Parli Stuffs

7/29/2019 Parli Stuffs

1/26

Immigration wont passObama plan alienated conservatives and wont pass

Meckler TODAY 2-17 [Laura, Staff Writer, Wall Street Journal,

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323495104578310280625025410.html , White HouseImmigration Plan Linked,+

"If a Democrat, the president or anyone else puts out what they want on their own, it's going to be

different than what you have a bipartisan agreement, but the only way we're going to get something

done is with a bipartisan agreement," he said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union." He added that Mr.

Obama had "given us the space" to negotiate a deal and that he was optimistic the Senate could

succeed. Some argued Sunday that the release could help the process by allowing Republicans to attack

the president and put distance between their effort and Mr. Obama. One GOP Senate aide allowed for

that possibility, but said the greater likelihood is that the events confirm fears of conservatives that Mr.

Obama will push the legislation to the political left in a way they will be unable to support.

Rubio said its dead on arrivalHart 2/16, Benjamin Hart is a staff writer @ Huffington Post,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/16/rubio-immigration-reform_n_2703722.html

Hours after USA Today obtained the first draft of President Obama's immigration reform plan, the office

of Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) put out a press release signaling the lawmaker's strong opposition. Its

a mistake for the White House to draft immigration legislation without seeking input from Republican

members of Congress," the statement begins, before going on to call the bill "half-baked and seriously

flawed" and declaring that "if actually proposed, the Presidents bill would be dead on arrival in

Congress."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323495104578310280625025410.htmlhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323495104578310280625025410.htmlhttp://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/16/obama-immigration-bill/1925017/http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=d4fde88b-eaa1-4bd8-8ff1-8b79b689c86d%3Cbr%20/%3Ehttp://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=d4fde88b-eaa1-4bd8-8ff1-8b79b689c86d%3Cbr%20/%3Ehttp://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/16/obama-immigration-bill/1925017/http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323495104578310280625025410.html


2/26

Immigration will pass

CIR passes now, bipartisan and senators see it as a priority

Gannet News 2-13Gannet news service February 13, 2013 Immigration reform priority forsenators http://triblive.com/usworld/nation/3481415-74/senate-bipartisan-

committee#axzz2Kq4OCor7

WASHINGTON A sense of urgency permeated the Senate's first immigration reform hearing of the

113th Congress on Wednesday as lawmakers and Obama administration officials said they see a rare

chance for compromise on one of the nation's most divisive issues. Homeland Security Secretary Janet

Napolitano told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the United States is at a unique moment in

history with a real chance to pass bipartisan immigration reform in this session of Congress. For the

first time in recent memory , we are seeing a bipartisan consensus emerge about what those

commonsense steps should be, Napolitano said. We must not miss this opportunity. President

Obama, in his state of the union speech on Tuesday night, urged lawmakers to pass a bipartisan bill that

he can sign into law. Senate Republicans have expressed an increased willingness to tackle the issue as a

way to reach out to Latino voters, who overwhelmingly supported Obama and Democratic congressional

candidates in last fall's election. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the committee's chairman, said he is

determined that the panel will vote on legislation this spring. If the committee is able to pass a bill, the

legislation would then go to a vote of the full Senate. Two Democrats and two Republicans on the

committee are among a bipartisan group of eight senators working on a compromise bill that includes

stronger border security and an earned pathway to citizenship for the 11 million illegal immigrants

already living in the United States. Our window of opportunity will not stay open long, Leahy said. If

we are going to act on this issue, we must do so without delay. While senators asked tough questions

of Napolitano and other witnesses, the overall tenor of the hearing was much more positive about

immigration reform than a hearing in the House last week

CIR will pass now, bipartisan support and Obama is pushing

Martin 2-13 Gary Martin February 13, 2013 Obama: Immigration reform makes good economicsense http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Obama-Immigration-reform-makes-

good-economic-4273468.php

WASHINGTON President Barack Obama cast immigration reform in economic terms Tuesday as he

prodded Congress to create a path for citizenship for undocumented immigrants and provide employers

with highly skilled workers needed to compete globally. Our economy is stronger when we harness

the talents and ingenuity of striving, hopeful immigrants, Obama said to a standing ovation and

applause from a joint session of Congress. Obama seized on the political momentum and used his State

of the Union speech to praise lawmakers in the Senate and House for working together on theemotionally charged issue. Send me a comprehensive immigration reform bill in the next few months

and I will sign it right away, he said. In the Republican rebuttal, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a co-author

of a bipartisan Senate immigration measure, agreed with the president that the immigration system

needs fixing. Rubio said we can help our economy grows if we have a legal immigration system that

allows us to attract and assimilate the world's best and brightest. He stopped short of endorsing a path

to citizenship while calling for a responsible, permanent solution to the problem of those who are here

illegally. And, Rubio said: We must first follow through on the broken promises of the past to secure

our borders and enforce our laws. The president's speech comes one day before the Senate Judiciary
http://www.mysanantonio.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Flocal_news&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Barack+Obama%22http://www.mysanantonio.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Flocal_news&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Senate+and+House%22http://www.mysanantonio.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Flocal_news&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Marco+Rubio%22http://www.mysanantonio.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Flocal_news&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Senate+Judiciary+Committee%22http://www.mysanantonio.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Flocal_news&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Senate+Judiciary+Committee%22http://www.mysanantonio.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Flocal_news&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Marco+Rubio%22http://www.mysanantonio.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Flocal_news&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Senate+and+House%22http://www.mysanantonio.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Flocal_news&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Barack+Obama%22


3/26

Committee takes up the bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform plan. Sweeping legislation still

faces hurdles, particularly in the Republican-controlled House. Illegal immigration is a drain on the

economy and amnesty is not the answer, said Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, a member of the

House Judiciary subcommittee on immigration. Smith said that amnesty actually makes matters worse

by providing an incentive for more immigrants to come to the U.S. illegally. Tuesday night, the

president said immigration reform would benefit the economy by leveling the playing field for both

workers and employers. He called on Congress to streamline the legal immigration system for families,

workers and to attract highly skilled entrepreneurs and engineers who will create jobs. Obama said

immigration reform should include border security, building upon the progress of his administration,

which increased the number ofBorder Patrol agents and saw illegal crossing on the Southwest border

plunge to the lowest levels in 40 years. And he called for a path to citizenship for undocumented

immigrants who pass background checks, pay taxes, learn English and stand at the back of the line

behind the folks trying to come here legally. The speech was applauded by congressional Democrats

elected on vows to reform immigration laws. I'm glad immigration reform was a focal point of tonight's

speech, said Rep. Pete Gallego, D-Alpine. Immigration reform is the right thing to do for our country

and a necessity for America's economic future. Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-San Antonio, said Obama is

putting his full weight behind immigration reform. I think the president's efforts are paying off.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Flocal_news&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Senate+Judiciary+Committee%22http://www.mysanantonio.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Flocal_news&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Lamar+Smith%22http://www.mysanantonio.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Flocal_news&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22House+Judiciary%22http://www.mysanantonio.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Flocal_news&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Border+Patrol%22http://www.mysanantonio.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Flocal_news&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Democrats%22http://www.mysanantonio.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Flocal_news&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Pete+Gallego%22http://www.mysanantonio.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Flocal_news&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Joaquin+Castro%22http://www.mysanantonio.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Flocal_news&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Joaquin+Castro%22http://www.mysanantonio.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Flocal_news&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Pete+Gallego%22http://www.mysanantonio.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Flocal_news&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Democrats%22http://www.mysanantonio.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Flocal_news&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Border+Patrol%22http://www.mysanantonio.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Flocal_news&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22House+Judiciary%22http://www.mysanantonio.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Flocal_news&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Lamar+Smith%22http://www.mysanantonio.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Flocal_news&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Senate+Judiciary+Committee%22


4/26

Immigration reform goodVisas are key to cybersecurity preparedness

McLarty 9 (Thomas F. III, President McLarty Associates and Former White House Chief of Staff andTask Force Co-Chair, U.S. Immigration Policy: Report of a CFR-Sponsored Independent Task Force, 7-8,

http://www.cfr.org/ publication/19759/us_immigration_policy.html)

We have seen, when you look at the table of the top 20 firms that are H1-B visa

requestors, at least 15 of those areIT firms. And as we're seeing across industry, much of the hardware and software that's used in this country

is not only manufactured now overseas, but it's developed overseas by scientists and engineers who were educated here in the

United States.We're seeing a lot more activity around cyber-security , certainly

noteworthy attacks here very recently. It's becoming an increasingly dominant set of requirements across not only to the Department of

Defense, but the Department of Homeland Security and the critical infrastructure that's held in private hands. Was there any

discussion or any interest from DOD or DHS as you undertook this review on the security things about what can be

done to try to generate a more effective group ofIT experts here in the

United States, many of which are coming to the U.S. institutions, academic institutions

from overseas and often returning back? This potentially puts us at a

competitive disadvantage going forward. MCLARTY: Yes. And I think your question largely is the answer as well. I mean,

clearly we have less talented students here studying -- or put another way, more

talented students studying in other countries that are gifted, talented, really have a tremendous ability

to develop these kind of technology and scientific advances , we're going to be putat an increasingly disadvantage. Where if they come here -- and I kind oflike Dr. Land's approach ofthe green card being

handed to them or carefully put in their billfold or purse as they graduate -- then, obviously, that'sgoing to

strengthen, I think, our system, our security needs .

Cyber-vulnerability causes great power nuclear war

Fritz 9 | Researcher for International Commission on Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament[Jason, researcher for International Commission on Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament, former

Army officer and consultant, and has a master of international relations at Bond University, Hacking

Nuclear Command and Control, July,

http://www.icnnd.org/latest/research/Jason_Fritz_Hacking_NC2.pdf] This paper will analyse the threat ofcyber terrorism in regard to nuclear weapons. Specifically, this research will useopen source knowledge to identify the structure of nuclear command and control centres, how those structures might becompromised through computer network operations, and how doing so would fit within established cyber terrorists capabilities,

strategies, and tactics. If access to command and control centres is obtained, terrorists could fake oractually cause one nuclear-armed state to attack another, thus provoking a nuclear response fromanother nuclear power. This may be an easier alternative for terrorist groups than building oracquiring a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb themselves. This would also act as a force equaliser, andprovide terrorists with the asymmetric benefits of high speed, removal of geographical distance, and a
http://www.icnnd.org/latest/research/Jason_Fritz_Hacking_NC2.pdfhttp://www.icnnd.org/latest/research/Jason_Fritz_Hacking_NC2.pdf


5/26

relatively low cost. Continuing difficulties in developing computer tracking technologies which couldtrace the identity of intruders, and difficulties in establishing an internationally agreed upon legal framework to guideresponses to computer network operations, point towards an inherent weakness in using computer networks tomanage nuclear weaponry. This is particularly relevant to reducing the hair trigger posture of existingnuclear arsenals.All computers which are connected to the internet are susceptible to infiltration and remote control.Computers which operate on a closed network may also be compromised by various hacker methods,such as privilege escalation, roaming notebooks, wireless access points, embedded exploits in softwareand hardware, and maintenance entry points. For example, e-mail spoofing targeted at individuals whohave access to a closed network, could lead to the installation of a virus on an open network. This viruscould then be carelessly transported on removable data storage between the open and closed network. Information foundon the internet may also reveal how to access these closed networks directly. Efforts by militaries toplace increasing reliance on computer networks, including experimental technology such asautonomous systems, and their desire to have multiple launch options, such as nuclear triad capability,enables multiple entry points for terrorists. For example, if a terrestrial command centre is impenetrable, perhapsisolating one nuclear armed submarine would prove an easier task. There is evidence to suggest multiple attemptshave been made by hackers to compromise the extremely low radio frequency once used by the USNavy to send nuclear launch approval to submerged submarines. Additionally, the alleged Soviet systemknown as Perimetr was designed to automatically launch nuclear weapons if it was unable to establishcommunications with Soviet leadership. This was intended as a retaliatory response in the event thatnuclear weapons had decapitated Soviet leadership; however it did not account for the possibility of

cyber terrorists blocking communications through computer network operations in an attempt toengage the system. Should a warhead be launched, damage could be further enhanced through additional computernetwork operations. By using proxies, multi-layered attacks could be engineered. Terrorists could remotelycommandeer computers in China and use them to launch a US nuclear attack against Russia. ThusRussia would believe it was under attack from the US and the US would believe China was responsible.Further, emergency response communications could be disrupted, transportation could be shut down,and disinformation, such as misdirection, could be planted, thereby hindering the disaster relief effortand maximizing destruction. Disruptions in communication and the use of disinformation could also

be used to provoke uninformed responses. For example, a nuclear strike between India and Pakistancould be coordinated with Distributed Denial of Service attacks against key networks, so they wouldhave further difficulty in identifying what happened and be forced to respond quickly. Terrorists could alsoknock out communications between these states so they cannot discuss the situation.Alternatively, amidst theconfusion of a traditional large-scale terrorist attack, claims of responsibility and declarations of warcould be falsified in an attempt to instigate a hasty military response. These false claims could be posteddirectly on Presidential, military, and government websites. E-mails could also be sent to the media and foreign governments

using the IP addresses and e-mail accounts of government officials. A sophisticated and all encompassingcombination of traditional terrorism and cyber terrorism could be enough to launch nuclear weaponson its own, without the need for compromising command and control centres directly.


6/26

ECON IMPACTCIR is solves economy

Hinojosa-Ojeda 12 Founding Director of the North American Integration and Development Center atUCLA Ral Hinojosa-Ojeda, The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform Cato Journal,

Vol. 32, No. 1 Winter 2012The historical experience of legalization under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act indicates

that c omprehensive i mmigration r eform would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and

generate additional tax revenue.Even though IRCA was implemented during a period that included a recession and high unemployment (199091), it still helped

raise wages and spurred increases in educational, home, and small business investments by newly legalized immigrants. Taking the experience of IRCA as a

starting point, we estimate that c omprehensive i mmigration r eform would yield at least $1.5

trillion in added U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) over 10 years. 1 This is a compelling economic

reason to move away from the current vicious cycle where enforcement-only policies perpetuate

unauthorized migration and exert downward pressure on already low wages, and toward a virtuous cycle of workerempowerment in which legal status and labor rights exert upward pressure on wages.


7/26

CLIMATE IMPACTSMOOTH IMMIGRATION DEBATE K2 PRESERVE CAPITAL FOR WARMING

Koons 2-1Andy Koons, writer for the Daily Iowan, February 1st, 2013, "Koons: Immigration reformnot done" www.dailyiowan.com/2013/02/01/Opinions/31576.html

And make no mistake: Obama will be given credit if immigration reform passes. A big win this early in his

second term will strengthen the wind already at his back from his election. Obamacare passed after

almost two years of work and sucked the president dry of electoral goodwill. If Republicans dont use

immigration to sap Obamas political capital, Obama will have enough remaining momentum to take

on climate change before the midterms.


8/26

AEROSPACEImmigration reform prevents a shortage in the aerospace industry.

Thompson 9 (David, President American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and Dr. Richard

Aubrecht, Vice President of Strategy and TechnologyMoog, Inc., The Aerospace Workforce, Federal

News Service, 12-10, Lexis)

And finally, despite our best efforts to increase the domestic supply ofwell-qualified aerospace engineers and

scientists, it is AIAA's view that that alone will not be sufficient to fully address the problems that our country is

going to face over the next decade or so. And so we further advocate a reexamination ofimmigration laws and

visalevels so that we can more effectively attract from around the world the best and brightest young peoplethat want to come to our country and build their lives and careers here to strengthen our aerospace sector and the nation as a whole. In

addition, within this general framework, AIAA and a number of other engineering societies across a variety of fields have advocated the pursuit

of policies specifically focused on emphasizing the two middle initials in the STEM acronym, namely technology and engineering. I think we

are farther behind in those areas or we risk falling farther behind in those areas than we perhaps do in the bracketing letters of science

and math. All are important, but as we look out over the next decade, the challenges in engineering and technology may even beworse -- more severe than the challenges in the basic sciences and math. REP. EDWARDS: Thank you. And I'm sure we could go on but my time

has expired, Madame Chairwoman. REP. GIFFORDS: Dr. Aubrecht, did you want to add -- (inaudible)? MR. AUBRECHT: Yes. Just to come back

to the point that you made there in terms of immigration policy, we employ about 9,000 people in 26 countries around the world. We'reheadquartered in Buffalo, and that's where the center of our aerospace business is, but we've taken this technology into all kinds of other

fields, and anumber of cases where we'd like to bring people in from outside the U.S. and wejust simply

have a terrible time trying to get visas for these people to come in. So I don't think we're going to be able to

meet the needs from a technological staffing standpoint unless you open up the immigration. People from

all over the world would justlove to come to the U.S. and work on these programs. This is where it's happening. But they just

can't get the visas.

Nuclear war.

Tellis 98 (Ashley, Senior Political ScientistRAND, Sources of Conflict in the 21st Century,

http://www.rand. org/publications/MR/MR897/MR897.chap3.pdf)

This subsection attempts to synthesize some of the key operational implications distilled from the analyses relating to the rise of Asia and thepotential for conflict in each of its constituent regions. The first key implication derived from the analysis of trends in Asia suggests that

American air and space power will continue to remain critical for conventional and unconventional deterrence in Asia.

This argument is justified by the fact that several subregions of the continent still harbor the potential for full-scale

conventional war. This potential is most conspicuous on the Korean peninsula and, to a lesser degree, in South Asia, the

Persian Gulf, and the South China Sea. In some of these areas, such as Korea and the Persian Gulf, the United States has cleartreaty obligations and, therefore, has preplanned the use of air power should contingencies arise. U.S. Air Force assets could also be called

upon for operations in some of these other areas. In almost all these cases, U.S. air power would be at the forefront of an

American politico-militaryresponse because (a) of the vast distances on the Asian continent; (b) the diverse range of

operational platforms available to the U.S. Air Force, a capability unmatched by any other country or service; (c) the possible

unavailability of naval assets in close proximity, particularly in the context of surprise contingencies; and (d) the heavy payload thatcan be carried by U.S. Air Force platforms. These platforms can exploit speed, reach, and high operating tempos to sustain continual operations

until the political objectives are secured. The entire range of warfighting capabilityfighters, bombers, electronic warfare (EW), suppression ofenemy air defense (SEAD), combat support platforms such as AWACS and J-STARS, and tankersare relevant in the Asia-Pacific region, because

many of the regional contingencies will involve armed operations against large, fairly modern, conventional

forces, most of which are built around large land armies, as is the case in Korea, China-Taiwan, India-Pakistan, and the

Persian Gulf. In addition to conventional combat, the demands of unconventional deterrence will increasingly confront the U.S. Air Force in

Asia. The Korean peninsula, China, and the Indian subcontinent are already arenas of WMD proliferation. Whileemergent nuclear capabilities continue to receive the most public attention, chemical and biological warfare threats will progressively become

future problems. The delivery systems in the region are increasing in range and diversity. China already targets the continental United States

with ballistic missiles. North Korea can threaten northeast Asia with existing Scud-class theater ballistic missiles. India will acquire the capability

to produce ICBM-class delivery vehicles, and both China and India will acquire long-range cruise missiles during the time frames examined in


9/26

this report.

Labor crisis in aerospace now temporary workers key to industry competitiveness and innovation

AIAA 10 [American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, "Recruiting, retaining, and developing a

world-class aerospace workforce: An AIAA Information Paper, presented at the AIAA's 13th Annual AIAA

Congressional Visits Day in March 2010, pdf, http://www.doleta.gov/brg/indprof/aerospace_report.pdf]

Without a strong aerospace workforce, the United States will lose the resulting economic and nationalsecurity benefits. Incentives are needed for industry to invest in domestic aerospace workforce development, and for U.S. students to

choose an engineering career. Barriers to employing talented foreign nationals must also be removed. Aerospacerepresents about $200 billion (or 1.5%) of the domestic economy and in 1997 provided a $56 billion positive trade balance. The aerospace

workforce is the foundation of the industrys success, yet unique workforce demographics present challenges. Figure 11

shows the age distribution of the aerospace business workforce compared to the total U.S. workforce. Up to half of the current

aerospace workforce will be eligible for retirement within five years. Aerospace workforce composition does not matchnational demographic averages. Compared to the total US workforce, the aerospace industry and NASA have a disproportionately large

percentage of workers aged 4055, and a disproportionately small percentage of workers younger than 40. Student loans, research dollars to

support universities, and service scholarships can provide incentives for younger workers to consider aerospace and join the industry. If

talented young engineers are not recruited, retained, and developed to replace the workforce generation that is near retirement, then the U.S.

stands to lose the valuable economic and critical national security benefits of the domestic aerospace industry. As shown in Figure 22, large

percentages of engineers are working outside the science and engineering professions. Engineering

students burdened with college loans are seeking greener pastures. As shown in Figure 33, aerospace engineeringsalaries are low compared to other industries. If the U.S. is to retain its edge in this industry, salaries need to rise and incentives given for

entering the industry. Further, since 1980, the number of nonacademic science and engineering jobs has grown at more than four times the

rate of the U.S. labor force as a whole2. With a growing number of science and engineering jobs anticipated, the

supply of visas set aside under law for highly qualified foreign workers, 65,000 a year4is not enough. A

decline in student, exchange, and temporary high-skilled worker visas issued since 2001 interrupted a long-term

trend of growth. The number of student visas and of temporary high-skilled worker visas issued have both declined by more than 25%

since FY 2001. These declines were due both to fewer applications and to an increase in the proportion of visa applications rejected2.To add

to the supply pressures of science and engineering workers in our economy, there is increased recruitment of high-

skilled labor, including scientists and engineers, by many national governments and private firms. For example, in 1999,

241,000 individuals entered Japan with temporary high-skill work visas, a 75 percent increase over 19925. Research and development

[R&D] expenditures keep the aerospace industry strong and help maintain US leadership in this sector . Asshown in Figure 46, the R&D tax credit is working to increase corporate spending on this important activity. In the early 1990s, afterimplementation of the R&D tax credit legislation, private expenditures on R&D rose2. Yet even with this incentive, U.S. industry research and

development funding is lagging. In 2001, US industry spent more on tort litigation than on research and development4. Perhaps as a result,

American companies are lagging in patents. In 2005, only four American companies ranked among the top 10 corporate recipients of patents

granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office4. And to further add to this distressing R&D dollars situation, federal research

funding is lagging as well. The amount invested annually by the US federal government in research in the physical sciences, mathematics, and

engineering combined is less than what Americans spend on potato chips7,8. RECOMMENDATIONS To remain globally competitive, the U.S.

must adopt policies to increase our talent base in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), must

educate, engage, and retain STEM professionals using means consistent with generational changes in technologies and markets, and must

provide incentives for investment in research and development that helps to attract applicable talent. The AIAA recommends policiesin three areas to achieve these goals: incentives for college students to study engineering, and corporate incentives for investing in the

aerospace workforce, and immigration for STEM professionals. In the area of incentives for college students to study engineering, forgivable

loan programs should be implemented for students who study engineering and enter the domestic technical workforce. Service scholarships

should be created to pay college for students who desire to and will serve in aerospace-related U.S. government agencies after graduation. In

addition, investments must be made in aerospace research infrastructure and increasing R&D funding to universities, since good researchopportunities attract talented students into graduate STEM studies. R&D dollars provide a fourfold return by supporting graduate students,

generating knowledge, creating innovation opportunities for small businesses around universities, and building the next generation of talented

engineers. In the area of corporate incentives for investing in the aerospace workforce, targeted tax credits or incentives should be instituted

for domestic aerospace workforce development expenses. An IR&D-like program for aerospace workforce development should be established

by allowing a small percentage of government contract funding to aerospace companies to go into a development fund to be used on effective

programs to expand domestic workforce capabilities. In addition, the R&D tax credit should be made permanent, providing stability to

corporate fiscal policies, and thereby fostering a critical technology and engineering research environment that attracts the best and brightest

into the technology and engineering fields. Lastly, in the area of immigration, barriers should be removed so that the

US may retain talented foreign nationals in STEM professions critical to the aerospace industry.
http://www.doleta.gov/brg/indprof/aerospace_report.pdfhttp://www.doleta.gov/brg/indprof/aerospace_report.pdf


10/26


11/26

Iran Negotiations

Obama focusing on Iran negotiations

Middle East Online 2-13February 13, 2013 Can the United States Strike a Deal with Iran?http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=56954

The road to a U.S.-Iranian agreement is littered with obstacles -- grave mutual distrust being one of

them. There is little optimism among experts that a breakthrough is imminent. For one thing, Iran is

almost certain to want to defer any major strategic decision until a new President is elected next June to

replace the sharp-tongued Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. To strike a deal with Iran, the United States would

also need to assure its Arab allies in the Gulf that they would not fall under Iranian hegemony or lose

American protection. Guarantees would no doubt have to be given. Israel, Americas close ally, poses a

more substantial obstacle. It is totally opposed to any deal which would allow Iran to enrich uranium,

even at the low level of 3.5%. Wanting no challenge to its own formidable nuclear arsenal, Israels long -

standing aim has been to halt Irans nuclear programme altogether. To this end it has assassinated

several Iranian nuclear scientists and joined the United States in waging cyber warfare against Iraniannuclear facilities. Its belligerent prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has for years been pressing

Obama to destroy Irans nuclear programme and -- better still -- bring down the Islamic regime

altogether. Faced with these obstacles, it is clear that any U.S. deal with Iran would require careful

preparation. Obama would need to mobilize strong domestic support if he is to confront Americas

vast array of pro-Israeli forces. They include Congressmen eager to defend Israeli interests at all costs

(as was vividly illustrated by the recent Chuck Hagel confirmation hearings), powerful lobbies such as

AIPAC, media barons, high-profile Jewish financiers like Sheldon Adelson, a phalanx of neo-con

strategists in right-wing think tanks, influential pro-Israelis within the Administration, and many, many

others. The cost in political capital of challenging them could be very substantial. Nevertheless, elected

for a second term, he now has greater freedom and authority than before.


12/26

Gun Control

Obama is pushing Gun control

Stirewalt 2-12 February 12, 2013 Chris Stirewalt Gun Control Will Crowd Out Other Obama PolicyPoints http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/12/gun-control-will-crowd-out-other-obama-policy-

points/

There will be all of those things and more in what promises to be a flurry of policy provisions befitting a

re-elected president determined to have a transformative second term. He may not match Bill Clintons

record for longest-ever (1 hour, 28 minutes and 49 seconds in 2000), but Obama will certainly not be

wrapping up quickly. But whatever Obama talks about, it is likely to be overshadowed by his call for a

gun ban in response to mass shootings and a steady tide of urban shootings, particularly in his

hometown of Chicago. The Constitution instructs the president from time to time to update Congress

on the state of the union and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge

necessary and expedient. The tradition since 1790 has been for presidents to do this once a year, but

the Framers included the line in order to make sure that there was at least some communicationbetween the legislative and executive branches. Presidents since Woodrow Wilson have needed little

encouragement to tell Congress whats on their minds, especially the current chief executive. Obama

talks to, about and around Congress constantly. So all that Obama says tonight about immigration,

taxes, stimulus and global warming will have been heard and re-heard by the lawmakers Obama is

ostensibly there to talk to. The real purpose of States of the Union addresses since Lyndon Johnson

moved his speech to primetime from the sleepy midday affairs of his predecessors is to talk to the folks

at home and to get the political press to restate your talking points. The speeches are predictable news

events that allow for lavish coverage and great pictures lots of cheering, the big Stars and Stripes, etc.

What the president says can be analyzed, re-analyzed and dissected for the evening, and, since Obama

will give partial versions of the speech in three campaign stops, for days afterward. But the full laundry

list of policies wont make it through the media wringer. Despite Obamas claims that Washington canwalk and chew gum at the same time he surely knows by now that it cannot. But whatever Obama

talks about, it is likely to be overshadowed by his call for a gun ban in response to mass shootings and a

steady tide of urban shootings, particularly in his hometown of Chicago. In the case of this speech, it

seems inevitable that his push on gun control will predominate. Its an issue that his political base

adores, it being an article of faith on the American left that limiting gun sales will reduce gun crime. Add

to that the double bias in favor of the issue in the pressdramatic stories for the if it bleeds it leads

set and a policy that fits overall view in the establishment press that firearms are bad. To that end, the

president will use the parents and survivors of the Newtown, Conn. tragedy and other victims of gun

violence to personalize his message on gun control. Reports will follow these breadcrumbs and produce

the stories that reinforce the presidents message. People getting shot and killed makes for better copy

than sequestration or out-year entitlement reform or green jobs or whatever fiscal and economic

crisis the government and the nation are currently stumbling through. But the risk here for Obama isthat for all of his pivots and policy pounding, the speech may end up being recalled as one about gun

control. On each subsequent retelling, the storyline will grow shorter and shorter but guns will never

drop from the lead. And given the deep resistance, even among some his own party, to gun control,

in political conflict over the subject will never go away. So, if Obama means to see gun control

enacted in his second term, he will never have a better chance to sell it than he will tonight. But the

president had better be prepared to sacrifice much of the rest of his agenda to make this a reality.


13/26

And even then, he will have to consider whether he wants to make this his legacy project especially

when voters remain bleak-minded on the economy and the world grows more dangerous by the day.


14/26

Economy

US not key to global economy- emerging economies more important

The Economist 07(America's vulnerable economy, 11/15/07, http://www.economist.com/node/10134118)SwoapThe 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. Yetgrowth 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 reservesno

less than three-quarters of the global total. Though there are some notable exceptions, most of them have small budget deficits (anotherchange from the past), so they can boost spending to offset weaker exports if need be.

Government stimulus fails- reduces private investment and kills the economy long-

term

WSO 12(Wall Street Oasis, Threes a Crowd: The Failure of Keynesian Economics, Part 2, 6/21/12,http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/blog/three%E2%80%99s-a-crowd-the-failure-of-keynesian-economics-part-2) Swoap

A central failure in Keynes thought becomes obvious when you ask yourself this simple question:where does the government get the additional

money to spendin excess of its tax revenue? Deficit spending must be financed. Government bonds must be sold to acquire themoney. There are two options here: the debt can be sold to the federal reserve which pays with base money it creates at zero cost, causing

money stock expansion through the banking system. Thats a monetary policy, however, and we must analytically preclude a change in that in

order to evaluate pure Keynesian fiscal policy. So instead, suppose the government sells the bonds to financial transactors and other private

citizens. The government now has more money to spend, but thoseprivate parties now have less to spend . Why should currentexpenditure rise? It probably doesnt, due in part to simple credit rationing. When the government enters the financial markets to borrow

hundreds of billions of dollars it has to sell its bonds at low enough prices and high enough yields to find buyers. In short, it raises bond

interest rates (yields), causing other rates to rise by arbitrage. Now it can spend the money it acquired. There are two offsets, however.

First, at the higher interest rates, private sector borrowers will borrow and spend less than they would at the

lower rates. Government borrowing thus crowds out some private investment spending. Second, at the higher interest rate people

increase their private saving (since savings now earn more), reducing their consumption spending to do so. So, yes, government

spending goes up, but private consumption and investment spending decline equivalently. No

meaningful increase in aggregate demand, output, or employment occurs . Worse, the decline in

private investment likely reduces capital formation, productivity growth, and hence economic

growth in the long-run . In objection to this argument, Keynesians noted that domestic interest rates did not reliably correlate withgovernment borrowing in the way classical credit rationing theory implied. Admitting that fact, economist Robert Barro responded that, when

the government borrows to finance additional deficit spending, citizens may correctly anticipate the additional future taxation they will have to

bear to pay off interest and principle on the added public debt. In response, such rational taxpayers would increase their present saving

reducing their current consumer spending - so they could pay those future taxes. The effect of increased current government spending on total

expenditure would again be offset.

Economic decline empirically doesnt lead to war

Naim 10(Moises, a Senior Associate in the International Economics program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, ItDidn't Happen, Foreign Policy, January/February 2010, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/04/it_didnt_happen) Swoap
http://www.economist.com/node/10134118http://www.economist.com/node/10134118http://www.economist.com/node/10136509http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/blog/three%E2%80%99s-a-crowd-the-failure-of-keynesian-economics-part-2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_Endowment_for_International_Peacehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_Endowment_for_International_Peacehttp://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/04/it_didnt_happenhttp://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/04/it_didnt_happenhttp://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/04/it_didnt_happenhttp://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/04/it_didnt_happenhttp://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/04/it_didnt_happenhttp://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/04/it_didnt_happenhttp://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/04/it_didnt_happenhttp://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/04/it_didnt_happenhttp://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/04/it_didnt_happenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_Endowment_for_International_Peacehttp://www.wallstreetoasis.com/blog/three%E2%80%99s-a-crowd-the-failure-of-keynesian-economics-part-2http://www.economist.com/node/10136509http://www.economist.com/node/10134118


15/26

Just a few months ago, the consensus among influential thinkers was that the economic crisis would unleash a

wave ofgeopolitical plagues. Xenophobic outbursts, civil wars, collapsing currencies, protectionism, international

conflicts, and street riots were only some of the dire consequences expected by the experts. It didn't happen . Although the crash didcause severe economic damage and widespread human suffering, and though the world did change in important ways for the worse -- the

International Monetary Fund, for example, estimates that the global economy's new and permanent trajectory is a 10 percent lower rate of

GDP growth than before the crisis -- the scary predictions for the most part failed to materialize. Sadly, the same

experts who failed to foresee the economic crisis were also blindsided by the speed of the recovery.

More than a year into the crisis, we now know just how off they were. From telling us about the imminent collapse of theinternational financial system to prophecies of a 10-year recession, here are six of the most common predictions about the crisis that have been

proven wrong:

Predictions are exaggerated- economic collapse wont happen

Vomund 12 (David, wenty years of investment and portfolio management experience, owner of Vomund Investment Management,Market Pulse: It's (still) OK to be optimistic, North Lake Tahoe Bonanza, 7/4/12,

http://www.tahoebonanza.com/article/20120704/NEWS/120709972/1061&ParentProfile=1050) SwoapThe financial and even the general media report day after day all the dire consequences from theinevitable

collapse of the European Union. While I agree that there would be serious problems if countries default, and for sure the shock waves

would be felt here, the worst case is far from inevitable. We all well recall the inflation and record high interest rates andgasoline prices in the mid-70s, the even greater inflation and rates in 1981, odd and even days at the pumps, the sentiment after the 1987 crash

(here we go again, another depression), subsequent mini-crashes and selling when Iraq invaded Kuwait, the Y2K scare, the sell-off after 9/11.

The worst-case scenarios so many thought inevitable had the market, our economy and even in some ways society

itselfcollapsing in a death spiral. Of course, nothing of the sort happened. Why? Worst-case outcomes were not inanyone's interest so appropriate actions were taken. My point once again is that while it's easy to sign on to the worst and usually the most

logical case often merely a straight-line extension of current trends doing so has seldom if ever been profitable. In fact, doing just the

opposite has been enormously profitable. Buying stocks in 1974, or in August of 1982, or after the 1987 crash despite all the apparent

reasons not to created fortunes for those with foresight and courage. So here we go again with worries about defaults in Europe, solvency,

recessions, the fiscal cliff, the election and a market collapse. Not so fast. Nothing is inevitable so let's not assume the worst case will prevail.

Actually the slowing economy, not Europe, is my top concern now.

American economy strong and recovering

The Economist 7/14(Comeback kid, The Economist, 7/14/12, http://www.economist.com/node/21558576)SwoapAmericas economy is certainly in a tender state. But the pessimism of the presidential slanging-match misses something vital. Led by its

inventive private sector, the economy is remaking itself(see article). Old weaknesses are being remedied and newstrengths discovered, with an agility that has much to teach stagnant Europe and dirigiste Asia. Balance your imbalances Amer icas sluggishness

stems above all from pre-crisis excesses and the misshapen economy they created. Until 2008 growth relied too heavily on consumer spending

and house-buying, both of them financed by foreign savings channelled through an undercapitalised financial system. Household debt, already

nearly 100% of income in 2000, reached 133% in 2007. Recoveries from debt-driven busts always take years, as households and banks repair

their balance-sheets. Nonetheless, in the past three years that repair has proceeded fast.Americas houses are now among the

worlds most undervalued: 19% below fair value, according to our house-price index. And because the Treasury and other regulators,unlike their euro-zone counterparts, chose to confront the rot in their financial system quickly, American banks have had to write off debts and

raise equity faster than their peers. (Citigroup alone has flushed through some $143 billion of loan losses; no euro-zone bank has set aside more

than $30 billion.) American capital ratios are among the worlds highest. And consumers have cut back, too: debts are

now 114% of income. New strengths have also been found. One is a more dynamic export sector. The weaker dollar

helps explain why the trade deficit has shrunk from 6% of GDP in 2006 to about 4% today. But other, more permanent, shiftsespeciallythe

growth of a consuming class in emerging marketsaugur well. On the campaign trail, both parties attack China as acurrency-fiddling, rule-breaking supplier of cheap imports (see Lexington). But a richer China has become the third-largest market for Americas

exports, up 53% since 2007.

The US economy is strong and improving

AP 12[Associated Press, News Reporters, May 1st, 2012, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/01/us-manufacturing-grows-at-fastest-pace-since-june/#ixzz21TXAcJGa]Callas
http://www.tahoebonanza.com/article/20120704/NEWS/120709972/1061&ParentProfile=1050http://www.economist.com/node/21558576http://www.economist.com/node/21558576http://www.economist.com/node/21558591http://www.economist.com/node/21558581http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/01/us-manufacturing-grows-at-fastest-pace-since-june/#ixzz21TXAcJGahttp://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/01/us-manufacturing-grows-at-fastest-pace-since-june/#ixzz21TXAcJGahttp://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/01/us-manufacturing-grows-at-fastest-pace-since-june/#ixzz21TXAcJGahttp://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/01/us-manufacturing-grows-at-fastest-pace-since-june/#ixzz21TXAcJGahttp://www.economist.com/node/21558581http://www.economist.com/node/21558591http://www.economist.com/node/21558576http://www.tahoebonanza.com/article/20120704/NEWS/120709972/1061&ParentProfile=1050


16/26

WASHINGTON U.S. manufacturing grew last month at the fastest pace in 10 months, suggesting that

the economy is healthier than recent data had indicated.New orders, production and a measure of

hiring all rose. The April survey from the Institute for Supply Management was a hopeful sign ahead of Friday's monthly jobs report andhelped the Dow Jones industrial average end the day at its highest level in more than four years. The trade group of purchasing managers said

Tuesday that its index of manufacturing activity reached 54.8 in April, the highest level since June. Readings above 50 indicate expansion.The

sharp increase surprised analysts, who had predicted a decline after several regional reports showed manufacturing growth

weakened last month. The gain led investors to shift money out of bonds and into stocks. The Dow Jones industrialadded 66 points to 13,279, its best close since Dec. 28, 2007. Broader indexes also surged. The ISM manufacturing index is closely watched in

part because it's the first major economic report for each month. April's big gain followed a series of weaker reports in recent weeks that

showed hiring slowed, applications for unemployment benefits rose and factory output dropped. "This survey will ease concerns that the softer

tone of the incoming news in recent months marked the start of a renewed slowdown in growth," Paul Dales, an economist at Capital

Economics, said in a note to clients. "We think the latest recovery is made of sterner stuff, although we doubt it will set the world alight." The

latest reading is well above the recession low of 33.1 and above the long-run average of 52.8. But it's still below the pre-recession high of 61.4.

Dan Meckstroth, chief economist at the Manufacturers' Alliance, notes that in the past 20 years, the index has been at or above 54.8 only one-

third of the time. A measure of employment in the ISM's survey rose to a 10-month high. That indicates that

factories are hiring at a solid pace.A gauge of new orders jumped to its highest level in a year. That

could signal faster production in the coming months. Export orders also rose, offsetting worries that

weaker economies in Europe and China could drag on U.S. exports.A separate report showed China's factory sector isstill growing. A survey of purchasing managers in China found that the manufacturing sector expanded for the fifth straight month in April. Rich

Bergmann, managing director of Accenture's global manufacturing practice, said large manufacturers are driving U.S. growth. They are pushing

their suppliers to boost output, which has led many to hire more workers.Large companies are also helping smaller

companies in their supply chain, Bergmann said, by guaranteeing a certain level of orders or helping smaller companies obtain

financing to expand. "There's just a tremendous trickle-down effect in these industries," Bergmann said. "That's a verypositive trend that we think will continue." Boeing reported a 58 percent jump in profit in the January-March quarter. Orders for its more-fuel-

efficient 737 jetliner soared. The company added 11,000 employees last year. The global airplane manufacturer's growth has benefited

companies like Charlotte, N.C.-based Goodrich Corp., which makes aircraft components. Its sales to large aircraft makers jumped 27 percent in

the first quarter.Caterpillar, the world's largest manufacturer of construction and mining equipment, last

week reported that its profit grew 29 percent in the January-March quarter. The company said it is boosting its

manufacturing capacity to handle a record backlog of orders.Small companies are also reporting big gains. Boston-basedSpreadshirt.com, which prints custom T-shirts, other clothing and accessories, plans to start production at a new plant in Las Vegas in July. The

company's revenue doubled in the first three months of this year. The company is about to sign a five-year lease for the Las Vegas factory and

has purchased about $1 million in new printing equipment. The company plans to hire nearly 100 people by the end of this year, on top of its

current work force of 150. "I'm pretty confident that we can sustain this growth," said Mark Venezia, vice president for global sales and

marketing. "We're opening up a new facility banking on that." Factories account for only about 9 percent of total payrollsbut added 13 percent of the new jobs last year. Manufacturers have added 120,000 jobs in the past

three months, about one-fifth of all net gains.Economists predict manufacturers added 20,000 jobs in

April, according to a survey by FactSet. Still, manufacturing represents only about 12 percent of economic activity. Other areas continue tostruggle. A separate report showed U.S. builders barely increased their spending on construction projects in March after two straight months of

declines. A pickup in s ingle-family home construction and commercial projects offset a steep drop in state and local government building. The

0.1 percent gain left construction spending at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $808.1 billion, the Commerce Department said. That's

roughly half the level of what economists consider to be healthy.


17/26

Federalism is High nowA. Obama delegated most fed transportation control

Bruce 12 (Bruce, Vice President and Director, Metropolitan Policy Program, February

16, , Remaking Federalism to Remake the American Economy,http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/02/16-federalism-katz)On the programmatic front, President Obama has worked to enable states and localitiesto tackle structural challenges in integrated ways. The administrations SustainableCommunities Initiativea partnership among the Department ofTransportation,Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA)has, for example, given cities and metropolitan areas resources,information and tools to make sharper connections between housing, transportation andenvironmental resources. On regulatory matters,President Obama has used federalactions to set a floor rather than a ceiling on a range of consumer protection, cleanenergy and environmental matters. This has left room for the states to innovate on autoemission standards in California, for example, and to seek redress for mortgage abuses

through the States Attorney Generals. To date, President Obamas approach to economicrestructuring has tended toward the more permissive, enabling end of the federalistspectrum.

B. Highway bill provesKilcarr 12senior editor, Fleet Owner (Sean, Marking the devolution of highway funding,

http://fleetowner.com/regulations/marking-devolution-highway-funding)

As Congress continues to debate a variety of surface transportation funding bills most notably

the two-year Senate sponsored Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21)

several groups believe such federal-directed efforts are almost becoming moot as highway

funding issues are increasingly devolving to the states. At a briefing on Capitol Hill this week, a

panel of experts led by Marc Scriber, land-use and transportation policy analyst with the

Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), argued that near-default status of the Highway Trust Fund

(HTF) due to inadequate fuel tax revenues and policy gridlock at the federal level is increasinglypushing states and localities to figure out ways to generate the funds required to build and

maintain U.S. bridges and roads. Weve argued in the past that responsibility for generating

highway funds should devolve to the states, but now thats [is] a largely defacto reality as

declining HTF revenues are forcing the states to look for new ways to generate the monies they

need, Scriber told Fleet Owner.

C. Empirical examples proveKatz 12 - Vice President at the Brookings Institution and founding Director of the Brookings

Metropolitan Policy Program, Graduate of Brown University and Yale Law School, - (Bruce,

March 18th, 2012, Will the Next President Remake Federalism?

http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2012/03/18-federalism-katz)

While the federal government sets a platform for national growth, it does not construct oneroad, operate one port, educate one child, train one adult or cure one individual. It largely

delivers these and a host of other economy-shaping goods and services through an intricate

network of public, private and civic intermediaries and institutions. If the next president really

wants to create more and better jobs, he would be wise to enlist states and metropolitan areas

as active co-partners in the restructuring of the national economy. The genius of American

federalism is that it diffuses power among different layers of government and across disparate

sectors of society. States are the key constitutional partners, because they have broad powers


18/26

over such market-shaping policy areas as infrastructure, innovation, energy, education and skills

training. But other sub-national units - particularly major cities and metropolitan areas - also are

critical, because they concentrate and agglomerate the assets that drive prosperity and share

leadership with actors in the corporate, civic, university and other spheres. When the federal

government becomes polarized and fails to act on critical issues of national importance, states

and metros can step in to take on larger roles. With Washington mired in partisan gridlock, the

states and metropolitan areas are doing just that. With federal innovation funding at risk,

metros like New York City and states like Ohio and Tennessee are making sizable commitments

to attract innovative research institutions, commercialize leading-edge research and grow

innovation-intensive firms. With the future of federal trade policy unclear, metro areas like Los

Angeles, San Francisco and Minneapolis/St. Paul and states like Colorado and New York are

reorienting their economic development strategies toward exports and the attraction of

innovative foreign companies and skilled immigrants. With federal energy policy in shambles,

metro areas like Seattle and Philadelphia are cementing their niches in energy-efficient

technologies, and states like Connecticut are experimenting with green banks to help deploy

clean technologies at scale. State green banks can play a crucial role in financing clean energy

projects by combining scarce public resources with private investment, and then leveraging the

funds to make each public $1 support $5 or $10 or even more dollars of investment. Withfederal transportation policy in limbo, metro areas like Jacksonville and Savannah and states like

Michigan are modernizing their air, rail and sea freight hubs to position themselves for an

expansion of global trade.

D. Congressional push for devolutionRussell 11 Nicholas, "Six Ideas for Fixing the Nation's Infrastructure Problems." Governing -the

States and Localities. N.p., June 2011. Web. 30 June 2012.

.

States pay for about two-thirds of surface transportation spending. With less money available

from the feds, their portion may need to grow -- an increasingly familiar storyline in all areas offunding right now. Given that dynamic, states and localities are asking for more flexibility on

how they can spend federal dollars and are endorsing plans that would allow the federal

government to leverage the limited funds that are available. One idea that has received

bipartisan support is a plan known as America Fast Forward. Its a proposal to expand a federal

program of the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) that provides

low-interest loans for transportation projects. The proposals biggest cheerleader is Los Angeles

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. In 2008, Angelinos approved a sales-tax hike for a set of highway

and transit projects; but rather than funneling that revenue into new projects outright,

Villaraigosas goal is to use the money to pay debt on a federal transportation loan. An upfront

loan would allow the city to complete its projects rapidly while using the proceeds of its 30-year

sales-tax hike to pay it back over time. Currently TIFIA isnt big enough to accommodate such

large-scale plans, which is why Los Angeles has backed a national push to expand the programfrom $122 million annually to $375 million, and to raise its cap from 33 percent of project costs

to 49 percent. Its an idea thats different from a grant program, says L.A. Deputy Mayor for

Transportation Jaime de la Vega. Were coming to the table with money and saying we need a

partnership. Its not a handout. State leaders are also backing a plan to reduce the number of

federal highway programs from 55 to five, in an effort to gain greater flexibility in how the

dollars are spent. That would help clear up what some people see as troublesome

inconsistencies in how funds are meted out. For example, federal aid can be used for preventive


19/26

maintenance of highways, but routine maintenance is considered a state responsibility. Rhode

Island Transportation Director Michael Lewis recently testified before Congress that his state

has to take on debt just to get the required match to receive transportation funds, when that

money could have been used to perform maintenance. Now is not the time to tie our hands

and limit the use of transportation dollars and assets, Lewis told Congress. Other options that

would grant more power to states have been gaining traction in D.C., including creating an

infrastructure bank, expanding public-private partnerships and allowing tolling on interstate

highways (an idea LaHood has said hes open to). However, flexibility can be a double-edged

sword, cautions Leslie Wollack, program director for infrastructure and sustainability at the

National League of Cities. If flexibility means a state doesnt want to spend any *of its own+

money on transportation enhancement or transit or to collaborate on whats going on at the

local level, then we see that as a problem.


20/26

Federalism goodIraqi modeling of U.S. federalism solves violence

Chandrasekaran 7 Rajiv, former Baghdad bureau chief at the Washington Post, Could American-Style

Federalism Stabilize Iraq?, 10/26/07 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15673575What is it? Call it states' rights in the model of our American Founding Fathers. And proponents say it

may well be the best option to keep Iraq together. Back in 2003, the American occupation

administrators who set up shop in the Green Zone wanted to fashion a new nation that would have a

strong central government. They thought that handing authority to local leaders would result in the

breakup of Iraq. But now, four-and-a-half years later, violence has hardened ethnic and sectarian

identities. Genuine nationalism hasn't emerged. That's why local sectarian militias are more powerful

than the army. The militiamen are committed to fight for their religious brethren. Soldiers in Iraq's army

aren't sure what they're fighting for. Proponents of states' rights say accepting the reality of Iraq's

sectarian differences presents the best hope of saving Iraq. The goal, they say, isn't to chop Iraq into

three separate countries. Instead, it is to provide genuine authority and resources to Iraq's provinces.

Think of how the Republican Party in the United States has traditionally viewed the issue of states'rights, and apply it to Iraq. Allow each province to have its own National Guard. To spend its share of the

national budget. To effectively govern itself. Certain functions, like the printing of money, would still

remain in the hands of the national government. But most day-to-day responsibilities would be given to

local leaders. Consider the success we've had in combating al Qaida in Anbar province. Instead of asking

Iraq's ragtag army to take on the terrorists, we're working with local Sunni tribesmen. They're fighting

with loyalty and dedication. That's because they're fighting for their fellow Sunni leaders, not the Shiite-

dominated government back in Baghdad. Sure, this strategy has no shortage of challenges. There would

have to be a fair way to distribute Iraq's oil revenue, for instance. Local officials would have to learn how

to run their own budgets. Iraq's constitution already enshrines federalism. But proponents say the

United States needs to do more to encourage the Iraqis to embrace it. People have criticized the effort

to impose American-style democracy on Iraq. But supporters of states' rights say it is one element of our

democracy that we really do need to share with the Iraqis.

U.S. has sway

Eland 12, Ivan, senior fellow at the Independent Institute, How to Avoid a Return to Iraq, January 3,

http://original.antiwar.com/eland/2012/01/02/how-to-avoid-a-return-to-iraq/

After its forces have withdrawn, why should the United States be concerned with the devolution of

power in Iraq? Because if power is not decentralized, Iraq is liable to degenerate into a civil war that will

make the conflict in 2006 and 2007 look mild. Sectarian violence is already increasing. And of course, the

United States, which is responsible for the current mess, may be pressured by the Iraqi central

government, other Iraqis, or the international community to return its forces to the internecine

bloodletting to stanch the carnage. Although President Obama maintains that U.S. troops will not return

to Iraq even if the civil war resumes, pledges of nonintervention have been later broken by previouspresidents, especially after elections. That doesnt mean that the United States should tell the Iraqis

how to organize themselves, but it could mediate any Iraqi-initiated peacefully negotiated devolution.

Such mediation at least would be a constructive role for some of the 16,000 U.S. embassy personnel left

in the country and might forestall future demands for a return of U.S. forces to Iraq under dire and

dangerous circumstances.

Federalism key to democratic political participation.


21/26

Friedman 97, Barry, Minnesota Law Review, v. 82, December 1997, p. 317+.

States, and their substate local governments, are closer to the people and provide an opportunity for

greater citizen involvement in the functional process of self-government. We have a system of

democracy, one that welcomes and privileges the voice of the people. The founders may not have

intended it, but as the system evolved, the franchise consistently was expanded. When we despair of

the operations of our national government, we tend to criticize special-interest influence and bemoan

the apathy and lack of participation of average citizens. Although the distinction between ordinary

citizens and special interests may well be overstated, state and local government does provide many

more avenues for citizen participation than does the national government. Rubin and Feeley, among

others, doubt that states will serve the function of promoting democracy, but in doing so they repeat

the two baseline errors discussed above. They argue that states are unnecessary to preserve democracy

(just as they argue that the Guarantee Clause is unnecessary today), because democracy is so ingrained

that it will not be disturbed. But states also are embedded deeply in the system we enjoy today, and it is

possible that the two - states and democracy - have become ingrained together such that eliminating

the autonomy of states would weaken our democracy. Indeed, intuition suggests that disenchantment

with government and anemic levels of citizen participation in democracy positively correlate with

nationalizing trends. Second, Rubin and Feeley argue (somewhat in tension with their first point) that

local participation by definition occurs locally, not at the state level. This may or may not be the case,and likely varies from state to state. But even if so, again, under the system that we have local

governments are creatures of and fostered by the state governments. Intuition suggests that more

people would and could participate in smaller levels of government, and common experience seems to

bear this out. Some commentators look primarily to electoral turnout and argue to the contrary,

pointing out that important national elections rouse far more interest than elections for state and local

offices. But a single-minded focus on voter turnout misses the point that participation can and should

stretch well beyond electoral participation. The fact is that many Americans can call their state and local

officials on the phone - and do - and have those phone calls returned by the actual officeholder, not a

staffer tallying opinions in a polite voice. The fact is that countless citizens attend city council and state

legislative sessions, watching to see some matter of interest resolved. The fact is that interest groups at

the state and local level all tend to be more grass roots, less mechanized, and more responsive to theefforts of concerned individuals. There is work to be done to test these assertions, but they are easily

observable in many states and communities. Moreover, state and local governments appear to serve as

breeding grounds for democracy. They provide a way for many people interested in public service to

step on to the ladder in a manageable way. National office has become frightfully and frighteningly

expensive. n315 It does not matter how many of these officials actually make it to (or even vie

to get to) the "top" of the ladder, the part of the ladder that academics [*392] seem to be watching.

For democracy to function it may matter only that someone starts as a city council member and ends up

in the state legislature. Numerous other citizens serve on local and state boards and commissions,

school boards, or even the PTA.


22/26

Sequestration wont pass

Wont pass

Timm 2/13(Jane, staff writer for MSNBC, Sen. Coburn: Sequestration will happen)The government may have averted sequestration in December, but it wont avoid it for long,

according to Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. Were gonna have a sequestration. were gonna have some

pain because the politicians on the Hill arent going to make cogent, smart decisions about alternatives

to this until they start feeling some pain, Coburn said on WednesdaysMorning Joe. Its a stupid way

to govern, but thats the way were doing it right now. I think the blame lies on everyones shoulders

including the presidents. Then were going to start coming around and picking and choosing whats

important and eliminating whats not of great value and what we cant afford.

Wont pass both sides are blaming each other

Johnson 2/13(Eliana, writer for the National Review Online, In Sequestration Battle DemocratsWring Hands over Cuts in Discretionary Spending, Not Defense Budget)

For their part, many Republicans are beginning to acknowledge that sequestration will go into effect .

Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell said yesterday that its pretty clear the across-the-board

cuts will begin on March 1 and rejected out of hand the prospect of last-minute negotiations to

avert them.Missouri senator Roy Blunt told Politico earlier today, I think the sequester is gonna

happen. The blame game over the automatic cuts raged publicly last week, as GOP lawmakers

brandishing Bob Woodwards new book launched an effort to remind the public that President Obama

himself introduced the sequester into the debt-ceiling negotiations during the summer of 2011. Though

Jay Carney conceded yesterday that the sequester was in fact proposed by the White House, Senate

majority whip Dick Durbin has alleged that sequestration was designed as a budget threat, not as a

budget strategy. Chafin is not persuaded. What we havent seen, he says, is any strategy orleadership from the White House to resolve it. Its interesting that Senator Durbin is now saying what

the sequester was meant to be in a way that implies ownership over the mechanism, which is

precisely what [the White House has] denied.


23/26

No impact to sequestration


24/26

At Sequester -- No Impact DefenseNo impact on defenseLaura Matthews, IBT, 2/8/2013, "Sequester Defense Spending Cuts 2013: Will The US Be Less Safe After The Ax Falls On The Pentagon?,"www.ibtimes.com/sequester-defense-spending-cuts-2013-will-us-be-less-safe-after-ax-falls-pentagon-1060780But are they right? Looking at the possible cuts closely, some experts say that these politicians are overreacting, and that, in reality, they are

defending the Pentagon's bureaucratic turf -- its value as measured by its annual funding -- not the country in opposing the budget cuts. TheDefense Department will have enough latitude to protect whats crucial and I dont think we will be less

safe in 2013 or thereafter, said Mattea Kramer, the research director at the National Priorities Project in Northampton, Mass. For

one thing, the 2011 U.S. defense budget, about $700 billion, dwarfed those of all other nations by a large

amount. China, the second-biggest spender, had a defense budget of $143 billion that year, according to the

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. No other country even breaks into the triple digits of billions of

dollars. For another, because the spending cuts will roll in over a decade, the average yearly cut would be

about $45 billion, little more than 5 percentof Americas annual defense spending. And, according to LawrenceJ. Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress in Washington and an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration,

"even if the defense budget were reduced by the entire $1 trillion , or about $100 billion a year over the next decade, it

would amount to a reduction of[the defense budget] of about 15 percent." Which means that annual defense

spending would be about equal to what it was in 2007 -- when the U.S. was involved in two active wars.

No military impactMichael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, 2/6/2013, "Don't Fear the Sequester,"www.nationalreview.com/articles/339913/don-t-fear-sequester-michael-tannerWhat about defense spending? Defense spending will indeed decline initially in real terms, but on an inflation-adjusted

basis, will never fall below 2007 levels. By 2015 it will begin rising again, surpassing 2012 levels ($554 billion)

by 2019 and reaching $589 billion by 2021. Overall, annual defense spending will average $540 billion over

the next ten years. By comparison, the United States spent, in 2013 dollars, an average of just $435

billion per year on defense during the Cold War (19481990), when we faced a much greater conventional threat. It is also

important to note that this is only base defense spending, and does not include war spending ($90 billion in 2014),

which is largely exempt from the sequester .

No impact on defenseBenjamin Zycher is a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute, 2/8/2013, "Would the Sequester Devastate Defense?,"www.nationalreview.com/corner/340126/would-sequester-devastate-defense-benjamin-zycherA common assertion on the right is that the looming budget sequester would devastate the U.S.

defense establishment. Using the defense deflator published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the defense baseline datapublished by the Comptroller of DoD, here are the defense baseline (excluding overseas operations and various other small ancillary functions)

data for fiscal years 2001-2013, in constant fiscal year 2011 dollars. This baseline assumes that sequestration occurs. A chart accompanies the

figures. In a nutshell: With the sequester, defense spending in 2013 would be about 1 percent lower, in real

terms, than in fiscal year 2008. Perhaps other federal spending yields less value and so should be cut first. But the sequester is thetool that we actually have. In a world in which approximately 1.4 million active-duty personnel are supported by upwards of 700,000 civilians,

the devastation argument is less than wholly convincing. Perhaps the sequester will misallocate cuts across DoD, but thatis a problem of the composition of the baseline budget rather than its size. Let the sequester begin.


25/26


26/26

AT Sequester -- No Impact EconomyNo impact on economy spending will rise over timeMichael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, 2/6/2013, "Don't Fear the Sequester,"www.nationalreview.com/articles/339913/don-t-fear-sequester-michael-tannerThere is no doubt that the sequester is a blunt instrument . Across-the-board budget cuts preclude prioritization, cuttingthe occasional worthwhile program as much as wasteful ones. It is in many ways a lazy alternative to actually doing the hard work of budgeting.

But devastating? Crippling? Hardly. Start with the fact that the sequester is a cut to federal spending only in the

Washington sense of any reduction from baseline increases is a cut. In reality, even if the sequester

goes through, the federal government will spend $2.14 trillion more in 2022 than it does today. The

sequester would reduce the growth in domestic discretionary spending by $309 billion over ten years. But

annual spending on these programs will still increase by $90 billion over that period. If we are actually spending

more in 2022 on domestic programs than we are today, it is hard to see too many children starving in the street. Moreover, entitlement

spending, the fastest-growing portion of the domestic budget, will hardly be touched by sequestration.It will continue to increase at the same astronomical rate as before.

Sequester = NBDMichael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, 2/6/2013, "Don't Fear the Sequester,"www.nationalreview.com/articles/339913/don-t-fear-sequester-michael-tannerAs recently as yesterday, the president referred once again to the sequesters deep cuts, so lets be clear about just how small those cuts are

in the larger scheme of federal spending. The current baseline calls for the federal government to spend $44.8

trillion between now and 2022. The sequester would reduce this by roughly $1.16 trillion (including reduced

interest payments). That amounts to less than 2.6 percent of projected spending over the next ten years. In

fact, over those ten years, the national debt would still increase by $8.5 trillion, reaching $24.9 trillion in 2022. And this

is all assuming that future Congresses dont undo the cuts in the out years. For 2013, the only year that we know

definitely counts, the sequester would slow the growth in federal spending by just $85 billion, from an expected

budget of $3.55 trillion less than a 2.4 percent reduction. When you consider that the federal government

borrows $85 billion every 28 days, its hard to honestly call the sequester draconian. Defense spending wouldbe cut by just $42.7 billion this year, and $55 billion per year subsequently. Next years pre-sequester defense budget was projected to be $552

billion, meaning the sequester cut would amount to a 10 percent cut. (again, not including $90 billion in war funding for Afghanistan and other

operations). That might be a larger cut than some might like, but we shouldnt expect al-Qaeda to wade ashore in Long Beach any time soon.Similarly, domestic discretionary spending would be reduced by just $28.7 billion, out of a projected $587

billion. In following years, the difference from the baseline would run from as little as $32 billion to a maximum of $37 billion.

Entitlement spending, meanwhile, would barely be trimmed it would be cut by just $14 billion in 2013, roughly 0.7 percentof our projected spending this year. That rises to a $23 billion reduction in 2022, which is still trivial. In fact, after ten years of the sequester,

by 2022, federal spending will still consume 22.9 percent of GDP. Thats far higher than the postWorld

War II average of 19.8 percent. In fact, government spending under President Bill Clinton was as low as

18.2 percent of GDP, and yet somehow we managed to have safe food and educated children during the Clinton administration.

Documents

Parli Stuffs