP growth in Q4. GDP growth in late 2012 was also held back by a sharp slowdown in private inventory accumulation, which subtracted 1¼ percentage points from real GDP in the fourth quarter after adding 0.7 percentage point to growth in the third quarter. The drought-related drawdown in farm inventories, which reduced GDP growth in the prior two quarters, slowed. A wider trade deficit subtracted an additional ¼ percentage point from GDP growth in the fourth quarter. Notwithstanding the slight dip in headline GDP, the main components of underlying private demand strengthened in the fourth quarter. Consumer spending, which accounts for roughly two-thirds of GDP, grew by 2.2 percent at an annual rate, accelerating from the third quarter’s 1.6 percent rise, and adding 1.5 percentage points to real growth. Business fixed investment grew 8.4 percent in the fourth quarter, contributing 0.8 percentage point to growth. Equipment and software investment rose at a 12.4 percent pace after falling by 2.6 percent in the prior quarter. Residential investment grew by 15.3 percent at an annual rate in the fourth quarter, up from 13.5 percent in the third

quarter, and contributed 0.4 percentage point to GDP growth. Residential investment has increased in each of the past seven quarters -- the first such string of advances in this sector since 2005 – and has grown at an average annual rate of almost 11 percent per quarter over this period. Private domestic final purchases (the sum of consumption, business fixed investment, and residential investment) jumped by 3.3 percent at an annual rate in the fourth quarter, more than double the third’s quarter’s 1.5 percent pace. Over the past three years, this marker of a private-sector led, self-sustaining recovery has grown at an average annual rate of just under 3 percent. Labor market conditions continue to improve at a steady but gradual pace, and the most recent data show that job creation at the end of 2012 was actually faster than initially reported. Private-sector job growth averaged 225,000 per month during the fourth quarter, up from 142,000 in the third quarter, and nearly double the 117,000 jobs per month created on average in the second quarter. More than 6.1 million new jobs have been created in the private sector since the employment trough in February 2010. Moreover, underlying labor demand appears to be improving. The average private-sector workweek stood at 34.4 hours in January, up from a low of 33.8 hours in 2009 and just 0.2 hour shorter than in December 2007. The unemployment rate stood at 7.9 percent in January, up slightly from a near four-year low of 7.8 percent in November and December. Measures of longer-term unemployment as well as marginal attachment to the labor force and part-time employment continue to trend lower. The median duration of unemployment fell by 4.8 weeks over the past year to 16.0 weeks in January and is down from a high of 24.8 weeks in mid-2010. It is worthwhile to look at progress across the country, too: in December, 25 states reported unemployment rates that were significantly below the national average. These are all positive signs that underlying labor market conditions continue to firm. With the progress made in the housing market in the past several months, we now appear to be approaching important milestones. For example, total housing starts rose in December to a 4½ year high and the number of residential building permits issued reached their highest level since mid-2008. As of December, total existing home sales had retraced to a level about two-thirds of their 2005 peak, and the decline in new single-family homes during that month was actually attributed to a lack of supply, rather than a dearth of demand – sales in this category were still up nearly 9 percent year-over-year. The inventory of unsold new homes is just above record lows for the series, which dates to the early 1960s, and the inventory of existing homes available for sale continues to move lower and is now two-thirds below its July 2010 peak level. During 2012, residential investment climbed 14.4 percent – the strongest yearly increase since 1983. The major house price indexes have been moving higher on a year-over-year basis for the past ten months, and are now being supported by tighter supply and stronger demand conditions. Record or near-record lows in mortgage rates, a relatively high level of housing affordability, and improving household wealth are also helping to boost demand and to support broader-based improvement in the housing sector. Looking ahead, downside risks to U.S. economic activity remain, including persistent concerns about instability in European sovereign debt markets. Here at home, consumer sentiment faltered at the turn of the year in the face of fiscal uncertainty and the expiration of tax cuts. Still, energy prices have eased in very recent months, and there are signs of reviving demand in Asia. While downside risks create vulnerabilities in any economy, recent progress within the U.S. has improved the

economy’s resilience in the face of potential challenges . The underlying and consistent

strength of private demand over the past three years constitutes an important foundation for

that resilience, and the level of real GDP is now 2.4 percent higher than in the fourth quarter of 2007, at the time of the previous expansion’s peak. After five years of decline, residential

investment has added to growth in each of the past seven quarters. The workweek has lengthened to a duration close to that last seen in December 2007, the peak month of the previous upturn, and the unemployment rate is at a four-year low. These are important milestones for consumers as well as the housing and labor markets, and are evidence of a moderate and steady forward movement.

Econ resilient, US isn’t key, and impact empirically deniedLamy ’11(Pascal Lamy is the Director-General of the World Trade Organization. Lamy is Honorary President of Paris-based think tank Notre Europe. Lamy graduated from the prestigious Sciences Po Paris, from HEC and ÉNA, graduating second in his year of those specializing in economics. “System Upgrade” BY PASCAL LAMY | APRIL 18, 2011)

The bigger test came with the 2008-2009 Great Recession, the first truly global recession since World War II. When the international economy went into free fall, trade went right along with it. Production and supply are today thoroughly global in nature, with most manufactured products made from parts and materials imported from many other countries. These global value chains have a multiplier effect on trade statistics, which explains why, as the global economy contracted by 2 percent in 2009, trade volume shrank by more than 12 percent. This multiplier effect works the other way around as well: Growth returned to 4.6 percent and trade volume grew by a record 14.5 percent over the course of 2010. Projections for trade in 2011 are also strong, with WTO economists predicting that trade volume will rise 6.5 percent during the current year. This sharp rebound in trade has proved two essential things: Markets stayed open despite ever-stronger pressures to close them, and trade is an indispensible tool for economic recovery, particularly for developing countries, which are more dependent on trade. Shortly after the crisis broke out, we in the WTO began to closely monitor the trade policy response of our member governments. Many were fearful that pressures to impose trade restrictions would prove too powerful for governments to resist. But this is not what happened. Instead, the system of rules and disciplines, agreed to over 60 years of negotiations, held firm. In a series of reports prepared for WTO members and the G-20, we found that governments acted with great restraint. At no time did the trade-restrictive measures imposed cover more than 2 percent of world imports. Moreover, the measures used -- anti-dumping duties, safeguards, and countervailing duties to offset export or production subsidies -- were those which, in the right circumstances, are permissible under WTO rules. I am not suggesting that every safeguard measure or countervailing duty imposed during those difficult days was in compliance with WTO rules, but responses to trade pressures were generally undertaken within an internationally agreed-upon framework. Countries by and large resisted overtly noncompliant measures, such as breaking legally binding tariff ceilings or imposing import bans or quotas. As markets stayed open, trade flows began to shift, and countries that shrugged off the impact of the crisis and continued to grow -- notably China, India, and Brazil -- became ever-more attractive markets for countries that were struggling, including those in Europe and North America. Trade has been a powerful engine for growth in the developing world, a fact reflected in the far greater trade-to-GDP ratios we see there. In 2010, developing countries' share of world trade expanded to a record 45 percent, and this trend looks set to continue. Decisions made in Brasilia, Beijing, and New Delhi to open their respective economies to trade have been instrumental in enabling these countries to lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.

Best studies proveBrandt and Ulfelder ‘11 (*Patrick T. Brandt, Ph.D. in Political Science from Indiana University, is an Assistant Professor of Political Science in the School of Social Science at the University of Texas at Dallas. **Jay Ulfelder, Ph.D. in political science from Stanford University, is an American political scientist whose research interests include democratization, civil unrest, and violent conflict, April, 2011, “Economic Growth and Political Instability,” Social Science Research Network)These statements anticipating political fallout from the global economic crisis of 2008–2010 reflect a widely held view that economic growth has rapid and profound effects on countries’ political stability. When economies grow at a healthy clip, citizens are presumed to be too busy and too content to engage in protest or rebellion, and governments are thought to be flush with revenues they can use to enhance their own stability by producing public goods or rewarding cronies, depending on the type of regime they inhabit. When growth slows, however, citizens and cronies alike are presumed to grow frustrated with their governments, and the leaders at the receiving end of that frustration are thought to lack the financial resources to respond effectively. The expected result is an increase in the risks of social unrest, civil war, coup attempts, and regime breakdown. Although it is pervasive, the assumption that countries’ economic growth rates strongly affect their political stability has not been subjected to a great

deal of careful empirical analysis, and evidence from social science research to date does not

unambiguously support it. Theoretical models of civil wars, coups d’etat, and transitions to and from democracy often specify slow economic growth as an important cause or catalyst of those events, but empirical studies on the effects of economic growth on these phenomena have produced mixed results. Meanwhile, the effects of economic growth on the occurrence or incidence of social unrest seem to have hardly been studied in recent years , as empirical analysis of contentious collective action has concentrated on political opportunity structures and dynamics of protest and repression. This paper helps fill that gap by rigorously re-examining the effects of short-term variations in economic growth on the occurrence of several forms of political instability in countries worldwide over the past few decades. In this paper, we do not seek to develop and test new theories of political instability. Instead, we aim to subject a hypothesis common to many prior theories of political instability to more careful empirical scrutiny. The goal is to provide a detailed empirical characterization of the relationship between economic growth and political instability in a broad sense. In effect, we describe the conventional wisdom as seen in the data. We do so with statistical models that use smoothing splines and multiple lags to allow for nonlinear and dynamic effects from economic growth on political stability. We also do so with an instrumented measure of growth that explicitly accounts for endogeneity in the relationship between political instability and economic growth. To our knowledge, ours is the first statistical study of this relationship to simultaneously

address the possibility of nonlinearity and problems of endogeneity . As such, we believe this

paper offers what is probably the most rigorous general evaluation of this argument to date . As the results show, some of our findings are surprising. Consistent with conventional assumptions, we find that social unrest and civil violence are more likely to occur and democratic regimes are more susceptible to coup attempts around periods of slow economic growth. At the same time, our analysis shows no significant relationship between variation in growth and the risk of civil-war onset, and results from our analysis of regime changes contradict the widely accepted claim that economic crises cause transitions from autocracy to

democracy. While we would hardly pretend to have the last word on any of these relationships, our findings do suggest that the relationship between economic growth and political stability is neither as uniform nor as strong as the conventional wisdom (s) presume (s) . We think

these findings also help explain why the global recession of 2008–2010 has failed thus far

to produce the wave of coups and regime failures that some observers had anticipated, in spite

of the expected and apparent uptick in social unrest associated with the crisis.

(no econ collapse) economy’s resilient – can survive shocksBloomberg 12 (“Fed’s Plosser Says U.S. Economy Proving Resilient to Shocks,” 5-9, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-09/fed-s-plosser-says-u-s-economy-proving-resilient-to-shocks.html)Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank President Charles Plosser said the U.S. economy has proven “remarkably resilient” to shocks that can damage growth , including surging oil prices and

natural disasters. “The economy has now grown for 11 consecutive quarters ,” Plosser said today according to remarks prepared for a speech at the Philadelphia Fed. “Growth is not robust. But growth in the past year has continued despite significant risks and external and internal headwinds.” Plosser, who did not discuss his economic outlook or the future for monetary policy, cited shocks to the economy last year, including the tsunami in Japan that disrupted global supply chains, Europe’s credit crisis that has damaged the continent’s banking system and political unrest in the Middle East and North Africa. “The U.S. economy has a history of being remarkably resilient ,” said Plosser, who doesn’t have a vote on policy this year. “These shocks held GDP growth to less than 1 percent in the first half of 2011, and many analysts were concerned that the economy was heading toward a double dip. Yet, the economy proved resilient and growth picked up in the second half of the year.” Plosser spoke at a conference at the Philadelphia Fed titled, “Reinventing Older Communities: Building Resilient Cities.” Urban Resilience His regional bank’s research department is working on a project to measure the resilience of different cities, to learn more about the reasons that some urban areas suffer more than others in downturns, Plosser said. He mentioned one early finding of the study: Industrial diversity increases a city’s resilience. “I do want to caution you that resilient and vibrant communities are not just about government programs or directed industrial planning by community leaders,” Plosser said. “The economic strength of our country is deeply rooted in our market- based economy and the dynamism and resilience of its citizenry.”

U.S. Not Key

Other countries check US growthThe Economist 07 (November 23, “America’s Vulnerable Economy”, pg. 13)The best hope that global growth can stay strong lies instead with emerging economies. A decade ago, the thought that so much depended on these crisis-prone places would have been terrifying. Yet thanks largely to economic reforms, their annual growth rate has surged to around 7%. This year they will contribute half of the globe's GDP growth, measured at market exchange rates, over three times as much as America . In the past, emerging economies have

often needed bailing out by the rich world. This time they could be the rescuers . Of course, a recession in America would reduce emerging economies' exports, but they are less vulnerable than they used to be. America's importance as an engine of global growth has been exaggerated. Since 2000 its share of world imports has dropped from 19% to 14%. Its vast current-account deficit has started to shrink, meaning that America is no longer pulling along the rest of the world. Yet growth in emerging economies has quickened, partly thanks to demand at home. In the first half of this year the increase in consumer spending (in actual dollar terms) in China and India added more to global GDP growth than that in America. Most emerging economies are in healthier shape than ever (see article). They are no longer financially dependent on the rest of the world, but have large foreign-exchange reserves—no less than three-quarters of the global total. Though there are some notable exceptions, most of them have small budget deficits (another change from the past), so they can boost spending to offset weaker exports if need be.

Economic Collapse Inevitable

Economic Collapse is inevitableSmith 6/20(John Smith, Degrees in Journalism and History, 6/20/14, “New Survey States Economic Collapse is 99.9% Unavoidable in 2014,” Us Finance Post, http://usfinancepost.com/new-survey-states-economic-collapse-is-99-9-unavoidable-in-2014-20184.html, Accessed 7/11/14, MX)Global risks are accelerated: everyone is in a historic transition that few will be able to recover from, says The Wall Street Journal The crisis ahead will be worse than 2000 and 2008 states the new Wall Street Journal survey that summarized the views of financial leaders who were interviewed over the last year. The underlying reason is simple: “a monetary policy that is fundamentally flawed” – the Federal Reserve System is still “printing cheap money”. “The Feds should stop micromanaging the economy, which includes debt buybacks and investing in private companies,” urged David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget of the U.S. between 1981 and 1985. Meanwhile, William Hunt Gross, founder of PIMCO, one of the largest global asset managers of the fixed income investment world, warned of “supernova credits.” He explained that his company has two billion dollars at risk if cheap money from the Federal Reserve explodes. “Investment banking a decade ago only promoted the development of small business, but it is now being dominated by leveraged speculation,” Gross said. The world is caught in a mega-bubble that has no name and analysts warned the Federal Reserve that the bubble “is about to explode, as did the Asian financial crisis years ago.” The paper, which focuses on data, research, and tips from financial advisors, warned that millions of investors have no idea what will happen. Sooner or later there will be “another ugly battle” related to debt and the markets will be “crippled”. Gary Shilling, columnist for Forbes, warned of an expanding bubble. He calculated a very slow real GDP growth for the next eight years of only 2%, and promised an even more serious global slowdown over the next generation. “I am 100% sure that the crises that we are moving towards will be much worse than 2008,” he said.

Tradeoff DA

1NC

Funding for Cassini is low now; if NASA funding were reduced the program could be eliminated. Rehnberg, 2014 (Morgan Rehberg; a graduate student in the University of Colorado - Boulder's Department of Astrophysics and Planetary Science, @ work he studies the rings of Saturn and develop software to help detect near-Earth asteroids; “COULD THE 2014 BUDGET SAVE CASSINI?”; 1/15/14; http://cosmicchatter.org/news/2014/1/15/could-the-2014-budget-save-cassini; Date Accessed: 7/12/14)

With its future on the line, the Cassini mission may yet survive if the US Congress passes their proposed budget for 2014. And, for once, that's not seeming like such a big if. It's been a long road for NASA's Cassini spacecraft. In development starting in the mid 1980s and launched towards Saturn in 1997, the mission didn't arrive at its destination until the summer of 2004. Designed for a four year mission upon reaching Saturn, the Cassini program has been extended twice - first for two years until 2010, and then for a final seven through 2017. Coming up on ten years in Saturnian orbit, Cassini has revolutionized our understanding of the planet and the enigmatic rings which surround it. Despite its incredible successes, recent rumors have suggested that Cassini could be on the chopping block. Budget shortfalls at NASA, exacerbated by sequestration, has NASA facing a Sophie's Choice: shut down the successful Cassini or eliminate the popular Curiosity. Cassini and Curiosity represent NASA's two active "flagship" missions (I'm ignoring Voyager here). These are the largest and most expensive (more than $2 billion each) missions undertaken by the space agency and are major commitments to studying Saturn and Mars, respectively. In addition to their upfront price tag, each costs in the neighborhood of 50-60 million dollars a year to operate, significantly more than smaller missions. Although in theory NASA could choose to eliminate either one, it's extremely difficult to imagine shutting down the recently-launched Curiosity, especially given its tremendous public popularity. So, things were not looking great for Cassini, but the 2014 budget might offer some relief.The current draft of the 2014 federal budget includes an additional $700 million for NASA over last year's appropriation. That's an increase of about 4%. More importantly, the NASA science office received a larger proportion of that, about 7%, and planetary science in particular is being boosted about 10%.

The Aff spends a lot of money and funding for Space and Sea exploration is zero-sum. Mangu-Ward, 2013 (Katherine Mangu-Ward; managing editor of Reason magazine and a Future Tense fellow at the New America Foundation; “Is the Ocean the Real Final Frontier?”; 9/4/13;http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/09/sea_vs_space_which_is_the_real_final_frontier.html; Date Accessed: 7/12/14)

While many of the technologies for space and sky are the similar, right down to the goofy suits with bubble heads—the main difference is that in space, you’re looking to keep pressure inside your vehicle and underwater you’re looking to keep pressure out—there’s often a sense that that sea and space are competitors rather than compadres.They needn’t be, says Guillermo Söhnlein, a man who straddles both realms. Söhnlein is a serial space entrepreneur and the founder of the Space Angels Network. (Disclosure: My husband’s a

member.) The network funds startups aimed for the stars, but his most recent venture is Blue Marble Exploration, which organizes expeditions in manned submersibles to exotic underwater locales. (Further disclosure: I have made a very small investment in Blue Marble, but am fiscally neutral in the sea vs. space fight, since I have a similar amount riding on a space company, Planetary Resources.) As usual, the fight probably comes down to money. The typical American believes that NASA is eating up a significant portion of the federal budget (one 2007 poll found that respondents pinned that figure at one-quarter of the federal budget), but the space agency is actually nibbling at a Jenny Craig–sized portion of the pie. At about $17 billion, government-funded space exploration accounts for about 0.5 percent of the federal budget. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—NASA’s soggy counterpart—gets much less, a bit more than $5 billion for a portfolio that, as the name suggests, is more diverse. But the way Söhnlein tells the story, this zero sum mind-set is the result of a relatively recent historical quirk: For most of the history of human exploration, private funding was the order of the day. Even some of the most famous examples of state-backed exploration—Christopher Columbus’ long petitioning of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, for instance, or Sir Edmund Hillary’s quest to climb to the top of Everest—were actually funded primarily by private investors or nonprofits. But that changed with the Cold War, when the race to the moon was fueled by government money and gushers of defense spending wound up channeled into submarine development and other oceangoing tech. “That does lead to an either/or mentality. That federal money is taxpayer money which has to be accounted for, and it is a finite pool that you have to draw from against competing needs, against health care, science, welfare,” says Söhnlein. “In the last 10 to 15 years, we are seeing a renaissance of private finding of exploration ventures. On the space side we call it New Space, on the ocean side we have similar ventures.” And the austerity of the current moment doesn’t hurt. “The private sector is stepping up as public falls down. We’re really returning to the way it always was.”

Cutting NASA’s budget harms the economy and the US’s STEM leadership. Vertesi, 2013 (Janet Vertesi; sociologist of science and technology at Princeton University; “Don't gut NASA space missions”; 10/14/13; http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/14/opinion/vertesi-cassini-mission/; Date Accessed: 7/13/14)

Next year's NASA budget is poised to force premature cancellation of either Curiosity or Cassini -- the agency's flagship missions. Funding decisions get made behind closed doors, but projected figures reduce Cassini's budget in 2014 by almost half, and half again in 2015, making it impossible to fly. Even funding for analyzing data will be "restructured," according to NASA. These cuts are not only devastating for scientists; they are also potentially harmful for our economy, and our leadership in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math).When most people think of spacecraft, they think of hunks of metal flying or driving around, alone in the far reaches of the solar system. Some are cute and personable, like the Opportunity Rover or Voyager; some, like Cassini, are less well known. People might also recall the gorgeous photos spread across the front pages of the New York Times or on the cover of National Geographic. A few might even think of the famous scientists who have brought these pictures to life, like Carl Sagan, Steve Squyres, or Carolyn Porco. The robots' stories and adventures captivate us. But what about the people who created and operate the robots? Behind the scenes, largely invisible to the public, are many of America's best scientists and engineers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA centers, and research facilities who work on these missions to make space exploration possible. The budget cuts will affect America's most experienced and

most promising engineers and researchers. They may have to join the legions of the unemployed. Do we really want to put someone like Bobak Ferdowksi, NASA's famous "Mohawk Guy," out of a job?Some may think that space engineers can simply move to the private sector. After all, companies like Space X or Virgin Galactic are looking for talents. But private ventures involve different motives and skills. And private companies do not fund planetary science and experiments. Moreover, private and public research institutions from Cornell to Ohio State University rely partly on NASA grants to support their graduate students, post-docs, and other staff in STEM fields. In other words, NASA funding not only expands the frontiers of our knowledge, it also trains the next generation of STEM leaders in our country. The budget cuts would deprive our young scientists and engineers the resources to continue their studies and, in turn, contribute to America's innovation. Seen in perspective, the looming budget adjustment along with all the cuts in recent years sentences America's planetary exploration program to death by starvation. Cassini, for one, is already operating on a shoestring. And NASA has put plans for future missions to the outer solar system on ice, despite efforts by the planetary community to plan cost-effective and exciting opportunities. The continuous gutting of NASA and its planetary science programs should outrage all Americans. If we end the Cassini or the Curiosity mission, it would be a crisis not just for science but for America's leadership in STEM. At a time when our math and science students are getting left behind, and the public is looking to our high tech and scientific sectors to power innovation and economic growth, we should invest in our sciences and continue to inspire the next generation. Let's make sure our current best and brightest working on the cutting edge don't get the pink slip.

With out Stem Leadership, the word faces a laundry list of threats including climate change, energy and water shortages, public health emergencies, environmental degradation, poverty, and food insecurityFedoroff, 2008 (Nina V. Fedoroff; received the National Medal of Science, President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a member of the United States National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the European Academy of Sciences, and the American Academy of Microbiology; “HEARING: BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH ANDSCIENCE EDUCATION COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESSSECOND SESSION”; 4/2/2008; http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg41470/html/CHRG-110hhrg41470.htm; Date Accessed: 7/13/14)

Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss science diplomacy at the U.S. Department of State. The U.S. is recognized globally for its leadership in science and technology. Our scientific strength is both a tool of ``soft power''--part of our strategic diplomatic arsenal--and a basis for creating partnerships with countries as they move beyond basic economic and social development. Science diplomacy is a central element of the Secretary's transformational diplomacy initiative, because science and technology are essential to achieving stability and strengthening failed and fragile states. S&T advances have immediate and enormous influence on national and global economies, and thus on the international relations between societies. Nation states, nongovernmental organizations, and multinational corporations are largely shaped by their expertise in and access to intellectual and physical capital in science, technology, and engineering. Even as S&T advances of our modern era provide opportunities for economic

prosperity, some also challenge the relative position of countries in the world order, and influence our social institutions and principles. America must remain at the forefront of this new world by maintaining its technological edge, and leading the way internationally through science diplomacy and engagement. Science by its nature facilitates diplomacy because it strengthens political relationships, embodies powerful ideals, and creates opportunities for all. The global scientific community embraces principles Americans cherish: transparency, meritocracy, accountability, the objective evaluation of evidence, and broad and frequently democratic participation. Science is inherently democratic, respecting evidence and truth above all. Science is also a common global language, able to bridge deep political and religious divides. Scientists share a common language. Scientific interactions serve to keep open lines of communication and cultural understanding. As scientists everywhere have a common evidentiary external reference system, members of ideologically divergent societies can use the common language of science to cooperatively address both domestic and the increasingly trans-national and global problems confronting humanity in the 21st century. There is a growing recognition that science and technology will increasingly drive the successful economies of the 21st century. Science and technology provide an immeasurable benefit to the U.S. by bringing scientists and students here, especially from developing countries, where they see democracy in action, make friends in the international scientific community, become familiar with American technology, and contribute to the U.S. and global economy. For example, in 2005, over 50 percent of physical science and engineering graduate students and postdoctoral researchers trained in the U.S. have been foreign nationals. Moreover, many foreign-born scientists who were educated and have worked in the U.S. eventually progress in their careers to hold influential positions in ministries and institutions both in this country and in their home countries. They also contribute to U.S. scientific and technologic development: According to the National Science Board's 2008 Science and Engineering Indicators, 47 percent of full-time doctoral science and engineering faculty in U.S. research institutions were foreign-born. Finally, some types of science--particularly those that address the grand challenges in science and technology--are inherently international in scope and collaborative by necessity. The ITER Project, an international fusion research and development collaboration, is a product of the thaw in superpower relations between Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and U.S. President Ronald Reagan. This reactor will harness the power of nuclear fusion as a possible new and viable energy source by bringing a star to Earth. ITER serves as a symbol of international scientific cooperation among key scientific leaders in the developed and developing world--Japan, Korea, China, E.U., India, Russia, and United States--representing 70 percent of the world's current population. The recent elimination of funding for FY08 U.S. contributions to the ITER project comes at an inopportune time as the Agreement on the Establishment of the ITER International Fusion Energy Organization for the Joint Implementation of the ITER Project had entered into force only on October 2007. The elimination of the promised U.S. contribution drew our allies to question our commitment and credibility in international cooperative ventures. More problematically, it jeopardizes a platform for reaffirming U.S. relations with key states. It should be noted that even at the height of the cold war, the United States used science diplomacy as a means to maintain communications and avoid misunderstanding between the world's two nuclear powers--the Soviet Union and the United States. In a complex multi-polar world, relations are more challenging, the threats perhaps greater, and the need for engagement more paramount. The welfare and stability of countries and regions in many parts of the globe require a concerted effort by the developed world to address the causal factors that render countries fragile and cause states to fail. Countries that are unable to defend their people against starvation, or fail to provide economic opportunity, are susceptible to

extremist ideologies, autocratic rule, and abuses of human rights. As well, the world faces common threats, among them climate change, energy and water shortages, public health emergencies, environmental degradation, poverty, food insecurity, and religious extremism. These threats can undermine the national security of the United States, both directly and indirectly. Many are blind to political boundaries, becoming regional or global threats. The United States has no monopoly on knowledge in a globalizing world and the scientific challenges facing humankind are enormous. Addressing these common challenges demands common solutions and necessitates scientific cooperation, common standards, and common goals. We must increasingly harness the power of American ingenuity in science and technology through strong partnerships with the science community in both academia and the private sector, in the U.S. and abroad among our allies, to advance U.S. interests in foreign policy.

UQ

Funding for Cassini is happening nowLeone, 2014 (Dan Leone; he NASA reporter for SpaceNews, where he also covers other civilian-run U.S. government space programs and a growing number of entrepreneurial space companies, In his previous job, Dan was a technology and business reporter for Transport Topics, a Washington-based weekly newspaper covering the trucking and surface transportation industries, earned a bachelor's degree in public communications from the American University in Washington; “Cashed Strapped NASA Chose Cassini over SOFIA”; http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/39739cashed-strapped-nasa-chose-cassini-over-sofia; Date Accessed: 7/13/14)

WASHINGTON — An international airborne telescope the White House proposed mothballing March 4 was squeezed out of NASA’s budget by other ongoing missions, in particular the flagship-class Cassini probe that has been orbiting Saturn since 2004, a senior agency official said. The White House proposed grounding the billion-dollar Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) in part to avoid forcing the 16-year-old Cassini orbiter to compete with the 1.5-year-old Mars Curiosity rover for extended mission funding, according to budget documents. Cassini needs about $60 million a year to reach its currently targeted mission conclusion in September 2017.

Space funding now Dreier, 2014 (Casey Drier; Director of Advocacy- leads the strategic planning and implementation of the Society's political advocacy efforts, has a B.A. in Physics from Oberlin College, a regular contributor to The Planetary Report; “Congress Rejects Cuts to Planetary Exploration…Again”; http://www.planetary.org/press-room/releases/2014/congress-rejects-cuts.html; Date Accessed: 7/13/14)

The FY2014 Omnibus spending bill, now before the U.S. Congress, once again rejects cuts to NASA's Planetary Science Division that were sought by the White House. The Planetary Society commends Congress for this action, and strongly encourages the White House to prioritize Planetary Science in its future budget requests commensurate with its strong public and legislative support. The Society supports the passage of this bill for its additional Planetary Science funding as well as its overall funding levels allocated for NASA.

Congress plans to allocate $1.345 billion for NASA's Planetary Science Division, $127 million more than requested by the White House. We strongly support the increase, but note that the number is well below the program's historical average of $1.5 billion per year.

The additional funding ensures the steady development of the next major mission to Mars in 2020, which will store samples of the red planet for eventual return to Earth. It also provides $80 million for continued research into a flagship-class mission to explore Europa, the enigmatic moon of Jupiter that was recently revealed to be spouting its liquid-water ocean into space.

"Exploring Europa is no longer a 'should' but a 'must'," said Casey Dreier, The Planetary Society's Director of Advocacy, "Congress made a smart decision to continue studying the Europa Clipper mission concept. There is bipartisan support and strong public interest in exploring Europa, the mission is technically feasible, and it is high priority within the scientific community. The White House should embrace this bold search for life and request a new start for this mission in FY2015."

Cassini has avoided a decrease in funding thus far, but the brink is now. Howell, 2014 (Elizabeth Howell; a senior writer at Universe Today and regular contributor to Space.com, Space Exploration Network, the NASA Lunar Science Institute, NASA Astrobiology Magazine and LiveScience, pursuing a Ph.D. in aerospace sciences at the University of North Dakota; “BUDGET 2015: Flying SOFIA Telescope To Be Shelved For ‘Higher-Priority’ Programs Like Cassini”; 3/4/2014; http://www.universetoday.com/110007/budget-2015-flying-sofia-telescope-to-be-shelved-for-higher-priority-programs-like-cassini/#ixzz312pqDlgD; Date Accessed: 7/12/14)

NASA is prepared to axe an airborne telescope to keep “higher-priority” programs such as the Saturn Cassini mission going, according to budget documents the agency released today (March 4). We have more information about the budget below the jump, including the rationale for why NASA is looking to shelve its Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA).

NASA’s has been flying the telescope for just over three years and recently took some nice snapsnots of the M82 supernova that astronomers have been eager to image. The agency’s administrator, however, said SOFIA has had its shot and it’s time to reallocate the money for other programs.

Cassini is in jeopardy, spending cuts would reduce affectivity. Foust, 2014 (Jeff Foust; aerospace analyst, journalist and publisher. A senior aerospace analyst with the Futron Corporation, the editor and publisher of The Space Review and has written for Astronomy Now and The New Atlantis, has a bachelor's degree in geophysics from the California Institute of Technology and a Ph.D in planetary sciences from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; “NASA: upcoming senior review won’t pit Cassini versus Curiosity”; 1/17/14; http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/01/17/nasa-upcoming-senior-review-wont-pit-cassini-versus-curiosity/; Date Accessed: 7/12/14)

Last week, a senior NASA official denied that was the case. “That’s inaccurate,” said Jim Green, director of NASA’s planetary science division, at a meeting last week of the Small Bodies Assessment Group (SBAG) in Washington when asked about reports that only one of those two flagship missions could be continued. That review will involve some “tough decisions,” he acknowledged, but that does not mean shutting off missions entirely. “I’d rather not do that to any of the planetary missions,” he said. “Some missions may be funded at a higher level than other missions” based on priorities established in the senior review. Green offered a similar message earlier this week to another group of scientists, the Outer Planets Assessment Group

(OPAG), meeting in Tucson. Other scientific divisions at NASA, notably heliophysics, deals with such reviews by ending some missions entirely, a process Green said he’d like to avoid. “Each and every one of those [planetary] missions may not be funded at the current level that are funded at right now,” he said. “Some may be at a lower level.” That environment, Green said, means that ongoing missions will need to be creative in figuring out how to continue their missions, or some aspects of them, for less than they’re receiving today. “It’s a very tough environment, so everyone needs to sharpen their pencils and really think about the science that can be accomplished,” he said at OPAG. The process of the senior review itself is still coming together, with one big uncertainty: how much money will be available for continuing missions. Bill Knopf, lead program executive for mission operations in the planetary sciences division at NASA Headquarters, told OPAG that a “guideline narrative” for the senior review will be released to projects by the end of this month. Those guidelines, though, will not include budget levels, which will wait until the release of the administration’s fiscal year 2015 budget proposal, not expected until at least late February. Proposals from the various missions will be due in April, with results announced in June. We’re working on not as much information as we’d like to have right now,” Knopf said, referring to the unknown level of the fiscal year 2015 budget. “Hopefully, the President will issue his budget in February.” Those statements by NASA officials, though, may not be completely reassuring to scientists. The reliance on the FY2015 budget proposal for setting spending levels for the senior review could be problematic, as the administration sought significant cuts in planetary spending in both its FY13 and FY14 budget proposals, cuts partially offset by Congress in the final spending bills for those years. In a statement earlier this week about the final FY14 appropriations bill, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said he heard “disquieting rumors” about cuts in the planetary science program in the FY15 proposal, including “shutting down some current missions.” Those involved in Cassini—which continues to be perceived as the mission most in jeopardy during the senior review, given its cost and age—made the case for continuing the mission at OPAG. “Cassini is an investment not to be wasted,” Linda Spilker, Cassini project scientist, said in a presentation to OPAG. Flying the mission though its planned end in September 2017 would cost about $180 million, or $60 million a year, and perform science that otherwise could likely not be accomplished for decades. “To waste it would be unthinkable.” Cassini, some believe, could also be at a disadvantage if asked to continue the mission with reduced funding, since it has already had to tighten its belt during past reviews: Spilker said Cassini’s budget went from $80 million to $60 million a year in the previous senior review in 2012 even though it was considered fully funded. Those kinds of challenges await NASA and ongoing planetary missions this year. “The cold reality,” said Knopf, “is that we have only so much money to go around.”

LinksSpace Exploration has more funding than ocean exploration now. Casti, 2013 (Taylor Casti; Master's student in Publishing: Digital and Print Media at New York University; “Ocean vs. Space: Which Is the True Final Frontier?”; 9/25/13; http://mashable.com/2013/09/25/ocean-vs-space/; Date Accessed: 7/12/14)

Space may be called "the final frontier," but anyone who has seen a picture of a goblin shark or a vampire squid will agree that the ocean can be downright alien. Both realms are ripe for exploration, offer extensive potential benefits and come at a hefty price. So which wins in a battle between the two for the title of the final frontier? Which area of exploration will result in the greater good for humanity? Dr. Paul Bunje, senior director of prize development and ocean health at the XPRIZE Foundation, and Alexandra Hall, senior director of Google Lunar XPRIZE, met on the Social Good Summit stage to duke it out on Tuesday. Space has been the clear leader for a long time. $17.8 billion dollars is going toward space exploration in 2013, compared to the $5 billion dollars that goes toward oceanic exploration. This discrepancy has led to skewed results: While 500 individuals have been sent into space, only three have visited the deepest part of the ocean, the Mariana Trench. We have better maps of the surface of Mars than we do of our own ocean floor, and we understand more about the dark side of the moon than ocean life. Despite centuries of ocean exploration, we’ve only covered about 5% of the ocean.

There’s a trade off – NASA receives funds out of the same committee that funds NOAA Mervis, 2010 (Jeffrey Mervis; deputy news editor, Science Magazine, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C.; “President Obama's Science Spending”; transcript of an interview with various guests on NPR; 2/5/10; http://www.wbur.org/npr/123410020/president-obamas-science-spending; Date Accessed: 7/12/14)

But more broadly, Congress isn't going to go for all of these things. Congress, as you'll talk about later with NASA, is not going to be happy with that reallocation and savings. And the reason that's important to the rest of the science budget is because NASA is funded by the same committee that funds the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Commerce, which has NOAA and NIST. And so if they have a fixed amount of money, the more they give to one agency, the less there is for everybody else. So sometimes Congress makes decisions not because they're opposed to research, but because they have other higher priorities.

There’s a trade off- budgeting is zero-sum Williams, 2011 (Jesse Williams; guest columnist for Yale Daily News; “Williams: War of the wars”; 1/20/11; http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2011/01/20/williams-war-of-the-wars/; Date Accessed: 7/12/14)

The budget-tightening weeks are a tough time in Washington. After all, our revenues are finite, so budgeting is a zero-sum game: every dollar we spend on education is a dollar we can’t spend on the military; every dime we put into Social Security is one dime that can’t go to NASA, and so on. So when it comes time to cut, every portion of spending can, in a very real sense, be evaluated against any other portion. Yet, we rarely do that kind of broad evaluating — we stay busy trying to decide whether we’re giving the Marine Corps a new tank instead of a new jet. That’s not a conversation about national priorities, and not the kind of conversation we can and should be having. Why not weigh that tank against, say, $12 billion in federal subsidies for education?

Cut-Go Rules cause a trade-off Sange, 2011 (Alexandra Sange; a Public Policy Associate at the National Association of Community Health Centers, works to preserve, strengthen and expand Community Health Centers through the federal legislative process with a focus on health center reimbursement and financing. She works with Congress on health centers’ priorities in Medicaid, Medicare, CHIP, and other insurance plans, capital financing, health information technology, and 340B, and other mandatory spending, has a Masters in Public Policy; “HOUSE PASSES NEW RULES FOR THE 112TH CONGRESS”; 1/18/11; http://blogs.nachc.com/washington/house-passes-new-rules-for-the-112th-congress/; Date Accessed: 7/12/14)

Changing Pay-go to Cut-go. The new rules replace the previous ‘pay-as-you-go’ or PAYGO requirement with a ‘cut-as-you-go’ or cut-go requirement. Cut-go prohibits the House from considering any bill that produces a net increase in mandatory spending within the 1-year, 5-year and 10-year budget windows, as opposed to PAYGO’s ten-year window. If a bill increases mandatory spending by any amount, the bill must cut the budget somewhere by that same amount. Under PAYGO, spending cuts could serve as offsets to spending increases, however, revenue increases could also serve as offsets. Under the ‘cut-go’ rule increases in revenue cannot be used to offset increases in mandatory spending.

Impact

Key to Science Leadership

Funding is key to scienceSpudis 2014 (Paul is a senior staff scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston, AIR AND SPACE MAGAZINE: published by the Smithsonian, April 22, “NASA’s Extended Science Missions in Peril”, http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/nasas-extended-science-missions-peril-180951189/?no-ist accessed 5/1/2014)

But when is enough, enough? There are so many places to go, so much to do and so little money to spread around; new missions are waiting their turn. Once a mission completes its defined job, shouldn’t we accept that it’s over and move on to the next one? What reasoning guides NASA’s continued support for extended missions?¶ There are several strong arguments in favor of continuing

extended missions. The most obvious one is that an extended mission takes advantage of a proven asset already in place and working. Spaceflight remains a risky business and it’s amazing that after 50 years of experience with it, seemingly minor malfunctions or glitches can and do destroy the well-laid plans, work and dreams of hundreds of scientists and engineers. Every launch of a spacecraft is a heart-stopping moment for the people who have worked (often for years) on the mission – a hope against hope that somehow, their “baby” will survive this baptism of fire and safely navigate the

treacherous shoals of interplanetary space. Most malfunctions occur early in flight, either in launch failures or during

the deployment of structures, such as antennas and solar arrays. With those early events safely behind them, the mission team can breathe easier and begin data collection.¶ Once the nominal mission data is “in the can,” the mission team has safely cleared another hurdle and eagerly looks forward to the collection of additional data. In some cases, spacecraft are flexible enough to be programmed to collect data or conduct experiments that were not thought about prior to flight. In other cases, spacecraft designed to collect partial data for a planet can end up collecting global data sets, or at least greatly improve an existing data product through repeated additional observations. In the 1970s, the Viking Orbiters had imaging systems much improved over the previous Mariner 9 camera, but the mission was not designed to make a global map of Mars. Nonetheless, the Viking Orbiters ended up mapping the entire planet in unprecedented resolution and image quality during their extended missions.¶ Another reason for continuing an extended mission is if there are no immediate plans for any future missions to the

object of study. For example, the Cassini mission has been extended repeatedly not only for the excellent science it is producing, but also because no future missions to Saturn are currently planned by any space faring nation. In the case of LRO, it is the last remnant of what was to be a series (now cancelled) of robotic missions to the Moon. Moreover, the LRO spacecraft is in a stable “frozen” orbit that requires no maintenance; its instruments continue to work superbly and we are conducting new and innovative experiments, such as using the large radio dish antenna at Arecibo (Puerto Rico) to undertake “bistatic” radar measurements of various locales and geological units, including most interestingly, polar deposits. Bistatic radar measurements of diffuse backscatter can distinguish between those caused by rocky surfaces and ice; this particular experiment was not planned when LRO was launched five years ago. We have obtained new data that portrays a moon unlike the one we thought it to be. This “new” Moon is drawing the attention of the world’s space powers.¶ The camera on LRO constantly returns detailed, high-resolution images of astonishing beauty and utility. We have completely mapped the Moon at medium resolution (about 100 meters per pixel); the Narrow Angle Camera on LRO can resolve objects on the surface as small as one meter (pixel size 25-100 cm). These data have given us spectacular views of fresh flows of impact melt (twisted landforms caused by the flow of liquid, shock-melted rock), entrances to subterranean (sublunarian?) voids (possibly intact lava caves), unusual and enigmatic landforms that may be created by recent and violent venting of gas from the lunar interior, and newly formed impact craters, known to be new because previous images show nothing at these sites. Virtually all of these features were completely unknown prior to being imaged by the LROC. Thus, ongoing extended missions can and often do make new and unexpected discoveries, in some cases discoveries that could not even have been anticipated prior to flight.¶ At a recent meeting, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden claimed that extending old missions was “not as invigorating” for young scientists than starting

new ones. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most students in planetary science and space engineering cut their teeth by working on extended missions. Students and young investigators get few opportunities to work

directly on new missions – most mission teams are made up of experienced scientists and engineers (read: greybeards). It is only during the extended mission that the less experienced people get their chance (“It’s done its job – let the kids play with it!”). Moreover, for ongoing missions like LRO, student workers are a critical and large part of the team for ongoing operations. They plan data collects, monitor the downlinks and store and archive the data. The loss of an extended mission asset doesn’t increase opportunities for students – it decreases them.¶ We do not yet know how the Senior Review will turn out. NASA is

famous for wanting to “move on” to the next thing and often abandons working spacecraft. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush but as things currently stand, there isn’t much in the mission pipeline to move on to. Planetary Science has taken several massive budgetary hits in the past few years, with more on the way.¶ The termination

of LRO and MER will not help move new missions off the drawing board. Money not spent on these extended

missions will probably slide into SMD’s Black Hole of Funding (the James Webb Space Telescope) or be dissipated on new paperwork, committee meetings and concept studies. It would be both fiscally prudent and programmatically responsible for NASA to fund and retain these working and still productive extended missions.

Science Leadership Good—Laundry List

Science diplomacy is key to solve all of the major problems of the 21st centuryFedoroff 2009 - Science and Technology Adviser to the Secretary of State and to the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), U.S. Department of State, Washington DC 20520, USA. (Nina, “Science Diplomacy in the 21st Century”, 1/9/2009, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009286740801636X#)

But the problems are deep and stubborn. Perhaps the most poignant disparities exist between the countries of the developed world and much of Africa, where climate, disease, soil exhaustion, and a host of other problems contribute. In his book titled “The Bottom Billion,” economist Paul Collier (http://users.ox.ac. uk/~econpco/) offers an insightful analysis of the many factors

that contribute to trapping the poorest nations in continuing cycles of poverty and unrest. The global food crisis of 2008 triggered food riots in more than 30 countries and calls for a new Green Revolution. The first Green Revolution, however, was relatively straightforward, if not easy: improved crop varieties and increased fertilizer use. The next Green Revolution will be more difficult, even if we succeed in overcoming the deep and widespread mistrust of using modern molecular methods for the genetic improvement of crop plants. In a crowded world, we no longer have the luxury of

focusing on the single variable of agricultural productivity. Food, water, energy, health, and economic development are all intertwined. Progress will depend on a high level of education, particularly in science and engineering. All will be impacted by climate change and politics—everywhere. Climate change is a wake-up call to the awareness that we live in a world without borders. Airplanes can make SARS and multidrug-resistant TB everyone’s problem in a heartbeat. Trade barriers between nations and farm subsidies in developed nations stifle agricultural growth in developing countries. The rush toward renewable energy from biofuels accelerates deforestation in the Amazon, however

indirectly, and with each acre lost, another multitude of species goes extinct. Wall Street’s problems echo around the world. And all of these seemingly separate problems turn out to be interconnected. Food and energy are now viewed as fungible. Growing the food—and feed and fiber and fuel—demanded by a still expanding and increasingly affluent human population requires innovations not just in agricultural productivity but also in water and land management, food processing, and transportation. Decimating what remains of the tropic’s forests will as surely exacerbate climate change as it will reduce biodiversity.

It’s one big thorny tangle: people, money, food, energy, health, water, land, climate, biodiversity. How do we as scientists begin to think—and act—on a global scale to address such complicated problems? It seems to me that we must first become citizens not just of our own nations, but of this world without borders. We need to see, experience, and identify with the peoples and the problems of other nations and to recognize the complexity and interconnections among the challenges facing 21st century humanity. And perhaps most importantly of all, we need to understand, at a deep gut level, that all our fates are truly intertwined.

We must move quickly to develop the science that will allow us to model and understand the complex system that is our planet and its crust of human activities. We need to invent efficient, nonpolluting means of local power generation. We need to invest in the research that will allow us to improve how we manage

water, grow food, battle disease, and build economies into the next generation—and the next. Science, of course, provides the common language to build bridges between cultures.

A2: Tradeoff DA

Link Level

No NASA Cuts

Budget cuts won’t affect NASA’s programs.Bodzash, 2011 (Dennis Bodzash; astronomer/astrophotographer, serves as a member of the Board of Directors and as newsletter editor for Northeast Ohio's Black River Astronomical Society, writes columns as Cleveland Photography and Astronomy Examiner; “Last-ditch effort to avoid government shutdown involves NASA cuts”; http://www.examiner.com/article/last-ditch-effort-to-avoid-government-shutdown-involves-nasa-cuts; Date Accessed: 7/13/14)

Ever since the space race ended with Apollo 11, NASA has found itself on the chopping block as only science, not national pride, has been at stake. Since NASA's budget (as a part of the total federal budget) peaked in the mid 1960s, NASA has been operating under less and less money relative to the government as a whole. However, even as its relative budget has shrank, NASA has always found ways to probe the mysteries of the cosmos. No doubt, regardless of what the next government spending bill offers, NASA will continue on its quest.

NASA funding inevitable Coren, 2013 (Courtney Coren; contributor to NewsMax.com; Budget Restraints Could Delay or Abort Major NASA Projects; http://www.newsmax.com/SciTech/nasa-budget-cassini-hubble/2013/12/26/id/543841/#ixzz32AfvBova; Date Accessed: 7/13/14)

For example, the Cassini spacecraft currently orbiting Saturn will run out of fuel in about four years. To continue that mission, now focused on exploring Saturn's rings, it would take about $60 million a year, according to The Washington Post. But the NASA budget presently has no funding designated for the mission, which could bring it to an early end next year. "I think it would be the height of folly to terminate such a profoundly successful mission when we're not done yet," said Carolyn Porco, planetary scientist at the Space Science Institute in Boulder, Colo. Porco works on the project. NASA officials believe the administration and Congress will likely share that view and in the end will allow the mission to continue with the appropriate funding.

Funding Inevitable-Despite requested budget cuts, NASA funding continues to occurDreier, 2014 (Casey Drier; Director of Advocacy- leads the strategic planning and implementation of the Society's political advocacy efforts, has a B.A. in Physics from Oberlin College, a regular contributor to The Planetary Report; “Congress Rejects Cuts to Planetary Exploration…Again”; http://www.planetary.org/press-room/releases/2014/congress-rejects-cuts.html; Date Accessed: 7/13/14)

The Society also supports the congressional recommendation that NASA increase the pace of small planetary missions. We are particularly happy to see full congressional and White House support for restarting the nation's Plutonium-238 production capability, which provides electrical power for many planetary science missions that can't utilize solar panels. The White House has requested cuts to planetary science for two years in a row, and for two years in a row Congress has rejected them. In light of this and the more than 50,000 messages sent to

Congress and President Obama in support of NASA's planetary science program last year, we urge the Office of Management and Budget to recognize the unprecedented public and legislative support for solar system exploration, and propose $1.5 billion for this program in their FY2015 budget request.

No Tradeoff

The plan is new spending – PAYGO doesn’t guarantee trade-offs Riedl 2005 (Brian, Grover M. Hermann fellow in federal budgetary affairs at Heritage, January 25, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/01/whats-wrong-with-the-federal-budget-process)

The budget process is designed with a bias toward higher spending and taxes. Public choice theory recognizes that how democracies make decisions has a substantial effect on what is decided. Multi-year constraints, such as PAYGO and discretionary spending caps, represent an attempt by policymakers with a long-term view to constrain the decisions of annual budgeters who are focused only on the short term. However, these multi-year constraints fail to settle the question of whether the budget process should be used to limit spending (as discretionary caps suggest) or to slow the growth of the budget deficit, regardless of government size (as PAYGO suggests). This confusion created odd situations whereby even policies that would achieve both goals of reducing spending and reducing the budget deficit (such as a discretionary spending cut accompanied by a smaller tax cut) have not been allowed. Furthermore, PAYGO did not successfully blunt the pro-spending bias of annual budget writers because it focused only on the effects of new policies and ignored current policies-because it was rarely enforced. Public choice theorists also note the pro-spending bias caused by the decentralization of spending committees. Although a single appropriations committee in the House and the Senate annually approves all discretionary spending, nearly a dozen different committees in each body of Congress write mandatory spending programs. The lack of coordination between these committees creates a "tragedy of the commons," whereby each committee is responsible only for the funding of its own pet programs with no obligation to trade off their costs with the costs of other committees' programs.[3] Accordingly, each committee over-prioritizes and consequently over-funds its own programs. A single committee reviewing all legislation would solve this bias by taking on the responsibility to make the difficult trade-offs.[4]

Any tradeoffs would come from other budgetsSVITAK 11 (3/29. Amy; Senior Writer – Space.com, “NASA’s Budget Could Get Infusion From Other U.S. Departments,” http://www.space.com/11247-nasa-budget-funding-commerce-justice-departments.html, 2011, RZ)

Congressional appropriators could tap the funding accounts of the U.S. departments of Commerce and Justice to help cover what some see as a $1 billion shortfall in NASA’s $18.7 billion spending plan for 2012, which allocates less money for a heavy-lift rocket and crew capsule than Congress directed last year. “There’s over a billion-dollar difference between the budget request and the authorized levels in [20]12 for the launch system and the crew vehicle, and now that falls squarely back on the shoulders of [the appropriations committees] to try and figure out where to come up with that money,” said a panelist at a March 23 breakfast on Capitol Hill. Sponsored by Women in Aerospace (WIA), the breakfast was held under the Chatham House Rule, an 84-year-old protocol fashioned by the London-based nonprofit think-tank to promote frank discussion through anonymity. [What Obama and Congress Should Do for Spaceflight] The panelist, one of six whose names and job titles were circulated by WIA prior to the meeting, said funding requested in NASA’s 2012 spending plan does not square with levels Congress set in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 that U.S. President Barack Obama signed into law in October. Specifically, the request called for spending $1.2 billion less than the $4 billion Congress authorized for the heavy-lift launch vehicle and crew capsule in 2012. At the same time, the request includes $350 million more than the $500 million Congress authorized to nurture development of commercial vehicles to deliver cargo and crews to the International Space Station after the space shuttle retires later this year.

Consequently, the panelist said, it is now up to congressional appropriators “to find a billion dollars in other places in

NASA to pay for those activities or to decide to make those tradeoffs and take that money out of the

departments of Commerce or Justice or the other agencies that are funded in the same bill as NASA.” NASA’s annual appropriation is part of a broader spending package totaling nearly $65 billion

that funds the U.S. Commerce and Justice departments, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology and related agencies. But with NASA and other federal agencies operating in a fiscally constrained environment, the panelist said Congress could struggle to fund new multibillion-dollar programs next year. “It’s not impossible but the ability to do that is severely constrained in the environment we’re working in now, and that’s exacerbated by budget requests coming up from the administration that don’t track with the authorization,” the panelist said. Congress has yet to pass an appropriations bill for 2011, leaving NASA and most federal agencies to subsist at 2010 spending levels in the current budget year. The panelist said passing spending legislation for NASA “is a complicated and challenging thing this year, and it will be again next year” given a fiscal climate that has changed dramatically authorized funding levels for the space agency were set last fall. However, the panelist said the appropriations subcommittees that fund NASA are “very supportive of the agency, they’re supportive of the authorization, they want to see NASA get as close as possible to those authorized levels, so that will be a work in progress.”

Internal Link Level

A2: Cuts Kill NASA

Cuts don’t get kill programs – NASA will find a way to fund everythingBodzash 11 (Dennis, writer @ Space News Examiner, http://www.examiner.com/space-news-in-national/last-ditch-effort-to-avoid-government-shutdown-involves-nasa-cuts) JPG

Ever since the space race ended with Apollo 11, NASA has found itself on the chopping block as only science, not national pride, has been at stake. Since NASA's budget (as a part of the total federal budget) peaked in the mid 1960s, NASA has been operating under less and less money relative to the government as a whole. However, even as its relative budget has shrank, NASA has always found ways to probe the mysteries of the cosmos. No doubt, regardless of what the next government spending bill offers, NASA will continue on its quest.

Impact Level

No Impact

Scientists lack unity, and are ineffective at engaging governments, means no solvency National Research Council 12 The National Research Council (NRC) is the working arm of the United States National Academies, which produces reports that shape policies, inform public opinion, and advance the pursuit of science, engineering, and medicine. (“U.S. and International Perspectives on Global Science Policy and Science” [pgs.33-34]—2012 http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13300&page=33 KW)

Many workshop participants underlined the failure of scientists to effectively engage policy makers

and the public in the understanding the role of science and its potential value in diplomacy and in

development. According to Volker ter Meulen, the main challenges are the lack of a unified voice to speak on behalf of science and the lack of experience within the political institutions to use science and effectively communicate with the science community. This challenge is often compounded by the multiplicity of other

voices in a crowded world. In a very complicated diplomatic system, involving NGOs, intergovernmental

organizations, media, and new communication modes and networks, the scientific community must learn how to

inform and engage more effectively with all these groups and governments. Furthermore, several participants underscored the importance or recognizing that many of the major policy challenges require science in diplomacy across a broad front. For example, tackling the Millennium Development Goals requires understanding and action on food, health, and the

environment, which involves multiple government departments and requires a coherent and integrated policy. Unfortunately, noted one discussant, there are often organizational barriers within and between governments, in addition to the low public understanding and support for such policies.

Lack of cohesion, human capital, and infrastructure prevent effective science diplomacyNational Research Council 12 The National Research Council (NRC) is the working arm of the United States National Academies, which produces reports that shape policies, inform public opinion, and advance the pursuit of science, engineering, and medicine. (“U.S. and International Perspectives on Global Science Policy and Science” [pgs.33-34]—2012 http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13300&page=33 )

A serious lack of human capital, coherent national science and technology strategies, and research infrastructures in potentially partnering countries was identified by some workshop participants as an important barrier to more effective international engagement. Gebisa Ejeta and others stated that weak human capacity, in part owing to brain drain, and the lack of adequate research infrastructure in developing countries has too often derailed promising science-based developments or worse, prevented their successful exploitation. Ejeta also underlined the differences in goals and aspirations between institutions in the United States and those in developing countries that often create an awkward dialogue about the objectives of collaborative partnerships. Most of the advanced research institutions in the developed world aim at creating a global public good; in contrast, research centers in most developing countries focus on the development of locally needed products and services. Nevertheless, he believed that the two goals are mutually supportive, and if the parties communicate and work together, a win-win scenario often can be reached. He also noted an overreliance in developing countries on external funding to capitalize on science diplomacy and global science cooperation

opportunities, which is, of course, largely because of insufficient local resource commitment to science. There is a shortage of functional research centers and science support architecture such as science and technology commissions merit-based funding mechanism, or science academics in the developing world. Several participants identified building such structures as an important goal of science diplomacy.