spartandebateinstitute.wikispaces.com Reform...Web viewspartandebateinstitute.wikispaces.com

Downfiled—all updates as of 7/25/17

Neg

1NC Shell Tax reform will pass and key to growth---“revenue neutral” loophole and congressional pressure prove--- most comparative and predictive evDaniel Clifton et al 7/6, DC based policy analyst focused on the interaction of policy/politics with the economy/financial markets. Seeking to chart all policy related events, head of policy research at Strategas, 7/6/17, “How Tax Reform Is Likely to Pan Out,” http://www.cetusnews.com/business/How-Tax-Reform-Is-Likely-to-Pan-Out.HyxUwt5jVZ.html

We recently hosted dinner for an august group of institutional investors in New York City to discuss the ever so interesting political and policy landscape. Tax reform remains the No. 1 policy issue being discussed by investors. Last night’s conversation immediately turned to the concept of budget reconciliation and the limitations imposed on Congress.

Under a “revenue neutral” reconciliation instruction, does tax reform prevent fiscal policy stimulus? If tax reform is “revenue neutral,” politically how could Congress remove $2 trillion of tax deductions and credits from existing taxpayers? The answers to these questions focus on the procedures that Congress will employ within the budget reconciliation instruction.

We anticipate the first $1 trillion of tax changes will be achieved through dynamic scoring and changing the revenue baseline to assume current temporary tax cuts are permanent. In other words, Congress will shift the rules to accommodate a large, front-loaded tax cut within the strict parameters of tax reform.

This makes the package more pro-growth than will be anticipated by investors and more politically palatable.

We are assign ing a 70% probability of tax reform being enacted into law in first quarter of 2018 which is currently not priced into the market.

MAIN POINTS

1. In the coming weeks Congress will pass a budget resolution that is absolutely critical for tax reform. Contained within the budget will be a “reconciliation instruction” which allows the Senate to pass tax reform with just 51 votes rather than the traditional 60 votes. Reconciliation lowers the threshold in terms of Senate votes needed for passage, but imposes strict limits on Congress that need to be followed in order to qualify for the lower vote threshold.

2. Once the reconciliation instruction is developed, we will have a good idea of the parameters that Congress is dealing with, which allows us to handicap the potential outcomes for tax reform. The reconciliation provision that will get the most attention from investors is whether the measure is “revenue neutral,” “deficit neutral,” or allocates a specific amount to increase the deficit. For example, President Bush’s 2003 tax cut allowed Congress to increase the deficit by $350 billion over 10 years and still qualify for reconciliation protection.

As we have been saying since Nov. 9, the reconciliation instruction will likely be revenue neutral, meaning tax reform cannot lower tax revenues below the current forecast used by the Congressional Budget Office over the next 10 years.

3. Congress is likely to move forward on “revenue neutral” tax reform to ensure the tax changes are permanent. If the tax changes are revenue neutral under reconciliation rules, the provisions are permanent. However, if the provisions increase the deficit, the provisions are temporary. Again, going back to the 2003 Bush tax cuts, the reconciliation instructions had to specifically authorize the tax cuts to increase the deficit to qualify for reconciliation protection, but, because the tax cuts increased the deficit, the tax provisions expired within the 10 year budget window. Use of a revenue neutral reconciliation instruction in tax reform is designed to ensure the provisions do not expire within 10 years.

4. This should surprise no one. House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and White House National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn have said this over and over. We spent the entire months of November and December warning that the belief that Congress would move deficit-financed tax cuts in the range of $3-$5 trillion was not realistic. The reversal of yields since the start of the year can be partially explained by this change in thinking of the deficit impact of tax reform.

5. However, just because the tax bill is “revenue neutral” does not mean that Congress is placed in a straitjacket on tax reform. Revenue neutral tax reform does not mean that there won’t be near-term stimulus or that Congress needs to find $2 trillion of revenue offsets from taxpayers, a task that would be difficult to achieve in the current political environment.

6. What is emerging is a tax bill that will be classified as “revenue neutral,” but has a loophole the size of a Mack Truck allowing Congress the flexibility to deliver a large pro-growth tax cut that is politically feasible by not removing too many deductions and credits. In other words, we see a tax cut with modest reforms included that will be considered revenue neutral tax reform, but in essence is a front-loaded, pro-growth tax cut.

7. First, dynamic scoring, which takes into consideration the economic growth effects of reducing tax rates on tax revenues, will likely provide $500 billion of tax revenue over 10 years.

8. Moreover, Congress is likely to change the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline which is used to measure whether a tax cut is revenue neutral. Specifically, Congress is likely to direct the CBO to assume any temporary tax cut in place today to be permanent in the baseline used to measure revenue neutrality. This generates an additional $500 billion over the next 10 years. Budget experts call this a shift from a current law to a current policy baseline.

9. Combined, the first $1 trillion of tax reform will not be offset by removing deductions and credits. This allows tax policy to provide significant fiscal policy stimulus in the short run and makes tax reform more political feasible by not having to remove more than $1 trillion of deductions and credits.

10. Our base case for tax reform has not really changed since the November election.

The final product will likely be a large, front-loaded , pro-growth tax cut disguised as revenue neutral tax reform.

<<insert a specific link, or….>

Top down education policies drain PC Camera, 17 --- Lauren Camera is an education reporter at U.S. News & World Report. She’s covered education policy and politics for nearly a decade and has written for Education Week, The Hechinger Report, Congressional Quarterly, Roll Call, and the Chronicle of Higher Education. She was a 2013 Spencer Education Fellow at Columbia University’s School of Journalism, where she conducted a reporting project about the impact of the Obama administration’s competitive education grant, Race to the Top, US News and World Report, 3/13, https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2017-03-23/trump-school-choice-proposals-drive-wedge-between-charter-school-advocates

“I think the Trump presidency is going to be a challenging time for education reform ,” Petrilli, says.

“Just as we’ve seen a growing polarization in politics , we see a growing polarization in the education reform community. Most education reformers who would identify as liberal Democrats are aghast at Donald Trump even if he supports some of the school reform agenda .”

He continued: “I think for groups like Democrats for Education Reform, you tend to see them putting the Democrat before the education reform. They really seem to feel like – because of the threats to the

budget, but also because of the threats around immigration and treatment of Muslims and everything else – that this is a time when they have to focus on their solidarity with other groups on the left rather than focus on maybe some benefits for school choice or school reform.” Not to be overlooked, Petrilli noted, are the handful of conservative and libertarian policy organizations , like the

Heritage Foundation and CATO, that have long supported voucher programs but don’t want the fed eral government to be the lever for pushing them . The White House has yet to unveil any details of its $250 million private school choice proposal, or how the proposed $1 billion in increase Title I funding would be doled out to states willing to

expand their school choice offerings. DeVos said Monday that those details are still being debated. When those policies are solidified, the battle lines between the school choice organizations will likely become even more obvious. “The question will be: Where is the division between public and private here?” says Robin Lake, the director of the

Center on Reinventing Public Education. “A lot of charters serve kids who are immigrants or who live in inner cities and the politics of this are going to get interesting for sure.” “When push comes to shove I think charters will always side with the public school community,” she says. “They are public schools.”

Tax reform key to econ Edwards 4/26 - Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at Cato and editor of www.DownsizingGovernment.org. He is a top expert on federal and state tax and budget issues. Before joining Cato, Edwards was a senior economist on the congressional Joint Economic Committee, 4/26/17("Trump's Tax Reform Proposals," published by CATO Institute, Available online at https://www.cato.org/blog/trumps-tax-reform-proposals, Accessed 7/6/2017, AJ)

The Trump administration has released proposals to guide the Republican push for major tax reform.

The proposals are mainly supply side in nature, meaning cuts to marginal tax rates and other changes designed to

increase economic growth. Major tax reforms are needed desperately, so kudos to Trump for taking

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2017-03-23/trump-school-choice-proposals-drive-wedge-between-charter-school-advocates


charge and thinking boldly, particularly on business tax reforms. There are, however, a few misguided parts in his new plan.

Here are thoughts on the proposed business tax reforms:

Cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent would have a huge positive effect on the U.S. economy over time. It would encourage more capital investment and hiring , and it would

reduce the incentive for corporations to avoid and evade taxes . Such a rate cut would cause the income tax base to expand automatically and substantially over time.

Cutting the tax rate on “pass-through” businesses to 15 percent, however, is a mistake. Policymakers should aim to equalize the overall rates on income earned by each type of business. So if the corporate rate is 15 percent, corporate income would face a combined tax rate of 15 percent plus the individual dividend rate of, say, 15 percent under tax reform, for a total of about 28 percent (0.15+0.85*0.15). Thus, the top rate on pass-through income should be cut to the same 28 percent.

Switching from a worldwide to a territorial system for corporations would encourage multinationals to move their headquarters to the U nited S tates. It would reverse the trend toward reincorporating abroad.

Ditching the misguided “ border adjustment ” provision the House proposed is a good move . Paul Ryan and Kevin Brady need to drop it so that tax reform can move ahead.

Here are thoughts on the proposed individual reforms:

Reducing the number of tax brackets from 7 to 3 (10, 25, and 35 percent) is a good reform. Cutting marginal rates reduces distortions, increases incentives to engage in productive activities , and reduces avoidance and evasion.

Repealing the special 3.8% investment tax is a good reform.

Eliminating itemized deductions —such as the state/local tax deduction— is a good reform . But we should also eliminate, or at least cap, the mortgage interest deduction.

Expanding child care benefits is a mistake. It would add complexity and is a good reform distortion to what should be a private area of activity in the economy.

Ending the alternative minimum tax and the estate tax are both long overdue reforms.

What about the effects of tax reform on the deficit ? Policymakers should put that concern aside for the corporate rate cut portion of Trump’s plan because the automatic expansion of the corporate tax base would mean that the government would lose little if any revenue over the long term. Exhibit A: Canada and Exhibit B: Britain.

However, policymakers should be concerned about the deficit effects of individual tax changes . Optimally, the budget impact of reduced individual tax rates should be offset by eliminating deductions and credits, spending cuts, and dynamic growth effects.

All in all, the Trump proposals push tax reform in a good direction . Trump, his advisors, and House leaders seem to understand the urgency of passing major tax reforms. But we need Republican

senators to step up to the plate and think boldly as well. Republicans have an opportunity this year to pass reforms that would generate large and lasting benefits in terms income and opportunity for every American family.

Weak growth causes nuclear war---turns every impactKemp 10 – Geoffrey Kemp, Director of Regional Strategic Programs at The Nixon Center, served in the White House under Ronald Reagan, special assistant to the president for national security affairs and senior director for Near East and South Asian affairs on the National Security Council Staff, Former Director, Middle East Arms Control Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2010, The East Moves West: India, China, and Asia’s Growing Presence in the Middle East, p. 233-234

The second scenario, called Mayhem and Chaos, is the opposite of the first scenario; everything that can go wrong does go wrong. The world economic situation weakens rather than strengthens, and India, China, and Japan suffer a major reduction in their growth rates , further weakening the global economy. As a result, energy demand falls and the price of fossil fuels plummets, leading to a financial crisis for the energy-producing states, which are forced to cut back dramatically on expansion programs and social welfare. That in turn leads to political unrest : and nurtures different radical groups, including, but not limited to, Islamic extremists. The internal stability of some countries is challenged , and there are more “failed states.” Most serious is the collapse of the democratic government in Pakistan and its takeover by Muslim extremists , who then take possession of a large number of nuclear weapons. The danger of war between India and Pakistan increases significantly . Iran, always worried about an extremist Pakistan, expands and weaponizes its nuclear program. That further enhances nuclear prolif eration in the Middle East , with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt joining Israel and Iran as nuclear states. Under these circumstances, the potential for nuclear terrorism increases, and the possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack in either the Western world or in the oil-producing states may lead to a further devastating collapse of the world economic market, with a tsunami-like impact on stability. In this scenario, major disruptions can be expected, with dire consequences for two-thirds of the planet ’s population .

Uniqueness

Will Pass

Will Pass – 2NCTax reform will pass – GOP needs legislative action, Trump base support, House drives Senate passage, growth is an effective pay-for

Tax Cuts is on the Top of the Docket and Trump is investing PCCook 7-19

et al; Nancy Cook is a White House reporter for POLITICO. Prior to joining the White House team, she covered the Trump presidential transition and health care for POLITICO Pro. She’s also worked as a reporter and editor for Newsweek, National Journal, and Fast Company, focused on economic policy, taxes, and business reporting. She also worked as an elections producer at NPR during the 2008 presidential campaign. Originally from Connecticut, she graduated from Carleton College in Minnesota as well as the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism – “Tax reform becomes a must-win issue for the White House” - Politico – 07/19/2017 - #CutWithKirby - http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/19/tax-reform-becomes-must-win-for-trump-240691

In the past few days inside the White House, there has been an eager pivot toward pursuing tax reform, according to two White House officials — especially since the businessman-tumed-president feels more conversant in tax do's-and-don'ts than in the weeds of health care.

Press secretary Sean Spicer said on Monday that the White House has held hundreds of tax reform "listening sessions" in anticipation of doing tax reform. The White House is also hopeful that a good tax package would give officials something to talk about other than the various Russia investigations, said one adviser close to the White House.

Administration officials have been working toward a proposal for months, with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Director of the National Economic Council Gary Cohn, neither of whom has deep expertise on tax policy, meeting behind closed doors with CEOs, businesses and tax experts.

"We are trying to actually be organized here. There are lots of internal strategy meetings on communications and policy," said one senior White House official. "The administration has been working with outside groups, CEOs and businesses and has met frequently with conservative activists, who too could kill a plan."

"We know this is even more important now, and the president is engaged on it ," the White House aide added.

Will pass – even non-DC insiders agree that tax reform is likely now.Craver 7-20

Richard - Business Reporter for the Winston-Salem Journal. Internally quoting Kelly King, chair and chief executive of BB&T Corp – a large financial service holding company “BB&T chairman remains optimistic on tax reform, loan growth” - Winston-Salem Journal – 7-20-17 - #CutWithKirby - http://www.journalnow.com/business/business_news/local/bb-t-chairman-remains-optimistic-on-tax-reform-loan-growth/article_b5785047-d7ff-5e30-aeea-12dd1fee45ad.html

Kelly King, chairman and chief executive of BB&T Corp., is keeping the faith this year that Congress will pass some

form of tax reform and work to remove several regulatory burdens affecting industry lending and profitability.

King told analysts Thursday that if one or both occur, “Main Street” businesses within the bank’s 15-state territory will respond by requesting more loans so they can add equipment and potentially jobs.

King said he and his executive management team are firm believers that those small businesses are reliable bellwethers for how the economy is performing.

“Main Street businesses are becoming more optimistic and loans are beginning to flow through as a result,” King said, citing visits to 23 of BB&T’s 26 banking regions this year.

For example, he said, the second quarter was the best ever for BB&T’s commercial bank unit at $345 million in net income, on top of having $340 million in the first quarter.

That’s opposed, he said, to Main Street being “kind of dead in the water for the last seven or eight years.”

“They are now seeing more activity in terms of confidence, in terms of clients buying from them. They are, therefore, more willing to invest.”

The Trump administration has talked for months about lowering the federal corporate tax rate from 35 percent to between 15 percent and 20 percent.

A lower tax rate is likely to bolster corporate profits and cash flow, potentially freeing capital up for dividend increases, additional share repurchases and additional acquisitions.

“I know there’s a lot of conversation about the waffling around in Washington,” King said. “Who knows what will happen with regard to health care?

“Tax reform and infrastructure spending is a big deal. We believe it will occur, and we believe it will have a big impact on our business and the industry in general.”

King remains hopeful that the Trump administration will succeed in eliminating some of the “micromanaging regulations” of the Obama administration “to let banks run like banks.”

“There’s enormous benefit from that” since some of those regulations “are hurting banks and hurting the economy. We believe we will be getting relief.”

Tony Plath, a finance professor at UNC Charlotte, said that “even across a deeply divided Republican-controlled Senate, there’s likely partisan agreement when it comes to cutting taxes.”

“It’ll likely be a budget bill that cuts taxes and simplifies the Obama-era entitlement-driven tax code,” he said.

Coming together on a tax bill seems the most likely thing Republicans can do to demonstrate governing success to the conservative electorate that put them in office in the first place , he said.

Tax Reform is now top of the docket. Health care is now a non-issue because the GOP didn’t want it. STEWART -- 7-20

JAMES B. STEWART - James Bennett Stewart is an American lawyer, journalist, and author. Stewart holds a Law Degree from Harvard and won a Pulitzer Prize for explanatory journalism for his coverage of the stock market crash of 1987. “Tax Reform, Reagan Style, May Be a Tougher Fit for Trump” - JULY 20, 2017 -New York Times – #CutWithKirby - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/20/business/trump-tax-reform-reagan.html

With efforts to reshape health care seemingly in shambles, Congress now confronts an issue that business-

minded Republicans (and many Democrats) really care about: tax reform.

As Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, put it this week, “We’ve got to move on to tax reform

so we have a competitive tax system,” and do it “pretty quickly.” The House Ways and Means Committee

continued hearings on tax legislation on Wednesday.

The stakes couldn’t be higher for Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration, all anxious to demonstrate that a party that controls the White House and both houses of Congress can accomplish something significant and deliver on at least one major campaign promise.

Recent efforts prove tax reform tops the docketTaylor 7-20

Andrew Taylor -National Staff Writer at The Associated Press – “House panel approves budget with hopes for tax reform” – Columbus Dispatch – July 20th, 2017 - #CutWithKirby - http://www.cdispatch.com/news/article.asp?aid=59455

A key House panel on Wednesday approved a Republican fiscal plan that probably won't deliver on its promises to balance the budget, but would begin to clear a path for a GOP effort to overhaul the tax code this fall.

The Budget Committee approved the measure by a party-line 22-14 vote. The plan proposes deep cuts to safety net programs like Medicaid and food stamps and reprises a controversial Medicare plan strongly opposed by President Donald Trump -- though Republicans only want to deliver on a small fraction of the cuts.

Instead, to most Republicans on Capitol Hill, the most important element of the plan is the procedural pathway it would clear to allow Republicans to pass their top priority -- an overhaul of the tax code -- later this year without fear of a blockade by Senate Democrats. Passing a budget through Congress is the only way to get a GOP-only tax plan enacted this year.

Will pass despite roadblocks put PC is key Jeff Cox 6/20, finance editor for CNBC.com where he manages coverage of the financial markets and Wall Street. His stories are routinely among the most-read items on the site each day as he interviews some of the smartest and most well-respected analysts and advisors in the financial world, 6/20/17, “Mnuchin confident that 'massive tax reform' will get done this year,” http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/20/mnuchin-confident-that-massive-tax-reform-will-get-done-this-year.html

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin predicted Tuesday that "massive tax reform" that includes cuts and changes to the system will get finished this year. In an interview with CNBC, Mnuchin said the issue is his "No. 1 focus ." The Trump administration had been hoping to get the issue resolved before the August break. Mnuchin did not present that aggressive of a timetable, but said he is confident the administration and Congress can get reform accomplished . "We're 100 percent committed to getting it done this year. It's critical to the economy," he said on "Squawk Box." "We have a unique opportunity to do this. It's been 30 years. We have to fix the system and our teams are meeting daily." "We couldn't be more focused on getting this done," he added. President Donald Trump has been pushing a three-pronged economic agenda: tax reform, regulatory rollbacks and infrastructure spending. However, the initiatives have gotten

held up amid disputes within the Republican majority as well as against the Democratic opposition, and as the administration has had to field congressional inquiries into the Trump campaign's ties with Russia. Mnuchin said he believes tax reform will continue to make it through, despite the roadblocks. He envisions a reform program with widespread changes, including a territorial system giving companies a break for bringing back revenue earned overseas.

will pass and key to growth---“revenue neutral” loophole and congressional pressure prove--- most comparative and predictive evDaniel Clifton et al 7/6, DC based policy analyst focused on the interaction of policy/politics with the economy/financial markets. Seeking to chart all policy related events, head of policy research at Strategas, 7/6/17, “How Tax Reform Is Likely to Pan Out,” http://www.cetusnews.com/business/How-Tax-Reform-Is-Likely-to-Pan-Out.HyxUwt5jVZ.html






MAIN POINTS


2. Once the reconciliation instruction is developed, we will have a good idea of the parameters that Congress is dealing with, which allows us to handicap the potential outcomes for tax reform. The reconciliation provision that will get the most attention from investors is whether the measure is “revenue neutral,” “deficit neutral,” or allocates a specific amount to increase

the deficit. For example, President Bush’s 2003 tax cut allowed Congress to increase the deficit by $350 billion over 10 years and still qualify for reconciliation protection.







8. Moreover, Congress is likely to change the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline which is used to measure whether a tax cut is revenue neutral. Specifically, Congress is likely to direct the CBO to assume any temporary tax cut in place today to be permanent in the baseline used to measure revenue neutrality. This generates an additional $500 billion over the next 10 years. Budget experts call this a shift from a current law to a current policy baseline.




will pass and no thumpers---lobby pressure and congressional break ensures overhaul David Sherfinski 6/29, covers politics for for The Washington Times, “Leading business groups tell Congress to ‘move quickly’ on tax reform,” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/29/business-groups-congress-move-quickly-tax-reform/

Leaders of four of the United States’ top business advocacy groups are telling Congress to “move quickly” on tax reform, as lawmakers prepare for a weeklong July 4 break and another extended break in August.

“As the leaders of the nation’s preeminent business associations representing businesses of all interests, forms, and sizes in all 50 states, we urge you to reach common agreement on a tax reform plan and move quickly to enact tax reform legislation ,” the business leaders wrote to top congressional leaders this week.

The letter was signed by Thomas J. Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Joshua Bolten, president and CEO of the Business Roundtable, Juanita Duggan, president and CEO of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), and Jay Timmons, president and CEO of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).

“No initiativ e likely to be considered in this Congress offers more promise than comprehensive tax reform to accelerate out of the current pattern of slow economic growth ,” they wrote.

Congressional Republicans have repeatedly said they’ll pass an overhaul to the tax code this year.

Tax reform will pass but the clock is ticking---Georgia momentum provides a unique opportunityDavid Williams 7/02, journalist for The Hill, 7/02/17, “Dear Mr. Speaker, the clock is ticking on tax reform,” http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/economy-budget/340426-dear-mr-speaker-the-clock-is-ticking-for-tax-reform

Luckily, there is a unique opportunity for comprehensive reform now . For the first time in years, there is Republican leadership in both chambers of Congress, as well as the White House. Furthermore, the Republican Party gained more momentum when Karen Handel won the special election for Georgia’s 6th Congressional District last week.

It is important for Speaker Ryan and the rest of the Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill to seize this momentum and pass comprehensive reform in short order.

If for nothing else, legislators should pass tax reform for the sake of their constituents — it is an issue that Americans care deeply about. According to a poll from the American Action Network, three-quarters of Republican voters consider tax reform one of the most important issues.

Tax reform will pass and is critical to the economy---Hatch will compromise on border adjustment and will turn around the corporate tax rateAdam Shapiro 7/10, previously a general assignment reporter in New York for WNBC-TV's "Today in New York" morning show. He also occasionally provided reports for the early evening and nightly newscasts, editor for FOX, 7/10/17, “Tax reform push heats up this week, Sen. Hatch lays groundwork, http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/07/10/tax-reform-push-heats-up-this-week-sen-hatch-lays-groundwork.html

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) will hit the ground running this week as he lays the groundwork for broad tax reform FOX Business has learned, and he is expected to use the sky-high corporate tax rate to make his case. At 35%, the U.S. corporate tax rate is the highest among developed nations which critics argue is hurting America’s global competitiveness.

Although President Trump has advocated to lowering the rate to around 15%, Hatch, who is chairman of the Senate Finance Committee told FOX Business correspondent Adam Shapiro last month in an exclusive interview, the rate will likely end up being higher.

“I think the President has probably come off of that particular figure” said Hatch, adding that a corporate tax rate between 20% and 25% would turn the U.S. economy around overnight.

The White House plans to have a tax reform draft “locked in place” before the August recess, which is scheduled to begin when Congress leaves on July 28, said White House Director of Legislative Affairs Marc Short, during a briefing on Monday. Previously, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin has suggested it would be ready in September. However, the big question is yet to be answered: how to pay for it.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) wants to cut taxes, but pay for those cuts with a border adjustment tax that critics say will raise prices for everyday goods consumers buy at places like Walmart (WMT) and Target (TGT). Hatch is opposed to the border adjustment tax , but says he will consider it if Brady can make a case for its inclusion in tax reform.

As reported by FOX Business, the Senate Finance Committee oversees more than 50 percent of the federal budget and has jurisdiction over tax, trade and health care policy. As Chairman, Senator Hatch wields a great deal of power in Congress. The tax reform bill will be written by the House, but still has to pass through Hatch’s committee in order to survive. The administration has said it won’t push for the bill to be introduced in the House of Representatives until both committees, House Ways and Means and Senate Finance, are in agreement on the details.

Reconciliation is flexible – allows passageKudlow 6-9 [Larry Kudlow, CNBC's Senior Contributor, nationally syndicated columnist, formerly chief economist and senior managing director of Bear Stearns & Company, University of Rochester and Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, 6-9-2017 https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/06/09/three_easy_pieces_a_simple_get-it-done-now_economic_plan_134150.html]

Now that former FBI Director James Comey's hearing is complete , it's time for everybody to roll up their

sleeves and go back to work on returning the country to prosperity. The most populist policy would be to restore a long-lasting deeply rooted prosperity for every single American.

President Donald Trump cannot let a deluge of distractions disrupt his and the Republican Party's plans for meaningful health care and tax reform. The accusations of Russian collusion, the fallout from the Comey hearing, the left-wing media's daily barrage of anti-Trump propaganda -- these are all distractions. And the administration and GOP Congress are in great jeopardy if they get caught up in it and take their eyes of the policy ball.

They must get some degree of health care and tax reform done -- this year, and with tangible results in the next several months. If they don't get it done, they're going to get creamed in the 2018 midterms.

I see two grounds for this prediction.

First, without results on health care and taxes, Trump and the GOP will not have taken steps to palpably improve the economy in terms of growth, jobs and wages.

Second, without results on health care and taxes, Trump and the GOP will have revealed that they can't govern. They were elected to govern, and they should be able to govern. Trump ran on growth, jobs and wages. He needs to deliver on growth, jobs and wages.

Earlier this week, economist Stephen Moore and I met with senior people in the West Wing -- senior, senior, senior people. And we presented a simple get-it-done-now economic plan. We call it "three easy pieces" (like the old Jack Nicholson film "Five Easy Pieces"), which are the following: Lower the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent. Grant immediate expensing for new business investment. And establish a one-time 10 percent rate for the repatriation of offshore cash.

It's a simple tonic that will restore capital formation, productivity, real wages and economic growth. And, in terms of political expediency, it's practical . It's about getting done what you can get done.

To be sure, the business tax cut is the key piece of these three easy pieces. With a 35 percent corporate tax rate, America is uncompetitive among developed nations in this regard. But that's not what's most important here. When business taxes are reduced, 70 percent of the benefits go to the wage-earning middle class. That's what's most important.

And a business tax cut is practical. It's right-now practical. There is widespread agreement in Washington, D.C., about the need for a business tax cut. And legislators can legally and technically attach corporate-tax-rate reduction to the health care reform bill in reconciliation in 2017.

Reconciliation can be nearly anything you want it to be. This can get done.

Close to consensus, can pass without BTAPramuk 5-24 [Jacob Pramuk Staff Reporter at CNBC, 5-24-2017 “Paul Ryan wants to put tax reform on Trump's desk by Christmas” http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/24/paul-ryan-wants-to-put-tax-reform-on-trumps-desk-by-christmas.html]

Ryan echoed Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who said Tuesday that "our objective" is to get tax reform "done this year."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell recently said he hopes to get tax reform passed in the current Congress, which may indicate that he's not be hopeful about passage this year.

Ryan also pushed back against statements that Republicans have struggled to achieve their agenda. He said that if Republicans slash regulations, pass a health-care overhaul and cut taxes by January, it will have been a good year.

A potential hurdle to tax reform is whether Republicans can agree on so-called border adjustment, a provision of the House GOP plan. Ryan and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas have supported the plan, despite doubts in the White House and Senate.

Ryan said Wednesday he can envision a scenario in which the House passes a tax reform plan without border adjustment.

He reiterated that he feels Republicans agree on 80 percent of tax reform, but they need to reach a consensus on

the remaining 20 percent.

Momentum for tax reform is buildingDavidson 6-6 [Laura Davison is a Capitol Hill tax reporter at Bloomberg BNA 6-6-2017 “History Suggests Tax Reform Process Is Just Getting Started” https://www.bna.com/history-suggests-tax-n73014451956/]

Committee Perspective

Several Republican Ways and Means members told Bloomberg BNA that they think the committee has made

substantial progress since unveiling the blueprint a year ago. The committee has so far held two two-day policy retreats, two hearings on tax reform-related issues, and countless meetings with business leaders and industry groups. Members’ aides meet with Ways and Means staff several times a week and lawmakers meet almost daily when they are in session. Members have also shared dozens of lunches together in a Capitol meeting room.

When pushed, members also acknowledge that more details need to be hashed out—but there’s dissonance among them about where those details should come from, with some pointing to the Senate and others to the White House.

“We really need the Senate to get engaged, weigh in, rather than let everyone else do it and once it’s done figure out what we’ll do,” said Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-Pa.), a member of the committee. “We need them up front to be part of the discussion.”Meehan said while the group hasn’t “dug into it with the kinds of detail that would ultimately be necessary,” it has “been around the edges of just about every fundamental issue.”

Cooperation Needed

Building out the blueprint is tasked to a few Ways and Means staffers, namely chief tax counsel Barbara Angus. Aides to committee members have privately expressed frustration that there isn’t more information readily available. Key details on provisions with wide-ranging economic impacts such as interest deductibility and expensing haven’t yet been sketched out.

The House plan proposes a radical shift that favors full expensing over interest deductibility. Senators have expressed support for a more conventional plan that would eliminate some tax breaks in order to lower the corporate rate, but not as much as the House has proposed.

Asked if tax reform can pass this year , Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said, “It could , if we can get everybody to cooperate.”

Ways and Means members have been talking to one another “through the press, through other forms” so far, said Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.).

He pointed to committee hearings as a key step in giving members a chance to really dig into ideas.

Impending midterm elections have added pressure to the tax overhaul process, with many members saying it must come this year. Still, tax reform has historically had a way of starting and stopping—it died many deaths before being passed in 1986, many say. More recently, House Republicans declared their health bill to be dead after it was pulled from the floor in late March. The measure passed the chamber May 4.

“I think that a lot of observers have been impatient with the progress of tax reform, but I think they ought to relax a little bit,”

Birnbaum said. “There is no way that a politically difficult and complicated piece of legislation such as tax reform can move quickly.”

Reconciliation plus budget window allows passageLawler 5-24 [Joseph Lawler is an economics reporter for the Washington Examiner 5-24-2017 “Administration eyes tax reform workaround: A longer budget” http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/administration-eyes-tax-reform-workaround-a-longer-budget/article/2624089]

The Trump administration says it is open to an unusually long congressional budget window as a workaround to the legislative obstacles to tax reform .

Writing a budget longer than the standard 10 years would allow Congress to pass a revenue-losing tax reform

of that length without needing any Democratic votes, making the change close to permanent.

Two top administration officials showed interest in the idea Wednesday in separate appearances on Capitol Hill: Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney.

"I think that's a very good idea to consider strongly," Mnuchin said at a House Ways and Means Committee hearing.

Writing a budget that applied for a long period of time, such as 20 years, would be out of step with recent practice but allowed under law.

It is an idea that might tempt Republicans , who are planning to use a special legislative procedure that is part of the

budget process, known as reconciliation, to pass tax legislation. Reconciliation allows bills to pass with only 51 votes in the Senate , meaning that it could allow Republicans to pass tax reform without any support from Democrats.

Reconciliation is limited by specific rules, however. One rule relevant to tax legislation is that it cannot add to the deficit in any year beyond the budget window or else it must expire at the end of the budget window.

That rule is the reason that the Bush tax cuts were temporary and expired after 10 years. House Republicans have said that they want tax reform to be permanent to provide certainty to businesses and are aiming to write a tax bill that doesn't add to the deficit so that it can pass through reconciliation.

If the window were extended to 15, 20 or 30 years, however, revenue-losing tax reform could be made close to permanent.

"I think it's a more reasonable way to look at the budget window," Mulvaney said at a House Budget Committee hearing. "And I think it's important for us to look at whatever options give us the best and most common-sense view of the economy and our proposals to change it."

The president's own budget, released this week, used the standard budget window of 10 years.

The relevant budget, however, would be the one that the Senate and House agree to, a necessary step for unlocking reconciliation.

One member of Congress, Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, has been pushing hard for Republicans to write a budget with a long window for the

purpose of tax reform.

There’s GOP consensus – midterm pressure and widespread supportMcquire 6-7 [F Mcguire, Newsmax correspondent, internally citing Kudlow CNBC's Senior Contributor, nationally syndicated columnist, formerly chief economist and senior managing director of Bear Stearns & Company, University of Rochester and Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs 6-7-2017 http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/Kudlow-Trump-Comey-Health/2017/06/07/id/794756/]

“They got to get this done ,” Kudlow explained on CNBC. “If they don't get this done, they're going to get creamed in the midterms next year, on two grounds," the Newsmax Finance Insider said.

"Number one, they will not have taken steps to palpably improve the economy on wages and so forth. Number two, they can't govern. You elected them, they should be able to govern,” said Kudlow, who advised the Trump campaign on economic issues.

Kudlow said he and fellow Newsmax Insider Stephen Moore “met with senior, senior, senior people in the west wing yesterday,” and they presented a three-point plan.

“And it's simple . Three pieces is all we want. Get done what you can get done,” said Kudlow, the author of "JFK and the Reagan Revolution: A Secret History of American Prosperity," written with Brian Domitrovic and published by Portfolio.

"Number one, lower the corporate tax rate 15%

"Number two, immediate expensing for new investments.

"Number three, repatriation at a small 10% one-time rate."

“There is widespread agreement in Washington to get a business tax cut through, which, by the way, the

70% of the benefits go to the wage-earning middle class. That's very important,” said the radio talk-show host and CNBC

senior contributor.

A2: Specifics /Thumpers

A2: Border Adjustment TaxWill pass – recent dropping of the Border Adjustment Tax has boosted odds of passage.Alexander 7-20

David – Journalist and correspondent for Reuter’s News - “Ryan says US tax reform consensus nears, does not mention border tax” – Reuter’s – July 20th, 2017 - #CutWithKirby - https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/07/20/ryan-says-us-tax-reform-consensus-nears-does-not-mention-border/23040291/

U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan said on Thursday that tax reform talks are nearing a consensus to lower business taxes by closing loopholes and special interest deductions, the latest sign that the unpopular proposed border tax may not be included.

Speaking at a New Balance shoe factory in Massachusetts, Ryan stressed the need to "level the playing field" for U.S. companies

and their foreign competitors but failed to mention the border adjustment tax, or BAT, which has been his main policy for creating a more competitive U.S. manufacturing base.

Ryan's remarks, coming about a week ahead of an end-of-July deadline for top White House officials and Republican leaders in Congress to agree on a tax reform framework, could indicate that

President Donald Trump's promised tax code overhaul is taking on a more orthodox shape after months of closed-door talks

will pass despite border adjustment fight---they’ll just cut a dealKaustuv Basu 7/6, congressional reporter at Bloomberg BNA, 7/6/17, “Border Tax Could Be Negotiating Position for GOP Leaders,” https://www.bna.com/border-tax-negotiating-n73014461247/

Continuing to back the border adjustment tax reflects a delicate balancing act by Brady and other House leaders, as it may carry significant political risk for House Republicans attempting to leave their imprint on what they hope will be the biggest tax code overhaul since 1986. A former Senate staffer said there is a growing perception that if House GOP leaders don’t back off the tax, the Senate is going to cut a deal with the White House. If the House doesn’t have a plan to address cross-border tax issues beyond the border adjustment tax, someone else could fill the vacuum with an alternative. That could leave Brady and Ryan little choice but to accept whatever plan is put forward.

will pass and is critical to the economy---Hatch will compromise on border adjustment and will turn around the corporate tax rateAdam Shapiro 7/10, previously a general assignment reporter in New York for WNBC-TV's "Today in New York" morning show. He also occasionally provided reports for the early evening and nightly newscasts, editor for FOX, 7/10/17, “Tax reform push heats up this week, Sen. Hatch

lays groundwork, http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/07/10/tax-reform-push-heats-up-this-week-sen-hatch-lays-groundwork.html





House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) wants to cut taxes, but pay for those cuts with a border adjustment tax that critics say will raise prices for everyday goods consumers buy at places like Walmart (WMT) and Target (TGT). Hatch is opposed to the border adjustment tax , but says he will consider it if Brady can make a case for its inclusion in tax reform.


A2: Reform = Winners and Losers

Transitioning away from reform to big cuts overcomes oppositionShear 3-24 – Michael D. Shear, Reporter at NYT, “Bracing for the Fallout of the Health Bill’s Collapse”, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/24/us/politics/trump-agenda-obamacare-midterms.html?_r=0

The Republican Agenda

Mr. Trump and the Republican Party are moving on. Having spent 64 of his first 100 days pursuing an ultimately futile effort to overhaul health care, the president now must move quickly to try to make good on his other promises — tax reform , a border wall and investment in infrastructure.

That may all be harder now . Lawmakers who disagree with Mr. Trump have seen him buckle in the face of pressure. And Republican lawmakers may be inspired by the success of the Freedom Caucus — which wanted to defeat the health care legislation — to fight for their own interests.

That may be particularly dangerous during an effort to overhaul the nation’s tax code . That process is famously difficult , with every change producing winners and losers, all of them ably represented by powerful lobbies.

Mr. Trump seems unfazed — or unaware — of that prospect. In comments to reporters, Mr. Trump vowed to “start going very , very strongly for the big tax cuts and tax reform. That will be next.”

If tax reform becomes defined just as “ big tax cuts ,” the president might find a more unified Republican Party on Capitol Hill . But if he seeks fundamental changes to the kinds of deductions and credits that have been added over decades, he may soon face similar intraparty disagreements.

A2: Deficit Hawks

Fiscal responsibility won’t blockGraham, 3/24 --- Jed, writes about economic policy @ Investors Business Daily, http://www.investors.com/politics/policy-analysis/trump-to-ryan-youre-fired-from-tax-reform/

Trump To Ryan: You're Fired From Tax Reform One of the biggest winners from the RyanCare debacle may be Wal-Mart (WMT). House Speaker Paul Ryan's other baby , of course, is the 20% b order- a djusted t ax on imports . Big importers like Wal-Mart and Nike (NKE), both members of the Dow Jones industrial average, along

with Best Buy (BBY) and many other retailers have fought hard to defeat it . General Motors (GM) and Toyota (TM) also oppose the tax that auto analysts have said could raise average car prices by $2,000. Even as President Trump is saying that he has

no interest in pushing for Ryan's ouster as speaker, White House aides are making it clear that Trump believes Ryan deserves full blame for failure to repeal ObamaCare. The key point is that this marriage of convenience between Trump and Ryan is over. It now seems impossible to imagine Trump hitching tax cuts to Ryan's very unpopular vehicle for getting them passed .

While a stronger dollar could largely counteract or negate the impact of a border tax on imported goods, a number of GOP senators have voiced opposition to Ryan's border tax, and its prospects for ultimate passage look no greater than RyanCare's.

Wall Street fretted about a defeat for RyanCare for much of the past week, with the Dow Jones industrial average, S&P 500 index and Nasdaq composite all suffering their sharpest one-day losses since fall on Tuesday as the conservative House Freedom Caucus began to close ranks against Ryan's American Health Care Act. Bank of America (BAC), Wells Fargo (WFC), Dow component Goldman Sachs (GS) and many other financials have sliced through their 50-day moving averages this week amid concerns that Trump's agenda of growth-fueling tax cuts and infrastructure spending could be sidelined by a failure to repeal ObamaCare.

Yet after striking out with his first big legislative push, Trump is only too eager to shift to tax cuts and infrastructure spending. The real impact of failure on ObamaCare repeal will be to increase the urgency of tax cuts to save the GOP from a 2018 election debacle. Acting quickly could allow the GOP to make some tax cuts retroactive to 2017, meaning the payoff for voters would come before Election Day in 2018.

Trump May Ditch Ryan's Border Tax

So how would the GOP replace the $1 trillion raised by the border tax to pay for a cut in corporate tax rates? They likely wouldn't, opting instead to go with tax cuts instead of tax reform . With their backs to the wall , there's a strong chance that Republicans would relax their sense of fiscal responsibility to deliver a big, deficit-increasing tax cut .

If Trump is able to keep his pledge to cut the c orporate t ax r ate to 20% or less, without depending on a border tax , that could be great news for Wal-Mart and other retailers, which pay above-average tax rates because they don't tend to benefit much from tax credits for domestic manufacturing and R&D. In November, Wal-Mart forecast a companywide 31% to 32% effective tax rate for its current fiscal year, including its international locations. The bottom line is that instead of being one of the potential losers in tax reform, Wal-Mart could become among the big winners. (Wall Street is unsure. Wal-Mart shares fell a fraction for the week, trading just below their 200-day moving average.)

While Senate budget reconciliation requiring just a simple majority can only be used to pass legislation that is no worse than deficit neutral beyond the 10th year , the GOP could use President George W. Bush's strategy of letting tax cuts sunset after a decade . Or the GOP could decide to blow up the Senate filibuster and enact permanent tax cuts, rolling the dice that Democrats won't control both the White House and Congress for years to come.

A2: Delay

Prefer Kudlow – passage in 2017 highly likely but not certain – prices in thumpers and all obstacles that their ev assumes

passes before end of year.Jagoda 5/6 - Naomi Jagoda, Journalist for The Hill, 5/6/17("ObamaCare vote throws curve into tax reform," published by The Hill, Available online at http://thehill.com/policy/finance/332175-obamacare-vote-throws-curve-into-tax-reform, Accessed 7/7/2017, AJ)

“Health care is 17 percent of the economy ... taxes is 100 percent,” he wrote in a commentary piece obtained by The Hill.

But despite the challenges ahead, many lobbyists and tax-reform advocates remain optimistic about the chances for legislation to be passed this year.

Former Senate staffers said that the House is now freed up to focus aggressively on tax reform, and tax staffers in the Senate and in the administration can continue their work as well.

“Congress and the White House are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time,” said Dean Zerbe, National Managing Director of alliantgroup and former senior counsel to the Senate Finance Committee.

Tax-reform advocates see the passage of the healthcare bill as having a big upside. They note that the healthcare bill includes the repeal of many of ObamaCare’s taxes, which would lower the revenue baseline for tax reform and remove the healthcare taxes from the tax-reform discussions.

“There’s fewer items to negotiate, fewer items to fight over,” said Brandon Arnold, executive vice president of the National Taxpayers Union.

A2: No Bill

There *is* a bill – and it’ll hit the floor soon.Egger 7-18

Andrew Egger is a white house reporter for The Weekly Standard - “How Trump's Battle for Tax Reform Will Be Fought” - Weekly Standard – July 18, 2017 – #CutWithKirby - http://www.weeklystandard.com/how-trumps-battle-for-tax-reform-will-be-fought/article/2008900

Simplifying and slimming the federal tax code was a major campaign promise for Donald Trump, who made regulatory reform and “massive” middle-class tax cuts the first legislative priority on his post-election 100-day plan. We’re

closer to day 200 of the Trump presidency now, but a tax reform timeline is starting to take shape.

Representatives from the Senate, House, and Trump administration have been meeting behind closed doors to develop a plan that can fulfill Trump’s campaign promises while still passing muster in

both houses.

The group, which some aides call “ The Big Six,” consists of House speaker Paul Ryan, Ways and Means

chairman Kevin Brady, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Finance chairman Orrin Hatch, Treasury

secretary Steven Mnuchin, and National Economic Council director Gary Cohn. They’re expected to begin pitching their plan by mid-August, and hope to have the bill finalized for mark-ups after Labor Day.

The emerging plan will strongly resemble the outline the Trump administration released in April :

slashing corporate tax rates to encourage growth, while lowering and simplifying individual rates to reduce the squeeze on consumers.

A2: McCain McCain won’t be gone long and his absence won’t hurt the GOP agenda.A.P. 7-21

Associated Press – “In Senate, ailing lawmakers given plenty of time to recover” – 7-21-2017 - #CutWithKirby - http://www.sltrib.com/home/5536304-155/in-senate-ailing-lawmakers-given-plenty

Sen. John McCain's treatment for brain cancer could keep him out of Washington for weeks, perhaps

months, and yet it's unlikely anyone will challenge his extended leave.

Congress has a long tradition in which no one questions ailing lawmakers taking time to recover. For starters, it's just poor form. And, frankly, it's up to the stricken member of Congress and their doctors to decide when — or even if — they return to work. Some have recuperated away from the Capitol for a year or more.

It's an unwritten courtesy that often doesn't extend to the real working world where employees are forced to file for medical disability or take unpaid leave.

Julie Tarallo, McCain's spokeswoman, said Friday that "further consultations with Sen. McCain's Mayo Clinic care team will indicate when he will return to the United States Senate."

McCain had taken to Twitter on Thursday promising a quick return.

"Unfortunately for my sparring partners in Congress, I'll be back soon, so stand-by!" said the six-term Arizona Republican and 2008 GOP presidential nominee.

A2: Thumper – GeneralPrefer issue specific uniqueness – tax reform is still on trackBolton 6-6 [Alex Bolton, The Hill staff writer, “Trump, GOP plot path for agenda” 6-6-2017 http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/336664-trump-gop-plot-path-for-agenda]

Scalise disputed the narrative that Trump’s agenda has hit a brick wall .

“I think you’re seeing some very good movement on this Republican agenda to get the economy back on track, and what we talked about today were ways that we can continue to get a health care bill ultimately put on

President Trump’s desk and focus on cutting taxes to create jobs and get the economy moving,” Scalise told reporters.

“You’re seeing very good progress on all of those fronts.”

Thumpers don’t take out the link – the only thing that derail tax reform is if Trump abandons GOP legislative prioritiesClawson 17 --- Laura, Labor editor at Daily Kos Labor, and a contributing editor at Daily Kos, DailyKOs, http://m.dailykos.com/story/2017/2/13/1633161/-Congressional-Republicans-pretend-Trump-s-just-a-distraction-but-he-s-owning-them

Congressional Republicans pretend Trump's just a distraction, but he's owning them Shorter

congressional Republicans: Yes , Donald Trump says irresponsible and dangerous things on a daily basis, looks eager to provoke a constitutional crisis, is producing unprecedented levels of protest, and his team is probably leaking directly to Russia . But that’s all fine, because we expect him to give us our wish list by signing tax cuts for the rich and shredding the safety net. “ There’s a widely held view among our members that, yes, he’s going to say things on a daily basis that we’re not going to like,” said Senator John Thune of South Dakota, the third-ranking Senate Republican, “but that the broad legislative agenda and goals that we have — if we can stay focused on those and try and get that stuff enacted — those would be big wins . ” [...] “I think we can get a lot done with the people around him ,” Mr. McCain said, dismissing policy pronouncements from Mr. Trump that often differ from “the

day before.” Practically patting Mr. Trump on the head, Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee,

said , “If he pays attention to people like General Kelly when he’s doing a travel restriction and if he appoints people like Neil Gorsuch when he’s making appointments, he’ll be rewarded for that by all the praise, and

maybe he’ll do more of it.” (Former Gen. John F. Kelly is the Homeland Security secretary.) These idiots want to treat the president of the United States as a distraction and pretend they can control him, or at least work around him. But based on the last three weeks, who’s setting the agenda ? These Republicans may eventually get the tax cuts they want, but at what cost to them? That’s not a question about what happens when they sell

their souls to Trump, as we are not talking about people who have souls to sell to begin with. It’s a practical question about all of the stuff they’re trying to wave off as irrelevant to the larger agenda . It’s a question about the fact that they keep talking about “the people around him” like Mattis and Kelly, when it’s clear he’s listening to Steve Bannon

and Stephen Miller and Mike Flynn. Those of us who always thought Republicans cared more about tax cuts for the rich and punishing poor people than about the Constitution or any possible concept of American values are turning out to be much more right than we even thought.

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2017/2/13/1633161/-Congressional-Republicans-pretend-Trump-s-just-a-distraction-but-he-s-owning-them

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2017/2/13/1633161/-Congressional-Republicans-pretend-Trump-s-just-a-distraction-but-he-s-owning-them

Their thumpers are overblown media reporting – tax reform can stay on trackRogers 17 --- Ed, Ed Rogers is a contributor to the PostPartisan blog, a political consultant and a veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush White Houses and several national campaigns. He is the chairman of the lobbying and communications firm BGR Group, which he founded with former Mississippi governor Haley Barbour in 1991, Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/02/15/the-trump-presidency-is-not-crippled/?utm_term=.954c119c8b6b

The Trump presidency is not crippled It seems I struck a nerve by calling the Democrats out for their phony grandstanding and for

being the original purveyors of fake news and alternative facts, so while we’re at it, let’s talk about the overblown reporting on how the Trump administration is already crippled. In today’s Post, Canadian political commentator J.J. McCullough offered some perspective on Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s meeting with President Trump on Monday. McCullough’s piece, “U.S. media saw the Trump-Trudeau summit as a bust. The Canadian press loved it,” perfectly

illustrates the consequences of the media frenzy taking place right now in Washington . Leave it to a Canadian to be the adult in the room. McCullough writes that the American media deemed the news conference a disaster “because

it was so calm and on-topic. Big-shot Washington journalists wanted to get their president to talk about [Michael] Flynn.” And, as he points out, the journalists who asked questions about Canada at that news conference were

“condemned for wasting everyone’s time.” The media only wants to generate bombastic, histrionic stories about the demise of the Trump administration and the general destruction of the United States. The media is getting a little ahead of itself . These stories are a tad early . For instance, no less than Thomas Friedman from the New York Times wrote, “We were attacked on Dec. 7, 1941, we were attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, and we were attacked on Nov. 8, 2016.” Really?? Friedman thinks Trump’s election as president is a situation tantamount to Pearl Harbor and 9/11? Talk about not giving the man a chance. Friedman doesn’t even say the Trump presidency as it unfolds over the next four to eight years could be akin to an attack on the United States; he thinks the sheer fact that Trump won the election is, essentially, an

act of war. Even The Post has fed into the narrative that the Trump administration is off the rails , from headlines including “Flynn departure erupts into a full-blown crisis for the Trump White House” and “Flynn episode ‘darkens the cloud’ of Russia that hangs over the Trump administration” to “The president lays the groundwork for a nationwide voter intimidation program” and “Donald Trump is suddenly looking like a very weak autocrat.” Can we pause for a moment ? Trump has been president for less than a month, and Democrats and their allies in the media are already howling that he is an abject failure. I’m no Trump toady, but so far, Trump has had one poorly drafted executive order and one or two personnel misfires and has fed the flames with some clumsy media performances, but this isn’t that unusual . Does anybody remember Zoe Baird? And let’s not get too spun up about the allegations that Republicans in Congress are already throwing in the towel on everything from tax reform to repealing and replacing Obamacare. Again, this is just the start. Obamacare wasn’t signed into law until more than a year after President Obama took office. Not having repealed Obamacare yet does not constitute a failure. Trump also just held a news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It was civil and serious, made some news and even had a measure of graciousness about it when Trump introduced Netanyahu’s wife, Sara, and Netanyahu referenced his long-standing relationship with Jared Kushner. There were no eruptions, nobody got hurt and everything seemed downright

presidential. Of course, that means members of the media are already throwing a fit about the fact that the news conference mostly stuck to the topics at hand, and they didn’t have an opportunity to harp at Trump about what they want to talk about — namely Russia, Flynn, etc . So Trump didn’t take endless questions about the Flynn resignation. Well, maybe that’s because he’s not ready, because he knows it’s going to be

unflattering and at this point would only inflame the story, and so he wants to talk about that issue at a time and place of his choosing. Maybe a little media strategy is beginning to emerge from the Trump White House. Maybe that’s another reason for the media to panic. Anyway, all that being said, I do wish

Trump and his team would learn from touching the hot stove. Pain is a helpful mechanism, in that it lets you know you are engaged in behavior that’s harmful to you. They shouldn’t let things like “Saturday Night Live” hurt

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/02/15/the-trump-presidency-is-not-crippled/?utm_term=.954c119c8b6b

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/02/15/the-trump-presidency-is-not-crippled/?utm_term=.954c119c8b6b

their feelings, and they shouldn’t completely ignore the media. They should take some criticism to heart. But I do know a lot of good

people going into this administration, and I have a lot of faith that they are self-aware and will , in fact, make some obviously needed adjustments going forward . When you look at the blaring headlines I’ve already mentioned and

then add in the protests, the Meryl Streep speeches, the “SNL” skits and all the other exclamation marks from liberals, it’s easy to get the sense that things are going off the rails . But if you take a minute to think about how long the president

has been in office, the fact that Trump and his team have had to deal with some obstacles is not necessarily a bad thing . It’s better that they deal with problems now rather than later. Everybody should take the long weekend, breathe into a brown paper bag and regain some perspective on where we are under President Trump.

Thumpers don’t take out the disad – but additional new controversies trigger link and drain necessary PCBaker ‘8 (Peter, White House Correspondent for over 20 years, columnist @ NYT, author of the New York Times bestselling book, The Breach: Inside the Impeachment and Trial of William Jefferson Clinton (Scribner, co-author, of Kremlin Rising: Vladimir Putin’s Russia and the End of Revolution, named one of the Best Books of 2005 by The Washington Post Book World, written another book on the presidency to be published in October 2013 by Doubleday titled Days of Fire: Bush and Cheney in the White House, won the Gerald R. Ford Prize for Distinguished Coverage of the Presidency for his reporting on Bush and the Aldo Beckman Memorial Award for his coverage of Obama., Steve, American political writer and blogger, an MSNBC contributor, and a producer for The Rachel Maddow Show.. From August 2008 to January 2012, Benen was the lead blogger for the Washington Monthly's "Political Animal" blog.[1] He was the publisher of the political blog The Carpetbagger Report for five years[2] and was the lead editor of Salon.com's Blog Report. Benen's articles and op-eds have appeared in a variety of publications, including the Washington Monthly, The American Prospect, The Huffington Post, and the New York Daily News. He has been a contributor to Talking Points Memo, Crooks and Liars, The Guardian, AlterNet, Political Wire, and Seven Days. He has been a guest on several radio and television programs, including NPR’s Talk of the Nation,[3] MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show, MSNBC’s The Ed Show, Current TV's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Air America Radio’s The Sam Seder Show, and XM Radio’s POTUS ‘08.

In July 2009, The Atlantic named Benen one of the top 50 most influential political commentators in the United States.[4]11/9, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_11/015594.php)

During the campaign, Mr. Obama identified many other priorities, like withdrawing from Iraq; talking with Iran; tackling immigration; closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and renegotiating trade rules with the country's

neighbors. Mr. Obama's transition advisers studied how past presidents used their first months and concluded that even if various agencies moved forward in many directions, a new chief executive must husband his time , energy and political capital for three dominant priorities at most. Several Obama advisers cited Reagan, who concentrated his early efforts on tax cuts and military spending. But advisers also worry that putting off sweeping initiatives makes them harder to pass later, when a president's

mandate and momentum have faded. They pointed to Mr. Clinton, who delayed his ultimately doomed health care plan

while he passed a deficit reduction package and the North American Free Trade Agreement. And the pent-up demand from Democrats who waited out the Bush administration will be enormous.... Mr. Obama recognizes that. In an interview on CNN days before the election, he explicitly ranked his priorities, starting with an economic recovery package that would include middle-class tax relief. His second priority, he said, would be energy; third, health care; fourth, tax restructuring; and fifth,

education. Using history as a guide , Obama's team concluded new presidents can invest energy in, at most, "three dominant priorities ." That sounds about right to me, as do Obama's list of priorities. Trying to do all at once makes it that much more likely that divided attention will produce disappointing results. Part of the challenge, though, is how and whether the Democratic Congress will follow Obama's lead. As Kevin noted,

Dems have hopefully "learned their lesson from 1993 and can put their egos in check enough to actually take some guidance from

the guy in the White House." There's no practical difference between Obama's vision and that of congressional leaders. The trick of it is allowing the president to take the lead in setting the agenda . My sense is Pelosi and Reid will be anxious and cooperate partners. We'll see soon enough.

A2: Thumper – Budget

Budget doesn’t thump - Trump can do bothSilvia, 17 --- John, Chief Economist @ Wells Fargo Securities, 1/3, http://image.mail1.wf.com/lib/fe8d13727664027a7c/m/1/115th-Congress-20160103.pdf?utm_source=SFMC&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=&utm_content=&utm_term=7230679&sid=44116

This week marks the beginning of the 115th Congress which, according to President-elect Donald Trump and senior Congressional leaders, is set to be an extremely busy two years. The list of policy proposals from the new administration includes a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, corporate and individual tax reform/cuts, additional infrastructure

spending, immigration reform, trade policy reconfiguration and regulatory changes. This laundry list of potential policy changes raise s two overarching questions: how politically feasible are each of these ideas , and what potential impacts could they

have on different sectors of the economy? In this report, we will explore each of these key issues and provide a general overview of what we think is most likely to become law over the next couple of years. In general, our view is that there is a path by which Congress can quickly enact some of these policies , while others will take time to work through budgetary and

procedural processes. The most likely policy changes to occur relatively quickly are a federal budget for the

rest of federal fiscal year 2017 and the upcoming 2018 fiscal year, a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, some form of corporate and individual tax reform and changes to trade policy. Other policy areas, such as infrastructure spending, immigration reform and regulatory changes, are likely to play out over time and may take longer than markets and some commentators currently anticipate. Our baseline economic forecast includes a slight boost to defense spending for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 but does not include any other policy changes at this time. It is clear that there are a wide range of possible fiscal policy outcomes, which has made forecasting such economic outcomes challenging. We will make changes to our baseline forecast when the policy debates unfold to a point where we can evaluate the aggregate economic impact of specific, concrete pieces of legislation.

A2: Thumper – Health CareTax Reform will pass now. Health care was different – never had as much unity as tax reform currently has.Lawler 7-20

Joseph Lawler is an economics reporter for the Washington Examiner. He has previously worked for RealClearPolicy and the American Spectator before joining The Examiner - “Ryan: GOP more unified on taxes than healthcare” – Washington Examiner – July 20th, 2017 - #Cut With Kirby -http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ryan-gop-more-unified-on-taxes-than-healthcare/article/2629273

Republicans are more unified on tax reform than on anything else, House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said Thursday in talking up the prospects of legislation passing this year.

In a brief press conference at New Balance's Lawrence, Mass., factory, Ryan was asked why the public should have confidence that Republicans will pass tax reform when they have struggled to fulfill the promise of replacing Obamacare. "As Republicans, we are wired the same way on tax reform," Ryan replied.

In contrast with the party's differences on healthcare policy , he said, "we are so much more unified on tax reform."

"I feel far more confidence of anything we're going to do this year , that tax reform, which we're

going to do before the end of the year, is going to get done," Ryan said.

Tax reform will pass - failure of health care reform won’t doom the financing or politics of tax reform.Doocy 7-21

Peter Doocy is currently a Washington D.C.-based correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC). He joined the network in 2009 as a general assignment reporter based in the New York bureau. Doocy graduated from Villanova University – “Paul Ryan says tax reform will get done – no matter what happens to health care bill” – Fox News – 7-21-2017 - #CutWithKirby - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/21/paul-ryan-says-tax-reform-will-get-done-no-matter-what-happens-to-health-care-bill.html

House Speaker Paul Ryan says there is a “contingency plan” to pass and pay for tax reform this fall –

even if the congressional overhaul of Obamacare is unsuccessful.

“We can still do tax reform regardless of what happens on health care reform,” Ryan told Fox News on the floor of a New Balance factory on Thursday in Lawrence, Massachusetts.

His comments come a week before a White House and congressional deadline to agree on a tax code framework. A tax overhaul requires Congress to pass a budget that is already overdue.

But Ryan seemed upbeat that it will pass.

New Balance makes 4 million pairs of sneakers in the U.S. every year, and owner Jim Davis told workers gathered around a podium at the factory that a friendlier tax code could incentivize his company to aggressively expand in the United States.

Surrounded by sneakers in various stages of production, Ryan described this fall’s planned fix of the complicate tax code as a “once in a generation opportunity.”

Healthcare bill was already released so tax reform is top of docket regardless of healthcare success.RI 6/24 - RI, Russell Investments - Asset Management Group, 6/24/17("Healthcare Draft Bill Released - Will The U.S. Congress Take Up Tax Reform Next?," published by Seeking Alpha, Available online at https://seekingalpha.com/article/4083660-healthcare-draft-bill-released-will-u-s-congress-take-tax-reform-next, Accessed 7/8/2017, AJ)

According to Eitelman, what's most encouraging here is that there's now a draft of the bill - which is very important for the timing of tax reform. This is because the strategy that Republicans have been using requires them to prioritize healthcare reform before shifting gears to corporate tax reform. It looks like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has a focused resolve to put the bill up for a vote by next Friday. Win or lose, pass or fail, it appears that McConnell wants to get this healthcare issue behind him so that the Senate can shift gears to taxes. In the view of Eitelman and other Russell

Investments strategists, this is good news for the markets, because it preserves the timeline for moving to tax reform -with corporate tax cuts possible by Jan. 1, 2018 . "It's encouraging because the ball is starting to move forward more around fiscal policy , after it arguably was pretty far behind schedule," Eitelman said.

Failure on health care only increase chances of Tax ReformGraham, 3/24 --- Jed, writes about economic policy @ Investors Business Daily, http://www.investors.com/politics/policy-analysis/trump-to-ryan-youre-fired-from-tax-reform/

The Bull Case For Tax Cuts If ObamaCare Repeal Fails

As of Wednesday afternoon, the House GOP plan to more or less repeal and replace ObamaCare looks headed for defeat. That has Wall Street worried about the rest of President Trump's agenda. But a quick health care rejection could spur Trump to move quickly on tax cuts.

After the biggest sell-off for the Dow Jones industrial average and S&P 500 index in six months on Tuesday, the Nasdaq composite led most equities higher on the stock market today, though the Dow continued to lag. Investors are clearly worried that a failure to act on ObamaCare may lead to disappointment when it comes to delivering on Trump's agenda of tax cuts and infrastructure spending.

After the financial sector — which would benefit from faster growth and higher interest rates — took outsize hits on Tuesday, stocks were mixed on Wednesday. Dow components JPMorgan

Chase (JPM) and Goldman Sachs (GS) diverged, with JPMorgan rising 0.2% but Goldman off 0.8%. Shares of JPMorgan Chase, Goldman and many other banks large and small are trading below their 50-day moving averages.

The financial market action seemed in tune with the observation of Goldman Sachs political economist Alec Phillips in a recent podcast that the troubled ObamaCare repeal effort could turn tax reform from a 2017 story into a 2018 or 2019 story.

But markets may have it wrong . A quick failure of ObamaCare repeal might make tax cuts a 2017 story.

Consider what Trump himself said on Tuesday night at a National Republican Congressional Committee fundraiser. He reiterated that the GOP had no choice but to lead off with ObamaCare's repeal. Here's what he said about its prospects — he wasn't exactly brimming with confidence — and what comes next.

"I hope that it's going to all work out. Then, we immediately start on the tax cuts and they're going to be really fantastic."

While Trump's words may be losing some of their power to move markets, consider also what an unnamed GOP senator told Politico: "Maybe the best outcome is for this to fail in the House so we can move on to tax reform."

Whether or not the House manages to pass Speaker Paul Ryan's American Health Care Act, Sen. Mitch McConnell appears to have no appetite for a drawn-out debate in the Senate. With enough moderates and conservatives opposed, Ryan's repeal bill looks dead on arrival in the Senate. Yet McConnell, whose Kentucky has been a big beneficiary of ObamaCare, has indicated he wants to be done with the bill within a week, leaving enough time before spring recess to act on the Supreme Court nomination of Neil Gorsuch.

The first take-away is that the ObamaCare debate will be swift and the odds of failure — in the Senate, if not in the House — are extremely high.

Border Tax Deported?

The second take-away is that tax cuts will quickly move to the top of the agenda , but Ryan, assuming ObamaCare repeal fails, will move off center stage, all but ending discussion of his controversial border-adjusted tax reform.

That would be good news for Dow components Wal-Mart (WMT), Nike (NKE) and other big importers in their war against Ryan's 20% tax on imports, which is backed by big Dow industrial exporters like Boeing (BA) and General Electric (GE).

So how would the GOP replace the $1 trillion raised by the border tax to pay for a cut in corporate tax rates? They likely wouldn't, opting instead to go with tax cuts instead of tax reform.

Boost Deficit Spending

The real impact of failure on ObamaCare repeal would be to increase the urgency of tax cuts to save the GOP from a 2018 election debacle. With their backs to the wall , there's a strong chance that R epublicans would relax their sense of fiscal responsibility to deliver a big , deficit- increasing tax cut . Acting quickly could allow the GOP to make some tax cuts retroactive to 2017, meaning the payoff for voters would come before Election Day in 2018.

Without a border tax, "Republicans in Congress will have to choose between either accepting a modest version of corporate tax cuts with the standard rate falling only to the mid- to high 20s (from 35% now) or allowing the deficit to increase materially," wrote Evercore ISI senior political strategist Terry Haines earlier this month. "Our big call is that in the end game — not necessarily now — what will give on tax cuts is fiscal discipline , so we maintain an above-market probability that deep corporate tax rate cuts will be achieved with a base case that the new rate does indeed end up down at 20%."

Passage likely despite health care Cox, 3/23 --- Jeff Cox, Finance Editor, CNBC, http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/23/trump-agenda-is-still-alive-regardless-of-health-care-vote.html

But Phillips also believes the market is too worried about tax reform collapsing should the health-care effort fail. "There is likely to be much broader support for tax cuts than there is for the health legislation," he said in a note. "Even if the health bill fails, we would continue to believe the odds of tax legislation passing by early 2018 are high." As for overall market reaction, there could be some issues in the near

term. Stocks saw their biggest drop of the year Tuesday on worries that the Trump agenda was in danger. However, Peterson believes any volatility won't last. "Indeed, we posit that a notable retreat in financial

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/23/trump-agenda-is-still-alive-regardless-of-health-care-vote.html

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/23/trump-agenda-is-still-alive-regardless-of-health-care-vote.html

markets on a 'no-vote' might provide greater incentive for Congress to accomplish tax reforms and implement some degree of infrastructure spending before calendar- year end ," she said. "If House Republicans and President Trump can rebound from the setback of an AHCA 'no-vote' by quickly focusing all resources on tax reform over the spring and summer months, then markets probably will be reinvigorated."

No health care thumper – they’ll do tax reform first and it will passManchester 6-4 [Julia Manchester reporter at The Hill, 6-4-2017 “GOP senator: Tax reform more likely to come before ObamaCare repeal” http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/336237-johnson-tax-cut-bill-more-likely-to-come-before-healthcare-in]

Republican Sen. Ron Johnson (Wis.) is predicting that a tax-cut bill is more likely to come before legislation to

repeal and replace ObamaCare this year.

"The tax reform is an easier lift,” Johnson told radio host John Catsimatidis in an interview that aired Sunday on AM 970 in New York.

“Healthcare is a problem because ObamaCare is such a mess. I mean, it is collapsing insurance markets,” the Wisconsin senator added.

“We may have to break this into two pieces. Do kind of a real triage, a short-term measure to stabilize the markets, then take our time and actually have a healthcare bill that will restrain the cost in healthcare."

Several GOP senators have voiced skepticism about plans to repeal and replace ObamaCare after House Republicans passed a bill early last month.

Deep divisions exist among senators over different aspects of the Affordable Care Act, including its Medicaid expansion.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said recently that he wasn't sure how Republicans could get enough support to pass a healthcare bill, suggesting that passing major tax legislation would be easier.

Issue specific uniqueness calibrated to assume ACA – trump can do both Silvia, 17 --- John, Chief Economist @ Wells Fargo Securities, 1/3, http://image.mail1.wf.com/lib/fe8d13727664027a7c/m/1/115th-Congress-20160103.pdf?utm_source=SFMC&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=&utm_content=&utm_term=7230679&sid=44116


spending, immigration reform, trade policy reconfiguration and regulatory changes. This laundry list of potential policy changes raise s two overarching questions: how politically feasible are each of these ideas , and what potential impacts could they

have on different sectors of the economy? In this report, we will explore each of these key issues and provide a general overview of what we think is most likely to become law over the next couple of years. In general, our view is that there is a path by which Congress can quickly enact some of these policies , while others will take time to work through budgetary and

procedural processes. The most likely policy changes to occur relatively quickly are a federal budget for the

rest of federal fiscal year 2017 and the upcoming 2018 fiscal year, a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, some form of corporate and individual tax reform and changes to trade policy. Other policy areas, such as infrastructure spending, immigration reform and regulatory changes, are likely to play out over time and may take longer than markets and some commentators currently anticipate. Our baseline economic forecast includes a slight boost to defense spending for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 but does not include any other policy changes at this time. It is clear that there are a wide range of possible fiscal policy outcomes, which has made forecasting such economic outcomes challenging. We will make changes to our baseline forecast when the policy debates unfold to a point where we can evaluate the aggregate economic impact of specific, concrete pieces of legislation.

A2: Health Care: Combined Bill Solves

Republicans will combine health and tax into one bill – allows them to pass tax before the end of the year.Fox Business 6/9 - Fox Business, News Source, 6/9/17("Senate Republicans, House in talks to combine health care and tax cuts into one bill, White House sources say," published by Fox Business, Available online at http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/06/09/senate-republicans-house-in-talks-to-combine-health-care-and-tax-cuts-into-one-bill-white-house-sources-say.html, Accessed 7/7/2017, AJ)

Senate Republicans are mulling over the idea of combining health care reform and tax cuts into one bill , in an effort to expedite the process for passing Trump’s legislative agenda , sources inside the White House told FOX Business’ Charlie Gasparino.

Trump’s promise for economic reform, which would bring down the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent,

and overhauling ObamaCare has been pushed to the sideline, as the ongoing investigation into possible ties between the administration and Russia continues to dominate the news cycle.

In an effort to expedite what has been an uphill battle in passing Trump’s key legislative promises, the talks underway in the House and the Senate aim to get it all done at once – health care and tax cuts all in one bill.

With 2018 an election year , the clock is ticking for Congress to come together and pass tax reform before their time is spent out on the campaign trail.

No healthcare thumper---republicans will combine healthcare and tax reform into one bill to ensure passage---nuclear option overcomes procedural issues Ryan Lizza 6/27, Washington correspondent for The New Yorker and an on-air contributor for CNN, “The Entire Trump Agenda Is at a Tipping Point,” http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/the-entire-trump-agenda-is-at-a-tipping-point

This year, Republicans have been even more creative. They planned to use one reconciliation bill for health care and a separate one for the beast of tax reform. But one of the many arcane rules about the reconciliation process is that any new reconciliation bill cancels out the old one. “This is the first time anyone has tried to do this,” Stan Collender, a longtime budget expert who now works for the strategic-communications firm MSLGROUP, said. “You can only have one budget resolution in effect at a time. Their idea was to do health care and then move on to tax reform, but that strategy was based on doing health care quickly .”

If the Senate health-care bill dies and Republicans move on to tax reform, they will have an interesting choice to make: do they give up on health care and propose only a tax-reform bill? Or do they combine tax reform and health care into one monster bill, which would make passage even more daunting?

Some of these procedural issues might be overcome by a kind of nuclear option, whereby Republicans ignore or find a way to overrule the Senate parliamentarian who enforces the

budget rules. But, however health care is resolved, the rest of the items on the Trump agenda consist of a series of fiendishly difficult political issues that divide Republicans. The budget, which must be resolved by October 1st, will pit congressional Republicans, who have decried the White House’s proposed budget, against Trump, who was so miffed about being ignored during the budget negotiations earlier this year that he tweeted, “Our country needs a good ‘shutdown’ in September to fix mess!” Republicans in the House are comfortable with defaulting on the debt, and the President himself has called for a shutdown. Things could quickly grow ugly.

No healthcare thumper---the senate will combine healthcare and tax reform---doesn’t drain PC and even some democrats will support Tom Petri 6/21, editor for The Hill, 6/21/17, “Combine healthcare and tax reform to bring out the best in both,” http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/338784-combine-healthcare-and-tax-reform-to-bring-out-best-in-both

Combining overall personal income tax reform with these reforms of health-related tax provisions brightens the picture. The prospective tax reform will lower tax rates across the board. But the more rates are lowered, the better a credit looks compared to an exclusion of income from taxation.

For those who keep employer-provided coverage (which many companies will continue for various reasons), robust credits combined with lower tax rates can mean that a majority of employees will get a better deal from a credit than from the exclusion.

The lower the rates and the better the credit, the larger that majority will be. That's a powerful argument for the reform package . At the same time, since their subsidies are no longer open-ended, employees will no longer have an incentive to bargain for over-generous health benefits rather than increased wages.

While gaining like everyone from a better health market, the big losers in the rearrangement of subsidies will be wealthier people, including business executives and well-paid labor leaders who have traditionally opposed it. However, what they lose in the health reform they will gain back in the tax reform, so they should support a combined package .

On the other hand, a principal argument against the tax reform will be that it helps the rich, but that is blunted by what they lose on the health side, so the case for the tax reform is strengthened. The case can be strengthened further by reforming child credits to make further progress on the poverty trap. What better argument is there for the tax reform than lowering the highest marginal rates of all: those faced by the poor?

The AHCA relies mainly on competition among deregulated health plans to improve the market. But we can do much more to involve individual consumers in the effort. Maximizing consumer-driven market forces requires that most consumers face significant cost sharing, that they can find out prices charged and that prices matter to them.

The bolder reforms suggested here will produce the cost sharing. Mandatory price disclosure may have to wait for a following bill or regulation. Finally, price sensitivity at the margin will

result if non-HMO health plans base their payments on median prices charged in a market, with consumers enjoying savings or paying extra for choosing providers charging less or more than the median.

With these reforms, consumers will have incentives to avoid unnecessary services and to be value-conscious about the services they need.

Even some Democrats should support a health/tax package that doesn't favor the rich and maximizes market forces in healthcare while improving on Obamacare's support for the individual market and distributing healthcare subsidies fairly across the population. Then, if the best possible market-based approach somehow doesn't work, their case for a single-payer health system will be stronger.

A2: Health Care: Prior Passage Not Key to Tax Cuts

Health Care doesn’t need to go first – GOP will just break fiscal discipline – HC failure only boosts political incentivesGraham, 3/24 --- Jed, writes about economic policy @ Investors Business Daily, http://www.investors.com/politics/policy-analysis/trump-to-ryan-youre-fired-from-tax-reform/






Yet after striking out with his first big legislative push, Trump is only too eager to shift to tax cuts and infrastructure spending. The real impact of failure on ObamaCare repeal will be to increase the urgency of tax cuts to save the GOP from a 2018 election debacle . Acting quickly could allow the GOP to make some tax cuts retroactive to 2017, meaning the payoff for voters would come before Election Day in 2018.


So how would the GOP replace the $1 trillion raised by the border tax to pay for a cut in corporate tax rates? They likely wouldn't, opting instead to go with tax cuts instead of tax reform . With their backs to the wall , there's a strong chance that Republicans would relax their sense of fiscal responsibility to deliver a big, deficit-increasing tax cut .


While Senate budget reconciliation requiring just a simple majority can only be used to pass legislation that is no worse than deficit neutral beyond the 10th year , the GOP could use President George W. Bush's strategy of letting tax cuts sunset after a decade . Or the GOP could decide to blow up the Senate filibuster and enact permanent tax cuts, rolling the dice that Democrats won't control both the White House and Congress for years to come.

A2: Thumper – RussiaRussia doesn’t thump – investigation takes long enough to sell before results, didn’t obstruct justice, House repeal and replace proves it’s not stopping legislation – Kudlow

Committee provides cover, still has GOP support for tax reformBennett 6-12 [John T. Bennett White House Correspondent for CQ Roll 6-12-2017 “Legislative Agenda Gets Tougher for Trump” http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/comey-speaks-domestic-agenda-gets-tougher-trump]

Comey did not land a knockout blow on the president during hours of dramatic testimony Thursday. But some experts say he presented a strong case that the president obstructed justice when Trump leaned on him to drop a probe of his first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and then allegedly fired Comey for refusing to do so.

Senate Intelligence Committee Republicans largely provided the president cover during the widely

watched hearing, and Republican member s are continuing work on the health care and tax overhaul packages Trump wants to sign into law as soon as possible.

GOP leaders such as Speaker Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin are defending Trump ’s actions as the behavior of a political neophyte who was simply unaware of the protocol for a chief executive when dealing with a FBI director.

Trump has a strategy to avoid Russia falloutWestwood 6-10 [Sarah Westwood is a White House reporter for the Washington Examiner 6-10-2017 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/james-comey-cloud-hindering-trumps-agenda/article/2625553]

In the nearly five weeks since Trump removed his FBI director, the Russian election-meddling probe that was once under Comey' s purview has threatened to overtake the White House and grind its agenda to a standstill . West Wing

aides faced a daily barrage of questions about the investigation and Comey's involvement with it until, in late May, they began referring all Russia-related inquiries to Trump's outside counsel .

Mark Serrano, a Republican strategist , said the move to direct those questions toward Marc Kasowitz, Trump's

attorney, could help the administration tremendously in its efforts to advance beyond the controversies.

"That was a very necessary and prudent measure for the sake of the country, for the sake of the operations for the White House," Serrano said.

After a week of hearings and revelations that saw multiple current and former administration officials deny encountering

interference in the Russia probe, the White House should take advantage of the momentum it now has , Serrano argued.

Investigation won’t release outcome for a long timeBennett 6-12 [John T. Bennett White House Correspondent for CQ Roll 6-12-2017 “Legislative Agenda Gets Tougher for Trump” http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/comey-speaks-domestic-agenda-gets-tougher-trump]

But senior Republican and Democratic leaders appear in lockstep on one thing : Nothing will happen until Mueller completes his work .

Legal sources say the career lawman’s investigation will last months — likely well into next spring or summer — as he methodically conducts interviews, analyzes reams of documents, emails, phone and travel records, and text messages. That means Mueller could wrap up his probe and go public with his findings just as the 2018 midterm races are heating up.

Russia doesn’t thump UNLESS trump picks fight with GOP on external policy issues - our link is categorically differentYglesias, 17 --- Mathew, Columnist @ VOX, 1/11, http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/11/14240262/trump-i-wonBut what comes next, in ways Trump may not realize, is different. Lots of presidents have won elections. What they’ve generally

found is that the United States is not a plebiscitary dictatorship. The presidency is a powerful office, but its powers are shared with Congress, and to a considerable extent, you can only do what Congress lets you get away with. The GOP is giving Trump a pass on conflicts of interest The reason Trump doesn’t need to release his tax returns, or resolve the financial conflicts of interest inherent in his ownership of the Trump Organization, or explain his thinking about Russia clearly is that Republicans haven’t made him. Congressional Republicans know how to play hardball if they want to . It would have been trivially easy for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to refuse to schedule confirmation hearings

with Rex Tillerson until its members got to have a chat with the president-elect about Russia. House Government Affairs Committee Chair Jason Chaffetz has been fanatical about Hillary Clinton email investigations but simply chooses not to hold hearings on Trump’s conflicts of interest . Congress could amend the statute governing executive branch conflicts of interest to extend coverage to the pres ide nt . Nothing along these lines

has happened for two reasons. First, congressional Republicans seem to have uniformly reached the conclusion that the political costs of fighting with Trump exceed the political risk that they will end up being dragged down by his corruption when scandal erupts. Second, congressional Republicans seem to have universally reached the moral judgment that preventing the wholesale corruption of the federal government isn’t particularly important in the grand

scheme of things. Winning is easy; governing is harder What’s less clear is what ’s going to happen when Trump finds himself getting into territory that congressional Republicans do care about . At another point during the press conference, Trump said the federal government should use its purchasing power to negotiate lower prescription drug prices. He said this as if he were the first person in history to think of it, but there is in fact a controversy over this that’s been running in Washington for decades. It reached a head back in 2003, when George W. Bush and congressional Republicans rather controversially stole a Democratic proposal to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare but then included a legal bar on bulk price negotiations. The resulting legislation passed over Democratic objections, and liberal Democrats have been promising for years to overturn it. Barack Obama campaigned on this idea in 2008, only to abandon it as part of a bargain to get the pharmaceutical industry to support the Affordable Care Act, only to reembrace it in his second term (and then seem to back away from it in a lame-duck Vox interview, but that’s another story). All of which is to say that if Trump is serious about doing this, he will probably find plenty of Democratic votes for it. But this is a popular idea that Republicans have been blocking for years. They are blocking it because they think it would be a bad idea (reduced incentives for pharmaceutical research), and they are blocking it because the pharmaceutical industry has a lot of money and clout. If Trump is satisfied by just musing aloud about this while not

actually changing anything, Paul Ryan will be happy to ignore him. But if he actually wants to do it, he’s going to have a big fight on his hands. And while to an extent his favored tactic of roasting congressional Republicans with his tweets

could work as pushback, they have some powerful weapons in their hands. After all, the choice to turn a blind eye to Trump ’s ethical lapses is a choice that, in practice, the GOP has to reaffirm anew every single week. If Trump asks for things Republicans don’t want to do, they won’t happen . If Trump punches his party hard to try to make them do those things, they can punch back .

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/11/14240262/trump-i-won

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/11/14240262/trump-i-won

Governing is hard. For now , though, congressional Republicans seem convinced that Trump will stick to tax cuts and deregulation as the core of his agenda — with protectionist tweets serving more as a

theatrical sideshow than as the dawn of a new heterodox approach to policymaking. As long as that’s the case , they’re willing to hold up their end of the bargain. But that’s the real reason Trump doesn’t need to disclose anything — it’s

not that he won; it’s that his allies in Congress think letting him get away with it is the best way for them to get their way on policy .

Links

Link—ed/funding/reg

Education---1NC

education policies Drain PC - Dems backlash because its trump and conservatives backlash because it’s federal – outweighs support for policy specificsCamera, 17 --- Lauren Camera is an education reporter at U.S. News & World Report. She’s covered education policy and politics for nearly a decade and has written for Education Week, The Hechinger Report, Congressional Quarterly, Roll Call, and the Chronicle of Higher Education. She was a 2013 Spencer Education Fellow at Columbia University’s School of Journalism, where she conducted a reporting project about the impact of the Obama administration’s competitive education grant, Race to the Top, US News and World Report, 3/13, https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2017-03-23/trump-school-choice-proposals-drive-wedge-between-charter-school-advocates

“I think the Trump presidency is going to be a challenging time for education reform ,” Petrilli, says.

“Just as we’ve seen a growing polarization in politics , we see a growing polarization in the education reform community. Most education reformers who would identify as liberal Democrats are aghast at Donald Trump even if he supports some of the school reform agenda .” He

continued: “I think for groups like Democrats for Education Reform, you tend to see them putting the Democrat before the education reform. They really seem to feel like – because of the threats to the

budget, but also because of the threats around immigration and treatment of Muslims and everything else – that this is a time when they have to focus on their solidarity with other groups on the left rather than focus on maybe some benefits for school choice or school reform .” Not to be overlooked, Petrilli noted, are the handful of conservative and libertarian policy organizations , like the

Heritage Foundation and CATO, that have long supported voucher programs but don’t want the fed eral government to be the lever for pushing them . The White House has yet to unveil any details of its $250 million private school choice proposal, or how the proposed $1 billion in increase Title I funding would be doled out to states willing to

expand their school choice offerings. DeVos said Monday that those details are still being debated. When those policies are solidified, the battle lines between the school choice organizations will likely become even more obvious. “The question will be: Where is the division between public and private here?” says Robin Lake, the director of the

Center on Reinventing Public Education. “A lot of charters serve kids who are immigrants or who live in inner cities and the politics of this are going to get interesting for sure.” “When push comes to shove I think charters will always side with the public school community,” she says. “They are public schools.”



Education---General

Federal education policy polarized – any reforms cause poisonous congressional fighting – no turns – reforms perceived as inherently ineffectiveLamiell, 12 --- Patricia, Director Media Relations @ Teachers College, University Columbia, 2/10, http://www.tc.columbia.edu/articles/2012/february/how-should-politics-influence-education-policy/

How Should Politics Influence Education Policy? How much does national education policy make a difference in classrooms, and

how much do national politics drive education policy in America, where schools, curricula and teaching have been controlled at the local and state levels since the dawn of public schools? A lot , according to three distinguished education policy analysts who took part in a panel discussion on February 8 to

inaugurate the College’s new Education Policy and Social analysis (EPSA) Department — and potentially never more so than now , as Congress weighs reauthorization of the federal No Child Left Behind law against the backdrop of a highly polarized presidential campaign. The panel discussion, held in TC’s Cowin Conference Center, was moderated by Jeffrey Henig, Professor of Political Science and Education and EPSA department chair. It featured Christopher T. Cross, a former U.S. Under Secretary of Education and current Chairman of Cross & Joftus, an education-policy consulting firm; Jack Jennings, founder and recently retired Director of the Center on Education Policy, an education research firm; and Wendy D. Puriefoy, President of the Public Education Network (PEN), the nation’s largest network of community-based school

reform organizations. Prompted by Henig, the panelists—who were welcomed by TC President Susan Fuhrman—discussed the often bitter and sometimes even violent disagreements on federal versus local control of education policy that have erupted since the school desegregation battles of the 1960s . Puriefoy told how, as a young woman, she monitored court-ordered desegregation in Boston, visiting schools and reporting back to a federal judge whose appointment owed to the victory of Lyndon Johnson, a passionate advocate of school desegregation, in the 1964 presidential election. Reaching much further back, Puriefoy argued that desegregation surely would never have occurred had not

Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. “Federal politics and education policy are inextricably linked,” she said.

The bottom line for all three panelists: Most major changes to American schools have resulted from federal law, jurisprudence or policy. Cross noted that Title I funding, enacted in 1965, provided extra funding for schools with economically disadvantaged children. Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (later the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA) in 1975, when the notion that children with disabilities should be educated—let alone integrated into classrooms with non-disabled children, as is happening now—“was a revolutionary idea.” NCLB, enacted in 2002, has had an enormous effect on how and what gets taught, in Cross’s view, forcing teachers to focus on testing at the expense of deep learning. And the Race to the Top program of the Obama administration has significantly affected spending priorities, teaching and learning in public schools. “The question of whether national policy has influenced education unquestionably has to be answered ‘yes,’” Cross

said. “The reality is that almost everything that goes on is, in fact, guided by what happened in federal policy at some point, even though people in the classroom may not recognize it.” The idea that education policy is or somehow should be apolitical simply is not borne out by history or current facts , Jennings said. A recent case in point: If John McCain had been elected president in 2008, he, unlike President Obama, would very likely have allowed thousands of teachers’ jobs to be eliminated by drastic budget cuts made necessary by the recession. And should Obama fail to win

reelection this coming fall, a Republican president may well seek to do away with the U.S. D epartment o f E ducation . “Policy should really be integrated into politics,” Jennings said. “If people of good will don’t deal with policy,” he said, decisions will be left to those who are not equipped to make them—or worse, who are simply uninterested in fairness and equity in education. The panelists were unanimous in their criticism of NCLB, which Puriefoy said has “gone horribly awry,” but they differed on what to do about it. The law has not been amended since its bipartisan passage in early 2002, and while both Democrats and Republicans now agree it should be changed, “Republicans don’t want to give credit to Obama for amending

it,” Jennings said. Puriefoy concurred, adding that the environment in Congress “has become much more poisonous , and it has become more difficult to create the environment we need in order to

http://www.tc.columbia.edu/articles/2012/february/how-should-politics-influence-education-policy/


transform education.” And while education has always been a polarizing issue , and minorities have always

had to fight for access to good education, for the first time in the country’s history, “ people don’t believe their

children’s lives will be better than theirs,” Puriefoy said. “They don’t believe in the ability of institutions to bring about change .” So can anything be done—and is this year’s presidential election an opportunity to put national education issues before voters in a way they will notice? Cross was skeptical, but said he would like both parties to discuss education issues after the election to find common ground. Jennings suggested creating federal-state partnerships modeled on those in Germany, but Puriefoy noted that Germany also supports children and families with programs other than education. “Schools can’t be responsible on their own,” she said. “They need help.” To Henig’s final question—“What would you like to see in the next administration?”—Cross replied that the U.S. Department of Education should “get rid of the silos—English Language Learners, Special Education” and

others, which are too large, bureaucratic and costly. Jennings warned that the incoming president should not listen to the “ radical right ,” but instead “ totally rethink ” school financing , which is currently based on property

taxes, and fight the “ long tradition of anti-intellectualism in this country” by pursuing a new agenda that focuses on quality curriculum and teaching. Puriefoy called for a rededication to educating “all sectors of children,” strong federal standards, and “getting rid of states’ rights. “This fragmentation in education is just unacceptable. We need a new intellectual contract in this country,” she said. “Good policy follows good intention. If we resolve to educate every child in this

country, regardless of ZIP code, we’re going to have to dismantle what we’re doing. We’re not going to get there without significant disruption .”

The plan is political poison that obliterates negotiating credibility with every relevant groupJennings, 15 – Jack Jennings, former president and CEO of the Center on Education Policy and general counsel for the House Committee on Education and Labor, Presidents, Congress, and the Public Schools: The Politics of Education Reform, p. 219-220

Conclusion

FROM THE HAPPY DAYS OF 1965, when ESEA held the promise of greatly improving American education, to the present contentious times, when both the political right and left are challeng ing the Common Core State Standards, this book has taken us on a long journey. At times, the reader must have felt that because of all the fighting and controversy we would never arrive at the destination of knowing how the federal government can work to produce better schools.

We have now reached the point where we can recommend some ways to accomplish that goal, although I am fully aware that these ideas will not be accepted by all. In fact, these recommendations for a different and broadened fed eral role in education go against the political temper of the times . Because of attacks from the Tea Party, Republican state governors are running away from the national academic standards that they helped write . Liberals are attack ing the federal government's emphasis on tests and rais ing doubts about the left's traditional support for federal aid to education .

Despite the political tenor of the times, one must state the truth as one sees it. Fifty years of federal involvement in education demonstrate, to my mind, that a strong federal role is essential to attaining the best schools for most students. There will be missteps, such as there were with NCLB, and there may be overregulation as in the late 1970s. But overall, only the

federal government can bring the national spotlight, the financial resources, and the leadership needed to help states and local districts to improve public schools.

The United States has a strong tradition of local control and state authority over the public schools. History has shown, however, that 14,000 school districts on their own cannot raise the quality of all schools because they vary in much in fiscal capacity and focus so intently on the daily operations of the schools. The states have potential to play a big role, but governors and legislatures weaken state governments through keeping wages for employees unappealing and setting strict limits on the number of state jobs.

The federal government must be involved. A revised federal role should have two aspects: a constitutional or legal right to a good education, and a state-federal program to improve classroom teaching and learning. Both are needed to move the nation.

Many might say that these ideas are too idealistic , that the plan I have outlined cannot be carried out. That could be true today —but not necessarily tomorrow.

My purpose has been to propose a fresh start in thinking about the federal government's role in education. First, though, it was necessary to trace the origins and evolution of the federal role in education. Then, it was important to document the results of federal programs. The next stage was to put aside for a moment issues about the current federal role and understand the major problems in American education. Once those problems were identified, thought could finally be given to how the federal role should be revised to deal directly with them.

It has been a long journey, but I hope that an understanding now exists that real change should occur in the federal role in education. What I hope does not happen is that Congress makes a few minor changes in the current federal laws and thinks that it has done its job. That won't do.

If this book has identified the right issues for a common federal-state campaign of school improvement, then organizations and groups should push to implement these solutions . It may take several years or longer . Remember Senator Taft was involved in debating federal aid to education in the mid-1940s, and it did not come about until the mid-1960s .

Education reform forces huge political tradeoffs and detonates political capital, even if it’s popularWilliams, 17 – Dr. Conor Williams, Ph.D. in government from Georgetown, senior researcher in New America’s Education Policy Program, 1-18-2017, “The Temptation to Compromise with Trump on Schools — and Why It Might Kill Education Reform”, https://www.the74million.org/article/williams-the-temptation-to-compromise-with-trump-on-schools-and-why-it-might-kill-education-reform

As the prospect of unified GOP control of the federal government roars in to view , some of those Republicans are discovering that, hey, the orange guy might just have the juice they need to push through a reform priority or two. As my New America colleague Kevin Carey has put it,

conservatives and Republicans in Washington, D.C., who, after eight years out of power and for reasons that range from wishful thinking to much worse, are busily convincing themselves that Donald Trump is redeemable. He is not. His bigotry is bone-deep.

Indeed, après le deluge de Trump, some conservative education reformers have started feeling out the center and left of what remains of the education reform movement to ask us to swallow our concerns and work with the incoming administration “for the kids.”

I asked Shavar Jeffries, president of the Democrats for Education Reform (a key progressive reform org anization ) about the dynamics of this situation. He explained them this way: “We think that just because we strongly disagree with the president-elect on a variety of different policies and the rhetoric undergirding those policies, that doesn’t mean that there are n’t a number of policies that we agree with and would benefit the families that we advocate for...even if it’s one issue , even if it’s one out of a hundred, we’re gonna work to ensure that it’s positive going forward.”

Other progressive reformers agree. Ned Stanley, deputy director of the New York Campaign for Achievement Now, emailed me, “For the reformers I know, their focus in education has little to do with conservatism or progressivism and the policies they advocate for can’t be cleanly placed into Democratic or Republican thought silos ... Which is to say, the question we’re asking is how a dramatically larger number of students can have access to significantly greater options and opportunity in their lives. That’s a moral question, but not necessarily a political one.”

And the political question behind that moral one is relatively manageable: Why shouldn’t progressives who believe in school choice sign up to back a hypothetical Trump administration proposal to dramatically expand it?

Well, “do it for the kids” is a much more complicated ask than it seems. First of all, most of the old education reform priorities that commanded bipartisan support are big, hairy ideas that spark disagreements in the details. For instance, school choice is not a panacea . Well-crafted choice programs can open doors of opportunity for underserved children. But these are hardly inevitable. Badly designed choice programs with limited oversight generally do nothing for the students they serve. Though it’s a fool’s errand to predict Trump’s plans, it’s fair to say that his team has given no signals that it’s interested in building oversight and accountability into its school choice proposals.

Sure, that’s a garden-variety challenge of working across party lines. In Washington, policy wins come at the price of ideological priorities. For instance, in order to secure conservative support for Obama’s signature health care reform law, progressives needed to adopt long-standing conservative policy ideas — like the individual mandate.

OK, bad example.

But you get the drift — even if the Trump administration’s approach to school choice (or school accountability, or teacher evaluations, or etc.) isn’t ideal, progressive reformers will have to weigh any possible benefits against those costs. At present, there’s little evidence to suggest that Trump-branded reform proposals will be even vaguely tempting to progressive reformers animated by equity and accountability.

Of course, standard-issue bipartisan trade-offs aren’t the only challenge. Trump poses a second challenge for progressive reformers who believe in the promise of charter schools but also work on issues proximate to immigration or civil rights. Consider this relatively likely scenario: the Trump administration moves forward with its regularly reiterated plans to deport millions of undocumented immigrants and begins proceedings to close the border to Muslims. Meanwhile, his Department of Education announces plans to establish a large federal grants competition with billions of dollars available to states who expand their charter school sectors. For the purposes of argument, however unlikely it might be, let’s assume that the grants competition includes significant accountability measures that would increase the chance that the program helps underserved children.

Progressive education reformers eager to have more high-quality school options available for these kids would clearly be tempted to support such a proposal. And yet, any engagement on this would also be a tacit normalization of the extraordinary damage that Trump’s immigration proposals are likely to do to U.S. politics, governance and civil society. Civil rights organizations sympathetic to education reform would be understandably confused to find progressive allies denouncing Trump’s radical immigration policies while assisting his administration’s work on education. Is it worth it to move a few education reform priorities if those efforts permanently cost progressive reformers their existing networks of allies and supporters ? Are short-term reform goals worth that sort of long-term detonation of political capital ?

Education---Post Election

Election was a game changer – any federal education proposal drains PCEducation Week, 17 --- 5/17, lexis

How Trump's Altered the Landscape for Education Advocates Education advocates in Washington might not always be on the same page when it comes to policy, but there's at least one thing the vast majority agree on: The Trump administration-buttressed by a Republican Congress-is unlike anything they've ever had to contend with before . In particular, groups that lobby Congress and the U.S. D epartment o f E ducation on behalf of public school educators, as well as those representing civil rights issues and advocating for education funding, say that they are fighting what feels like a multifront war against vouchers, dramatic budget cuts , and what some describe as a general antipathy toward public schools and disadvantaged children . "Being an advocate for public education gives me job security," joked Noelle Ellerson Ng, the associate executive director of AASA, the School Superintendents Association. "There's plenty to engage on."

Another was more blunt: "It really sucks , " the advocate said. To be sure, the situation is different-even reversed-for groups that champion school choice and other policy approaches favored by the Trump administration and Republicans on Capitol Hill. Such

groups often found themselves sidelined during President Barack Obama's tenure. But there's a long list of issues that keep teachers' unions, civil rights organizations, and similar advocates up at night. On the fiscal front, there's the Trump administration's pitch to cut $9 billion, or 13 percent, from the Education Department's roughly $70 billion budget, including slashing key programs that help pay for teacher-quality initiatives and after-school programs. The health-care bill could squeeze up to $4 billion in funding that schools use to cover special education services. And there are concerns that the Trump administration won't continue to invest in rural broadband, which many educators worry could slow the progress the Obama administration made in boosting connectivity in remote rural districts. Then there's the administration's big school choice push, about which there are few hard-and-fast details. The Trump administration has asked for $1 billion in new Title I funding to be directed to school choice in its budget request. And the spending plan also seeks increased funding for charter schools and resources for a private school initiative. But the specifics of those programs remain cloudy,

frustrating advocates on both sides of this contentious issue. Some organizations say they are struggling to preserve

what they see as v ictories from the Obama years, including a larger role for the department in looking out for

children's civil rights and a focus on resource equity. "The idea that we might be going backward is just deeply frustrating," said Liz King, the director of education for the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Level of Unpredictability The mechanics of the job now are different, too. The political ranks at the Education Department are thin, since the White House has been slow to fill subcabinet positions. Some Washington organizations have started providing the kind of technical assistance to their members that the department used to provide, doing their best to answer questions about matters like implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act. Others say their communication with civil servants at the department has been markedly different-policy experts they've long worked with aren't nearly as accessible or forthcoming. What's more, because President Trump doesn't have a full team in place and doesn't have a long record on K-12 issues, it's tough for advocates to see around the corner when it comes to education policy and spending. That situation isn't unique to education, said Mary Kusler, the senior director of the National Education Association's Center for Advocacy. "I would agree it's hard [to be an advocate] because there is a level of unpredictability. That is not an education-only problem. It is a Washington, D.C., new-world-order problem," she said. "It makes it impossible to plan for the long term." The choice of Betsy DeVos, a longtime school choice champion, as education secretary only makes life harder from the perspective of groups like the NEA that vehemently opposed her confirmation. "For the first time, we have a secretary of education who has no background in public education" and who has a singular focus on school choice, Kusler said. "Every time she opens her mouth, she shows her lack of qualifications for this job." But Jeanne Allen, the CEO for the Center for Education Reform, a school choice advocacy organization, sees DeVos' appointment as something to celebrate. "They're singing a song that we've been singing for a long time," she said of the secretary and her team. That's a far cry from the way Allen expected things would play out early in the fall, when nearly everyone in Washington was anticipating that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-candidate Trump's Democratic rival, would be in the White House. Allen said her organization was

"prepared first and foremost to put most of our time and energy into state battles and efforts." Electoral Jolt But Trump's surprise win was a jolt of a different kind for many public school educators and organizations

that represent them in the nation's capital. "We went from hearing from our members [that they were] positive

and hopeful to this drastic shift of almost panic , " said Kelly Vaillancourt Strobach, the director of government relations

for the National Association of School Psychologists. "Every proposal that seems to come out is almost like a bomb. You're in constant damage control , which is frustrating." And advocates for public school educators say

they're worried that proposals that once looked unlikely to come to fruition-like a massive cut to teacher-quality funding- might actually make it across the legislative finish line. It doesn't help that the Education Department still hasn't filled key positions. So far, Trump has nominated just one political appointee: Carlos Muniz, as general counsel. Other players in K-12 positions that require Senate sign-off-like Jason Botel, who is acting as the assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education-are temporary fill-ins. It's unclear how long any of them will stick around in those roles. Some education representatives are scratching their heads about whom to approach with policy proposals and questions. "I think in many ways the administration is still getting its people in place," said Jacki Ball, the director of government affairs for the National PTA. "We're just not always sure who to go to. We're trying to develop relationships with the people that are there," including Botel, who spoke at a recent PTA conference. "That was a good opportunity to open the door." And one advocate said there have been changes in dealings with the department's career employees, who stick around from one presidential administration to the next. "Any communication you have with federal employees now is difficult," the advocate said. "They are really hesitant to communicate

via email. They say things like, 'It is so hostile over here.' ... Everyone is walking on eggshells ." Aides for GOP members in Congress are quick to tout lawmakers' ties to Trump, but aren't shy about criticizing DeVos, said Sasha Pudelski, the assistant director for policy and advocacy at AASA. "They're attacking the administration via DeVos," she said. (A similar dynamic prevailed among Democrats in Congress during Secretary Arne Duncan's tenure in the Obama administration.) There's an upside: Those representing educator groups say their members are fired up and watching Washington closely. That means more are willing to write letters, sign petitions, call their members of Congress, or lobby in person. "This is a really unique time, where people who

would normally sit back and say it's going to be fine feel a threat" to public education, the NEA's Kusler said. The boost in education community engagement isn't without its challenges. Several advocates said they got a flood of calls from their organizations' members about a bill introduced by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, that would create federally supported vouchers nationwide. That legislation is almost certain to go nowhere. But it can be tougher to get members riled up about proposals that may actually be able to get traction, including potential budget cuts. Fielding questions about extreme, dead-on-arrival proposals cuts into advocates' time and energy. "We have to make sure there's not burnout. We have to make sure that the level of attention is appropriate," Pudelski said. "Every lobbyist I talk to feels like they're running on empty a little bit." Common Cause One thing that has helped lighten the load: Education advocacy organizations that work on behalf of public school educators and those representing disadvantaged students are working together much more closely, and on a much broader range of issues, than they have in the past. "Under Clinton, under Bush, and under Obama, the education community was afforded the luxury of disagreeing with one another," said Ellerson Ng, the AASA official. "We can no longer afford to disagree, because we have such a basic task of

supporting public education." Ultimately, though, nearly any major education initiative -from the president's proposed budget cuts to any school choice proposal- will have to go through Congress . Even in a polarized climate on Capitol Hill , advocates say they're still able to keep working with the same lawmakers

and staffers they've relied on in the past. "It's ultimately up to Congress to pass the law," Kusler said. "We're still working predominantly with members on both sides of the aisle who support public education."

Education---Horsetrade/Partisanship

Ed reform is a colossal horse-trade---sustained outreach to break through partisan and ideological backlash derails the agendaBradford, 17 – Derrell Bradford, Senior Visiting Fellow at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 5-30-2017, “The politics & partisanship of America’s education reform debate: A growing blue-red divide”, https://edexcellence.net/articles/the-politics-partisanship-of-americas-education-reform-debate-a-growing-blue-red-divide

In previous columns, I wrote about the political and policy problems we face as people fighting for change in the education space . But that’s only part of what ails our reform effort.

We also have a partisan problem .

This may be the one that’s easiest to see—though it is perhaps toughest to fix —and it spilled out into the street in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s presidential defeat. It now charges the national debate, around all policy, with a third-rail -like electricity on both sides of the aisle .

Party allegiance is the new litmus test not just for political philosophy, but for personal belief and social inclusion. Answering the wrong way on the wrong question not just on reform —but on anything—carries the weight of possible ostracism from both the left and the right . My own lens on this is through the tribe of Democrats, because those are the primaries in which I vote and the affiliation of most of the folks who are close to me. Folks I admire and from whom I seek counsel and direction during difficult times.

I understand it. I found the last presidential campaign distasteful. I rejected the division and the acrimony that typified the exchange, particularly where race was concerned. I tell folks sometimes that black lives matter—and that since I have one, it matters a whole lot to me—but the electoral process left me confused about whether our leaders actually agree with me. I ultimately supported Clinton despite my firm belief that she would appoint a secretary of education determined to make our lives harder, not easier. In the professional sense, I voted against my own interests because I thought it might be best for America.

But I also spend a lot of time traveling the country, which means, unlike many of my peers, I am not confined to either of the progressive coasts. At 50CAN, four of the five states I manage—Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia—are politically a deep crimson.

Despite their red hue, one thing doesn’t change as I move between them: how desperately children need great schools to ensure they reach their full potential. And though these states also bring the problems of rural education to the forefront, there are plenty of black and brown kids in cities who need our help as badly as any kid in Bed-Stuy, Brooklyn, does. Blue state or red state, our kids need all the help they can get, and they need it from everyone.

This is why I find the advance—or the retreat, depending on your view—by so many of my reform brothers and sisters to their respective hard rights and lefts not only troubling, but counterintuitive. And, in the long term, destructive.

It’s a pivot of safety, tribalism, and sameness , one of ease and elitism when our children need us to behave in precisely the opposite fashion, running toward one another instead of away.

We don’t have an ed ucation reform movement because liberal Dem ocrat s believe in civil rights . And we don’t have one because conservative R epublican s believe in market solutions , low regulation, and freedom. We have one because they could believe in them both , at the same time, together, and at the same table. The golden age of “ reform ” that folks associate with President Barack Obama exists only because of a history of this sort of collaboration.

It flowered when President Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress came together on charters . It grew further with President George W. Bush and the late Sen. Ted Kennedy , who together built and passed the No Child Left Behind Act. It expanded charters in places like Newark, where Republican Gov. Chris Christie and Democratic Mayor Cory Booker somehow managed to work together to make change .

Republican Gov. George Pataki, with the help of Democratic Rep. Floyd Flake, passed New York’s charter school law in 1998. Democratic Assemblywoman Polly Williams and Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson joined to create the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, the country’s first.

Without a willingness to look past party with an eye toward the goal of improving education for our children, none of this would have be en possible .

Much of what I read and see now seems ignorant of this history. And not just ignorant of it—dismissive, detached, and arrogant to it. There isn’t a progressive state where a teacher evaluation framework, tenure reform law, equitable funding formula, charter, or choice program passed without the support of both Dem ocrat s and R epublican s . A retreat from the political realities of what it takes to make change —real change, not just the kind that makes partisans happy, but the kind that actually alters culture in a way that unmakes what is broken so something better can be created—isn’t just selfish, it ’s self-interested . And it ignores the most important of factors: that change of this kind, and of this scale, can’t be done alone.

We don’t need new edges; we need a new center. So consider this: If your partisan values are more important to you than your education reform values, perhaps you should ask yourself if you are in the right place, at the right time, doing the thing that is best for you and your beliefs.

I happen to be an ed reformer first—my moral and professional compasses point in the same direction, and I act in a fashion that is aligned around changing policy for kids. This is also to say I am a Democrat second, and being one informs my view on reform—particularly on issues of equity—but is in service to that view. Not everyone sees the world this way. In fact, many people I know well don’t see it this way at all. So if you’re a Democrat first, or a Republican first, or a partisan first, and that is what matters most to you, I support that fully. The country is a mess right now, and we need political reform as much as we need education reform.

But it’s also possible that, if you feel that way, the Democratic National Committee or the Republican National Committee would benefit more from your decision-making right now than a boy on a corner in Bridgeport who just needs you to be on one side—and that side is his. He’s actually the last person who needs you to be a partisan—steeped in what you won’t do and closing off policy opportunities that make you uncomfortable because of your political beliefs—because in the end, it’s his life, not yours, that depends on it.

We should all see the world through his eyes when thinking about this.

I encourage everyone to reflect on the life of Martin Luther King Jr. and his efforts to pass the Civil Rights Act when thinking about our partisan problem. King worked with many people to pass the act. Some of those people were racists. And the most notable of them might have been President Lyndon Baines Johnson himself. Johnson’s biographer Robert Caro described him as a connoisseur of the word “nigger” who tailored its use and inflection to the home regions of members of Congress. As Obama noted in 2014, “During his first twenty years in Congress, he opposed every civil rights bill that came up for a vote, once calling the push for federal legislation a farce and a shame.”

The lesson here isn’t necessarily about Johnson’s motivations, or even the sincerity or veracity of the change he underwent that made him a supporter of civil rights. It is instead about King’s single-minded focus on the goal of equality for black people, and the relentless pursuit of that goal through political disconcert and social pressure. And in this case, it included his willingness to work with a man—one fluent, skilled, and practiced in the casual use of the greatest insult to black people—who offered him not comfort, but the chance to improve the lives of those very same people. The history of minorities seizing power in America has always been colored by these crushing concessions . King’s discomfort, I think, is of the sort we have to live with now if we want to make progress in these difficult political times.

Education reform isn’t about how you may or may not feel at cocktail parties or your own political or personal proclivities. It is about kids dying civic and physical deaths in schools that don’t work for them. Progress, real progress, never feels good. And it’s always uncomfortable , because change is uncomfortable, even when it’s for the better .

Drains finite PC – spills over and derails other agenda itemsMatveev, ’00 --- Alexei Matveev, Department of Educational Policy, Planning, and Leadership, College of William and Mary, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/109c/4368a0ec2294107a2b60ab9eb6011999ffb7.pdf

The bottom line is that the problems of development and administration of higher education policy will never be solved because “the conflict between equality and economic efficiency is inescapable . In that sense, capitalism and democracy are really a most improbable mixture. Maybe that is why they need one another - to put some rationality into

equality and some humanity into efficiency" (Okun 1975.) The only way for successful policy construction appears to be political bargaining and " muddling through " in search of the shaky institutional equilibrium and satisfying temporary solutions for the perceived conflicts. Sub-optimisation and incrementalism in

contrast to maximisation and radicalism are simultaneously a curse and a blessing of democracy . We should

understand that only a limited number of goals can be achieved in a contemporary diverse public higher arena no matter how compelling the argument or virtuous its claimants are. While choosing a primary institution of higher education coordination (whether it is the market , gov ernment reg ulation s , or academic democracy ), we choose not between good and bad, but, rather, between

complementary, although at times conflicting and competing rules and values. “There is no theoretical model for the correct balance [of market forces, gov ernment regulation and academic democracy] at a

given time, so we are left with making subjective judgments based upon common sense and upon both conscious and unconscious biases ” (Berdahl et al, 1999, p. 10.) These individual choices are made in the institutional context that simultaneously constrains the individual actors and plays the role of a tool- kit for policy development and administration. One-sided focus on either institutional context or actors’ level would miss the boat in understanding educational policy.

Causes Congressional Gridlock and ParalysisAASCU, ’15 ---- American Association of State Colleges and Universities, Policy Brief, January, www.aascu.org/policy/publications/policy-matters/Top10StatePolicyIssues2015.pdf+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

States have constitutional authority over higher education, and state lawmakers, working in concert with campus governing bodies, have jurisdiction over foundational higher education policies: state funding, capital construction, enrollment policy and tuition

pricing. States’ role in determining the policy framework for public colleges and universities is only expected to intensify this year, as political polarization and paralysis in Congress have left a backlog of federal education bills for congressional committees to consider in the next session. Much attention will be on Congress’ ability to govern effectively now that the U.S. House and Senate are both in the hands of Republicans. If Congress’ success in the 114th session is assessed in comparison to the outgoing session—whether related to education or not—the threshold for success is unusually low, given that the just-concluded 113th session of Congress witnessed the lowest number of bills passed in modern Congressional history. ‘

One of the most concrete examples of federal education policy stasis is the unlikely Congressional passage th is year of the overdue reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA). Among all the higher education policies and programs ripe for reform, there exists a tremendous need and opportunity for Congress to use the

HEA reauthorization to align state and federal higher education financing and incentivize states to re-invest in public

higher education. Recent traction in the U.S. Senate on a proposed State-Federal College Affordability Partnership—an

annual federal block grant designed to spur new state investments in public higher education—will likely be slowed due to

changes in Senate leadership. Public higher education leaders will be called on to work with their Congressional delegation to build awareness and support of the State-Federal College Affordability Partnership in order to ensure that it is included in the final HEA reauthorization bill. An in-depth discussion of potential implications for higher education policy stemming from the 2014 elections is provided in the policy brief, Higher Education and the 2014 Elections, published by the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU). The paper discusses the Obama administration’s higher education agenda, the Congressional outlook for its 114th session, policy challenges Congress will face, as well as state-level outcomes of the elections. This paper provides a summary of the top 10 higher education policy issues that are likely to witness considerable activity in state legislatures across the country this year. It is the view of the AASCU state relations and policy staff that these issues will be at the forefront of both discussion and action in state capitols. This eighth annual synopsis is informed by a variety of sources, including an environmental scan of outcomes from last year’s legislative sessions, recent gubernatorial priorities,

as well as trends and events that are shaping the higher education policy landscape . Some issues are perennial in

nature, while others reflect more recent economic, fiscal and political dynamics . Results, no doubt, will vary by state.

Education—Federal OverreachReducing the federal role in education is a key issue for the conservative baseWyler 12 (Grace, 5/23, staff @ Business Insider, “Is Mitt Romney Embarrassed About Having An Education Plan?”, http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-education-plan--2012-5)

Like most of Romney's policy proposals , the education platform is pretty vague. It largely focuses on a federal voucher program to allow low-income and disabled students to attend charter and private schools, falling in line with generally accepted GOP talking points about school choice. But the plan fails to address expanded federal involvement in education, a major issue for the GOP's conservative base. While Romney does propose reforming some parts of the No Child Left Behind Act and consolidating "duplicative and overly complex" Department of Energy programs, he doesn't even come close to the radical cutbacks and wholesale DOE elimination favored by the growing social conservative /Tea Party/Constitutionalist wing of the Republican Party.

Conservative opposition to the federal role in education is strongBerry 15 (Dr. Susan, contributor @ Breitbart, 3/9, “Jeb Bush Retrofits Facts of Common Core To Boost Conservative Credibility”, http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/09/jeb-bush-retrofits-facts-of-common-core-to-boost-conservative-credibility/)

Bush’s attempt to infuse his views on education reform with a dose of federalism in order to salvage his credibility with the conservative base seems obvious . The former Florida governor is pushing for the reauthorization of NCLB, the latest version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), first enacted by Lyndon Baines Johnson as part of his “War on Poverty.” Bush describes ESEA as a “critical piece of legislation that sets out the role of the federal government in school funding and policy.” Conservatives , of course, would like to see no role for the federal government in education , as per the Constitution . “[T]he Obama administration has issued a patchwork of waivers and side deals, given out by fiat and without consistency ,” Bush continues. “No wonder parents and state and local leaders question Washington’s motives when it comes to our schools.”

States’ rights conservatives oppose federal involvement in educationWhitman 15 (David, Sept., Contributing Editor at Education Post and was a reporter for nearly two decades for U.S. News & World Report. From June 2009 to November 2014, he was chief speechwriter for U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, “The Surprising Roots of the Common Core: How Conservatives Gave Rise to ‘Obamacore’”, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Surprising-Conservative-Roots-of-the-Common-Core_FINAL.pdf)

Last but not least—and irrespective of previous conservative efforts to develop voluntary national standards—some Tea Party leaders and Common Core critics remain purists about federalism . They firmly oppose the Common Core State Standards on constitutional and ideological grounds for infringing on state and local control of education —an unenumerated power they believe is reserved solely to individual states under the 10th amendme nt , and not to consortiums of states or to the federal government. Last year, Governor Nikki Haley, a Tea Party favorite, signed a bill requiring South Carolina to adopt new standards replacing the

Common Core State Standards. “We don’t ever want to educate South Carolina children like they educate California children,” Haley said.

It’s a key issue for the base – they hate the planEducation Views.org 15 (6/13, “No Child Left Behind Rewrite To Face Another Showdown in House”, https://www.educationviews.org/child-left-rewrite-face-showdown-house/)

As Breitbart News reported in late February, GOP leadership pulled the Student Success Act from the House floor after it was determined the legislation lacked sufficient support. Grassroots conservative parent groups seek ing to eliminate federal involvement in education voiced concerns that the rewrite still required excessive federal intrusion into the right of states to set their own education policies . The Washington Examiner reports conservative House members say they will not support the measure without significant changes. GOP leaders, however, have said they have no intentions to make alterations to the bill, but will put it back on the House floor exactly as it was in February. Republican leaders seem poised to resume attempts to convince the conservative base of their party that the bill will reduce federal involvement in education and return it to the states and localities.

Federal role massively unpopular with conservativesMcGuinn & Hess 4 (Patrick, Pf @ Brown U., & Frederick, American Enterprise Inst. Fellow, “Freedom From Ignorance? The Great Society and the Evolution of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965”, https://users.drew.edu/pmcguinn/.../ESEA%20and%20Great%20Society%20Final.doc)

Despite increasing public awareness of the unequal opportunities in American schools, however, the political opposition to an expanded federal role in education remained strong . As Graham has written in his classic work on the period, “to propose federal ‘intrusion’ into the sanctity of the state-local-private preserve of education was to stride boldly into a uniquely dangerous political mine field that pitted Democrat against Republican, liberal against conservative, Catholic against Protestant and Jew, federal power against states rights, white against black, and rich constituency against poor in mercurial cross-cutting alliances.” This opposition had succeeded in defeating a number of proposals by Democrats for increased federal education spending in the 1940s and 1950s, as well as several by President Kennedy’s administration in the early 1960s.

That’s especially true of federal regulations McGuinn & Hess 4 (Patrick, Pf @ Brown U., & Frederick, American Enterprise Inst. Fellow, “Freedom From Ignorance? The Great Society and the Evolution of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965”, https://users.drew.edu/pmcguinn/.../ESEA%20and%20Great%20Society%20Final.doc)

The design as well as the substance of ESEA was to have important consequences for American education policy. One of the most significant features of ESEA was what it did not do: it did not provide general federal aid to public schools in the U.S. Instead, ESEA provided “categorical” aid that was targeted to a specific student population—disadvantaged students. As Paul Peterson and Barry Rabe would later note, “passage of the ESEA…provided for greatly increased support for public education, but it hardly took the form that traditional education interest groups had long advocated. Instead of a program of general aid, the legislation concentrated resources on educationally disadvantaged children living in low-income areas. ” And, as will be discussed in more detail below, the creation of federal categorical programs required that federal

educational institutions shift from what had been largely an information gathering and disseminating role to a more supervisory role in the administration of the new federal funds and programs. Given the political opposition to federal “control ” in education , however, it had been impossible to include rigorous compliance provisions in ESEA, or even the kind of administrative requirements that were normally attached to categorical grants.

Education---Policy Details

Federal Education policy drains PC post election – even education advocates fight over policy detailsCamera, 17 --- Lauren Camera is an education reporter at U.S. News & World Report. She’s covered education policy and politics for nearly a decade and has written for Education Week, The Hechinger Report, Congressional Quarterly, Roll Call, and the Chronicle of Higher Education. She was a 2013 Spencer Education Fellow at Columbia University’s School of Journalism, where she conducted a reporting project about the impact of the Obama administration’s competitive education grant, Race to the Top, US News and World Report, 3/13, https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2017-03-23/trump-school-choice-proposals-drive-wedge-between-charter-school-advocates

The Trump administration's plan to ax $9 billion in federal education spending but direct millions to a new program that would help students afford private school exposed a fissure among charter school advocates, one not publicly acknowledged but privately widening at an increasingly fast pace

since the election. In reacting to the fiscal 2018 blueprint, organizations that support charter schools split : Some admonished the administration for its proposed education cuts, as well as billions in cuts to health care and wraparound social service programs on which the country's most disadvantaged students rely. Others touted the increases for school choice policies, which, in addition to a $250 million private school choice program, included $168 million more for charter schools and a $1 billion boost in Title I for poor students whose states allow them to use the money to enroll at any public school of their choice. “Today, President Trump demonstrated that he is a strong supporter of charter public schools,” Nina Rees, president and CEO of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, said in a statement. “The charter school movement is grateful for the president’s support, and we applaud his commitment to providing critically needed funding.” But Greg Richmond, president and CEO of the National Association of Charter School Authorizers, took a different tack. “We are deeply concerned about proposed cuts to other important education programs, as charter schools are part of – not a substitute for – a strong public education system,” Richmond said in his public statement. “Charter schools cannot succeed without strong teachers and a seamless, affordable path to college for their graduates. Unfortunately, this proposed budget harms programs that are important for students, teachers, and

public education.” The different responses highlight what’s become a more visible divide , though one that’s long existed, among school choice proponents – and specifically among charter school supporters who can get behind private school choice policies and those who cannot . Those who cannot, like Richmond, are adamant that any schools that use taxpayer dollars, including charter schools, must be held accountable for being good stewards of those dollars and show positive results for students. "From a policy perspective, accountability to the public for outcomes is what makes charter schools public schools," he says. "If there is no accountability to the public about the results you’re producing and how you’re spending your money, then you’re not

public." What he and others fear is that accountability will be greatly diminished under Trump , whose stated mission is to direct $20 billion in federal funding to school choice policies , who has touted programs that allow students to use state dollars to attend private schools, and who tapped

private school voucher advocate Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education. On the other side are those who take a more liberal view of accountability, subscribing instead to a free-market philosophy that relies on

competition to weed out schools that aren't holding up their end of the bargain. To be sure, the charter school movement has always been comprised of people with different education philosophies. While the coalition has largely held

together thanks to the reform-friendly agenda of the Obama administration that allowed the sector to flourish, it's since begun splintering. That played out in a very public way for the first time last summer, when the charter sector found itself in the crosshairs of a burgeoning and wide-scale debate over who truly holds

communities of color in their best interest. “This wedge has existed for a long time ,” says Michael Petrilli, president of

the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. “It’s a big tent, for charter schools supporters especially, and just as we’ve seen a growing polarization in politics , we see a growing polarization in the education reform



community.” Trump’s focus on private school choice is pushing that wedge into the public spotlight again and is forcing charter school advocates to plant their flags on the proverbial spectrum of accountability. “Over the years, it’s kind of been a gentlemen’s agreement in the charter tent that we don’t fight with each other

about that,” Richmond says “But what’s been happening lately – and it really picked up steam after the election – is the free-market supporters within the charter tent are trying to redefine charter schools to be more like vouchers .” He continued: “They’re really pushing back hard against accountability.” Perhaps that should not come as a surprise. In DeVos’ home state of Michigan, she and her family have

spent millions of dollars backing proposals to expand school choice policies like charters and private school vouchers. And the landscape there, particularly the charter school landscape in Detroit,

represents more of a free-market, hands-off approach that trusts in parents to choose the best schools for their children and in competition to put poor-performing schools out of business. Those ideals stand in contrast to charter school policies in other cities and states, like New Orleans, New York and Massachusetts,

where charter schools are under close scrutiny of the government and under more pressure and a tighter timeline

to show positive results for their students. Charter school advocates see the new administration as an opportunity to push their agendas , but those agendas are increasingly at odds with each other. Trump’s budget proposal elucidated those disparities, differentiating groups like the Center for Education Reform and American Federation for Children, which have long supported private school vouchers, from groups like Democrats for Education Reform and the Fordham Institute, which have only supported private school vouchers that have rigorous accountability systems attached, from groups like Stand for Children, which have pushed back against private school vouchers. “Those in the free-market camp are feeling very good these days,” Richmond says. “They like charters and vouchers, and they’re very enthusiastic and happy to see all this additional money coming in the way of vouchers.” Indeed, Center for Education Reform CEO Jeanne Allen characterized Trump’s budget proposal as “a significant step forward” and one that makes a "more concerted effort to channel dollars more directly to the needs of children and families instead of to programs and to districts.” “Supporting education choices for students is a natural and long overdue move by the federal government,” she said. “It really shows that the administration is listening and committed to reform.” Meanwhile, Stand for Children CEO Jonah Edelman called the spending plan “an all-out assault on the American dream.” To

be sure, the president’s budget proposal is just that, a proposal, and the funding for private school vouchers or some

type of scholarship tax credit is not a slam dunk, even among Republicans – and especially among those who represent rural states where children have few, if not zero, education options outside the public school system. Those variables were at play last week in conservative Kentucky, when the governor signed a bill after months of heated debate in the state legislature that will allow charter schools for the first time. The Blue Grass State was one of just seven – now six – that did not allow charter schools. The carefully worded legislation only allows local school boards to authorize charter schools, with the exception of Louisville and Lexington, where the mayors may also do so. Groups like the Center for Education Reform lobbied for the bill to also allow universities to act as charter authorizers and to include virtual

charters as an educational option. The f racture within the charter school sector is reflective of the larger splintering of the education reform community.

Education---Political Incentives/Interest Groups

Plan sparks powerful anti-reform coalitions and derails the agendaBradford, 17 – Derrell Bradford, Senior Visiting Fellow at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 5-23-2017, “The politics & partisanship of the education reform debate: Why being ‘right’ isn’t enough”, https://edexcellence.net/articles/the-politics-partisanship-of-the-education-reform-debate-why-being-right-isnt-enough

When I say we have a policy problem, that isn’t to say we don’t have smart people working hard to come up with brilliant solutions for what’s wrong with education in this country. Anyone who’s advocated for, or fought over, any of the more esoteric reforms we’ve championed recently knows we don’t have a dearth of well-educated, well-meaning people looking to change the world for the better.

It isn’t even to say that we have bad policy per se. When implemented well in a place like D.C., you can see teacher evaluation reform doing great things for everyone involved despite its lackluster impact elsewhere. Or take the National Association of Charter School Authorizers and the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ guidelines for great authorizing of quality charter school laws. These frameworks have helped steer the first twenty-five years of the country’s charter school movement. They’ve given us schools that have been, in particular, of extraordinary benefit to low-income kids of color in cities where they have little choice and lots of underperforming schools.

The policy isn’t bad—but it has become unpopular . And we ignore the tarnished and shrinking halo above it at our own peril .

Look at accountability. Lots of us have supported the standards-and-assessments movement, which helped create the No Child Left Behind federal framework. It was imperfect, but its supporting pillars—test annually, report the results by subgroup, classify schools based on performance, and intervene when kids are being failed—were revolutionary . NCLB drew a line in the sand on school performance—maybe not a deep line, but a line nonetheless. A line that had not existed before.

The data alone sparked conversations in states like Connecticut, where school leaders blamed the achievement gap not on underperforming systems but on the overperforming white kids in them. Vital, hard-fought progress was made. And it became easier to make the case for more choice for underserved families, a compelling pretext that accelerated charter school growth in many urban centers.

These policies—which placed underserved families with few choices at the center—might have be en the right ones. But we , as a community of reform, may have be en the only people who found them popular , or who believed that the injustice of chronically underperforming urban school systems overflowing with black and brown kids was a compelling enough reason to implement them.

While “we” felt the system needed to be upended in a variety of ways, lots of folks —to be pointed, lots of college-educated white folks—didn’t. And our policy agenda has finally run into them, headfirst and at full speed .

Sure, standards and testing are crucial for the least-served kids, but affluent, liberal suburban whites don’t seem to think that’s the right fit for them. This policy mismatch gave us the opt-out movement, which threatens accountability as a whole. Sure, the science on value-added models for teacher evaluation tells us that teachers who drive growth on tests also improve a wide range of life outcomes for their students, but three million teachers (again, overwhelmingly white) didn’t seem to agree with that premise or the accountability built into it for “those kids.”

This mismatch for “progressive” educators —which conveniently aligned itself with anti-Obama sentiment fomented by the Tea Party on the right— gave us the blowback on Common Core . The close association of charter schools with both of these agendas has stoked anti-charter angst in places where , ironically, we have some of the nation’s highest-performing charter schools and networks. And all of this combined gave us the hands-off approach of the Every Student Succeeds Act, which is a great step back if you care about old-school accountability and the federal backstop on performance.

Plan requires broad concessions to overcome entrenched political incentives and diverse interest groupsBradford, 17 – Derrell Bradford, Senior Visiting Fellow at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 5-25-2017, “The politics & partisanship of America’s education reform debate: Time for a suburban strategy?”, https://edexcellence.net/articles/the-politics-partisanship-of-americas-education-reform-debate-time-for-a-suburban-strategy

In my last column, I wrote about the policy problem we face as people fighting for change in the education space. But that’s only part of what ails our reform effort .

We also have a political problem .

By that, I mean our policies have not reached a scale where they cannot easily be undone, or a breadth where their diversity of support makes them easier to get behind . And make no mistake, the threat posed by these conditions is as real as it is existential.

Politics is a numbers game , and you need politicians to actually change how the public square interacts with the policies we hold close. So let’s be honest—when a politician reviews your proposal, he or she is asking a fundamental and self-interested question: Does this get me more friends or make me more enemies ?

If the answer is that something consistently makes more enemies, it’s going to be harder or, frankly, impossible, to get the support you need to get it done . We can talk about doing the right things for the right reasons—and we can wonder why politicos don’t behave that way—but,

politically, the right things are rarely done for the right reasons . And until we ’re willing to revisit our policy assumptions through the real-world lens of politics , we won’t be able to see the necessary path forward to grow and protect the work of previous decades.

Let’s take chartering and charter school authorizing as an example. Admittedly, the broadly accepted authorizing frameworks we know have given us some tremendous things . Most notably, they’ve created networks of schools, like those in New York or Newark where I have worked a great deal, that are particularly good at closing achievement gaps for low-income and minority kids. Those schools have become safe havens of order and creativity because of their strong emphasis on structure, great teaching, and high expectations—what folks commonly, if inelegantly, refer to as the “no excuses” model. They’ve changed and saved lives. This is laudable, and I support all of it.

But what haven’t those same authorizing frameworks given us? In their emphasis on bringing “quality schools”—or, rather, what “we” thought were quality schools—into existence, we may have perverted the pluralism inherent in the chartering power and instead substituted control .

This approach has some benefits. But over time , what we thought of as quality authorizing has morphed into a sort of technocratic risk management for the sector —a process whose own bias, one could argue, accelerated not the growth of charter schools but the replication of one kind of charter school with one specific sort of leader.

Education---Issue Redefinition

Education policy gets twisted by issue redefinition, which guarantees opposition and fractures support---prefer peer-reviewed social scienceWolbrecht, 14 – Dr. Christina Wolbrecht, Professor of American Politics at Notre Dame, and Dr. Michael T. Hartney, Assistant Professor of Politics at Lake Forest, “"Ideas about Interests": Explaining the Changing Partisan Politics of Education”, Cambridge Perspectives on Politics 12.3 (Sep 2014): 603-630

{modified} for potentially objectionable language

We have shown how education issue redefinition shaped the decision-making context for parties when adopting education policy positions in the postwar era. These developments have been important for both the task of coalition management138as well as for the way party elites themselves conceived of education policy options . Consider 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney explaining his switch from favoring abolition of the DOE to supporting its continued existence, albeit in a smaller or combined form: At a private donor meeting, Romney explained that "part of his reasoning behind preserving the agency [DOE] was to maintain a role in pushing back against teachers' unions ." 139When the education agenda was defined as a choice between fed eral funding to address perceived inequalities, and leaving schooling to states and localities, a fed eral role consistent with R epublican interests and ideology was hard to imagine. As teacher quality , standards, and accountability came to dominate the education agenda, and were viewed as (among other things) challeng ing public sector unions with whom R epublican s have traditionally clash ed, R epublican s advocated for changes to education policy which serve their coalition and were consistent with an ideology that oppose s unions , and favors the application of business principles to public functions. Indeed, while we cannot establish the counterfactual, we posit the possibility that Ronald Reagan, the famous opponent of the DOE, might have been more sympathetic to a cabinet-level education department if he, like Romney, could envision a role for the agency in undermining public sector unions. The important point is that not only has the shift in issue definition led the parties to favor (or oppose) new education policy proposals, but issue redefinition has contributed to a change in the parties' positions on long-standing policies, such as the existence of the DOE.

We have sought to apply a general framework for understanding party position change to the specific case of education policy . We believe our framework may illuminate other cases of party change. For example, Democrats have recently liberalized on gay rights. 140David Karol rightly points to the emergence of gay activism within the Democratic coalition as a causal factor. Yet, we suspect these groups are relatively small in numbers and financial pull; their advocacy alone seems insufficient to explain the shift.141Over the last 30 years, public discourse about homosexuality shifted from a focus on sexuality and a distinctive gay counterculture to an emphasis on equality and inclusion into such well-regarded social institutions as marriage and the military.142While controversial, this issue redefinition links gay rights to a civil rights

tradition of expanded equality and inclusion that we might expect to resonate strongly with other Democratic coalition members and with Democratic ideology. As Karol argues, Democrats have shifted toward greater support because "at least to some degree . . . support for gay rights has become a standard part of the liberal belief system and the Democratic program in a way it was not a generation ago." 143Thus, issue redefinition may have helped make gay rights supporters of many (but not all) of the progressive groups that comprise the Democratic coalition, and of Democratic elites themselves.

Party change on women's rights was characterized by similar dynamics. In the 1950s and early 1960s, when most women's rights proposals, especially the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), were framed as pitting intrusive protective labor laws (the status quo) against legal equality, Republican support for policy change--the ERA--was consistent with the party's general inclination toward antistatism and free market capitalism, as well as the preferences of the business interests and professional women in the GOP coalition. Democratic opposition was in keeping with the party's social welfare ideology, and with the preferences of members of the Democratic coalition, particularly organized labor and progressive women. With the emergence of the second wave of the women's movement, among other changes, in the early 1970s, the issue of women's rights became defined as equality (policy change) versus traditional gender roles (status quo). Democrats came to favor women's rights proposals as part of their general orientation toward civil rights and inclusion, and to help incorporate the women's movement into their coalition. Other Democratic coalition members, most notably labor, changed their position in response to the changed definition. Republicans, on the other hand, reversed themselves by 1980, coming to view the ERA and other women's rights proposals as unnecessary government intrusions and a challenge to traditionalism, both contrary to the party's persistent ideological commitment to social order and neoliberal antistatism. Opposition to women's rights also helped accommodate the social conservative movement (which emerged in large part in response to the redefining of women's rights) as part of an expanded Republican coalition. 144

In recent work on civil rights realignment, Feinstein and Schickler emphasize how the Democratic party's shift to an ideology based on "programmatic liberalism, governmental activism, and universalistic, rights-based arguments" during the New Deal made opposition to civil rights an increasingly untenable and inconsistent position for the party in the 1940s and 1950s, despite strong opposition from important Democratic coalition groups. 145This is a case not of a party seeking to reconcile a new issue definition with its ideology, but of a party's new ideology being inconsistent with how its established position (opposition to civil rights) is defined. Feinstein and Schickler further argue that as civil rights policy alternatives shifted from political rights in the South toward fair employment and housing laws in the North, business interests emerged as important opponents of civil rights proposals, with consequences for Republican party positioning. 146Finally, Feinstein and Schickler point to the importance of issue salience in compelling party elites to reassess and shift positions: The authors argue that state-level Democratic activists had shifted to a more progressive civil rights position by the mid-1940s, but only "once civil rights issues reached the top of the nation's agenda in the 1960s, and national party elites were forced to choose sides" did national Democratic elites reassess the strategic political context and "adopt a liberal position on civil rights issues." 147

Our emphasis on the role of ideas does not contradict the basic premise that what is at stake in policy debates are real conflicts over real interests with real consequences . We have highlight ed , for example, how ed ucation issue redefinition related to a broader pushback against a robust welfare state, and how new education policy alternatives shared common themes with the hidden welfare state policies identified in previous research. 148And just as critics point out that the hidden welfare state, and indeed public policy making in general, tends to benefit the economically advantaged,149 the question of whether the newer education policy alternatives, such as school choice and high-stakes testing, alleviate or aggravate inequality remains contested .150

Yet the view that education issue redefinition is part and parcel of conservative retrenchment is too simplistic; as Jesse Rhodes shows, civil rights organizations have played a leading role in promoting the school reform agenda in the sincere belief that such policies would benefit disadvantaged students of color. 151Indeed, one irony is that while the new issue definition and associated reform policy proposals emerged during an era characterized by backlash against activist government and relative conservative influence over policy-making, federal control over and spending on education expanded dramatically during the same period . 152In a very real sense, this is an example of policies making politics ; as elites came to accept established federal funding of education (through the ESEA of 1965) as a reality, the question was not whether, but what sorts of school structures and policies those funds should support . 153

Why should we emphasize the role of issue redefinition in the development of party issue positions? At the end of the day, don't groups just demand policies that serve their own interests, and don't parties build electoral coalitions by providing a package of policy promises and actions the groups in their coalition want? At one level, we do not disagree with this basic premise. Yet interests are not objective ; they must be discovered , understood , and negotiated . The defining of issues -- problems and alternatives -- is key to that process of interest discovery and understanding. Or, as perhaps the ultimate authority on party politics, E.E. Schattschneider, wrote, "It is futile to determine whether men [sic] {people} are stimulated politically by interests or by ideas, for people have ideas about interests ." 154

Education---Fed Role=Backlash

Federal education policy inherently drains PC – doctrines of local control deeply entrenchedMcGovern, 11 --- Shannon, J.D., 2011, New York University School of Law; B.A., 2008, Boston University, November, NYU LR, November, Lexis

Four salient, if nonexhaustive, objections to federal oversight of education can be drawn both from the

education federalism literature [*1529] generally and from these two education programs specifically: (1) conflicts with the

doctrine of local control and its attendant values of democratic participation and quality education; (2) limited federal funding and unfunded mandates; (3) threats to the institutional autonomy of state legislatures; and (4) ossification of unproven education reform trends. While each of these considerations may counsel in favor of a continued state role in education reform,

they do not require exclusion of the federal government. 1. Local Control, Democratic Participation, and Quality Education One of the most entrenched grounds of opposition to federal education programs like NCLB and Race to the

Top is the doctrine of local control. Justice Brennan gave the principle its strongest endorsement in the 1974 school busing case

Milliken v. Bradley: n48 "No single tradition in public education is more deeply rooted than local control over the operation of schools; local autonomy has long been thought essential both to the maintenance of community concern and support for public schools and to quality of the educational process." n49 Litigants and courts invoke this principle not only in the desegregation context, n50 but also in other cases in which state defendants have an interest in shifting responsibility to local school districts. n51 Notwithstanding judicial recognition of the two advantages of local control - democratic participation and educational quality - the principle is not legally or constitutionally compelled. Judicial respect for local control reflects deference to states' allocation of authority within their borders rather than preservation of school district autonomy. n52 Education is not a purely local function. Instead, it is an area of "core state responsibility" n53 guaranteed by education clauses in [*1530] all fifty state constitutions. School districts lack federal constitutional status and exist solely as "creatures of the state." n54 Unlike similarly situated local governments, however, school districts' sole function - the provision of, and financial responsibility for, public education - ultimately lies with the states. n55 Nonetheless, "de facto local autonomy" n56 persists as a form of state policy in diminished form. To some, the rise of school finance and adequacy litigation n57 and the implementation of statewide standards and assessments, first under state initiatives and later through NCLB, have rendered local control illusory. n58 On the other hand, local coffers continue to provide over forty percent of public school budgets n59 and a number of municipalities have adopted mayoral control and other decentralizing measures in recent years. n60 The persistence of local control is likely a product of tradition, powerful interest group networks, n61 and the belief that it promotes "accountability and community choice." n62 Even if we accept a diminishing (though still significant) sphere of influence for school districts, the value of citizen participation in education does not disappear at the state level. Admittedly, political accountability and citizen engagement, which are quite immediate at [*1531] the local level, n63 are diluted at the state level. This dilution is not as drastic as that experienced in the shift from state to national politics, but it is not insignificant. Elected officials in state government oversee - and are politically accountable for - a broad range of equally salient initiatives, from criminal justice to social welfare. Similarly, citizen participation, including by ballot, may be more effective if the citizens are concentrated in one of the United States' fifteen thousand local school districts rather than one of fifty states, particularly with respect to hard decisions about how - and how much - to spend on education. n64 Nevertheless, citizens can and do influence the state education budget. For example, New Jersey made headlines in 2010 when its voters defeated more than half of the state's local education budgets, many of which were to be financed by additional property taxes. n65 The election results supported Governor Chris Christie's proposal for significant state education spending cuts to address New Jersey's budget shortfall. n66 As a general matter, citizens in many jurisdictions have played an important role in shifting financial responsibility for education funding, and attendant policy making power, from the local to the state level. Demands for relief from high property taxes and court-mandated equalization efforts, for example, have led to both limitations on property taxes and increases in state aid to public schools. n67 In short, meaningful citizen participation in education policy remains possible at the state level. This conclusion counsels in favor of respecting the historic role of states, their school district agents, and their citizens in shaping policy. It does not counsel against the intervention of federal policy makers, however.

Because education policy is increasingly salient at the national level, n68 there is greater potential [*1532] than ever for meaningful democratic participation with respect to forming federal policy and holding federal politicians accountable for their choices. Concern for the "quality of the educational process," n69 like increased democratic participation, is a popular justification for local control that remains salient at the state level. In Milliken, the Court asserted that local control "permits the structuring of school programs to fit local

needs, and encourages 'experimentation, innovation, and a healthy competition for educational excellence.'" n70 This formulation resembles subsidiarity, the principle that government functions should be assigned to the lowest practical level. n71 While subsidiarity protects individual and state dignitary interests, it also addresses efficiency concerns - namely, responsiveness to local needs. n72

Education---A2: Link TurnsInconsistency and ideology muddle support and guarantee fights The American public is not intelligent enough to actually understand the policy issues involved with education, so misguided opposition to the aff is inevitable

Henderson, 15 – Michael B. Henderson, Research Director at LSU Public Policy Research Lab, 8-3-2015, “How far apart are Democrats and Republicans on school reform?”, Brookings, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2015/08/03/how-far-apart-are-democrats-and-republicans-on-school-reform/

Without partisan division surely the door is open for bipartisan school reform? Not exactly . The lack of polarization on school issues probably has more to do with confusion than consensus .

The opinions that most Americans express on school issues are not well-informed , not organized in any coherent way, and not consistent over time . The 2014 survey contained factual questions about Common Core. Nearly two-thirds of respondents had either never heard of the standards or answered “don’t know” to the factual questions. In 2013 another survey asked Americans factual questions about charter schools. Half of the respondents said they did not know the answers while another 20 to 30 percent gave the wrong answers. Other past surveys have shown that Americans consistently underestimate per-pupil spending and teacher salaries.

If a coherent belief system underlay the opinions expressed on the 2014 survey, we could expect that a person would take similar positions on similar issues . They do not. Knowing where someone stands on charter schools does not reveal much about where they stand on vouchers or merit pay, much less tenure, testing, or spending. Responses across these issues are weakly correlated (the average pairwise correlation is 0.16 and all but a handful fall below 0.25).

Finally, many individuals change their opinion quickly . Each year, the Education Next surveys include a sample of respondents from the previous survey. With one important exception (Common Core), aggregate opinion is relatively stable. Yet, this aggregate stability masks flux at the individual level. For example, on merit pay and charter schools just 60 percent and 57 percent, respectively, come down on the same side in 2014 as they did in 2013. Only 51 percent take the same side on vouchers for students in low-income families in both years. These changes appear to be random . People are not changing their minds so much as just changing their responses without giving the issue much “mind” in the first place .

These are the trademarks of what public opinion scholars call “ non-attitudes ,” uninformed and haphazard responses without any real underlying opinion . This occurs when the public has not given an issue much attention. Americans may value education , but as an issue it is not at the forefront of their minds . When asked what they think is the most important issue facing the nation, only about five percent say education.

This murky ground of confusion is unlikely to make a solid foundation for consensus . Typically when the public starts paying attention to an issue, they look to their party leaders and fall in

line accordingly. As they learn about the debate, confusion turns into polarization . It is unsurprising that the biggest partisan gap here concerns spending, an issue that easily taps into a familiar broader debate between parties. We are now seeing parties polarize over the Common Core as well. If issues such as testing, charters, or preschool seize the public mind, they may soon follow the same path.

Education---A2: Plan is Small The plan gets lambasted for not going far enough---their minor reform gets held accountable for all the testing it doesn’t changeWelner, 15 – Kevin Welner, director of the National Education Policy Center, attorney, and professor of education policy at UC Boulder; and William Mathis, former Vermont superintendent, 2-13-2015, “No Child Left Behind’s test-based policies failed. Will Congress keep them anyway?”, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/02/13/no-child-left-behinds-test-based-policies-failed-will-congress-keep-them-anyway/

What’s Included in, and What’s Missing from, the Current Testing Debate

There is now a parent-led backlash against “over-testing,” and politicians in both major parties are paying attention. These parents point to the time spent administering the tests themselves as well as to the diversionary effects of high-stakes testing on curriculum and instruction—which include narrowed curriculum, teaching to the test, and time spent preparing for the high-stakes assessments.

Nevertheless , the debate in Washington , D.C., largely ignores the fundamental criticism leveled by parents and others: testing should not be driv ing reform . Often missing this point , many politicians have begun to call merely for reducing or shortening the tests . Some also want to eliminate the federal push to use the tests for teacher evaluation while at the same time leaving untouched the test-driven accountability policies at the center of education reform . Other politicians are less interested in whether testing mandates continue than whether those mandates come from the states or from the fed eral government.

This kind of tinkering at the margins is just more of the same ; the past decades have seen a great deal of attention paid to technical refinement of assessments—their content, details, administration, and consequences. In the words of long-time accountability hawk Chester Finn, “NCLB Accountability is Dead; Long Live ESEA Testing.” But the problem is not how to do testing correctly. In fact, today’s standardized assessments are probably the best they’ve ever been. The problem is a system that favors a largely automated accounting of a narrow slice of students’ capacity and then attaches huge consequences to that limited information.

Funding---1NC

Massive polarization and hostility to all fed funding proposals drains PC – plan is a massive loss for TrumpEducation Week, 17 --- 5/17, lexis

Electoral Jolt But Trump's surprise win was a jolt of a different kind for many public school educators and organizations that represent them in the nation's capital. "We went from hearing from our members

[that they were] positive and hopeful to this drastic shift of almost panic, " said Kelly Vaillancourt Strobach, the director

of government relations for the National Association of School Psychologists. "Every proposal that seems to come out is almost like a bomb . You're in constant damage control , which is frustrating." And advocates for public

school educators say they're worried that p roposals that once looked unlikely to come to fruition-like a massive cut to teacher-quality funding-might actually make it across the legislative finish line. It doesn't help that the Education Department still hasn't filled key positions. So far, Trump has nominated just one political appointee: Carlos Muniz, as general counsel. Other players in K-12 positions that require Senate sign-off-like Jason Botel, who is acting as the assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education-are temporary fill-ins. It's unclear how long any of them will stick around in those roles. Some education representatives are scratching their heads about whom to approach with policy proposals and questions. "I think in many ways the administration is still getting its people in place," said Jacki Ball, the director of government affairs for the National PTA. "We're just not always sure who to go to. We're trying to develop relationships with the people that are there," including Botel, who spoke at a recent PTA conference. "That was a good opportunity to open the door." And one advocate said there have been changes in dealings with the department's career employees, who stick around from one presidential administration to the next. "Any communication you have with federal employees now is difficult," the advocate said. "They are

really hesitant to communicate via email. They say things like, 'It is so hostile over here.' ... Everyone is walking on eggshells." Aides for GOP members in Congress are quick to tout lawmakers' ties to Trump, but aren't shy about criticizing DeVos, said Sasha Pudelski, the assistant director for policy and advocacy at AASA. "They're attacking the administration via DeVos," she said. (A similar dynamic prevailed among Democrats in Congress during Secretary Arne Duncan's tenure in the Obama administration.) There's an upside: Those representing educator groups say their members are fired up and watching Washington closely. That means more are willing to write letters, sign petitions, call their members of Congress, or lobby in person. "This is a really unique time, where people who would normally sit back and say it's going to be fine feel a threat" to public education, the

NEA's Kusler said. The boost in education community engagement isn't without its challenges. Several advocates said they got a flood of calls from their organizations' members about a bill introduced by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, that would create federally supported vouchers nationwide. That legislation is almost certain to go nowhere. But it can be tougher to get members riled up about proposals that may actually be able to get traction, including potential budget cuts . Fielding questions about extreme, dead-on-arrival proposals cuts into advocates' time and energy. "We have to make sure there's not burnout. We have to make sure that the level of attention is appropriate," Pudelski said. "Every lobbyist I talk to feels like they're running on empty a little bit." Common Cause One thing that has helped lighten the load: Education advocacy organizations that work on behalf of public school educators and those representing disadvantaged students are working together much more closely, and on a much broader range of issues, than they have in the past. "Under Clinton, under Bush, and under Obama, the education community was afforded the luxury of disagreeing with one another," said Ellerson Ng, the AASA official. "We can no longer afford to

disagree, because we have such a basic task of supporting public education." Ultimately, though, nearly any major education initiative -from the president's proposed budget cuts to any school choice proposal- will have to go through Congress. Even in a polarized climate on Capitol Hill , advocates say they're still able to

keep working with the same lawmakers and staffers they've relied on in the past. "It's ultimately up to Congress to pass the law," Kusler said. "We're still working predominantly with members on both sides of the aisle who support public education."

Funding---Post Election

Federal education funding drains PC – election was a game changerEducation Week, 17 --- 5/17, lexis

How Trump's Altered the Landscape for Education Advocates Education advocates in Washington might not always be on the same page when it comes to policy, but there's at least one thing the vast majority agree on: The Trump administration-buttressed by a Republican Congress-is unlike anything they've ever had to contend with before . In particular, groups that lobby Congress and the U.S. Department of Education on behalf of public school educators, as well as those representing civil rights issues and advocating for education funding , say that they are fighting what feels like a multifront war against vouchers, dramatic budget cuts, and what some describe as a general antipathy toward public schools and disadvantaged children . "Being an advocate for public education gives me job security," joked Noelle Ellerson Ng, the associate executive director of AASA, the School Superintendents Association. "There's plenty to engage on."


groups often found themselves sidelined during President Barack Obama's tenure. But there's a long list of issues that keep teachers' unions, civil rights organizations, and similar advocates up at night. On the fiscal front, there's the Trump administration's pitch to cut $9 billion, or 13 percent, from the Education Department's roughly $70 billion budget, including slashing key programs that help pay for teacher-quality initiatives and after-school programs. The health-care bill could squeeze up to $4 billion in funding that schools use to cover special education services. And there are concerns that the Trump administration won't continue to invest in rural broadband, which many educators worry could slow the progress the Obama administration made in boosting connectivity in remote rural districts. Then there's the administration's big school choice push, about which there are few hard-and-fast details. The Trump administration has asked for $1 billion in new Title I funding to be directed to school choice in its budget request. And the spending plan also seeks increased funding for charter schools and resources for a private school initiative. But the specifics of those programs remain cloudy,

frustrating advocates on both sides of this contentious issue. Some organizations say they are struggling to preserve what they see as victories from the Obama years, including a larger role for the department in looking out for

children's civil rights and a focus on resource equity. "The idea that we might be going backward is just deeply frustrating," said Liz King, the director of education for the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Level of Unpredictability The mechanics of the job now are different, too. The political ranks at the Education Department are thin, since the White House has been slow to fill subcabinet positions. Some Washington organizations have started providing the kind of technical assistance to their members that the department used to provide, doing their best to answer questions about matters like implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act. Others say their communication with civil servants at the department has been markedly different-policy experts they've long worked with aren't nearly as accessible or forthcoming. What's more, because President Trump doesn't have a full team in place and doesn't have a long record on K-12 issues, it's tough for advocates to see around the corner when it comes to education policy and spending. That situation isn't unique to education, said Mary Kusler, the senior director of the National Education Association's Center for Advocacy. "I would agree it's hard [to be an advocate] because there is a level of unpredictability. That is not an education-only problem. It is a Washington, D.C., new-world-order problem," she said. "It makes it impossible to plan for the long term." The choice of Betsy DeVos, a longtime school choice champion, as education secretary only makes life harder from the perspective of groups like the NEA that vehemently opposed her confirmation. "For the first time, we have a secretary of education who has no background in public education" and who has a singular focus on school choice, Kusler said. "Every time she opens her mouth, she shows her lack of qualifications for this job." But Jeanne Allen, the CEO for the Center for Education Reform, a school choice advocacy organization, sees DeVos' appointment as something to celebrate. "They're singing a song that we've been singing for a long time," she said of the secretary and her team. That's a far cry from the way Allen expected things would play out early in the fall, when nearly everyone in Washington was anticipating that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-candidate Trump's Democratic rival, would be in the White House. Allen said her organization was "prepared first and foremost to put most of our time and energy into state battles and efforts."

Funding---Policy Details

Education spending guarantees bitter partisan fights---the devil’s in the detailsKirst, 09 – Dr. Michael W. Kirst, Education Prof Emeritus at Stanford, and Frederick M. Wirt, Poli Sci Prof Emeritus at Illinois, “Politics of Federal Aid”, Ch. 11 in The Political Dynamics of American Education, Fourth Edition

Politics of Federal Aid

While the 2000 presidential election catapulted education from a secondary issue to one of the most visible and contested, the 2008 race had scant focus on education. Consequently, it was a surprise that education played such a significant role in President Obama's 2009 stimulus package. Historically, public concern focused on the quality of K-12 education, while postsecondary education was not viewed as a major problem in public opinion polls. After the recession in 1981-83, K-12 education was rated near the top of public issues. Currently, the public is frustrated that so little K-12 progress is being made, but is uncertain about supporting bold and expensive presidential K-12 initiatives . Despite President Bush's leadership in passing NCLB, federal expenditures never exceeded 8.5 percent of total K-12 spending . President Bush's new education program, No Child Left Behind, did not push the federal share much higher, because of the need to finance his tax cut and the Iraq War. In 2008 other issues pushed education to a secondary concern in the presidential campaigns, but the economic recession enabled education to be part of a recovery program of over $100 billion. The Secretary of Education has a discretionary grant program of $5 billion called “Race to the Top” that may increase dramatically the current federal role in domains like teacher merit pay, charter schools, and school restructuring.

Despite the heated partisan rhetoric, there is a surprising bipartisan consensus about some needed education policy directions . Both parties want more qualified teachers , more money for science and math improvement, accountability, and aid for college students. However, the political devil is in the details, where Democrats resist consolidations of popular categorical programs. Bush made education his first public policy proposal after the 2001 inauguration. He created a bipartisan coalition to pass a significant education bill. The Dem ocratic swing votes for his coalition in his first term, however, did not endure because Dem ocrat s constructed their own education agenda . While national high-stakes testing seems dead for now, both parties want to review low standards in state and local testing frequently used for NCLB compliance.

The current political debate is built on layers of bedrock laid down from prior federal political activity. This bedrock will not be blasted away but will most likely increase. The biggest political change in the last decade has been increased partisanship , and a lack of bipartisan education policy except for NCLB in 2001, and improvements in science and mathematics. Before we revisit the current federal debate, it is necessary to look back at how we have gotten to where we are. Briefly, the federal role grew dramatically in the second half of the twentieth century, but it has not begun to eclipse the education policy roles of state and local governments.

Funding---Polarization

Federal education funding polarized – causes poisonous congressional fighting and GOP backlash – no turns – perceived as inherently ineffectiveLamiell, 12 --- Patricia, Director Media Relations @ Teachers College, University Columbia, 2/10, http://www.tc.columbia.edu/articles/2012/february/how-should-politics-influence-education-policy/How Should Politics Influence Education Policy? How much does national education policy make a difference in classrooms, and








it,” Jennings said. Puriefoy concurred, adding that the environment in Congress “has become much more poisonous , and it has become more difficult to create the environment we need in order to transform education.” And while education has always been a polarizing issue , and minorities have always





others, which are too large, bureaucratic and costly. Jennings warned that the incoming president should not listen to the “ radical right ,” but instead “ totally rethink” school financing , which is currently based on property



Federal education funding causes congressional gridlock and paralysisAASCU, ’15 ---- American Association of State Colleges and Universities, Policy Brief, January, www.aascu.org/policy/publications/policy-matters/Top10StatePolicyIssues2015.pdf+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us



One of the most concrete examples of federal education policy stasis is the unlikely Congressional passage th is year of the overdue reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA). Among all the higher education policies and programs ripe for reform, there exists a tremendous need and opportunity for Congress to use the

HEA reauthorization to align state and federal higher education financing and incentivize states to re-invest in public


annual federal block grant designed to spur new state investments in public higher education—will likely be slowed due to changes in Senate leadership. Public higher education leaders will be called on to work with their Congressional delegation to build awareness and support of the State-Federal College Affordability Partnership in order to ensure that it is included in the final HEA reauthorization bill. An in-depth discussion of potential implications for higher education policy stemming from the 2014 elections is provided in the policy brief, Higher Education and the 2014 Elections, published by the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU). The paper discusses the Obama administration’s higher education agenda, the Congressional outlook for its 114th session, policy challenges Congress will face, as well as state-level outcomes of the elections. This paper provides a summary of the top 10 higher education policy issues that are likely to witness considerable activity in state legislatures across the country this year. It is the view of the AASCU state relations and policy staff that these issues will be at the forefront of both discussion and action in state capitols. This eighth annual synopsis is informed by a variety of sources, including an environmental scan of outcomes from last year’s legislative sessions, recent gubernatorial priorities,

as well as trends and events that are shaping the higher education policy landscape. Some issues are perennial in

nature, while others reflect more recent economic, fiscal and political dynamics. Results, no doubt, will vary by state.

Funding---Tea PartyNew spending gets slammed by fiscal hawks and the Tea PartyViser, 17 – Matt Viser and Victoria McGrane, 2-08-2017, “President Trump’s massive spending plans and tax cuts will challenge Congress deficit hawks”, The Boston Globe

His big-ticket spending plans put the new president, who boasted as a businessman that he was the “king of debt,” on a collision course with fiscal conservatives in Congress who for years have railed against the ballooning debt , which is approaching $20 trillion.

It is one of the most glaring ways in which Trump is attempting to remake the Republican Party, shaking ideological bedrock for some conservatives who have spent careers arguing for less government spending . The new Republican in the White House is talking down fiscal austerity and behaving more like a populist big spender, looking to prime the pump of the economy to benefit workers across the country.

“A balanced budget is fine,” Trump told Fox News’ Sean Hannity recently. “But sometimes you have to fuel the well in order to really get the economy going.”

During his first weeks in the White House, he not only touted new spending plans but also floated the idea of a 20 percent import tax on Mexican goods that could hit American consumers at car dealerships, retail counters, and supermarkets.

Even with an improving economy, his rhetoric seems to reflect the philosophy Democrats used to justify the federal stimulus in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis — spending that , though widely credited with spurring the economic recovery, helped spark Tea Party backlash and sweep Republicans back to power.

Trump’s fellow Republican s so far appear muted in their concerns about his fiscal approach. Their reticence could open them up to charges of abandoning core principles or even of hypocrisy — that they only really mobilize against spending when a Democrat is proposing it .

“This is a huge test for the Republican Congress ,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. “Now they own the policy choices . If they suddenly walk away from their goals of fiscal responsibility they will be hugely hypocritical .”

Funding---EqualizationElection was a game-changer – funding equalization drains PC – causes GOP backlash and massive loss for TrumpEducation Week, 17 --- 5/17, lexis

How Trump's Altered the Landscape for Education Advocates Education advocates in Washington might not always be on the same page when it comes to policy, but there's at least one thing the vast majority agree on: The Trump administration-buttressed by a Republican Congress-is unlike anything they've ever had to contend with before . In particular, groups that lobby Congress and the U.S. D epartment o f E ducation on behalf of public school educators, as well as those representing civil rights issues and advocating for education funding , say that they are fighting what feels like a multifront war against vouchers, dramatic budget cuts, and what some describe as a general antipathy toward public schools and disadvantaged children . "Being an advocate for public education gives me job security," joked Noelle Ellerson Ng, the associate executive director of AASA, the School Superintendents Association. "There's plenty to engage on."


groups often found themselves sidelined during President Barack Obama's tenure. But there's a long list of issues that keep teachers' unions, civil rights organizations , and similar advocates up at night . On the fiscal front, there's the Trump administration's pitch to cut $9 billion, or 13 percent, from the Education Department's roughly $70 billion budget, including slashing key programs that help pay for teacher-quality initiatives and after-school programs. The health-care bill could squeeze up to $4 billion in funding that schools use to cover special education services. And there are concerns that the Trump administration won't continue to invest in rural broadband, which many educators worry could slow the progress the Obama administration made in boosting connectivity in remote rural districts. Then there's the administration's big school choice push, about which there are few hard-and-fast details. The Trump administration has asked for $1 billion in new Title I funding to be directed to school choice in its budget request. And the spending plan also seeks increased funding for charter schools and resources for a private school initiative. But the specifics of those programs remain cloudy,


children's civil rights and a focus on resource equity . "The idea that we might be going backward is just deeply frustrating," said Liz King, the director of education for the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Level of Unpredictability The mechanics of the job now are different, too. The political ranks at the Education Department are thin, since the White House has been slow to fill subcabinet positions. Some Washington organizations have started providing the kind of technical assistance to their members that the department used to provide, doing their best to answer questions about matters like implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act. Others say their communication with civil servants at the department has been markedly different-policy experts they've long worked with aren't nearly as accessible or forthcoming. What's more, because President Trump doesn't have a full team in place and doesn't have a long record on K-12 issues, it's tough for advocates to see around the corner when it comes to education policy and spending. That situation isn't unique to education, said Mary Kusler, the senior director of the National Education Association's Center for Advocacy. "I would agree it's hard [to be an advocate] because there is a level of unpredictability. That is not an education-only problem. It is a Washington, D.C., new-world-order problem," she said. "It makes it impossible to plan for the long term." The choice of Betsy DeVos, a longtime school choice champion, as education secretary only makes life harder from the perspective of groups like the NEA that vehemently opposed her confirmation. "For the first time, we have a secretary of education who has no background in public education" and who has a singular focus on school choice, Kusler said. "Every time she opens her mouth, she shows her lack of qualifications for this job." But Jeanne Allen, the CEO for the Center for Education Reform, a school choice advocacy organization, sees DeVos' appointment as something to celebrate. "They're singing a song that we've been singing for a long time," she said of the secretary and her team. That's a far cry from the way Allen expected things would play out early in the fall, when nearly everyone in Washington was anticipating that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-candidate Trump's Democratic rival, would be in the White House. Allen said her organization was

"prepared first and foremost to put most of our time and energy into state battles and efforts." Electoral Jolt But Trump's surprise win was a jolt of a different kind for many public school educators and organizations that represent them in the nation's capital. "We went from hearing from our members [that they were] positive

and hopeful to this drastic shift of almost panic, " said Kelly Vaillancourt Strobach, the director of government relations

for the National Association of School Psychologists. "Every proposal that seems to come out is almost like a bomb . You're in constant damage control , which is frustrating." And advocates for public school educators

say they're worried that proposals that once looked unlikely to come to fruition-like a massive cut to teacher-quality funding- might actually make it across the legislative finish line. It doesn't help that the Education Department still hasn't filled key positions. So far, Trump has nominated just one political appointee: Carlos Muniz, as general counsel. Other players in K-12 positions that require Senate sign-off-like Jason Botel, who is acting as the assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education-are temporary fill-ins. It's unclear how long any of them will stick around in those roles. Some education representatives are scratching their heads about whom to approach with policy proposals and questions. "I think in many ways the administration is still getting its people in place," said Jacki Ball, the director of government affairs for the National PTA. "We're just not always sure who to go to. We're trying to develop relationships with the people that are there," including Botel, who spoke at a recent PTA conference. "That was a good opportunity to open the door." And one advocate said there have been changes in dealings with the department's career employees, who stick around from one presidential administration to the next. "Any communication you have with federal employees now is difficult," the advocate said. "They are really hesitant to communicate





Plan sparks GOP congressional rebellion – they want to entirely repeal funding equalization effortsCornwell 1/17 (Paige Cornwell, “Will rich districts suffer under McCleary school-funding fix?” The Seattle Times, January 30, 2017, http://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/education-lab-iq-will-rich-districts-suffer-under-mccleary-school-funding-fix/.)

In the past, Republican lawmakers have said a levy swap would spread state education dollars more equally, and not allow some districts to raise more locally than others. Opponents , such as the Washington teachers union, call levy-swap proposals a distraction that would reshuffle money but not bring in any new funding.

Richer districts already help poor districts to some extent. That’s under a method called “levy equalization,” under which property-poor districts get extra state money to make up for what they would

have a hard time raising locally. Lawmakers have proposed various cuts to that program , which also wasn’t

specifically addressed in the McCleary decision. Under the Republicans’ plan, for example, levy equalization would be repealed in 2019.

As far as Ahearne is concerned, the ideal solution is to add funding to poorer districts without taking anything away from wealthier ones. As an example, he cited the Mercer Island and Yakima school districts, which differ greatly in how much the districts are able to pay teachers and fund programs.

“If they want to have an equitable system, it’s not to underfund everybody, it’s bringing everyone up,” he said. “It would be ideal to bring everyone to Mercer Island (funding), rather than swiping some from Mercer Island and giving it to Yakima.”

The levy swap is just one piece of the debate over how the state will comply with the 2012 McCleary decision, which set a 2018 deadline for when the state needs to fully cover the costs of a basic education.

Changing school financing causes massive backlash and PC drainLamiell, 12 --- Patricia, Director Media Relations @ Teachers College, University Columbia, 2/10, http://www.tc.columbia.edu/articles/2012/february/how-should-politics-influence-education-policy/

How Should Politics Influence Education Policy? How much does national education policy make a difference in classrooms, and

how much do national politics drive education policy in America, where schools, curricula and teaching have been controlled at the local and state levels since the dawn of public schools? A lot , according to three distinguished education policy analysts who took part in a panel discussion on February 8

to inaugurate the College’s new Education Policy and Social analysis (EPSA) Department — and potentially never more so than now , as Congress weighs reauthorization of the federal No Child Left Behind law against the backdrop of a highly polarized presidential campaign. The panel discussion, held in TC’s Cowin Conference Center, was moderated by Jeffrey Henig, Professor of Political Science and Education and EPSA department chair. It featured Christopher T. Cross, a former U.S. Under Secretary of Education and current Chairman of Cross & Joftus, an education-policy consulting firm; Jack Jennings, founder and recently retired Director of the Center on Education Policy, an education research firm; and Wendy D. Puriefoy, President of the Public Education Network (PEN), the nation’s largest network of community-based

school reform organizations. Prompted by Henig, the panelists—who were welcomed by TC President Susan Fuhrman—

discussed the often bitter and sometimes even violent disagreements on federal versus local control of education policy that have erupted since the school desegregation battles of the 1960s. Puriefoy told how, as a young woman, she monitored court-ordered desegregation in Boston, visiting schools and reporting back to a federal judge whose appointment owed to the victory of Lyndon Johnson, a passionate advocate of school desegregation, in the 1964 presidential election. Reaching much further back, Puriefoy argued that desegregation surely would

never have occurred had not Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. “Federal politics and education policy are inextricably linked,” she said. The bottom line for all three panelists: Most major changes to American schools have resulted from federal law, jurisprudence or policy. Cross noted that Title I funding, enacted in 1965, provided extra funding for schools with economically disadvantaged children. Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (later the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA) in 1975, when the notion that children with disabilities should be educated—let alone integrated into classrooms with non-disabled children, as is happening now—“was a revolutionary idea.” NCLB, enacted in 2002, has had an enormous effect on how and what gets taught, in Cross’s view, forcing teachers to focus on testing at the expense of deep learning. And the Race to the Top program of the Obama administration has significantly affected spending priorities, teaching and learning in public schools. “The question of whether national policy has influenced

education unquestionably has to be answered ‘yes,’” Cross said. “The reality is that almost everything that goes on is, in fact, guided by what happened in federal policy at some point, even though people in the classroom may not

recognize it.” The idea that education policy is or somehow should be apolitical simply is not borne out by history or current facts , Jennings said. A recent case in point: If John McCain had been elected president in



2008, he, unlike President Obama, would very likely have allowed thousands of teachers’ jobs to be eliminated by drastic budget

cuts made necessary by the recession. And should Obama fail to win reelection this coming fall, a Republican president may well seek to do away with the U.S. D epartment o f E ducation . “Policy should really be integrated into politics,” Jennings said. “If people of good will don’t deal with policy,” he said, decisions will be left to those who are not equipped to make them—or worse, who are simply uninterested in fairness and equity in education. The panelists were unanimous in their criticism of NCLB, which Puriefoy said has “gone horribly awry,” but they differed on what to do about it. The law has not been amended since its bipartisan passage in early 2002, and while both Democrats and Republicans now agree it should be changed, “Republicans don’t want to give credit to Obama for amending it,”

Jennings said. Puriefoy concurred, adding that the environment in Congress “has become much more poisonous , and it has become more difficult to create the environment we need in order to transform education.” And while education has always been a polarizing issue , and minorities have always had to fight for access to good education, for the first time in the country’s history, “ people don’t believe their children’s lives will be better than theirs,” Puriefoy said. “They don’t believe in the ability of institutions to bring about change .” So can anything be done—and is this year’s presidential election an opportunity to put national education issues before voters in a way they will notice? Cross was skeptical, but said he would like both parties to discuss education issues after the election to find common ground. Jennings suggested creating federal-state partnerships modeled on those in Germany, but Puriefoy noted that Germany also supports children and families with programs other than education. “Schools can’t be responsible on their own,” she said. “They need help.” To Henig’s final question—“What would you like to see in the next administration?”—Cross replied that the U.S. Department of Education should “get rid of the silos—English Language Learners, Special Education” and others, which are too large, bureaucratic and costly. Jennings warned

that the incoming president should not listen to the “ radical right ,” but instead “ totally rethink ” school financing, which is currently based on property taxes, and fight the “ long tradition of anti- intellectualism in this country” by pursuing a new agenda that focuses on quality curriculum and teaching. Puriefoy called for a rededication to educating “all sectors of children,” strong federal standards, and “getting rid of states’ rights. “This fragmentation in education is just unacceptable. We need a new intellectual contract in this country,” she said. “Good policy

follows good intention. If we resolve to educate every child in this country, regardless of ZIP code, we’re going to have to dismantle what we’re doing. We’re not going to get there without significant disruption .”

Gop education plan eliminates funding equalization – they hate the plan Jenkins 1/17 (Austin Jenkins, “GOP School Funding Plan Would Nearly Double State Property Tax, Lower Local Levies,” nw news network, January 27, 2017, http://nwnewsnetwork.org/post/gop-school-funding-plan-would-nearly-double-state-property-tax-lower-local-levies. )

The Republican plan would also adopt a new school funding model that would guarantee a minimum per-pupil spending level of $12,500 per year. Extra dollars would flow to the per-student funding formula based on factors like poverty, special needs and language barriers. For instance, there would be a $1,500 increase in per-pupil funding for a homeless student.

Other elements of the plan include:

The elimination of the state salary grid for teachers. The new minimum salary for teachers would be raised to $45,000 and teachers could compete for performance bonuses of $25,000 to $50,000. Teachers in high-cost districts would also be eligible for a housing allowance of up to $10,000.

http://nwnewsnetwork.org/post/gop-school-funding-plan-would-nearly-double-state-property-tax-lower-local-levies

http://nwnewsnetwork.org/post/gop-school-funding-plan-would-nearly-double-state-property-tax-lower-local-levies

The elimination of levy equalization dollars.

Repeal of I-1351, a class-size reduction measure passed by voters in 2014.

Prohibits teacher strikes.

Beginning in 2020, school districts to go to voters requesting “excess” levy dollars for non-basic education spending items, subject to a uniform 10 percent levy lid.

A spokesman for Washington’s teachers’ union quickly criticized the plan.

Regs---1NC

Top-down mandates are political suicide that ignite bipartisan and union backlashUsdan, 16 – Dr. Michael D. Usdan, PhD from Columbia, Senior Fellow and Former President of the Institute for Educational Leadership, 2-04-2016, “The Ever Debatable Federal Role: Implications for Education Policy”, Institute for Educational Leadership

I trust that this somewhat lengthy historical contextual presentation has provided the necessary backdrop to fully understand the nature of the contemporary polarized debate about the appropriate role that should be played by the federal government in determining educational policy. The history is important because it helps to explain why the unprecedented proactive role played by the fed eral government in very recent years has elicited such negative responses from those who believe so strongly that it runs counter to the American tradition of local and state control of education which has prevailed throughout most of our history.

Passage of the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation in 2001, which was a further reauthorization of the original ESEA, represented a singularly important landmark in the history and evolution of the federal role in education. For the first time, federal legislation was enacted that had direct ramifications for the teachers and students in every school and classroom in the land. George W. Bush, a “compassionate conservative” Republican president, spearheaded passage of the bill which generated broad bipartisan support among influential “liberal” Democrats, particularly the late Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Representative George Miller of California. The irony is that NCLB, unquestionably the most intrusive federal legislation ever enacted by the U.S. Congress, was initiated by a Republican president leading the party which traditionally had opposed for decades more extensive federal involvement in school matters. Passage of the NCLB legislation, in essence, was the capstone of years of efforts to make schools more accountable—efforts that were supported by the country’s most influential business and political leaders.

NCLB imposed a host of requirements on school districts if they wished to maintain their eligibility for federal funding. The bill required (among other things): annual testing in reading and math in grades 3-8, interventions in low-performing schools, teacher evaluations, mandatory public school and supplemented services if school failures persisted, and reports on Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), disaggregated data.

This cascading of requirements, as NCLB was implemented, not surprisingly generated tremendous discontent among teachers , administrators, and school board members throughout the country. In addition to trampling on the hallowed traditions of local control of education, complaints were rampant that more and more decisions were being made by those who were furthest from the classrooms where teaching and learning occur.

These complaints were transmitted to elected officials at every governmental level as NCLB ultimately became toxic . Efforts to reauthorize the legislation (an event that is to occur every five years) failed and the original legislation still stands at this writing 14 years after its original enactment. New political coalitions have formed over the years with very different perspectives as to what a newly authorized ESEA should look like. Civil rights and equity advocates remain distrustful as to whether states and localities will meet the educational needs of growing members of poor and minority children. They continue to have greater confidence that federal officials will be more mindful of equity concerns than their state and local counterparts.

The Dem ocrats themselves are divided over the shape of NCLB’s next iteration . For example, a relatively new organization, Democrats for Education Reform, has been supportive of charters and many of the accountability measures undertaken by the Obama Administration. The organizations representing educators such as the multimillion member teacher unions, school administrators, and school board members, who usually are firmly in the Democratic camp on federal legislative issues, have been alienated by policies of the present Department of Education. The Department, they feel, has ignored the perspectives of practitioners and professional educators and has pushed for unfair and unproven accountability measures that undermine teacher and administrator morale.

The R epublican s , having gained control of both the House and the Senate in the November 2014 elections, have as their major agenda restoring the prerogatives of the states and localities in determining education policy. They sharply criticize federal overreach and desire to consolidate federal programs and give the states far greater influence. Indeed, Republicans advocate stripping most of the federal authority and punitive elements currently embedded in NCLB. Although some components of a renamed NCLB, such as Title I, school ratings, charter school grants and disaggregated data, will probably survive the reauthorization process whenever it might occur, and the Republican Congress will no doubt persist in seeking to dramatically curb the federal role . Republicans simply will not support a continuation of the current level of federal influence, and the viability of compromise with Dem ocrat s and those supporting continued federal leadership on equity and related issues is a very open question , as is the issue of whether a presidential veto can be averted.

Regs---Top Shelf 2NC****The plan is a politically-unthinkable expansion of federal authority post-ESSA that destroys Trump’s mandate and divides both parties*Calls out: bipart, focus, GOP unity, dem unity, public, + federalism

Reville, 16 – Paul Reville, Professor of Practice of Educational Policy and Administration at the Harvard Grad School of Education, 11-09-2016, “What the Trump presidency will mean for schools”, https://www.tes.com/us/news/breaking-news/what-trump-presidency-will-mean-schools

It’s unclear where he’ll take us on education, how much of a priority education is on his agenda and what kind of leaders he’ll appoint. After all, Trump has no track record on education and during the campaign evinced little interest in the subject of schooling. He sometimes even seemed confused about the federal role in education.

While he is clearly committed to leading with a powerful choice initiative coupled with heavy doses of policy and rhetoric about returning education to “local control”, he will find it more complicated than he might have anticipated to lead on education at the federal level .

For example, President Trump will find he does not have the power to tell states to “get rid of the Common Core” because the federal government is explicitly prohibited from telling states which standards they can or can’t adopt.

While choice advocates are thrilled with his adoption of their “silver bullet,” the Pres ident will undoubtedly have problems maneuvering his agenda through a Congress which has recently adopted the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). ESSA was animated by a clear message to the Fed eral government that it should retreat from the activist role played by the Obama Administration in implementing an aggressive interpretation of the No Child Left Behind Act and assuming even more prerogatives with the Race to the Top initiative. Congress clearly prefers a less muscular federal role in state and local education decisions.

At the same time , Congress is deeply divided not only between the political parties but within each party over ed ucation matters . The ideological differences are huge and views are passionately held. For example, shifting Elementary and Secondary Education Act money from Title I to school choice will be a battle royale as would a policy shift to allow public monies to go to private schools.

President Trump will have much work to do in unifying his own party around his education agenda to say nothing of attracting Dem ocrat s who , themselves, are deeply divided on many of these issues. The President will not have a blank check.

Policy advocates and practitioners will likely be confused for some time as to the Trump Administrations intentions for K-12 schooling. Obviously, there are other topics on the domestic and international scenes which will consume his immediate attention. In ed ucation, his leadership choices will begin to tell the story . Then, there’s a question of how much of his

campaign rhetoric he really intends to pursue, especially as he is someone who has never governed and, at the same time, was a candidate who frequently seemed willing to say anything, whether he believed it or not, to get elected.

His intentions are unknown. Eventually, we hope to find out what he really believes. But in the meantime, we can expect him to select unconventional leaders like Ben Carson, whose education views Trump has publicly lauded, and choice champions who see his presidency as their opportunity to break the education “monopoly” and transform education in America.

It’s a “new day” in America. For some, the Trump presidency looks like the end of business as usual and a transition to a brave, new world whose features are unclear. For others, this is a time of great promise.

President-elect Trump certainly has everyone’s attention, however it’s important to remember that change has always , throughout our history, come slowly in the field of education . This is why our 21st century schools and classrooms still look disturbingly similar to schools of 150 years ago. We need change and transformation in education but we have violent disagreements over the strategies we should employ to serve our children better, more equitably .

The new president has some ideas and has earned the right to see where he can go with them, but I wouldn’t expect any miracles. The s tatus quo is amazingly resilient and change comes hard, especially when children are involved and lots of adult interests are at stake . One day at a time. We shall see and hope for the best.

Regs---IncentivesFederal incentives cause intense backlash from gop and baseWhitman 15 (David, Sept., Contributing Editor at Education Post and was a reporter for nearly two decades for U.S. News & World Report. From June 2009 to November 2014, he was chief speechwriter for U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, “The Surprising Roots of the Common Core: How Conservatives Gave Rise to ‘Obamacore’”, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Surprising-Conservative-Roots-of-the-Common-Core_FINAL.pdf)

While anti-Obama animus undoubtedly plays a role in the Tea Party revolt against the Common Core, conservative opposition is also grounded in objections to an active federal role in education . Some Tea Party leaders seek at one extreme to outright abolish the U.S. Department of Education. More mainstream Republicans now want to stop the federal government from providing incentives for states to set academic standards that establish the expectation students should be on track to be college- and career-ready by the time they finish high school.6 These anti-incentive conservatives do not seek to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education so much as block it from using incentives to encourage or support state and local reform —including state and local innovation, expanding high-quality state preschool programs, or reforming antiquated teacher evaluation systems.

Competitive incentivization is fiercely opposed as an infringement on states’ rightsWhitman 15 (David, Sept., Contributing Editor at Education Post and was a reporter for nearly two decades for U.S. News & World Report. From June 2009 to November 2014, he was chief speechwriter for U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, “The Surprising Roots of the Common Core: How Conservatives Gave Rise to ‘Obamacore’”, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Surprising-Conservative-Roots-of-the-Common-Core_FINAL.pdf)

Despite a revival today of Tea Party rhetoric calling for the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education, by the time Ronald Reagan left office, the Republican Party had largely given up trying to abolish the department because its existence purportedly infringed on the 10th Amendment. “There has been a shift,” Secretary Bennett told the New York Times in 1988.142 “Republicans have come to realize that the federal role in education is here to stay.” Yet today’s state rights advocates take those age-old objections to federal mandates and regulations a step further by claim ing that it is unconstitutional interference for the federal government to even provide incentives for states to voluntarily adopt reforms l ike the Common Core State Standards. That criticism of CCSS has the virtue of at least being grounded in fact—the federal government did provide incentives encouraging states to adopt the Common Core State Standards. Still, it seems peculiar for conservatives to develop an abrupt case of historical amnesia and a sudden allergy to the use of competition and incentives in federal education spending only when the Obama administration employs such market-based tools. It is not surprising that many constituencies in the liberal education establishment, including teachers unions, prefer the status quo of handing out education dollars automatically through formula funding. It is surprising when conservatives like Senator Alexander and his House Education committee counterpart, John Kline, lead the campaign to reduce competitive funding and incentives in reauthorizing the No Child Left Behind law.143 Even among conservatives like

William Bennett, who support the Common Core, it has now become de riguer to denounce the Obama administration for encouraging CCSS’s adoption. “Washington incentivized states to adopt [CCSS]. That was wrong and we should be vigilant to ensure that never happens again,” Bennett warns solemnly in a recent ad campaign promoting the Common Core to conservatives .144 Jeb Bush, too, has shifted his position to oppose the use of incentives in federal education dollars. “Race to the Top money , when [the federal government] provided incentives for Common Core to be implemented—because that’s effectively what they did—that was wron g,” 145 Bush told business leaders in New Hampshire earlier this year.

Regs---Common Core Anything like Common Core or federal standards dooms overall base supportWhitman 15 (David, Sept., Contributing Editor at Education Post and was a reporter for nearly two decades for U.S. News & World Report. From June 2009 to November 2014, he was chief speechwriter for U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, “The Surprising Roots of the Common Core: How Conservatives Gave Rise to ‘Obamacore’”, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Surprising-Conservative-Roots-of-the-Common-Core_FINAL.pdf)

The Common Core State Standards have been attacked by conservatives across the country, and no one has taken a bigger beating on the political right for supporting the Common Core learning standards than Jeb Bush. Bush’s announcement that he was exploring a run for President was accompanied by instant warnings that his support for the Common Core could doom his attempts to woo the Republican base. TIME said that Bush was “going to have to win over the Republican conservative base , which hates Common Core with the fire of a thousand suns . ” 1 In case conservative loathing of the Common Core ran the risk of being understated, the Washington Post weighed in with an analysis stating that “ The conservative base hates— hates, hates, hates— the Common Core education standards.”2 Today’s conventional wisdom, as TIME sums up, is that “if you’re a real conservative, you’re against [the Common Core]; if you’re a faker, you’re for it.”3

Its seriously UNREAL how much they hate itWhitman 15 (David, Sept., Contributing Editor at Education Post and was a reporter for nearly two decades for U.S. News & World Report. From June 2009 to November 2014, he was chief speechwriter for U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, “The Surprising Roots of the Common Core: How Conservatives Gave Rise to ‘Obamacore’”, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Surprising-Conservative-Roots-of-the-Common-Core_FINAL.pdf)

Nevertheless, the big lie technique has succeeded in tainting the brand of the Common Core , especially for conservatives. Opinion polling shows that support for the Common Core jumps whenever members of the public are asked questions about the Common Core with the label “Common Core” removed.49 And owing to the maelstrom of misinformation on the CCSS, the Common Core is fast approaching a Lord Voldemort-like status for conservatives as the insidious education reform with the name that must not be spoken-- even for conservative politicians who support, and who in fact (to paraphrase Ted Cruz), are implementing every word of the Common Core. Several GOP-led states (e.g., Mississippi, Iowa, and Arizona) have kept the Common Core standards but renamed them as homegrown state standards, eliminating the “Common Core” label. And at a recent campaign event in Iowa, Jeb Bush seemed to acquiesce to the disinformation campaign on the Common Core, saying “The term ‘Common Core’ is so darned poisonous, I don’t even know what it means anymore.”5

Regs---PC

Fed education requirements cause massive fights, GOP backlash and PC loss – no turns – perceived as inherently ineffectiveLamiell, 12 --- Patricia, Director Media Relations @ Teachers College, University Columbia, 2/10, http://www.tc.columbia.edu/articles/2012/february/how-should-politics-influence-education-policy/How Should Politics Influence Education Policy? How much does national education policy make a difference in classrooms, and














taxes, and fight the “ long tradition of anti-intellectualism in this country” by pursuing a new agenda that focuses on quality curriculum and teaching. Puriefoy called for a rededication to educating “all sectors of children,”

strong federal standards , and “getting rid of states’ rights . “This fragmentation in education is just unacceptable. We need a new intellectual contract in this country,” she said. “Good policy follows good intention. If we resolve to educate every

child in this country, regardless of ZIP code, we’re going to have to dismantle what we’re doing. We’re not going to get there without significant disruption .”

There’s massive backlash to federal reform that sinks capital---impossible expectations magnify the linkMirel, 9 – Jeffrey E. Mirel, Professor of Education and History at Michigan, and Maris A. Vinovskis, Professor of History and Public Policy at Michigan, March 2009, “Perennial Problems with Federal Reform Education in the United States”, Politique américaine, No. 15, https://www.cairn.info/revue-politique-americaine-2009-3-page-11.htm

Federal reform

In the United States, politicians, political scientists, and media pundits often use the statement “politics is the art of the possible” to explain the processes that shape new policies and programs. When it comes to education , however , U.S. presidents frequently engage in something that might well be called “politics as the art of the impossible”. Since at least the administration of Lyndon B. Johnson, a nearly continuous string of American presidents have put their political prestige and their political capital behind a series of educational reform efforts that routinely have failed to achieve the lofty goals set out for them. This essay provides an historical overview of these efforts and speculates on the degree to which the administration of Barack Obama will follow this long-standing trend.

Historical Overview of Education in the U.S.

In their recent book on the history of Title I, the key section of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), a massive federal program designed to improve schooling for poor and minority children, David K. Cohen and Sarah L. Moffitt identify two aspects of American public education that have bedeviled virtually all such reform efforts. First, Cohen and Moffitt point out that since the passage of the ESEA, despite billions of federal dollars spent on educational reform, precious little research has convincingly identified policies and practices that can make a significant difference in boosting the educational achievement of disadvantaged

students [1]. Even in those rare instances where new ideas and programs actually produced promising results, efforts to “scale up” such programs for national use have often fall en far short of expectations. Put simply, in the United States today, there is no well-respected, widely accepted, field-proven body of research that educators can look to for guidance about improving the educational attainment of poor and minority children [2].

Second, Cohen and Moffitt argue that even if such a body of research was available, the unusual political structure of American public education makes the dissemination and , more important, the implementation of new and potentially fruitful reforms challenging at best . Unlike the political structure governing public education in virtually every other developed country in the world, the United States is home to a situation in which the central government plays a relatively minor role in shaping educational policy and practice. Rather the 50 states and the approximately 14,000 local school districts within the states are the major funders and providers of public schools in the country. This arrangement has deep philosophical and historical roots and it has profoundly shaped the nature of federal educational policy throughout American history. To understand where this unusual arrangement came from and why it makes educational reform so challenging in the U.S., we need to take a quick historical look at the development of American public education.

In the late eighteenth century, the drafters of the U.S. constitution delegated authority over education to the states, convinced that the power to influence young minds should not lie in the federal government but rather belonged to the people at the state and local levels. For almost four decades following the ratification of the constitution, the states’ “implied” power over education mostly lay dormant. But beginning in the second quarter of the nineteenth century when the “common school movement” introduced public schools into every northern state, state authority was firmly established by educational reformers. Nevertheless, states quickly delegated most of their educational authority to school boards or school committees that were elected in local elections [3].

As a consequence of this decentralization of educational power, the elected leaders of local school districts made virtually all the important decisions over educational policy and practice (e.g., determining the local school tax rate, shaping the curriculum, choosing textbooks, and hiring and firing teachers). Following the Civil War, this arrangement of weak state oversight and strong local control was implemented throughout the South, essentially making this scheme the national template for decades to come [4]. As late as the 1939-1940 school year, there were over 117,000 public school districts in the United States, each an independent political jurisdiction that operated with little, if any, state oversight [5].

However, in the late 1930s and 1940s, states began exercising greater influence over local school systems due to the increasing amounts of state funding flowing to local districts. As the financial role of the states grew, so too did the power of state departments of education. Gradually these departments expanded their influence over educational policies covering a wide range of activities including mandating criteria for teacher certification, setting state requirements for high school graduation, and determining state curriculum standards  [6]. Perhaps the best example of this process can be seen in the campaigns to reduce the number of local school districts in order to create more financially viable and educationally efficient state

systems. By 1949-1950, the number of school districts in the U.S. had fallen to about 84,000. A decade later, the number dropped by more than half to just over 40,000, and by the 1980s the number of districts stood at about 16,000. Over the next twenty years the number of districts has continued to decline albeit slowly. Today there are still about 14,000 local school districts in the country.

The main point of this brief historical overview is to point out that there is no single American system of public education. Rather, the U.S. has 50 different state school systems that have delegated much of their power and authority to the 14,000 locally controlled school districts. To be fair, there is a considerable amount of commonality in the educational policies and programs of the 50 different state systems and in the local districts within these systems. For example, the vast majority of the schools districts across the United States are funded through a combination of taxes on property within the districts and additional funds from the state government (raised through a wide array of efforts ranging from state lotteries to taxes on the sale of items such as liquor and cigarettes) [7].

But despite their commonalities, these 50 state systems and their 14,000 sub-systems are distinct political entities whose interests and concerns are often quite different not just from those in other states and regions but even from districts that are right next door to one another. Moreover, these relatively independent political jurisdictions have the ability to water-down , to co-opt, and to a considerable extent even veto externally mandated reform efforts  [8]. In other words, any federal initiative to reform public education must take state and local educational interests very seriously . As Cohen and Moffitt argue, the unique governance arrangement of American public education has been and continues to be a crucial factor in defining and limit ing both the nature and scope of all federally sponsored reform efforts . With that in mind, we now turn to an overview of federal reform efforts in the last half-century.

Education Regs drain finite PC – spills over and derails other agenda itemsMatveev, ’00 --- Alexei Matveev, Department of Educational Policy, Planning, and Leadership, College of William and Mary, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/109c/4368a0ec2294107a2b60ab9eb6011999ffb7.pdf

The bottom line is that the problems of development and administration of higher education policy will never be solved because “the conflict between equality and economic efficiency is inescapable . In that sense, capitalism and democracy are really a most improbable mixture. Maybe that is why they need one another - to put some rationality into

equality and some humanity into efficiency" (Okun 1975.) The only way for successful policy construction appears to be political bargaining and " muddling through " in search of the shaky institutional equilibrium and satisfying temporary solutions for the perceived conflicts. Sub-optimisation and incrementalism in

contrast to maximisation and radicalism are simultaneously a curse and a blessing of democracy . We should

understand that only a limited number of goals can be achieved in a contemporary diverse public higher arena no matter how compelling the argument or virtuous its claimants are. While choosing a primary institution of higher education coordination (whether it is the market , gov ernment reg ulation s , or academic democracy ), we choose not between good and bad, but, rather, between

complementary, although at times conflicting and competing rules and values. “There is no theoretical

model for the correct balance [of market forces, gov ernment regulation and academic democracy] at a

given time, so we are left with making subjective judgments based upon common sense and upon both conscious and unconscious biases ” (Berdahl et al, 1999, p. 10.) These individual choices are made in the institutional context that simultaneously constrains the individual actors and plays the role of a tool- kit for policy development and administration. One-sided focus on either institutional context or actors’ level would miss the boat in understanding educational policy.

Regs---Process LinkIndependently, the speed and process of plan’s reform guarantees backlashShapiro, 16 – Robert Y. Shapiro, professor and former chair of the Department of Political Science at Columbia University; Anja Kilibarda, Sofi Sinozich, and Oliver McClellan of Columbia University; 4-22-2016, “American Public Opinion and Partisan Conflict”, draft version for conference “The Politics of Education Policy: An International Perspective” at Harvard

Hess ’s (2015) pointed review of “The Real Obama Education Record” demonstrates the persistent difficulties and contentiousness of efforts to improve schooling . While the Obama administration’s “post-partisan” intentions to capitalize on bipart isan support may have be en good, the devil was in all the big details of implementing reforms . Writing before the passage of the 2015 Act, Hess, describes the struggle involving federal pressure to implement Common Core standards, and one take-away from this is that the same could occur in the implementation of the new education legislation . Hess argues that had the Obama administration eased up on the pressure, requiring promised for state innovations through waivers, ”the Common Core standards would have been a voluntary initiative in 15 or 20 states, with far greater commitment from participating state officials. Absent federal demands , efforts to rethink teacher evaluation, using student test-scores and emphasizing serious differentiation, would be a still nascent effort in dozens states as they worked through options to find the best methods.“ (Hess, 2015, p.7-8). Instead the administration pushed for nationwide adoption on a not well thought out timeline —a political rather than a practical one . Thus potentially promising reforms were bungled, “turning encouraging developments into divisive fads ” (p.8). This contribute to the need for a change of course in the new legislation, but Hess’s analysis raises the question of whether more of the same conflicts in federal-state-school implementation efforts will recur. This is to say nothing of disagreements that can be found among the public related to differences in individuals’ knowledge about education issues and policies, attitudes toward federal/state /local control , and individuals’ perceptions and experiences with elementary and secondary education—as parents or through other points of direct contact or observation; we see this in opinions toward school testing where partisanship matter very little if at all (see Lay and Stokes-Brown, 2009; Peterson, Henderson, and West, 2014; Scheuler and West, 2016).

Regs---Policy Details/Implementation Fights

Arduous implementation and authority disputes sap capital*also a2: link turns

Mann, 16 – Dr. Elizabeth Mann, Fellow in the Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings, Poli Sci PhD from Michigan, 8-03-2016, “Familiar fissures evident in ESSA implementation debate”, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2016/08/03/familiar-fissures-evident-in-essa-implementation-debate/

When President Obama signed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in December 2015, the law was hailed as a bipartisan achievement and a dramatic improvement over the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). In particular, Republicans and Democrats alike lauded the increase in state autonomy and the simultaneous rollback in the Department of Education’s authority.[1] Does this mean that the longstanding debate over the Department of Education’s role in public education is settled? No t necessarily . Both the existing fault lines within education and current political conditions suggest that the question of how much authority ESSA grants the Department over states remains open—both to interpretation and further legislation. Let me explain.

Partisan disagreements over the law’s implementation surfaced during committee hearings on the Department’s proposed regulations, released May 26. Republicans criticized the Department’s proposed regulations as overreach , arguing that under ESSA, the Department enjoys limited authority over state policy making. Indeed, in his opening remarks to a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee hearing on ESSA implementation, committee chairman Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) admonished Secretary of Education John King that “already we’re seeing disturbing evidence that the Department of Education is ignoring the law that the 22 members of this committee worked so hard to craft.”

From the other side of the aisle, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) provided a counterweight to Sen. Alexander’s reprimand, emphasizing the importance of the Department’s role in holding states accountable for student achievement: “while we were writing this law, we were deliberate on granting the Department the authority to regulate on the law and hold schools and states accountable for education.” In her remarks, she cites a letter from the Leadership Council on Civil and Human Rights which unequivocally argues that ESSA preserves a robust role for the Department of Education: “ESSA is clear: The department has the authority and responsibility to issue regulations and guidance, and to provide guidance and technical assistance for the implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).”

The contrast between Sen. Alexander and Murray’s viewpoints exposes a central debate over the Department’s proposed regulations and over ESSA implementation more broadly. This right-left split over the proper role of the fed eral government in ed ucation policy is not hing new; Republicans and Democrats have been at odds over the Department of Education’s

authority since Carter created the cabinet-level department in 1979. Consider, for example, heated debates along partisan lines over the Clinton administration’s proposal to include “opportunity to learn” standards in the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. As the excerpts above indicate, this debate over how the Department should hold states accountable for student achievement remain s unresolved .

Paralleling these disagreements among elected officials, since its inception, public support for the Department of Education (and by rough proxy, federal involvement in public education) has been divided . Roughly the same proportion of national survey respondents agreed with the Reagan administration’s position that the Department was “not needed” (39 percent) as those who disagreed (37 percent), while almost a quarter of respondents (24 percent) responded “don’t know.”[2] Almost thirty years later, public perception of the Department remains split. In a September 2015 national survey, 44 percent of respondents viewed the Department favorably, while 50 percent viewed it unfavorably.[3]

Political conditions may also mean that despite bipartisan passage of ESSA, the debate over implementation is far from over. Research suggests that congressional oversight of the executive branch increases under divided government. Thus, there may be reason to expect more scrutiny of the Department’s proposed regulations to implement ESSA than if one or both houses of Congress was controlled by the Democrats. On the other hand, in a new article Bolton, Potter and Thrower find that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) may accelerate approval of rules that are “ presidential priorities ,” although the president’s ability to capitalize on this advantage is hampered when OIRA is understaffed and over-worked. While the Republican-controlled Congress can set the agenda in terms of committee hearings, drawing attention to its concerns with the Department’s proposed regulations, OIRA may face pressure to approve rules promulgated by the Department, currently run by Secretary John King, an Obama appointee.

Finally, evidence suggests that laws passed under divided government are more likely to be amended in subsequent years than those passed under unified government. The logic is that laws passed under divided government are products of political compromise and as such are less coherent and more vulnerable to revision down the line. Passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Democratic president, ESSA certainly falls into this category.

Ultimately it is hard to say what impact these political conditions will have on the Department’s proposed regulations and on implementation of ESSA more broadly. But at the very least, these conditions are not conducive to swift or decisive policy making. But that may not be a bad thing. Vigorous debate —both across parties , and across branches of government —may help ensure that implementation of ESSA reflects neither a knee-jerk reaction against NCLB and federal authority nor a defense of the NCLB-era status quo pertaining to the Department’s role in public education.

Regs---ModeratesFederal mandates alienate the rank-and-file---drains PC and causes congressional mayhemMann, 17 – Molly E Reynolds, fellow in Governance Studies at Brookings, and Dr. Elizabeth Mann, Fellow in the Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings, 2-21-2017, “Rifts among congressional, state Republicans over school choice”, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/02/21/gop-rifts-over-school-choice/

These geographic patterns, moreover, may have important consequences for Republican efforts to reshape ed ucation policy even in the face of unified Republican control at the federal level . In Congress, major legislation is unlikely . Republicans are traditionally champions of state and local control when it comes to education , and this has never been truer than now. The new federal education law passed in 2015, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), rolled back the federal role in education in a reversal from the No Child Left Behind era. In the year since the law passed, congress ional Republicans have sought to restrict what they characterize as federal overreach by the Obama administration. Just last week, the House passed a resolution to revoke an ESSA regulation finalized in November.

With this Republican-led trend in rolling back federal education authority not likely to reverse any time soon , it seems unlikely that either chamber will embrace a sweeping federal law that mandates state-level policy change . The $20 billion dollar school voucher program that President Trump proposed on the campaign trail and similar school-choice oriented bills that would convert federal aid into individual scholarships may seem attractive to Republicans eager to remove federal strings from federal education dollars, but it seems unlikely that such a proposal would garner sufficient support in the Senate .

But let’s briefly consider the possibility that such a bill would gain some traction, particularly with such a prominent school choice advocate as Secretary of Education. Given the dynamics within the Republican Party when it comes to school choice, members of Congress representing rural districts or largely rural states would be hard-pressed to make the case for this type of federal intervention. As DeVos ’s 50-50 confirmation vote illustrates and political scientist Mona Vakilifathi recently argued, there are no guarantees that the R epublican leadership could count on solid support from their rank-and-file members — and the moderate Dem ocrat s most likely to vote with Republicans hail from rural states and are unlikely to cross party lines on this issue .

Just as Republicans in Congress may resist school choice policies that may be a bad fit for rural communities, we are likely to see similar pushback from state-level Republicans who represent rural voters. In states with large rural populations, we may not see the forward momentum for school choice policies that DeVos’s confirmation seems to suggest at first glance. True, with unified Republican control of government in 24 states, we are likely entering a particularly active period of conservative law making at the state level.

Regs---Plan=Trump Loss/Flip Flop

Plan is a massive loss and flip flop on key Trump campaign promiseGreen, 17 --- Erica, NYT, 4/26, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/us/politics/trump-education-policy-review.html

Trump Orders Review of Education Policies to Strengthen Local Control President Trump issued a sweeping review of federal education policies on Wednesday in an executive order to pinpoint areas where the government may be overstepping in shaping operations of local school systems. The order requires Betsy DeVos, Mr. Trump’s education secretary, to review, modify and possibly repeal any regulations and guidelines

that are not consistent with federal law. Mr. Trump described the order as “another critical step to restoring local control ,” and one that fulfills one of his campaign promises . “For too long, the fed eral government has imposed its will on state and local governments ,” Mr. Trump said at a news conference to sign the order. “The result has been education that spends more, and achieves far, far, far less.” The review will be conducted

within 300 days, and its findings will be published in a public report. It aims to ensure local leaders will have the final say “about what happens in the classroom,” said Rob Goad, a senior Education Department official. Ms.

DeVos is already empowered to rescind guidance and regulations, and has already done so , and

any attempt at overturning laws would be subjected to a legal, regulatory process. In an interview, Ms. DeVos called Mr. Trump’s order a “welcomed opportunity” and “a clear mandate to take that real hard look at what we’ve been doing at the department level that we shouldn’t be doing, and what ways we have overreached.” She said Mr. Trump had already espoused “the importance of states and localities’ being able to address issues that are closest to them .” “And when it comes to education, decisions made at local levels and at state levels are the best ones,” Ms. DeVos said. The review will focus on K-12 policy, Mr. Goad said. It will be overseen by a regulatory task force headed by Robert Eitel,

who was hired from the for-profit sector to serve as a senior counselor to Ms. DeVos. Mr. Eitel is a vocal critic of regulations in higher-education and K-12 policy, and his hiring was controversial.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/us/politics/trump-education-policy-review.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/us/politics/trump-education-policy-review.html

Regs---Unfunded MandatesUnfunded federal mandates empirically generate tremendous backlashMcGovern, 11 – Shannon K. McGovern, JD from NYU School of Law, “A NEW MODEL FOR STATES AS LABORATORIES FOR REFORM: HOW FEDERALISM INFORMS EDUCATION POLICY”, Nov 2011, Lexis

Financial obligations imposed from the top down also animate opposition to NCLB and federal education policy generally. While NCLB had broad support in Congress, state legislatures controlled by both parties were so alarmed by NCLB's new conditions that many took the unusual step of formally resisting its implementation . n80 At least thirty-eight states considered, and some passed, legislative resolutions condemning NCLB , prohibiting the use of state or local money to support it, and/or urging school districts to reject NCLB funds. n81 Utah went further, famously becoming the first state to (temporarily) opt out of NCLB entirely. n82

The bulk of this formal opposition to NCLB is rooted in the contention that the states bear most of the costs of implementing NCLB, in violation of the Spending Clause and NCLB's own unfunded mandates provision. n83 One lawsuit brought by a state and another by school districts - instrumentalities of states - challenged NCLB on these grounds but were dismissed. n84 While two unfavorable dispositions [*1535] cast doubt on the viability of legal challenges to NCLB's unfunded mandates, n85 dicta in these cases have broad and important policy implications. The Sixth Circuit recognized, albeit indirectly, that practical coercion under the Spending Clause can exist independently of legally actionable, constitutionally infirm coercion, stating in unequivocal terms that "Congress has not fully funded the cost of complying with NCLB." n86 Indeed, since the genesis of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in the 1960s, K-12 ed ucation expenditures by the fed eral government have increased in absolute terms but remained flat relative to spending by states and localities . n87 The passage of NCLB, which increased the number and extent of states' obligations under Title I, as well as the number of affected schools, did not dramatically alter this calculus. n88 State and local governments remain responsible for most of the cost of public education .

This data inevitably raises the question "whether it makes sense to permit the fed eral government ... to exert far more policy influence than the federal government's financial contribution to state and local school district budgets might traditionally warrant ." n89 The most obvious answer, and thus the least satisfying, is that state implementation of any of the major federal education initiatives is voluntary, at least in name. Recall, however, that Connecticut objected to the financial balance struck by NCLB strongly enough to file a federal action, but apparently not strongly enough to forego the funds in the first [*1536] place. n90 The current recession and concomitant state budget deficits have surely exacerbated the problem. n91 The states' ability to make meaningful decisions about whether to accept conditional grants depends not only on the amount in question and the relative burdens of the strings attached, but also on the vagaries of the financial climate. n92 Neither Race to the Top nor Obama's proposal for similar incentives-based Title I grants under a revamped and reauthorized NCLB has addressed the disparity between federal and state spending.

Congress hates unfunded mandates Joyce, 14 --- phillip, prof @ Maryland School Public Policy, Governing, 4/16, http://www.governing.com/columns/smart-mgmt/col-is-era-unfunded-federal-mandates-over.html

Is the Era of Unfunded Federal Mandates Over? The current Congress has imposed few of these costly requirements. But it may be premature for state, local and tribal governments to stop worrying. A Congressional

Budget Office report issued in late March includes a rather surprising revelation: With the exception of the Affordable

Care Act and another law affecting child nutrition passed in 2010, Congress has not passed any significant bill imposing unfunded mandates on state, local or tribal governments since 2008 . When the U nfunded M andates R eform A ct (UMRA) was passed in 1995, the problem was considered so important that the bill that became this law was the first to be introduced in the new Republican -controlled House after that party took over Congress for the first time in 40 years . The

reason? Republicans desperately wanted to amend the Constitution to require a balanced federal budget, but states and localities raised concerns that the federal budget might be balanced simply by passing responsibilities -- and costs -- down to state and local governments. UMRA requires the Congressional

Budget Office (CBO) to disclose the cost of any mandate as defined by the law , including intergovernmental

and private-sector mandates that exceed statutory thresholds, before a bill can be considered on the floor of the House or the Senate. For 2013, that threshold was $75 million for intergovernmental mandates and $150 million for private-sector

mandates. The notion was that highlighting the cost would have a chilling effect on mandates . The most striking figure in the new CBO report (which carries the not-so-catchy title of "A Review of CBO's Activities in 2013 Under the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act") is the small number of laws enacted in 2013 that contained intergovernmental mandates. In fact, there were only four mandates in the 72 bills that became law in 2013; none of these had costs above the threshold. One other bill -- immigration legislation involving

verification of employment eligibility -- would have had costs exceeding the threshold, but it did not become law. This 2013

experience compares to an average of 45 intergovernmental mandates per year in the prior four years, with only seven (in two bills, both in 2010) with costs above the statutory threshold . So,

judging from the activity reported by the CBO, Congress has , for all intents and purposes, virtually stopped imposing costly mandates on state, local and tribal governments . Further, CBO reports that only 13 laws containing 18 intergovernmental mandates above the threshold have been enacted in the 18 years since UMRA took effect . There is no record of the pace of intergovernmental mandates prior to the

imposition of UMRA, but if the problem of unfunded mandates prompted the enactment of UMRA, the problem seems to have all but gone away . There are several possible reasons for why this has occurred. First, the

1995 law simply may have worked as intended. With more information about the cost of mandates available to federal lawmakers, Congress has refrained from enacting mandates , or at least has taken action to lower the costs of the ones it does enact. The other possible explanations suggest that more caution is in order. For one thing, it seems likely that the narrow definition of a mandate is partly at issue here. UMRA, for example, does not cover most "conditions of assistance" even if meeting those conditions might cost state and local governments a lot of money. This means that the requirements in the No Child Left Behind Act do not meet the UMRA definition of a mandate because states could (theoretically) choose to forego the federal funding. Similarly, changes to Medicaid have not been identified as mandates because large portions of the program are optional expansions that states have the authority to change. UMRA also does not cover legislation that supports the guarantee of a federal constitutional right; if UMRA had been around when the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed, for example, the requirements in that law would not have been identified as mandates. In addition, as has been well documented, the current Congress not only has failed to pass unfunded mandates -- it has failed to do lots of things. The 113th Congress passed 72 bills last year, 40 percent fewer than the number passed in 2009 and less than half of the number passed in 2005. This is a rare positive attribute of a so-called "do nothing" (or, to be fair, "do little") Congress: no laws, no mandates. In the future, if we return to

government controlled by a single party (or even a unified Congress), state and local governments worried about unfunded mandates imposed by Washington will have to return to a vigilant stance. For the time being, however, the highly partisan and dysfunctional nature of lawmaking in Congress appears to have at least one

silver lining .

Regs---A2: Link Turns

Content of the plan is irrelevant---opposition to mandates is structural, not rational, which means the link only goes one directionMcGovern, 11 – Shannon K. McGovern, JD from NYU School of Law, “A NEW MODEL FOR STATES AS LABORATORIES FOR REFORM: HOW FEDERALISM INFORMS EDUCATION POLICY”, Nov 2011, Lexis

In its broadest form, opposition to federal oversight of education rests on structural or ideological arguments that view the states as the historical, and thus rightful, overseers of public education in our federalist system. n33 The expansion of fed eral education policy in recent [*1526] years has increasingly shifted the discourse from a debate on the merits of any federal intervention to an evaluation of the federalism implications of particular federal programs. Familiarity with recent education initiatives is therefore crucial for understanding persistent legal and policy objections to the federal role in education . In this subsection, I briefly describe two of many such programs: NCLB and Race to the Top. These programs will then inform my analysis of the most salient risks posed by a strong federal role in the formation of education policy.

Regs---A2: Plan is SmallEven small mandates get vilified as a stepping stone to bureaucratic control---Specifically calls out “unfunded mandates”

Usdan, 16 – Dr. Michael D. Usdan, PhD from Columbia, Senior Fellow and Former President of the Institute for Educational Leadership, 2-04-2016, “The Ever Debatable Federal Role: Implications for Education Policy”, Institute for Educational Leadership

One of the inherent tension s in the recent expansion of federal influence relates to the fundamental funding patterns which support K-12 education . The fed eral government’s share of support through out most of the nation’s history, as we alluded to earlier, has been approximately 4 to 6 percent . Currently it is only between 8 and 10 percent. Indeed, even at the zenith of the Race to the Top program, which provided unprecedented resources to education, the federal share was only approximately 15 percent.

What has happened somewhat uniquely in education is a contradiction of the popular adage that “he who pays the piper calls the tune.” As fed eral influence has escalated, it has exacerbated tensions with local and state political and educational leaders who ask the understandable question as to why the very junior financial partner “ can call the tune” and demand 100 percent of the accountability .

The 1975 passage of the federal Individual Disabilities and Education Act (IDEA) was of particular importance as it finally shed a national spotlight on the special needs of thousands of youngsters with disabilities who were not able to gain access to public education. It was estimated at the time IDEA was passed that almost half of special needs children were not even attending school.

These programs, while receiving strong support among many equity-oriented citizens , also began to sow the seeds of disenchantment with federal intrusiveness that are so manifest in today’s volatile political context . Critics of the federal role began to decry small categorical programs that have little impact and helped to create dysfunctional narrow “pass-through” bureaucracies at the state and local—as well as federal— governmental levels. As the categorical programs multiplied, critics bemoaned the “ hardening of the categories .”

The backlash against elements of the IDEA legislation had even more significant implications for subsequent debates about the appropriate federal role. Critics of IDEA , while applauding the beneficial aspects of widening access to special services, condemned facets of the legislation as it was implemented . The federal government had initially indicated that it would assume 40 percent of IDEA costs but the level of its support has remained less than 20 percent throughout the legislation’s history. This unfulfilled fiscal commitment played directly into the hands of growing numbers of those who were critical of unfunded federal mandates . In addition, of course, the requirement in IDEA that each student be the recipient of an individualized learning plan did not sit well with many teachers and administrators who viewed the requirement —fairly or unfairly—as a nother tedious federal bureaucratic constraint and an intrusion upon their professional independence.

Link—Specific Areas

Puerto Rico

No Link---Funding

Any funding for Puerto Rico drains PC – spun as bailoutMufson, 16 --- Steven, Washington Post, 5/1, lexis

P uerto R ico's debt rescue plan at an i mpasse

Initiative gets bogged down in Congress over 'bailout' politics

House members left Washington for a week-long recess Friday without taking action on a fiscal rescue for Puerto Rico, days before the territory's development bank is set to default on a payment to bondholders and deepen the economic crisis there.

The Government Development Bank has said it would default on nearly $390 million due Sunday, a move that could unleash a cascade of problems throughout the Puerto Rican financial system.

The GDB, which acts as bank, adviser and fiscal agent to the Puerto Rican commonwealth, is essentially the checking account where municipalities deposit and withdraw money. The commonwealth's treasury has already transferred its money from the GDB to private banks. Bondholders are likely on Monday to ask a federal court to freeze the GDB's assets, which could halt payments, at least temporarily, to suppliers and public servants and paralyze municipalities.

Puerto Rican credit unions, which hold about 20 percent of GDB's $5 billion in bonds, fear the equivalent of a run on the banks and have been trying to calm their mostly middle-class depositors. Several agreed Friday to exchange $33 million of bonds due Sunday for new ones due a year later.

"We are not vultures," the Movement of Savings and Credit Cooperatives said in an ad printed in El Nuevo Dia on April 25, vowing, "In good times and in bad, always with Puerto Rico!" Earlier in April, two cooperatives took out an ad with a sunrise photo. "Puerto Rico shall have a new dawn and the cooperatives will be there investing in the reconstruction of our beloved island," it said.

Congress has focused on a July 1 deadline, when the commonwealth and its agencies are likely to default on another $2 billion of principal and interest, including $800 million for general obligation bonds, generally the safest.

"Most people think July 1 is atomic bomb day," said Sergio Marxuach, public policy director of the Center for a New Economy in Puerto Rico. "May 1 is still significant."

Meanwhile, the impasse on Capitol Hill has come down to one politically loaded word: "bailout." Opponents of the current House draft of a rescue plan, which could ultimately give a judge the power to reduce the island's $72 billion in public debt, are trying to lump it in with the bank, insurance and auto industry rescues during the 2008-2009 economic crisis.

Leaders of both parties who have tried to forge a consensus in Congress have bristled at the characterization, noting that the draft legislation does not authorize any taxpayer dollars for the island.

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, which is crafting the bill, called the use of the word "cynical and disingenuous."

"For me, I think to any human being, 'bailout' means you 're going to get money to solve your problem," he said. But Puerto Rico is not getting any money as part of the deal, he said. "So to say it's a bailout, it's obviously not just a stretch of the meaning of the word, there has to [be] an ulterior motive."

But there are signs that the "B-word" is beginning to stick - particularly among a cadre of conservative House Republicans - thanks in large part to the efforts of outside advocacy groups and bondholder lobbyists that have been opposing the rescue bill.

A group called the Center for Individual Freedom has spent millions of dollars on ads calling the Puerto Rico bill a "bailout," targeting specific congressional districts, including Bishop's. Jeff Mazzella, CFIF's president, did not reply to email or phone calls Friday. The group does not disclose its donors, but a widespread belief on Capitol Hill is that the group is acting at the behest of those bondholders opposed to a court or board-imposed restructuring.

"The bottom line is that people who are bottom-feeders and bought bonds at really cheap prices now want to maximize their profit off of the backs of people in Puerto Rico," said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.).

Behind the scenes, a prominent lobbyist for some of those bondholders, former Florida congressman Connie Mack IV, has repeatedly referred to the bill as a "bailout" in private emails and public statements. "The #puertorico bill a #bailout by every measure," he tweeted on April 20. "Taxpayers, retirees on the hook 4 Puerto Rico's liberal policies."

Bishop unveiled a new draft of the rescue bill, which would give Puerto Rico access to a court- enforced debt restructuring in exchange for the imposition of a federal fiscal oversight board, and House leaders hoped to pass it last week. But the bill has not yet emerged from committee - in part because of Dem ocratic objections but also to balking conservatives .

Supporters of a congressional rescue plan got a boost Tuesday, when Pimco, which manages $40 billion of municipal bonds, supported the current House bill.

"It would be incorrect to classify [the bill] as a 'bailout,'" said a blog posting on the Pimco website. "No incremental federal tax dollars are allocated to the Territory under the bill. In fact, if this legislation does not advance, the probability of future federal tax dollars flowing to the Territory or bondholders may actually increase."

Pimco said it does not hold any Puerto Rico bonds.

Rep. John Fleming (R-La.), a Natural Resources member who opposes the bill, said that if Bishop could have gotten the bill out of committee with Republican votes, "he would have already done it."

"I don't think bailouts are popular among the American people," he said. "The stimulus package, the bailout of the automobile companies, the bailout of the banks - none of that was popular with taxpayers. . . . If the speaker gets a majority of Democrats to pass a bailout for Puerto Rico, I think that would be a political disaster."

Fleming, who is running for U.S. Senate, said it was "absolutely" fair to call the Puerto Rico bill a bailout: "Just to go in there and manhandle this ourselves, what we're going to end up with is mission creep, bailouts, and ultimately other states like Illinois and California who are also going down this pathway - they will see this as a solution to their problems, as well."

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) has sought to counter the messaging, inviting House members to a closed-door policy briefing on the issue earlier this month and publicly denouncing the bailout talk on several occasions.

"There will no taxpayer bailout," he told reporters earlier this month, blaming "big-money interest groups on Wall Street" for the perception.

Dem ocrat s , meanwhile, are showing signs of exasperation as they watch GOP infighting threaten a major legislative priority.

"They can't pass a bill with just Republican votes, because there's a group on the hard right who say, 'Do nothing, just pay off the bondholders,'â€ˆ" said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.). "They are unwilling to go to [Minority Leader Nancy] Pelosi [D-Calif.] and get Dem ocratic votes because that would alienate the hard right . . . . That's the bind America is in, that the Republican Party is sort of tied in a knot between their mainstream conservatives and their hard right, and they can't come to an agreement ."

Adding to the exasperation is what they consider the irony of financial speculators decrying "bailouts" less than a decade after Congress kept Wall Street afloat.

"Most of the people that benefit from doing nothing are the same people that caused the situation," said Rep. RaÃºl M. Grijalva (Ariz.), the ranking Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee. "The speculator class is in charge of the opposition, and unfortunately the Republicans are biting and taking it as fact."

But Democrats are facing pressures of their own - from territorial officials who are nervous about the powers of the oversight board, and from labor unions who want protection for pensioners who could take a back seat and suffer cuts of their own in a restructuring.

With the May default all but certain and the even bigger July default looming, Bishop said that a dvocates for the island need to redouble their efforts to convince lawmakers to act.

"They can't just sit back and expect it to be solved for them," he said. "They have to actually say something about the situation so people understand the significance of where we're going. . . . Brilliant as I am, I can't do it by myself."

Specifically True for education - Policies targeted at a narrow demographic are a heavy lift and generate widespread oppositionJennings, 15 – Jack Jennings, former president and CEO of the Center on Education Policy and general counsel for the House Committee on Education and Labor, “Lessons Learned from Federal Involvement in Schooling”, in Presidents, Congress, and the Public Schools: The Politics of Education Reform, p. 152-153

The challenge, then, is how to develop broad support for a federal policy ? At a minimum, the task is to avoid widespread opposition to it .

The specific challenge is to find or build general support while concentrating on major problems that chiefly affect limited (and often relatively powerless) segments of the population . One such challenge relates to policies to ameliorate the effects of poverty on schooling. In 1967, when I first started working for the Congress, debates were ongoing about the relatively new Great Society legislation and the other programs added after the initial burst of legislating in 1965. As legislative bills were being considered to amend the old programs or add new ones, the Democratic members of Congress argued among themselves about whether to create programs that affected a broad range of people or programs with narrow coverage, particularly for persons with low incomes. Proponents of the latter point of view argued that focused aid was needed to help the poor to do better and that broad coverage would dilute this assistance. Supporters of the wide-coverage position argued that political support would always be limited for such narrow programs and that the middle class had to be involved to sustain the programs and achieve sufficient appropriations. Meanwhile, Republican members of Congress usually wanted a focused approach so that the programs and funding would not grow too much.

Medicare is an example of a Great Society program that has a broad reach and has endured through dramatic changes of political control in Washington. Head Start is a n example of a focused program that has survived but continues to struggle with funding and its existence as a federal activity in the face of proposals to turn it over to the states.

The lesson is that federal policies in education should have a broad reach among the population whenever that is possible. For example, federal support for higher academic standards helps all students, and should be widely supported. But it especially helps students in schools with concentrations of children from low-income families since they are often held to low expectations. The difficulty comes when a particular problem is limited to a smaller segment of the population. Although that is a challenging circumstance, advocates need to seek political support to help maintain that effort . This lesson is obviously difficult to implement, especially because the United States has such significant percentages of children who live in poverty and could benefit from special supports.

Any new federal funds for PR causes GOP rebellion and PC drain – huge fights over where funding comes fromCasey, 16 --- Jack, Bond Buyer, 3/15, lexis

Senate Democrats' P uerto R ico Proposal Faces Hard Road In Congress

WASHINGTON - Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., and several other Senate Democrats introduced two bills on Monday to give Puerto Rico broad restructuring powers as well as better federal tax and healthcare treatment.

The legislative package is likely to face stiff resistance in Congress , where many Republicans have opposed territory-wide debt adjustments.

Senate Finance Committee chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said after the bills were introduced, "While I have yet to see the full legislative text ... Senate Dem ocrat s appear to want to move the goal posts on broad debt restructuring to favor public pensions and pair it with tens of billions of federal funds for P uerto R ico without any sense of where the funds come from ."

The first bill, The Puerto Rico Stability Act, would give the broad restructuring capabilities, establish an oversight authority, and mandate that Puerto Rico's governor appoint a chief financial officer and create a five-year fiscal plan subject to the board's approval.

The bill's proposed restructuring would use similar mechanisms to those in the bankruptcy code, but it would not amend and does not sit within the bankruptcy code, a spokesperson for Menendez said. However, it does include language from a previously introduced bill that would extend federal Chapter 9 bankruptcy protections for state public authorities to authorities in Puerto Rico.

The second bill, the Puerto Rico Recovery Act of 2016, is meant to improve Puerto Rico's treatment under federal tax and healthcare programs by increasing Medicaid funding and extending the Earned Income Tax Credit to people working on the island. While Menendez spearheaded the bills, Sens. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., co-sponsored the stability act and Brown and Cantwell co-sponsored the recovery act.

"Congress has to act immediately to fix the federal funding shortfalls and give Puerto Rico the tools it needs to fully restructure its debt," Menendez said. "I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle so we may prevent this fiscal crisis from devolving into a full blown humanitarian calamity."

Puerto Rico Gov. Alejandro Garcia Padilla said in a statement that the legislation will provide Puerto Rico with "the requisite tools needed to not only stave off the worst effects of the crisis in the near term, but will allow [Puerto Rico] to stabilize [its] economy and build upon that foundation for a prosperous future."

The bills' inclusion of territory-wide restructuring, an oversight board, healthcare improvements, and economic growth initiatives closely mirrors the ideas the Treasury Department had put

forward when it released its proposal on Puerto Rico in late October. Since that time, Congress has been trying to forge an agreeable solution for the commonwealth with the Republican-led House Committee on Natural Resources taking the lead. That committee could release a bill on Puerto Rico as soon as this week, several observers said.

Under the stability act, Puerto Rico would be able to restructure all of its approximately $70 billion of debt if its legislature opts into a nine-person oversight board. The members of the oversight board would have to have financial management expertise. Six of the nine would have to be full-time residents of Puerto Rico and the same number would have to have knowledge of Puerto Rico's history, culture, and socioeconomics, according to the text of the bill. The Puerto Rican legislature would appoint four of the members, the U.S. president would appoint two, Puerto Rico's governor would appoint two, and Puerto Rico's Supreme Court would appoint one who would serve as the board's chair.

The act would also impose a 12-month stay on debt litigation from the date the legislature agrees to the oversight board to allow the governor and the board to work through the fiscal plan. The governor would then issue a restructuring proposal and if creditors object to the terms, the proposal would go to a judge selected by the First Circuit Court of Appeals for approval. The judge would have to make sure the governor's restructuring proposal complies with the fiscal plan and also treats the commonwealth's pension obligations as senior secured debt. That would mean pensions would have higher priority than Puerto Rico's constitutionally backed general obligation debt.

The pension portion of the bill is likely to be one of the most contentious. The concept already drew criticism several weeks ago when a Treasury proposal that treated pensions similarly was circulated.

Matt Posner of Court Street Group, a financial consulting firm with a focus on municipal and Latin American markets, said the senators' idea to set pensions as senior and first priority secured debt has negative implications for the municipal market.

"To date, no legal precedent has been set on this issue, but the results of the Detroit bankruptcy, wherein pensions landed better than bond investors, has set the perception," Posner said. "If Congress passes this bill, it will largely enhance that notion."

He added that allowing GO bonds to be available for restructuring "flies in the face of how state GOs are treated in the U.S. bankruptcy code."

"Treasury claims that because Puerto Rico is a territory and not a state that it sets no precedent," Posner said. "Even though the bill doesn't change the status for GOs in the U.S. bankruptcy code, it will change the perception of the GO pledge for state-side issuers and I'd expect to see state GO yields increase as a result."

Daniel Hanson, an analyst at Height Securities, said in a Monday commentary on Puerto Rico that the legislation is "very creditor unfriendly."

"The legislation from Senate Democrats is unlikely to be seriously debated and will be hotly opposed, but its key purpose is to serve as a political bludgeon against the Republican

legislation, further polarizing the debate over P [uerto] R[ ico ] to the detriment of all stakeholders," Hanson said.

Another observer who follows Puerto Rico closely said he questions whether the two bills from the Democrats help or hurt the larger process of Congress trying to find a solution to Puerto Rico's problems.

"In some ways it's designed to push the Republicans in a direction, in others it may just deepen the chasm between the parties to even reach agreements ," the observer said.

DC

DC links – requires congressSullum 14 (Jacob, senior editor at Reason magazine and a nationally syndicated columnist), 12/17, Andy Harris Explains Why He Blocked Marijuana Legalization in D.C., Although It Looks Like He Didn't, http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/17/andy-harris-explains-why-he-blocked-mari

In a Washingon Post op-ed piece published last Friday, Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) defends his attempt to block marijuana legalization in the nation's

capital. Harris and his co-author, Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) argue that 1) marijuana is dangerous, 2) Congress has the constitutional authority to dictate public policy in the District of Columbia , and 3) allowing marijuana legalization there "would create legal chaos." Harris and Pitts devote most of their words to the first point, which is the least relevant. Marijuana, like every other psychoactive drug, can cause problems when used inappropriately or excessively. But as the president and his drug czar have admitted, marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol in that respect. Last month D.C. voters overwhelmingly agreed that it makes no sense to treat cannabis consumers like criminals when

drinkers suffer no such harassment and punishment. Harris and Pitts evidently disagree. But if, as they claim, they believe "the people of the District should have a local government that is tailored to their needs ," why override the voters' judgment on this matter? Harris and Pitts are right that Congress has the legal power to do so, but that does not

mean it should. Nor does that mean it has. As I have pointed out, the rider that Harris inserted into the omnibus spending bill Congress passed last week bars the District from spending money to "enact" laws decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana. But Initiative 71, which legalizes possession, home cultivation, and sharing of marijuana, was enacted the day that voters approved it by a 2-to-1 margin. It takes effect automatically unless Congress passes (and President Obama signs) a joint resolution rejecting it. Congress must do so no later than 30 legislative days after D.C. Council President Phil Mendelson officially transmits the initiative, which he still plans to do next month.

"The duty to transmit is not discretionary in my view," Mendelson told reporters yesterday. He elaborated in an interview with Roll Call:

Specifically True for education - Policies targeted at a narrow demographic are a heavy lift and generate widespread oppositionJennings, 15 – Jack Jennings, former president and CEO of the Center on Education Policy and general counsel for the House Committee on Education and Labor, “Lessons Learned from Federal Involvement in Schooling”, in Presidents, Congress, and the Public Schools: The Politics of Education Reform, p. 152-153


The specific challenge is to find or build general support while concentrating on major problems that chiefly affect limited (and often relatively powerless) segments of the population . One such challenge relates to policies to ameliorate the effects of poverty on schooling. In 1967, when I first started working for the Congress, debates were ongoing about the relatively new Great Society legislation and the other programs added after the initial burst of legislating in 1965. As legislative bills were being considered to amend the old programs or add new ones, the Democratic members of Congress argued among themselves about whether to create programs that affected a broad range of people or programs with narrow coverage, particularly for persons with low incomes. Proponents of the latter point of view argued that focused aid was needed to help the poor to do better and that broad coverage would dilute this assistance.

Supporters of the wide-coverage position argued that political support would always be limited for such narrow programs and that the middle class had to be involved to sustain the programs and achieve sufficient appropriations. Meanwhile, Republican members of Congress usually wanted a focused approach so that the programs and funding would not grow too much.



A2: DC/PR = Plan Not Congress

USFG = 3 branches of CENTRALIZED government– local (DC/PR) government action isn’t topicalNational Atlas 13 – “Government of the United States”, 1-14, http://www.nationalatlas.gov/government.html

Introduction

The United States of America is a democracy, which means it is governed by the will of its people. Its government provides a system of management for American citizens. Established in 1789, the U nited S tates is a federal republic , with a strong democratic tradition. Its legal system is based on English common law. The government is divided into separate governing units . At the top level is the Federal Gov ernment , which provides functions that are best managed by a centralized government, such as defense, currency regulation, and foreign relations. Its capital city is Washington, D.C.

Federal Government

At the Federal level, there are three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. These branches work in concert under a set of checks and balances that ensure a relatively even distribution of

(Ban) Vouchers

Plan causes GOP rebellion – it’s a massive loss – they view it as a key issueBump, 14 --- PHILIP BUMP is a former politics writer for The Atlantic Wire, The Atlantic, 1/22, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/why-dont-republicans-want-school-vouchers-places-republicans-actually-live/357277/

Why Don't Republicans Want School Vouchers in Places Republicans Actually Live? Republicans are once again passionate about school vouchers, believing that "school choice" is a key to winning over minority voters . But you know who often doesn't like the idea? Republicans from rural areas. A number of prominent members of the GOP have spoken about vouchers recently , largely in the context of addressing poverty and inequality. Politico documents a number of them: House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, state representatives around the country. " It’s a winning issue for us ," the GOP's outreach director to African-American media told Politico.

"We’re going to be talking about educational opportunity in every state." Receptions in those states will vary. In statehouse battles over the past several years, it has been an alliance of Democrats and rural Republicans that have opposed expanding or implementing vouchers. For the same reason: vouchers pull resources from schools that need every dollar they can get after years of scaling back. The debate over vouchers is usually centered on urban schools, since it

provides the Republicans' dream pitch : A failing local school has parents of every color and creed looking for alternatives. Siphon money from the big government education pool, and let parents decide if they'd like to use it toward a private or charter school. School choice. It appeals to those dissatisfied urban parents — urban parents who, the demographics tell us, would usually vote Dem ocratic . "Failing" is a relative term, of course. But there's no question that public schools — like all components of government — are struggling with reduced budgets. According to a Census Bureau report that came out last year, 2011 marked the first year in four decades that per-student spending in public schools declined — but that data wasn't adjusted for inflation. That year, 65.6 percent of spending was from local property taxes, but the amount from the federal government dropped 2.5 percent from 2010 when

adjusted to 2013 dollars. That's a constriction that is part-and-parcel with the Republicans' higher- priority message : less government spending

Vouchers spark intense fights – turns only prove link – BOTH sides battle hardSchmidt, 17 --- Peter, Chronicle of Higher Education, 1/24, lexis

The nominee for education secretary faces bitter opposition from teachers' unions and civil- rights groups, but is backed by prominent Republicans and others seeking to overhaul public schools.

The prospect of Ms. DeVos overseeing the Education Department has inspired both intense opposition and strong support from key players in several educational policy debates. Although most of the controversy surrounding Ms. DeVos, a Michigan billionaire and philanthropist, stems from her role as a leading advocate of public charter schools and school vouchers , some of her statements about higher-education issues such as Title IX enforcement have also been

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/why-dont-republicans-want-school-vouchers-places-republicans-actually-live/357277/


divisive. Her confirmation hearing last week, before members of the Senate education committee, proved rocky, with Democrats on the panel complaining that they did not get enough time to question her.

The committee has postponed its vote on whether to recommend Ms. DeVos's confirmation - originally scheduled for Tuesday - until January 31 to allow its members time to review her extensive financial disclosures and her plans to avoid conflicts of interest. If no disqualifying information emerges during that review, she is widely expected to win Senate confirmation narrowly and along partisan lines, with that chamber's slight Republican majority carrying the day. Most past presidents' picks for the position have won confirmation easily and with little opposition, through voice votes.

Ms. DeVos's confirmation appears unlikely to silence her critics. Moreover, new controversies may erupt as the Trump administration names other political appointees to Education Department posts with titles such as assistant secretary or under secretary. Robert Kelchen, an assistant professor of higher education at Seton Hall University who advised the department under President Barack Obama, says, "I am much more interested in who are the political appointees in the department other than secretary," because "those are the people who have to have expertise in the key higher-education policy areas."

Christopher T. Cross, a former Education Department official who chronicled that agency's history in the book Political Education, says education secretaries typically have little say over political appointees to other agency posts because "most of those end up being White House-directed." Mr. Cross, a consultant who in the early 1990s served as assistant secretary for educational research and improvement under President George H.W. Bush, predicted that Mr. Trump's transition team will seek to have people tied to his campaign placed in top Education Department posts, and top Republican members of Congress will offer up names on their own.

Based on the reaction to Ms. DeVos's nomination, especially contentious will be the vetting of the Trump administration's picks for the department's assistant secretary for civil rights and top posts focused on evaluating and improving elementary and secondary schools .

Following is a breakdown of key players who have weighed in on the nomination of Ms. DeVos.

Supporters

Establishment Republicans. Strongly backing Ms. DeVos's nomination is Sen. Lamar Alexander, the chairman of the Senate education committee, who encouraged the creation of charter schools as education secretary under President George H.W. Bush and has characterized her views on them as mainstream. Senator Alexander, who on Monday denied a request from Democratic committee members to hold a second hearing on Ms. DeVos, is hardly the only big-name Republican to get behind her. Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who was the Republican party's nominee for president in 2012, wrote a Washington Post op-ed saying Ms. DeVos "cares deeply about our children" and dismissing her detractors as having a financial stake in thwarting needed changes at elementary and secondary schools. The former first lady Barbara Bush, who established a foundation to promote literacy, has similarly praised Ms. DeVos as having "a proven record of championing reforms," as has Jeb Bush, the former

governor of Florida. Twenty current Republican governors of states or U.S. territories have endorsed her confirmation as someone who "will fight to streamline the federal education bureaucracy, return authority back to states and local school boards, and ensure that more dollars are reaching the classroom." Among them, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, a supporter of school vouchers who has frequently clashed with that state's public-college professors over their workplace rights, separately wrote the Senate education committee to say her appointment "will help to create an effective education system." (According to data compiled by the nonpartisan National Institute on Money in State Politics, Ms. DeVos has contributed to the campaigns of Mr. Walker and six other state governors who signed the letter. Her family has contributed to the campaigns of Mr. Walker and eight others.)

Critics of Public Schools. Republican senators and governors have been joined in their support for Ms. DeVos by other prominent advocates of change in the financing and governance of public schools. They include Grover G. Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. In a letter, he told the Senate committee that Ms. DeVos, in her former capacity as head of the American Federation for Children, a pro-school-choice advocacy group, has played a key role in persuading states to adopt policies that help children get needed educational services. Also praising Ms. DeVos: Eva Moskowitz, founder of Success Academy Charter Schools, which operates more than 40 charter schools in New York City, and scholars at the Thomas B. FordhamInstitute, which promotes charter schools . The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, which advocates school choice and the provision of federal services to children in nonpublic schools, has weighed in on her behalf.

Joseph Lieberman. Ms. DeVos was glowingly introduced to the Senate education committee by Joseph Lieberman, the former Connecticut senator who was the Democratic Party's nominee for vice president in 2000. Mr. Lieberman, who sits on the American Federation for Children's board, described Ms. DeVos as a sorely needed "change agent" whose outsider status will be an asset. "She doesn't come from within the education establishment," he said. "But honestly, I believe that today that's one of the most important qualifications you could have for this job."

Opponents

Teachers Unions. At the forefront in opposing the nomination of Ms. DeVos are the nation's two major teachers' unions, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, each of which has affiliates that represent college instructors. Both unions had uneasy relations with President Obama as a result of clashes over his administration's efforts to promote school accountability and make it easier for schools to fire teachers. Their leaders declared support for Hillary Clinton early in the Democratic primaries, based on her statements suggesting she would be more sympathetic. The election of Donald Trump and his nomination of Ms. DeVos, a longtime advocate of charter-school and school-voucher laws that the unions oppose, has dashed such hopes and put them even more on the defensive than they had been before. Randi Weingarten, president of the AFT, has faulted Ms. DeVos for lacking any experience as an educator, blamed her for advocacy efforts in Michigan for poorly performing charter schools there, and called her "the most ideological, anti-public education nominee" for education secretary since the position was created by President Jimmy Carter. Lily Eskelsen García, president of the NEA, has described Ms. DeVos as "dangerously unqualified," faulting her

for, among other things, not being a public-school graduate or sending her children to public schools. Helping to organize a recent protest against the appointment of Ms. DeVos: the Professional Staff Congress, which represents education workers at the City University of New York and is affiliated with both the AFT and the American Association of University Professors. The AAUP's national office, which collaborates with the AFT in organizing unions of college instructors, has not formally discouraged the Senate from confirming Ms. DeVos but last week emailed The Chronicle a statement that called her "part of the economic elite." It argued that Ms. DeVos "would implement whatever policies the new president wants to put into place which, frankly, could get scary."

Public-School Officials. Although public-college associations have stayed out of the fray over Ms. DeVos, the major groups representing leaders of public elementary and secondary schools have shown no such reticence. National associations representing elementary school principals, secondary school principals, and school superintendents have joined National PTA, the major teachers unions, and a long list of other associations and advocacy groups in sending the Senate committee a letter that says Ms. DeVos has no record on "many critical issues affecting students and schools" and that what they know about her record is "deeply troubling."

Other Liberal Advocacy Groups. Leaders of several of the nation's leading civil-rights organizations have expressed doubts about Ms. DeVos's qualifications, arguing in a joint statement that, compared to previous education secretaries, her "lack of experience stands out." Among them, Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, has said, "Nothing that we know about DeVos's advocacy and background leads us to believe that she'll hold fast to the department's civil-rights mission, and everything we do know makes her unfit to lead it." Susan Henderson, executive director of the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, said most of the voucher and school-choice programs that Ms. DeVos has advocated have resulted in a "a loss of civil rights for children with disabilities under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act." Two separate advocacy groups, the Center for American Progress and People for the American Way, have been steadily beating drums of opposition. The Education Trust, an advocacy group that promotes high education achievement at all levels of education, has accused Ms. DeVos of showing a willingness to let the Education Department sit back and let state and local decision-makers shortchange students.

Massive GOP rebellion and huge loss for trumpGarrett 4/17 (Robert T. Garrett, “Texas House passes budget with provision banning school voucher funding,”Dallas Morning News, April 7, 2017, https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas-legislature/2017/04/06/texas-house-fight-funding-ban-vouchers-social-issues-marathon-budget-wrangle.)

AUSTIN -- The Texas House on Thursday dealt a serious, perhaps lethal blow to state-funded "private school choice" programs this session.

By a better than 2-to-1 margin, House members voted to slap a provision on the two-year, $218.2 billion state budget that would ban use of money for school vouchers " or any similar program."

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas-legislature/2017/04/06/texas-house-fight-funding-ban-vouchers-social-issues-marathon-budget-wrangle

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas-legislature/2017/04/06/texas-house-fight-funding-ban-vouchers-social-issues-marathon-budget-wrangle

In other budget strictures, the chamber stripped all $43 million of unspent funds from Gov. Greg Abbott's deal-closing Texas Enterprise Fund, to ease Medicaid cuts to therapists who serve disabled children and increase funding of Child Protective Services. House members also agreed to swipe $21.5 million from Attorney General Ken Paxton's legal services budget, to increase payments to foster-care providers.

While some saw the moves as Speaker Joe Straus' push-back against Abbott and Paxton on issues such as bathrooms and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick on vouchers, some of his GOP allies said members had plenty of incentives for some of the money moves - such as short-circuiting lengthy debates on topics that come up each session.

Before the marathon debate began, members filed more than 400 amendments.

They deliberated into the wee hours early Friday, when a compromise broke a logjam. Republicans pulled down proposed bathroom restrictions on transgender people in return for only token Democratic resistance to an amendment coauthored by Irving GOP Rep. Matt Rinaldi.

The provision, designed to stop any final trickle of state money to Planned Parenthood, was approved, 101-43.

"It was very important that taxpayer money not be spent on abortion," said freshman GOP Rep. Valoree Swanson of Spring. She had authored a bathroom amendment but pulled it down.

House GOP Caucus Chairman Tan Parker of Flower Mound said the compromise helped win approval to pack about 150 pages of as-yet-to-be-debated amendments into a budget wish list. That allowed members to finally pass the budget, 131-16.

"Republicans and Democrats were comfortable that they both had a successful day debating the budget and were ready to wrap it up at 1:30 a.m.," Parker explained.

The House's budget package now goes to the Senate. That chamber is all but certain to reject it, setting up end-of-session talks between the two chambers.

Flashes of anger

The budget is a document that establishes collective priorities for 27 million Texans. Debate on it is always grueling, often jargon-filled and a test of members' physical stamina and self-restraint.

This year, it's also an exercise in managing through scarcity - revenue is tight, largely because of past decisions but also because a tumble in world oil prices cooled the once-torrid state economy.

On Thursday, the strains showed. At one point, House chief budget writer John Zerwas, a Houston-area Republican who is an anesthesiologist, tongue-lashed a tea-party backed freshman, Deer Park Republican Briscoe Cain, for likening a state educational effort on end-of-life medical care to "death panels" once ascribed to Obamacare.

"Offensive," Zerwas muttered.

Hours earlier, that very same adjective was hurled in House GOP leaders' faces by Bedford Republican Jonathan Stickland.

Stickland, a longtime Straus critic, said leaders stage-managed a quick voice vote on emptying the Enterprise Fund. He said that short-circuited debate and was "disgusting."

Through scores of amendments and many hours of tedium, though, most members maintained their composure - and Straus' coalition of Democrats and center-right Republicans carried the day.

Setback for Patrick, Senate

The funding ban on vouchers could have far-reaching repercussions , as the Trump administration is promoting "school choice" and newly energized, well-funded groups in Texas have made a concerted effort to finally get a bill through the House.

Prospects for that dipped, even though Senate budget negotiators almost certainly will demand removal of the House's funding prohibition . It would specifically deny state funds to "education savings accounts" and "tax credit scholarships."

Causes intense political polarization and fightingCamera, 17 --- Lauren Camera is an education reporter at U.S. News & World Report. She’s covered education policy and politics for nearly a decade and has written for Education Week, The Hechinger Report, Congressional Quarterly, Roll Call, and the Chronicle of Higher Education. She was a 2013 Spencer Education Fellow at Columbia University’s School of Journalism, where she conducted a reporting project about the impact of the Obama administration’s competitive education grant, Race to the Top, US News and World Report, 3/13, https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2017-03-23/trump-school-choice-proposals-drive-wedge-between-charter-school-advocates

The Trump administration's plan to ax $9 billion in federal education spending but direct millions to a new program that would help students afford private school exposed a fissure among charter school advocates, one not publicly acknowledged but privately widening at an increasingly fast pace since the election . In reacting to the fiscal 2018 blueprint, organizations that support charter schools split : Some admonished the administration for its proposed education cuts, as well as billions in cuts to health care and wraparound social service programs on which the country's most disadvantaged students rely. Others touted the increases for school choice policies, which, in addition to a $250 million private school choice program, included $168 million more for charter schools and a $1 billion boost in Title I for poor students whose states allow them to use the money to enroll at any public school of their choice. “Today, President Trump demonstrated that he is a strong supporter of charter public schools,” Nina Rees, president and CEO of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, said in a statement. “The charter school movement is grateful for the president’s support, and we applaud his commitment to providing critically needed funding.” But Greg Richmond, president and CEO of the National Association of Charter School Authorizers, took a different tack. “We are deeply concerned about proposed cuts to other important education programs, as charter schools are part of – not a substitute for – a strong public education system,” Richmond said in his public statement. “Charter schools cannot succeed without strong teachers and a seamless, affordable path to college for their graduates. Unfortunately, this proposed budget harms programs that

are important for students, teachers, and public education.” The different responses highlight what’s become a more visible divide , though one that’s long existed, among school choice proponents – and specifically among charter school supporters who can get behind private school choice policies and those who cannot. Those who cannot, like Richmond, are adamant that any schools that use taxpayer dollars, including charter schools, must be held accountable for being good stewards of those dollars and show positive results for students. "From a policy perspective, accountability to the public for outcomes is what makes charter schools public schools," he says. "If there is no accountability to the public about the results you’re producing and

how you’re spending your money, then you’re not public." What he and others fear is that accountability will be greatly diminished under Trump, whose stated mission is to direct $20 billion in federal funding to school choice policies, who has touted programs that allow students to use state dollars to attend private schools, and who tapped private school voucher advocate Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education. On the other side are those who take a more liberal view of accountability, subscribing instead to a

free-market philosophy that relies on competition to weed out schools that aren't holding up their end of the bargain. To

be sure, the charter school movement has always been comprised of people with different education philosophies. While the coalition has largely held together thanks to the reform-friendly agenda of the Obama administration that allowed the

sector to flourish, it's since begun splintering . That played out in a very public way for the first time last

summer, when the charter sector found itself in the crosshairs of a burgeoning and wide-scale debate over who truly holds communities of color in their best interest. “This wedge has existed for a long time ,” says Michael Petrilli, president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. “It’s a big tent, for charter schools supporters especially, and

just as we’ve seen a growing polarization in politics , we see a growing polarization in the education reform community .” Trump’s focus on private school choice is pushing that wedge into the public spotlight again and is forcing charter school advocates to plant their flags on the proverbial spectrum of accountability. “Over the years, it’s kind of been a gentlemen’s agreement in the charter tent that we

don’t fight with each other about that,” Richmond says “But what’s been happening lately – and it really picked

up steam after the election – is the free-market supporters within the charter tent are trying to redefine charter schools to be more like vouchers .” He continued: “They’re really pushing back hard against accountability.” Perhaps that should not come as a surprise. In DeVos’ home state of Michigan, she and her

family have spent millions of dollars backing proposals to expand school choice policies like charters and private school vouchers. And the landscape there, particularly the charter school landscape in

Detroit, represents more of a free-market, hands-off approach that trusts in parents to choose the best schools for their children and in competition to put poor-performing schools out of business. Those ideals stand in contrast to charter school policies in other cities and states, like New Orleans, New York and Massachusetts,


to show positive results for their students. Charter school advocates see the new administration as an opportunity to push their agendas , but those agendas are increasingly at odds with each other. Trump’s budget proposal elucidated those disparities, differentiating groups like the Center for

Education Reform and American Federation for Children, which have long supported private school vouchers , from groups like Democrats for Education Reform and the Fordham Institute, which have only supported private school vouchers that have rigorous accountability systems attached, from groups like Stand for Children, which have pushed back against private school vouchers.

GOP loves vouchers—plan unpopularRV 4/17 (“Republican views on school vouchers,” republicanviews.org, April 28, 2017, http://www.republicanviews.org/republican-views-on-school-vouchers/.)

While some countries such as Sweden and Chile have working school voucher systems, the topic of these vouchers in the United States is an issue of much contention. School vouchers are given to parents by the government and are applied to tuition at a private school that the child attends in place of the public school which the student otherwise would have attended. School vouchers were first used in the United States in the 19th century, and became heavily used again during the Civil Rights era. During this time, southern states issued the vouchers as ways to undermine desegregation efforts, letting students attend “segregation academies” instead of the public schools.

Modern-day vouchers do not sanction or allow any form of discrimination or segregation. Rather, they are aimed at letting parents have more control over where their tax dollars are spent. The voucher allows the parents to direct their tax dollars that otherwise would have been spent on public schools towards an institution that may increase their child’s academic performance. Republican views on school vouchers are extremely positive. They support providing parents with more choices regarding their child’s education, and hopes that the system can combat the “one size fits all” approach to education that they feel is currently hurting America.

School Vouchers and Competition

One of the major reasons that Republicans support school vouchers is that they bring free market economic concepts into the school system. The ability for parents to select the best school for their child will lead schools to compete to be the best. This provides additional motivation for schools to increase performance. Better performing schools will therefore attract more students, and have an easier time maintaining quality, while schools with lower performance will be forced to improve performance to stay open. This theory has been proven successful at a university level, and Republicans see no reason that it cannot be just as successful at lower grade levels.

Those who oppose school vouchers argue with this logic, stating that since vouchers are often not for the full tuition amount, they let wealthy families select the better schools over low-income families, leaving the already underprivileged left further behind.

Republican Views

Beyond allowing students to attend private schools, Republicans believe that educational choice and school vouchers should continue to be expanded. Many Republicans believe that vouchers should apply to

religious schools, despite opposition that this is unconstitutional. They also wish to increase the availability of education in single-sex classes, schools with full-day hours and year-round schools.

D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program

The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program is the first federally-funded school voucher program in the U.S. Republicans hope that this program can serve as a platform for the rest of the country to mimic. In its first year the program provided slots for 1615 students. Upon initial review, the Obama administration agreed only to provide level funding, not to expand the program. However, after much controversy, the administration agreed to finance slots for 85 additional students, bringing the program up to 1700 students. Republicans pushed hard for this expansion, as analyses of 1700 hundred students “allow for a statistically valid evaluation of the program, as directed by Congress.” The program focuses on providing vouchers to low-income children in the area, allowing them to attend private schools.

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan stated that, in addition to analyzing the program’s success, Republicans are committed to seeing public schools reformed as well. School vouchers are meant to work in conjunction with, not against, the existing educational system. Duncan stated, “We remain convinced that our time and resources are best spent on reforming the public school system to benefit all Students and we look forward to working with Congress in a bipartisan manner to advance that goal.”

President Obama spoke out, stating that his own feelings about the program had to be put aside in order to test its success, stating, “If there was any argument for vouchers, it was ‘Alright, let’s see if this experiment works,’ and if it does, then whatever my preconceptions, my attitude is you do what works for the kids. I will not allow my predispositions to stand in the way of making sure that our kids can learn. We’re losing several generations of kids and something has to be done.”

While many have opposed the program, Boehner believes that it is benefiting the students that are able to take advantage of it, stating, “For eight years, the scholarship program has empowered low-income parents to choose the best learning environment for their children. “Thousands of families have taken advantage of this scholarship program to give their children an opportunity to succeed in life, and there’s strong evidence that it’s both effective and cost-effective.”

Research on the program has been conflicted. A 2008 study by the U.S. Education Department concluded that students in the D.C. program for two years showed “no statistically significant difference in test scores” than students that were not in the program. However, it did find “a positive impact on overall parent satisfaction.” A 2010 Education Department report showed more positive results. This analysis concluded that 82 percent of Opportunity Scholarship participants graduated from high school, as opposed to 70 percent of students who applied but did not receive vouchers.

Charles Barone, policy director for Democrats for Education Reform, a Democratic advocacy group that is “agnostic” on the issue of vouchers, spoke out regarding the participant’s satisfactionn with the program. He stated, “When you’re in D.C. and you look at the kids getting these scholarships, there’s a strong coalition of parents focused on continuing it. It’s hard to be the bad guy and say kids aren’t going to get them anymore.”

Donald Trump on School Vouchers

Donald Trump is a strong supporter of school vouchers. His beliefs revolve strongly around the economic theory of vouchers – that they promote competition and therefore better the system, stating “Education reformers call this school choice, charter schools, vouchers, even opportunity scholarships. I call it competition-

the American way.” Trump believes that students in public schools will benefit from this competition as much as those utilizing vouchers, stating, Who’s better off? The kids who use vouchers to go to the school of their choice, or the ones who choose to stay in public school? All of them. That’s the way it works in a competitive system.”

Civil Rights/Minority Education Access---1NC

Election was a game-changer – education civil rights and policies benefiting disadvantaged kids drain PCEducation Week, 17 --- 5/17, lexis

How Trump's Altered the Landscape for Education Advocates Education advocates in Washington might not always be on the same page when it comes to policy, but there's at least one thing the vast majority agree on: The Trump administration-buttressed by a Republican Congress-is unlike anything they've ever had to contend with before . In particular, groups that lobby Congress and the U.S. D epartment o f E ducation on behalf of public school educators, as well as those representing civil rights issues and advocating for education funding , say that they are fighting what feels like a multifront war against vouchers, dramatic budget cuts, and what some describe as a general antipathy toward public schools and disadvantaged children . "Being an advocate for public education gives me job security," joked Noelle Ellerson Ng, the associate executive director of AASA, the School Superintendents Association. "There's plenty to engage on."





"prepared first and foremost to put most of our time and energy into state battles and efforts." Electoral Jolt But Trump's surprise win was a jolt of a different kind for many public school educators and organizations

that represent them in the nation's capital. "We went from hearing from our members [that they were] positive



say they're worried that proposals that once looked unlikely to come to fruition-like a massive cut to teacher-quality funding- might actually make it across the legislative finish line. It doesn't help that the Education Department still hasn't filled key positions. So far, Trump has nominated just one political appointee: Carlos Muniz, as general counsel. Other players in K-12 positions that require Senate sign-off-like Jason Botel, who is acting as the assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education-are temporary fill-ins. It's unclear how long any of them will stick around in those roles. Some education representatives are scratching their heads about whom to approach with policy proposals and questions. "I think in many ways the administration is still getting its people in place," said Jacki Ball, the director of government affairs for the National PTA. "We're just not always sure who to go to. We're trying to develop relationships with the people that are there," including Botel, who spoke at a recent PTA conference. "That was a good opportunity to open the door." And one advocate said there have been changes in dealings with the department's career employees, who stick around from one presidential administration to the next. "Any communication you have with federal employees now is difficult," the advocate said. "They are really hesitant to communicate





Civil Rights/Minority Education Access---2NC

Expanding educational access for disadvantaged groups causes massive congressional fights and PC drain – no turns – even supports perceive fed reforms as inherently ineffectiveLamiell, 12 --- Patricia, Director Media Relations @ Teachers College, University Columbia, 2/10, http://www.tc.columbia.edu/articles/2012/february/how-should-politics-influence-education-policy/How Should Politics Influence Education Policy? How much does national education policy make a difference in classrooms, and







reelection this coming fall, a Republican president may well seek to do away with the U.S. D epartment o f E ducation . “Policy should really be integrated into politics,” Jennings said. “If people of good will don’t deal

with policy,” he said, decisions will be left to those who are not equipped to make them—or worse, who are simply uninterested in fairness and equity in education. The panelists were unanimous in their criticism of NCLB, which Puriefoy said has “gone horribly awry,” but they differed on what to do about it. The law has not been amended since its bipartisan passage in early 2002, and while both Democrats and Republicans now agree it should be changed, “Republicans don’t want to give

credit to Obama for amending it,” Jennings said. Puriefoy concurred, adding that the environment in Congress “has



become much more poisonous , and it has become more difficult to create the environment we need in order to transform education.” And while education has always been a polarizing issue , and

minorities have always had to fight for access to good education, for the first time in the country’s history, “ people don’t believe their children’s lives will be better than theirs,” Puriefoy said. “They don’t believe in the ability of institutions to bring about change .” So can anything be done—and is this year’s presidential election an opportunity to put national education issues before voters in a way they will notice? Cross was skeptical, but said he would like both parties to discuss education issues after the election to find common ground. Jennings suggested creating federal-state partnerships modeled on those in Germany, but Puriefoy noted that Germany also supports children and families with programs other than education. “Schools can’t be responsible on their own,” she said. “They need help.” To Henig’s final question—“What would you like to see in the next administration?”—Cross replied that the U.S. Department of Education should “get rid of the silos—English Language Learners, Special Education” and others, which are too large, bureaucratic and costly. Jennings warned

that the incoming president should not listen to the “ radical right ,” but instead “ totally rethink ” school financing, which is currently based on property taxes, and fight the “ long tradition of anti- intellectualism in this country” by pursuing a new agenda that focuses on quality curriculum and teaching. Puriefoy called for a rededication to educating “all sectors of children,” strong federal standards, and “getting rid of states’ rights. “This fragmentation in education is just unacceptable. We need a new intellectual contract in this country,” she said. “Good policy

follows good intention. If we resolve to educate every child in this country, regardless of ZIP code, we’re going to have to dismantle what we’re doing. We’re not going to get there without significant disruption .”

Policies targeted at a narrow demographic are a heavy lift and generate widespread oppositionJennings, 15 – Jack Jennings, former president and CEO of the Center on Education Policy and general counsel for the House Committee on Education and Labor, “Lessons Learned from Federal Involvement in Schooling”, in Presidents, Congress, and the Public Schools: The Politics of Education Reform, p. 152-153



Medicare is an example of a Great Society program that has a broad reach and has endured through dramatic changes of political control in Washington. Head Start is a n example of a

focused program that has survived but continues to struggle with funding and its existence as a federal activity in the face of proposals to turn it over to the states.


Common Core---1NC*****

Especially good against affs that say “common core good”, but also works as a “rule 1 – don’t talk about Common Core” card

Common Core is a lightning rod with unique symbolic importance---opposition to change is explosive and overwhelms all other policyUsdan, 16 – Dr. Michael D. Usdan, PhD from Columbia, Senior Fellow and Former President of the Institute for Educational Leadership, 2-04-2016, “The Ever Debatable Federal Role: Implications for Education Policy”, Institute for Educational Leadership

The partisan and philosophical cleavages over the appropriate federal role are reflected in the ongoing national debates over issues like the Race to the Top program and the Common Core. Race to the Top provided unprecedented federal resources (approximately $4 billion) to schools as part of the stimulus program designed to help the nation recover from the economic collapse it confronted in 2008. The U.S. Department of Education devised a competition that became quite controversial. Most states applied at a time when resources were particularly scarce as they strove to acquire desperately needed funds to maintain their teaching force, as well as to meet other pressing education needs. To be successful in the competition, the applicants had to satisfy in their proposals a number of Department-set criteria such as incorporating teacher evaluation plans, opportunities to establish charter schools, and plans to adopt the Common Core. These requirements served as cannon fodder for critics who condemned federal overreach as only a fraction of the applying states were successful in acquiring grants. Some criticisms also were articulated about the “competitive” nature of the grants in a field like education where federal funds have customarily been dispersed on a formula basis.

No issue has precipitated more controversy about the federal role then the current raging debate about the Common Core State Standards initiative. Indeed, very few education issues in our history (perhaps only the desegregation issue) have become so integral to mainstream American politics. Republican governors like Chris Christie of New Jersey and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana have disavowed their one-time support for the C ommon C ore, which many Republicans regard as an ill-disguised effort by the federal government to take control of American education . Indeed many political pundits predict that Jeb Bush’s chances to win the Republican nomination for president will be seriously compromised by his continued support for the Common Core.

The raging contemporary national debate about the Common Core has generated more heat than light. The standards were developed by two national state-based organizations, the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. There initially was widespread agreement that it was important for the country to move toward a voluntary consensus on national standards in the areas of English language arts and mathematics. The Common Core initiative in its early stages elicited widespread praise and support from diverse quarters, and more than 45 states agreed to participate. It was widely viewed as an important

step forward in the nation’s struggle to reach consensus on what should constitute accepted standards in the core areas of English language arts and mathematics.

Despite this auspicious beginning, critics remained skeptical and feared that the initiative was a Trojan horse that would inexorably lead to national or federal standards . These skeptics articulated the belief that most of the states which endorsed the Common Core signed on because they were spurred by the hopes of winning federal Race to the Top dollars. They contend that many revenue-starved states acquiesced reluctantly to the lure of badly needed federal funding and in fact were “bribed” to buy in to the Common Core initiative. Many supporters of the initiative desperately wanted the Obama Administration to steer totally clear of the effort. The Administration’s exploratory efforts to connect the Common Core’s standards to the reauthorization of ESEA was feared as a potential kiss of death .

The ongoing debate about the Common Core supports the early fears of many of its backers that it could well implode and be caught up in the generic anti-fed eral government backlash which has erupted in recent months . Bitter opposition to the centralization of power in education has to a disturbing degree outweighed the rationality that went into the common standards movement. In fact, as the current political debates reflect, prevailing critiques of centralizing power in education are part and parcel of the same negative political sentiments being articulated currently against perceived federal intrusions in areas like health care , the environment, private corporate operations, and other major policy realms .

Common Core---Repeal---LobbiesThe plan upsets a broad political coalition that are heavily invested Common Core---that saps capital*Business lobbies – teachers’ unions – GOP governors – parents’ associations – Bill Gates

Williams, 14 – Joseph P. Williams, 2-27-2014, “Who Is Fighting for Common Core?”, https://www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/a-guide-to-common-core/articles/2014/02/27/who-is-fighting-for-common-core

As he stakes his education legacy on the Common Core State Standards, President Barack Obama has acquired some powerful if unlikely allies: the right-leaning Business Roundtable , Republican presidential contender Jeb Bush and Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates.

Other Common Core champions include education-reform activists like Michelle Rhee, the controversial former Washington, D.C., public schools chancellor, as well as the rank and file of both major teachers’ unions, several GOP governors in states that rejected Obama in 2012, and the N ational P arent T eacher A ssociation .

There’s broad agreement on the objective : prepare kids to compete not only in college but in the rapidly-changing American job market and the high-tech, information-based global economy. Since U.S. schoolchildren have lost so much ground to other countries, Common Core advocates believe, the education system is long overdue for the overhaul.

Tyrone Howard, a professor at UCLA’s Graduate School of Education, says supporters believe the Core will help students “develop what are called ‘21st Century skills’ - how to problem-solve, how to think critically.” The curriculum, he adds, is designed as a tool to help students catch up with their counterparts in countries like China and Singapore, whose standardized test scores have surged past the United States’ in recent decades.

“On the surface, people can get behind those ideas,” Howard says. “But, as they say, the devil’s in the details.” While the objectives of the Obama administration and Education Secretary Arne Duncan are clear -- upgrade the American education system to make students, and the country, more competitive globally -- many Common Core supporters have vested interests in its success.

For example, Bill Gates , whose global foundation provided millions of dollars to help develop C ommon C ore , wrote in USA Today in February that the standards are “inspired by a simple and powerful idea: Every American student should leave high school with the knowledge and skills to succeed in college and in the job market.”

In recent years, tech firms in Silicon Valley, where Gates made his fortune, have argued that a shortage of American science talent forces them to recruit software engineers and developers from overseas. At the same time, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, around 20 percent of incoming freshmen at four-year colleges and a quarter of first-year students at two-year schools need remedial courses in English or math.

Thomas Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce - arguably the nation’s most powerful business lobbying organization - sides with Gates : schools, he says, have cut corners and the incoming labor pool is shallow on quality. In a Washington Post letter to the editor, Donohue fired back at critics like Post columnist George Will, arguing that Common Core “prepares students to succeed in the 21st-century economy.”

The standards are not “a federal program or a federal mandate. It was created at the state level. Curriculum remains within the control of districts, school boards, school leaders and teachers,” Donohue wrote. “Mr. Will and others should direct their outrage at school systems that tolerate low standards and churn out kids ill-prepared for college or a career.”

Despite backlashes in deep-red states like Georgia and Mississippi , which Obama lost by double digits in 2012, the National Governors Association (NGA) and most of its members continue to back the C ommon C ore standards, albeit warily. Having developed the curriculum with contributions from Gates and input by influential public-school reformer David Coleman, the NGA is heavily invested in Common Core's success .

Repeal alienates high-profile Republicans and teachers’ unions with entrenched interests in Common Core---it’s uniquely symbolicBarrow, 14 – Bill Barrow, Associated Press, 3-24-2014, “Common Core spawns widespread political fights”, http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-common-core-spawns-widespread-political-fights-2014mar24-story.html

"Common Core is like Obamacare: They passed it before they knew what was in it," said William Evers, a Hoover Institute research fellow and lead author of a California Republican Party resolution denouncing Common Core.

To a lesser extent, Dem ocrat s must deal with some teachers — their unions hold strong influence within the party — who are upset about implementation details . But it's the internal GOP debate that's on display in statehouses, across 2014 campaigns and among 2016 presidential contenders.

The flap continues as students in 36 states and the District of Columbia begin this week taking field tests of new assessments based on the standards, although the real tests won't be given for another year.

Paul, a Republican senator from Kentucky, has joined seven colleagues, including Texas' Cruz, to sponsor a measure that would bar federal financing of any Common Core component. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio isn't among the eight, but he had already come out against the standards. So has Rick Santorum, a 2012 presidential candidate mulling another run.

On the other end of the spectrum is Bush , the former Florida governor and Rubio's mentor. "This is a real-world, grown-up approach to a real crisis that we have, and it's been mired in

politics," Bush said last week in Tennessee, where he joined Republican Gov . Bill Haslam at an event to promote Common Core .

Haslam, who is running for re-election this year, is trying to beat back a repeal effort in the Tennessee legislature. "These are simply guidelines that say a fourth grader should be learning the same things" regardless of where the student lives, the governor said recently. "Historically, we haven't been good at setting high standards."

The N ational G overnors A ssociation and state education superintendents developed Common Core. Among other things, the framework recommends when students should master certain skills. For example, by the end of fifth grade, a math student should be able to solve complex problems by plotting points on x and y axes. A high school sophomore should be able to analyze text or make written arguments using valid logical reasoning and sufficient evidence.

The issue presents a delicate balancing act for some governors . Bobby Jindal 's Louisiana and Scott Walker 's Wisconsin initially adopted the new standards . Now both men — possible presidential candidates — watch as GOP lawmakers in their states push anti-Common Core bills.

Jindal, who was an NGA member during Common Core's development, won't say where he stands on repeal.

"When it comes to specific bills, when they get to the issue of standards, we'll sit down with the authors and provide our thoughts about it. But in general when it comes to standards, we don't want to weaken the standards," he told reporters last week.

Before Wisconsin lawmakers convened, Walker announced support for rethinking Common Core. In both states, however, the anti-Common Core measures linger late in legislative sessions.

Establishment Republicans in Georgia, meanwhile, derailed a repeal effort in favor of a "study commission" empowered only to make recommendations. Alabama GOP leaders have held off a repeal measure, as well.

Immediate political consequences of the disputes aren't clear . GOP officials and strategists say any fallout for them is dwarfed by Democrats' struggle with Obama's health care law. In the meantime, conservative candidates use Common Core as a symbolic rallying cry .

Common Core---Repeal---A2: Link TurnsEven if Common Core is unpopular, repeal is worse---creates red tape and spiraling costs that lawmakers hateZhao, 14 – Emmeline Zhao, 12-9-2014, “Common Core Politics and Elections: Will the Standards Survive Through 2016? (HEAT MAP)”, Real Clear Education, http://www.realcleareducation.com/articles/2014/12/09/common_core_future_elections_heat_map_1140.html

As the country inches closer toward the 2016 general election, the fight over C ommon C ore in the states is less likely to be about full-on repeal and more about implementation related to student assessments and teacher evaluations, said Michael McShane, a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning nonprofit think tank. States are likely to start edit ing the C ommon C ore “by a thousand cuts” to the standards , McShane added.

Something else for states to consider is impact to the ir bottom line : the investment of time and funding in to repealing the C ommon C ore , then developing and implementing entirely new standards could cost states substantially more than tweaking the Common Core standards that are already in place and nearly fully implemented .

“The C ommon C ore got grafted into a broader narrative of overtesting , Obama circumventing the democratic process, and federal overreach into American classroom, and that just poisons the whole thing,” McShane said. “The commonness of the Common Core is also at risk, even if a state shaves the standards to make the words look mostly like the Common Core but put a different title on top and use their own tests and cut scores, they’re not really participating in a common enterprise.”

Underneath all the noise , more than 40 states are still advancing with the Common Core’s standards for students despite the controversy . As states ready themselves for their first Common Core-aligned tests this coming spring, some states might peel away from the standards, but Mike Petrilli, president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a right-leaning education policy think tank, predicts an overwhelming majority will continue with the Common Core.

“There were probably at least 10 states last spring that had tough fights , and you’ll have tough fights again, with the biggest ones in the most conservative states and mostly in the south. But politicians respond to voters , and pro-C ommon C ore politicians won midterm elections across party lines,” Petrilli said. “At least two-thirds of states will stick with Common Core. That’s pretty remarkable for a country that’s been allergic to common standards.”

Common Core---Reform/federal Standards

Common Core---Repeal---Lobbies

Anything like Common Core or federal standards dooms overall base supportWhitman 15 (David, Sept., Contributing Editor at Education Post and was a reporter for nearly two decades for U.S. News & World Report. From June 2009 to November 2014, he was chief speechwriter for U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, “The Surprising Roots of the Common Core: How Conservatives Gave Rise to ‘Obamacore’”, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Surprising-Conservative-Roots-of-the-Common-Core_FINAL.pdf)

The Common Core State Standards have been attacked by conservatives across the country, and no one has taken a bigger beating on the political right for supporting the Common Core learning standards than Jeb Bush. Bush’s announcement that he was exploring a run for President was accompanied by instant warnings that his support for the Common Core could doom his attempts to woo the Republican base. TIME said that Bush was “going to have to win over the Republican conservative base , which hates Common Core with the fire of a thousand suns . ” 1 In case conservative loathing of the Common Core ran the risk of being understated, the Washington Post weighed in with an analysis stating that “ The conservative base hates— hates, hates, hates— the Common Core education standards.”2 Today’s conventional wisdom, as TIME sums up, is that “if you’re a real conservative, you’re against [the Common Core]; if you’re a faker, you’re for it.”3

Its seriously UNREAL how much they hate itWhitman 15 (David, Sept., Contributing Editor at Education Post and was a reporter for nearly two decades for U.S. News & World Report. From June 2009 to November 2014, he was chief speechwriter for U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, “The Surprising Roots of the Common Core: How Conservatives Gave Rise to ‘Obamacore’”, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Surprising-Conservative-Roots-of-the-Common-Core_FINAL.pdf)

Nevertheless, the big lie technique has succeeded in tainting the brand of the Common Core , especially for conservatives. Opinion polling shows that support for the Common Core jumps whenever members of the public are asked questions about the Common Core with the label “Common Core” removed.49 And owing to the maelstrom of misinformation on the CCSS, the Common Core is fast approaching a Lord Voldemort-like status for conservatives as the insidious education reform with the name that must not be spoken-- even for conservative politicians who support, and who in fact (to paraphrase Ted Cruz), are implementing every word of the Common Core. Several GOP-led states (e.g., Mississippi, Iowa, and Arizona) have kept the Common Core standards but renamed them as homegrown state standards, eliminating the “Common Core” label. And at a recent campaign event in Iowa, Jeb Bush seemed to acquiesce to the disinformation campaign on the Common Core, saying “The term ‘Common Core’ is so darned poisonous, I don’t even know what it means anymore.”

Reforming Common Core is a massive flip flop on Trump’s one area of unwavering consistencyTomar, 17 – David A. Tomar, 2-28-2017, “Education Gets Trumped, Pt. 2: Ending Common Core”, Best Schools, https://thebestschools.org/magazine/education-gets-trumped-pt-2-repealing-common-core/

Donald Trump hates Common Core . He told us so in as many ways as he possibly could during an election season in which little was otherwise said on the subject of education. He hates it . But does he fully understand it?

When prompted to discuss education on the campaign trail, Trump’s most frequent refrain was his vow to repeal C ommon C ore . He promised voters that he would take steps to return control to states and local communities. While discussion on ed ucation was rare during the campaign season, this is one position that Trump returned to both repeatedly and with unwavering consistency.

Curriculum---1NC

Fed curriculum requirements causes poisonous congressional fighting and GOP backlash – no turns – perceived as inherently ineffectiveLamiell, 12 --- Patricia, Director Media Relations @ Teachers College, University Columbia, 2/10, http://www.tc.columbia.edu/articles/2012/february/how-should-politics-influence-education-policy/How Should Politics Influence Education Policy? How much does national education policy make a difference in classrooms, and














taxes, and fight the “ long tradition of anti-intellectualism in this country” by pursuing a new agenda that focuses on quality curriculum and teaching. Puriefoy called for a rededication to educating “all sectors of children,”

strong federal standards , and “getting rid of states’ rights . “This fragmentation in education is just unacceptable. We need a new intellectual contract in this country,” she said. “Good policy follows good intention. If we resolve to educate every

child in this country, regardless of ZIP code, we’re going to have to dismantle what we’re doing. We’re not going to get there without significant disruption .”

Curriculum---2NC

federal curriculum requirements are broadly despised and get drawn in to thorny disputes over standardsBurke, 13 – Lindsey M. Burke, doctoral student at GMU, 4-8-2013, “Why There’s a Backlash against Common Core”, National Review, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/344897

Concerns about nationalizing the content taught in every public school in America aren’t limited to “tea-party activists,” as Kathleen Porter-Magee and Sol Stern implied on NRO last week. Nor should the concerns of the Tea Party be dismissed. They express the understandable fear of many moms and dads and teachers that the fed eral government is on the brink of dictating the content taught in every school. Their concerns are echoed by a wide array of groups and citizens , including academics , members of state boards of education , residents of local school districts, and analysts at public-policy foundations .

Their sentiments mirror the concerns of the governors who have opposed Common Core national standards from the beginning. “I don’t want to have a federal bureaucracy monitoring whether or not we are having the right programs in our schools,” said Virginia governor Bob McDonnell recently. “The bottom line is, we don’t need the federal government with the Common Core telling us how to run our schools in Virginia. We’ll use our own system, which is very good. It’s empirically tested.”

Texas governor Rick Perry, never one to mince words, said, “The academic standards of Texas are not for sale.”

A bill introduced by the chair of the Senate Education Committee in Alabama to reverse the state’s Common Core adoption failed by just one vote in committee last month. Common Core opponents have vowed to keep fighting . Colorado recently held hearings taking a second look at Common Core adoption. “It’s a discussion that had never occurred but needed to occur,” said Bob Schaffer, former chairman of the state board of education.

Concerns about Common Core national standards have been voiced — repeatedly and often — by experts in mathematics and English.

Federal curriculum mandates get seized on by interest groups and generate massive oppositionElmore, 97 – Richard F. Elmore, professor of political science at Harvard, “The Politics of Education Reform”, Issues, Volume XIV Issue 1, Fall 1997

The principle of dispersed control leads me to predict that states will continue to push toward state-to-school accountability measures until they can muster evidence on student performance

that allows them to make a persuasive argument that they are discharging their political and fiscal responsibilities. States and localities vary widely in their capacities and in their political incentives to engage in standard-setting, and therefore the result of this dispersed activity will, at least in the short term, be a high degree of variability in standards from one place to another and (ironically) less standardization of policy and practice from a national perspective. Local districts and the fed eral government will increasingly become spectators in this state-to-school struggle unless they can find some way to participate in it productively.

The principle of political pluralism leads me to predict that political debate about the content of standards will probably continue , especially in highly contentious areas such as history and literacy, because content is such an attractive target for organized interests . But this debate will increasingly become a sideshow in the larger standards game . Schools, as they are subjected to increasing pressure for accountability, will reach for content and performance standards in order to simplify their task and reduce uncertainty and will find ways to submerge and deflect debate over the content of standards so they can get on with the task of satisfying state and local accountability pressures. The principle of political pluralism also leads me to predict that professional communities and commercial and nonprofit enterprises will become increasingly prominent in supplying advice on curriculum and pedagogy in response to pressures on schools for increased accountability for student performance, further fueling the press for standards.

Curriculum (Reading/Canon)

Reading curriculum changes are incredibly volatile and persistently controversialBerlak, 05 – Harold Berlak, prof at Wash U, doctorate in educational research from Harvard, “The No Child Left Behind Act and the ‘Reading First’ program”, reprinted from Critical Issues in American Education by Svi Shapiro and David E. Purpel, http://www.educationanddemocracy.org/Resources/Berlak_control.htm

Controversies over reading curriculum

When the words ‘literacy’ or ‘fundamentals’ are introduced into conversation, what come immediately to mind are not math, geography, history, or the arts, but reading. It is difficult to exaggerate the cultural and political significance of how reading is taught in the early grades. Reading is important not only for the obvious reasons that it is crucial for survival in daily life and for success at school, but also for the less obvious reasons that how basic reading is taught sets the tone of a school, and shapes the entire primary school curriculum, as well as students’ cultural beliefs, and basic attitudes toward learning and knowledge --including how they perceive their own intellectual capacities and potential.

Controversies over approaches to teaching reading are not new . They persist over time because they are deeply rooted in profound differences in basic cultural and political beliefs and values about what children can and should read; about the importance of race, gender, culture and language differences in the selection of content and teaching methods; and about the role schools should play fostering cultural diversity and democracy .

Curriculum (Laundry List)Activist curriculum requirements spark widespread controversyMedwin, 14 – Deborah Medwin, 2-15-2014, “30 Most Controversial Education Practices in U. S. History”, http://www.topeducationdegrees.org/30-most-controversial-education-practices-in-u-s-history/, publish date obtained via Google-Fu

The nature of a controversy is a dispute that is prolonged, impassioned, and often public in nature. Top Education Degrees began by defining controversy in education based on one or more of the following four guidelines:

1. A subjective social or religious issue that uniquely affects education

Issues like gun control, sex ed, prayer , creation v. evolution and spanking in schools are , for the most part, matters of personal opinion. Implementation of rules regarding such issues may be based on legal precedent or pressure from political, administrative or parental authority, but when opposing perspectives among interested parties converge, controversy is inevitable .

2. A deviation from traditional methods

Educational practices, teaching methods, and curriculum vary from school to school; nevertheless, in most public schools in the U.S., there exists a basic concept of education . Children are required by law to attend an educational institution whose responsibility is to impart knowledge and understanding of the traditional subjects: mathematics, English, social studies, and sciences. A certain level of non-traditional teaching style and subject emphasis is generally tolerated or desired, of course, but when non-standard educational movements become broad, such as flipped schools, MOOCs, or homeschooling, or threaten to affect traditional schools, like same sex schools or integration of students with special needs, controversy ensues.

HEA Reauthorization---1NC

HEA reauthorization causes congressional gridlock and paralysisAASCU, ’15 ---- American Association of State Colleges and Universities, Policy Brief, January, www.aascu.org/policy/publications/policy-matters/Top10StatePolicyIssues2015.pdf+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us



One of the most concrete examples of federal education policy stasis is the unlikely Congressional passage th is year of the overdue reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA). Among all the higher education policies and programs ripe for reform, there exists a tremendous need and opportunity for Congress to use

the HEA reauthorization to align state and federal higher education financing and incentivize states to re-invest in public


annual federal block grant designed to spur new state investments in public higher education—will likely be slowed due to

changes in Senate leadership. Public higher education leaders will be called on to work with their Congressional delegation to build awareness and support of the State-Federal College Affordability Partnership in order to ensure that it is included in the final HEA reauthorization bill. An in-depth discussion of potential implications for higher education policy stemming from the 2014 elections is provided in the policy brief, Higher Education and the 2014 Elections, published by the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU). The paper discusses the Obama administration’s higher education agenda, the Congressional outlook for its 114th session, policy challenges Congress will face, as well as state-level outcomes of the elections. This paper provides a summary of the top 10 higher education policy issues that are likely to witness considerable activity in state legislatures across the country this year. It is the view of the AASCU state relations and policy staff that these issues will be at the forefront of both discussion and action in state capitols. This eighth annual synopsis is informed by a variety of sources, including an environmental scan of outcomes from last year’s legislative sessions, recent gubernatorial priorities,

as well as trends and events that are s haping the higher education policy landscape. Some issues are perennial in

nature, while others reflect more recent economic, fiscal and political dynamics . Results, no doubt, will vary by state.

Market Based Reforms---Charter Schools/School Choice---1NC

(School Choice/Charter Schools) drain PC – dems backlash because trump, conservatives backlash because fed, pro-market lobby fights itself – outweighs support for policy specifics – pre-election ev is irrelevantCamera, 17 --- Lauren Camera is an education reporter at U.S. News & World Report. She’s covered education policy and politics for nearly a decade and has written for Education Week, The Hechinger Report, Congressional Quarterly, Roll Call, and the Chronicle of Higher Education. She was a 2013 Spencer Education Fellow at Columbia University’s School of Journalism, where she conducted a reporting project about the impact of the Obama administration’s competitive education grant, Race to the Top, US News and World Report, 3/13, https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2017-03-23/trump-school-choice-proposals-drive-wedge-between-charter-school-advocates

To be sure, the president’s budget proposal is just that, a proposal, and the funding for private school vouchers or some type of scholarship tax credit is not a slam dunk, even among Republicans – and especially among those who represent rural states where children have few, if not zero, education options outside the public school system . Those variables were at play last week in conservative Kentucky, when the governor signed a bill after months of heated debate in the state legislature that will allow charter schools for the first time. The Blue Grass State was one of just seven – now six – that did not allow charter schools. The carefully worded legislation only allows local school boards to authorize charter schools, with the exception of Louisville and Lexington, where the mayors may also do so. Groups like the Center for Education Reform lobbied for the bill to also

allow universities to act as charter authorizers and to include virtual charters as an educational option. The fracture within the charter school sector is reflective of the larger splintering of the education reform community . “I think the Trump presidency is going to be a challenging time for education reform ,” Petrilli, says. “Just as we’ve seen a growing polarization in politics , we see a growing polarization in the education reform community. Most education reform ers who would identify as liberal Dem ocrat s are aghast at Donald Trump even if he supports some of the school reform agenda.” He continued: “I think for groups like Democrats for Education Reform, you tend to see them putting the Dem ocrat before the education reform . They really seem to feel like – because of the threats to the

budget, but also because of the threats around immigration and treatment of Muslims and everything else – that this is a time when they have to focus on their solidarity with other groups on the left rather than focus on maybe some benefits for school choice or school reform.” Not to be overlooked, Petrilli noted, are the handful of conservative and libertarian policy organizations , like the

Heritage Foundation and CATO, that have long supported voucher programs but don’t want the fed eral government to be the lever for pushing them. The White House has yet to unveil any details of its $250 million private school choice proposal, or how the proposed $1 billion in increase Title I funding would be doled out to states willing to

expand their school choice offerings. DeVos said Monday that those details are still being debated. When those policies are solidified , the battle lines between the school choice organizations will likely become even more obvious . “The question will be: Where is the division between public and private here?” says Robin Lake, the director of

the Center on Reinventing Public Education. “A lot of charters serve kids who are immigrants or who live in inner cities and the politics of this are going to get interesting for sure.” “When push comes to shove I think charters will always side with the public school community,” she says. “They are public schools.”



Market Based Reforms---Charter Schools/School Choice---2NC

(School Choice/Charter Schools) drain trump PC – supporters have splintered– they fight intensely over the policy details – ignore pre-election evCamera, 17 --- Lauren Camera is an education reporter at U.S. News & World Report. She’s covered education policy and politics for nearly a decade and has written for Education Week, The Hechinger Report, Congressional Quarterly, Roll Call, and the Chronicle of Higher Education. She was a 2013 Spencer Education Fellow at Columbia University’s School of Journalism, where she conducted a reporting project about the impact of the Obama administration’s competitive education grant, Race to the Top, US News and World Report, 3/13, https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2017-03-23/trump-school-choice-proposals-drive-wedge-between-charter-school-advocates

The Trump administration's plan to ax $9 billion in federal education spending but direct millions to a new program that would help students afford private school exposed a fissure among charter school advocates, one not publicly acknowledged but privately widening at an increasingly fast pace since the election . In reacting to the fiscal 2018 blueprint, organizations that support charter schools split : Some admonished the administration for its proposed education cuts, as well as billions in cuts to health care and wraparound social service programs on which the country's most disadvantaged students rely. Others touted the increases for school choice policies, which, in addition to a $250 million private school choice program, included $168 million more for charter schools and a $1 billion boost in Title I for poor students whose states allow them to use the money to enroll at any public school of their choice. “Today, President Trump demonstrated that he is a strong supporter of charter public schools,” Nina Rees, president and CEO of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, said in a statement. “The charter school movement is grateful for the president’s support, and we applaud his commitment to providing critically needed funding.” But Greg Richmond, president and CEO of the National Association of Charter School Authorizers, took a different tack. “We are deeply concerned about proposed cuts to other important education programs, as charter schools are part of – not a substitute for – a strong public education system,” Richmond said in his public statement. “Charter schools cannot succeed without strong teachers and a seamless, affordable path to college for their graduates. Unfortunately, this proposed budget harms programs that are important for students, teachers, and







the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. “It’s a big tent, for charter schools supporters especially, and just as we’ve seen a growing polarization in politics , we see a growing polarization in the education reform



community .” Trump’s focus on private school choice is pushing that wedge into the public spotlight again and is forcing charter school advocates to plant their flags on the proverbial spectrum of accountability. “Over the years, it’s kind of been a gentlemen’s agreement in the charter tent that we don’t fight with each other





to show positive results for their students. Charter school advocates see the new administration as an opportunity to push their agendas , but those agendas are increasingly at odds with each other. Trump’s budget proposal elucidated those disparities, differentiating groups like the Center for Education Reform and American Federation for Children, which have long supported private school vouchers, from groups like Democrats for Education Reform and the Fordham Institute, which have only supported private school vouchers that have rigorous accountability systems attached, from groups like Stand for Children, which have pushed back against private school vouchers.

(School Choice/Charter Schools) drain PC – fierce backlash from dems and teachers unions, splits GOP– public support not salientSwanson, 17 --- Emily, Hartford Courtant, 5/14, lexis

Even as fierce political battles rage in Washington over school choice , most Americans know little about charter schools or private school voucher programs. Still, more Americans feel positively than negatively about expanding those programs, according to a new poll. "I wonder what the fuss is about," said Beverly Brown, 61, a retired grocery store worker in central Alabama. Brown, who doesn't have children, says U.S. schools need reform, but she is not familiar with specific school options and policies. Fifty-eight percent of respondents say they know little or nothing at all about charter schools and 66 percent report the same about private school voucher programs, according to the poll conducted by The Associated

Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Charters are schools funded by taxpayer money, but they operate independently of school districts and thus have more freedom in setting their curriculum and hiring staff. Vouchers are publicly funded scholarships given to low-income families to help cover tuition in

private schools, including religious ones. Using taxpayer money to aid struggling public schools or diverting it to fund more charter schools or make private schools available to more families has been hotly debated since Donald Trump was elected president. During the campaign, Trump promised to fund a $20 billion school choice program. He picked a charter and private school advocate, Betsy DeVos, as his education secretary. Earlier this month the president welcomed a group of students who were voucher recipients to the White House and asked Congress to work with him to

make school options available nationwide. Those efforts face fierce resistance from teachers unions and some

Democrats who say that school choice drains funds from public schools while leaving charter and private

schools unaccountable in terms of academic standards and civil rights protections. Other Democrats support some of the choice measures, which also divide Republicans . Patrick McGuinn, an education professor at Drew University, said he was

surprised that most Americans had little knowledge about school choice options. "That's pretty remarkable given the growth and high-profile politics around charters," he said. "As much as policymakers are talking the heck about this, the debate really hasn't permeated the general public's discussion yet." Charter schools operate in 42

states and the District of Columbia. D.C. has only the federally funded voucher program, while 30 states have voucher or similar education choice programs. Even though they are unfamiliar to many, Americans have largely positive reactions to charter schools and vouchers. While 55 percent of respondents say parents in their communities had enough options with regard to schools, about 4 in 10 feel the country in general would benefit from more choice. Forty-seven percent say they favor opening more public charter schools, 23 percent are opposed and 30 percent feel neutral about it. Meanwhile, 43 percent of respondents support giving low-income families tuition vouchers for private schools, 35 percent are opposed and 21 percent don't have a strong opinion either way. Republicans are slightly more likely than Democrats to favor opening more charter schools, 53 percent to 42 percent, but there is

little partisan variation for voucher programs. At the same time, opposition to vouchers is highest among those who have heard the most about them

Intersection of Geography and politics ensures PC drainCarey, 16 --- Kevin, Director Education Policy @ New American Foundation, NYT, 11/23, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/upshot/why-donald-trumps-education-pick-would-face-barriers-for-vouchers.html?_r=0

This is where the intersection of geography and politics makes any national voucher plan much more difficult to enact . The practicality of school choice is highly related to population density . Children need to be able to get from home to school and back again every day . In a large metropolis

with public transportation, there could be dozens of schools within reasonable travel distance of most families. In a small city, town or rural area, there will be few or none. And population density , as Americans saw in the last election, is increasingly the dividing line of the nation’s p olitics . A significant number of Mr.

Trump’s most ardent supporters live in sparsely populated areas where school choice is logistically unlikely. At the same time, many of the municipalities where market reforms are theoretically much easier to put in voted overwhelmingly against the president -elect. On Election

Day, voters in liberal Massachusetts rejected a ballot measure by a 62-38 margin that would have increased the number of charter schools in the state, despite strong evidence that the state’s well-supervised charters produce superior results for low-income and minority schoolchildren. In theory, information technology offers a way around the population density problem. Virtual schools can be attended from anywhere with an internet connection. For-profit colleges that have pocketed billions of dollars by offering low-quality online courses are poised to make a comeback under the

Trump administration, which is likely to roll back President Obama’s efforts to regulate them. But the fed eral government is a much larger financial contributor to colleges and universities than to K-12 schools , and college students don’t need an adult looking after them all day. Ms. DeVos will probably be a boon to the relatively small, growing

population of families that home-school their children. But most parents will still want their children in a school building during the day, taught by a teacher, not by a computer. Ms. Devos will also be hamstrung by the fact that her deregulated school choice philosophy has not been considered a resounding success. In her home state, Detroit’s laissez-faire choice policies have led to a wild west of cutthroat competition and poor

academic results. While there is substantial academic literature on school vouchers and while debates continue between opposing camps of researchers, it’s safe to say that vouchers have not produced the kind of large improvements in academic achievement that market-oriented reformers originally promised.

Charter schools spark intense fights – turns only prove link – BOTH sides battle hardSchmidt, 17 --- Peter, Chronicle of Higher Education, 1/24, lexis

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/upshot/why-donald-trumps-education-pick-would-face-barriers-for-vouchers.html?_r=0



The prospect of Ms. DeVos overseeing the Education Department has inspired both intense opposition and strong support from key players in several educational policy debates. Although most of the controversy surrounding Ms. DeVos, a Michigan billionaire and philanthropist, stems from her role as a leading advocate of public charter schools and school vouchers , some of her statements about higher-education issues such as Title IX enforcement have also been divisive. Her confirmation hearing last week, before members of the Senate education committee, proved rocky, with Democrats on the panel complaining that they did not get enough time to question her.






Supporters

Establishment Republicans. Strongly backing Ms. DeVos's nomination is Sen. Lamar Alexander, the chairman of the Senate education committee, who encouraged the creation of charter schools as education secretary under President George H.W. Bush and has characterized her

views on them as mainstream. Senator Alexander, who on Monday denied a request from Democratic committee members to hold a second hearing on Ms. DeVos, is hardly the only big-name Republican to get behind her. Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who was the Republican party's nominee for president in 2012, wrote a Washington Post op-ed saying Ms. DeVos "cares deeply about our children" and dismissing her detractors as having a financial stake in thwarting needed changes at elementary and secondary schools. The former first lady Barbara Bush, who established a foundation to promote literacy, has similarly praised Ms. DeVos as having "a proven record of championing reforms," as has Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida. Twenty current Republican governors of states or U.S. territories have endorsed her confirmation as someone who "will fight to streamline the federal education bureaucracy, return authority back to states and local school boards, and ensure that more dollars are reaching the classroom." Among them, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, a supporter of school vouchers who has frequently clashed with that state's public-college professors over their workplace rights, separately wrote the Senate education committee to say her appointment "will help to create an effective education system." (According to data compiled by the nonpartisan National Institute on Money in State Politics, Ms. DeVos has contributed to the campaigns of Mr. Walker and six other state governors who signed the letter. Her family has contributed to the campaigns of Mr. Walker and eight others.)

Critics of Public Schools. Republican senators and governors have been joined in their support for Ms. DeVos by other prominent advocates of change in the financing and governance of public schools. They include Grover G. Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. In a letter, he told the Senate committee that Ms. DeVos, in her former capacity as head of the American Federation for Children, a pro-school-choice advocacy group, has played a key role in persuading states to adopt policies that help children get needed educational services. Also praising Ms. DeVos: Eva Moskowitz, founder of Success Academy Charter Schools, which operates more than 40 charter schools in New York City, and scholars at the Thomas B. FordhamInstitute, which promotes charter schools. The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, which advocates school choice and the provision of federal services to children in nonpublic schools, has weighed in on her behalf.


Opponents

Teachers Unions. At the forefront in opposing the nomination of Ms. DeVos are the nation's two major teachers' unions, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, each of which has affiliates that represent college instructors. Both unions had uneasy relations with President Obama as a result of clashes over his administration's efforts to promote school accountability and make it easier for schools to fire teachers. Their leaders declared support for Hillary Clinton early in the Democratic primaries, based on her statements

suggesting she would be more sympathetic. The election of Donald Trump and his nomination of Ms. DeVos, a longtime advocate of charter-school and school-voucher laws that the unions oppose, has dashed such hopes and put them even more on the defensive than they had been before. Randi Weingarten, president of the AFT, has faulted Ms. DeVos for lacking any experience as an educator, blamed her for advocacy efforts in Michigan for poorly performing charter schools there, and called her "the most ideological, anti-public education nominee" for education secretary since the position was created by President Jimmy Carter. Lily Eskelsen García, president of the NEA, has described Ms. DeVos as "dangerously unqualified," faulting her for, among other things, not being a public-school graduate or sending her children to public schools. Helping to organize a recent protest against the appointment of Ms. DeVos: the Professional Staff Congress, which represents education workers at the City University of New York and is affiliated with both the AFT and the American Association of University Professors. The AAUP's national office, which collaborates with the AFT in organizing unions of college instructors, has not formally discouraged the Senate from confirming Ms. DeVos but last week emailed The Chronicle a statement that called her "part of the economic elite." It argued that Ms. DeVos "would implement whatever policies the new president wants to put into place which, frankly, could get scary."



Market Based Reforms---Vouchers---1NC

Vouchers drain PC – dems backlash because trump, conservatives backlash because fed, pro-market education lobby fights itself – pre-election ev is irrelevant – outweighs support for policy specificsCamera, 17 --- Lauren Camera is an education reporter at U.S. News & World Report. She’s covered education policy and politics for nearly a decade and has written for Education Week, The Hechinger Report, Congressional Quarterly, Roll Call, and the Chronicle of Higher Education. She was a 2013 Spencer Education Fellow at Columbia University’s School of Journalism, where she conducted a reporting project about the impact of the Obama administration’s competitive education grant, Race to the Top, US News and World Report, 3/13, https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2017-03-23/trump-school-choice-proposals-drive-wedge-between-charter-school-advocates

To be sure, the president’s budget proposal is just that, a proposal, and the funding for private school vouchers or some type of scholarship tax credit is not a slam dunk, even among Republicans – and especially among those who represent rural states where children have few , if not zero, education options outside the public school system . Those variables were at play last week in conservative Kentucky, when the governor signed a bill after months of heated debate in the state legislature that will allow charter schools for the first time. The Blue Grass State was one of just seven – now six – that did not allow charter schools. The carefully worded legislation only allows local school boards to authorize charter schools, with the exception of Louisville and Lexington, where the mayors may also do so. Groups like the Center for Education Reform lobbied for the bill to also allow universities to act as charter authorizers and to include virtual

charters as an educational option. The fracture within the charter school sector is reflective of the larger splintering of the education reform community . “I think the Trump presidency is going to be a challenging time for education reform ,” Petrilli, says. “Just as we’ve seen a growing polarization in politics , we see a growing polarization in the education reform community. Most education reform ers who would identify as liberal Dem ocrat s are aghast at Donald Trump even if he supports some of the school reform agenda .” He continued: “I think for groups like Democrats for

Education Reform, you tend to see them putting the Dem ocrat before the education reform . They really seem to feel like – because of the threats to the budget, but also because of the threats around immigration and treatment of Muslims and everything else – that this is a time when they have to focus on their solidarity with other groups on the left rather than focus on maybe some benefits for school choice or school reform.” Not to be overlooked, Petrilli noted, are the handful of conservative and libertarian policy organizations , like the Heritage Foundation and CATO, that have long supported voucher programs but don’t want the fed eral government to be the lever for pushing them. The White House has yet to unveil any details of its $250 million private school choice proposal, or how the proposed $1 billion in increase Title I funding would be doled out to states willing to expand their school choice offerings. DeVos said Monday that those details are still

being debated. When those policies are solidified , the battle lines between the school choice organizations will likely become even more obvious . “The question will be: Where is the division between public and private here?” says Robin Lake, the director of the Center on Reinventing Public Education. “A lot of charters serve kids who are

immigrants or who live in inner cities and the politics of this are going to get interesting for sure.” “When push comes to shove I think charters will always side with the public school community,” she says. “They are public schools.”



Market Based Reforms---Vouchers---2NC

Vouchers can’t pass without massive PC expenditureEducation Week, 17 --- 5/17, lexis

How Trump's Altered the Landscape for Education Advocates Education advocates in Washington might not always be on the same page when it comes to policy, but there's at least one thing the vast majority agree on: The Trump administration-buttressed by a Republican Congress-is unlike anything they've ever had to contend with before . In particular, groups that lobby Congress and the U.S. Department of Education on behalf of public school educators, as well as those representing civil rights issues and advocating for education funding , say that they are fighting what feels like a multifront war against vouchers , dramatic budget cuts, and what some describe as a general antipathy toward public schools and disadvantaged children . "Being an advocate for public education gives me job security," joked Noelle Ellerson Ng, the associate executive director of AASA, the School Superintendents Association. "There's plenty to engage on."

Another was more blunt: "It really sucks," the advocate said. To be sure, the situation is different-even reversed-for groups that champion school choice and other policy approaches favored by the Trump administration and Republicans on Capitol Hill. Such




"prepared first and foremost to put most of our time and energy into state battles and efforts." Electoral Jolt But Trump's surprise win was a jolt of a different kind for many public school educators and organizations that represent them in the nation's capital. "We went from hearing from our members [that they were] positive



say they're worried that proposals that once looked unlikely to come to fruition-like a massive cut to

teacher-quality funding-might actually make it across the legislative finish line. It doesn't help that the Education Department still hasn't filled key positions. So far, Trump has nominated just one political appointee: Carlos Muniz, as general counsel. Other players in K-12 positions that require Senate sign-off-like Jason Botel, who is acting as the assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education-are temporary fill-ins. It's unclear how long any of them will stick around in those roles. Some education representatives are scratching their heads about whom to approach with policy proposals and questions. "I think in many ways the administration is still getting its people in place," said Jacki Ball, the director of government affairs for the National PTA. "We're just not always sure who to go to. We're trying to develop relationships with the people that are there," including Botel, who spoke at a recent PTA conference. "That was a good opportunity to open the door." And one advocate said there have been changes in dealings with the department's career employees, who stick around from one presidential administration to the next. "Any communication you have with federal employees now is difficult," the advocate said. "They are really hesitant to communicate


would normally sit back and say it's going to be fine feel a threat" to public education, the NEA's Kusler said. The boost in education community engagement isn't without its challenges. Several advocates said they got a flood of calls from their organizations' members about a bill introduced by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, that would create federall y supported vouchers nationwide. That legislation is almost certain to go nowhere . But it can be tougher to get members riled up about proposals that may actually be able to get traction, including potential budget cuts. Fielding questions about extreme, dead-on-arrival proposals cuts into advocates' time and energy. "We have to make sure there's not burnout. We have to make sure that the level of attention is appropriate," Pudelski said. "Every lobbyist I talk to feels like they're running on empty a little bit." Common Cause One thing that has helped lighten the load: Education advocacy organizations that work on behalf of public school educators and those representing disadvantaged students are working together much more closely, and on a much broader range of issues, than they have in the past. "Under Clinton, under Bush, and under Obama, the education community was afforded the luxury of disagreeing with one another," said Ellerson Ng, the AASA official. "We can no longer afford to disagree, because we have such a basic task of



Vouchers drain trump PC – even pro-market supporters have splintered post election – plan only causes them to fight each otherCamera, 17 --- Lauren Camera is an education reporter at U.S. News & World Report. She’s covered education policy and politics for nearly a decade and has written for Education Week, The Hechinger Report, Congressional Quarterly, Roll Call, and the Chronicle of Higher Education. She was a 2013 Spencer Education Fellow at Columbia University’s School of Journalism, where she conducted a reporting project about the impact of the Obama administration’s competitive education grant, Race to the Top, US News and World Report, 3/13, https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2017-03-23/trump-school-choice-proposals-drive-wedge-between-charter-school-advocates



The Trump administration's plan to ax $9 billion in federal education spending but direct millions to a new program that would help students afford private school exposed a fissure among charter school advocates, one not publicly acknowledged but privately widening at an increasingly fast pace

since the election . In reacting to the fiscal 2018 blueprint, organizations that support charter schools split : Some admonished the administration for its proposed education cuts, as well as billions in cuts to health care and wraparound social service programs on which the country's most disadvantaged students rely. Others touted the increases for school choice policies, which, in addition to a $250 million private school choice program, included $168 million more for charter schools and a $1 billion boost in Title I for poor students whose states allow them to use the money to enroll at any public school of their choice. “Today, President Trump demonstrated that he is a strong supporter of charter public schools,” Nina Rees, president and CEO of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, said in a statement. “The charter school movement is grateful for the president’s support, and we applaud his commitment to providing critically needed funding.” But Greg Richmond, president and CEO of the National Association of Charter School Authorizers, took a different tack. “We are deeply concerned about proposed cuts to other important education programs, as charter schools are part of – not a substitute for – a strong public education system,” Richmond said in his public statement. “Charter schools cannot succeed without strong teachers and a seamless, affordable path to college for their graduates. Unfortunately, this proposed budget harms programs that are important for students, teachers, and







the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. “It’s a big tent, for charter schools supporters especially, and just as we’ve seen a growing polarization in politics , we see a growing polarization in the education reform community .” Trump’s focus on private school choice is pushing that wedge into the public spotlight again and is forcing charter school advocates to plant their flags on the proverbial spectrum of accountability. “Over the years, it’s kind of been a gentlemen’s agreement in the charter tent that we don’t fight with each other





to show positive results for their students. Charter school advocates see the new administration as an opportunity to push their agendas , but those agendas are increasingly at odds with each other. Trump’s budget proposal elucidated those disparities, differentiating groups like the Center for Education Reform and American Federation for Children, which have long supported private school vouchers, from groups like Democrats for Education Reform and the Fordham Institute, which have only supported private school vouchers that have rigorous accountability systems attached, from groups like Stand for Children, which have pushed back against private school vouchers.

Vouchers drain PC – fierce backlash from dems and teachers unions – public support not salientSwanson, 17 --- Emily, Hartford Courtant, 5/14, lexis

Even as fierce political battles rage in Washington over school choice , most Americans know little about charter schools or private school voucher programs. Still, more Americans feel positively than negatively about expanding those programs, according to a new poll. "I wonder what the fuss is about," said Beverly Brown, 61, a retired grocery store worker in central Alabama. Brown, who doesn't have children, says U.S. schools need reform, but she is not familiar with specific school options and policies. Fifty-eight percent of respondents say they know little or nothing at all about charter schools and 66 percent report the same about private school voucher programs, according to the poll conducted by The Associated

Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Charters are schools funded by taxpayer money, but they operate independently of school districts and thus have more freedom in setting their curriculum and hiring staff. Vouchers are publicly funded scholarships given to low-income families to help cover tuition in

private schools, including religious ones. Using taxpayer money to aid struggling public schools or diverting it to fund more charter schools or make private schools available to more families has been hotly debated since Donald Trump was elected president. During the campaign, Trump promised to fund a $20 billion school choice program. He picked a charter and private school advocate, Betsy DeVos, as his education secretary. Earlier this month the president welcomed a group of students who were voucher recipients to the White House and asked Congress to work with him to

make school options available nationwide. Those efforts face fierce resistance from teachers unions and some

Democrats who say that school choice drains funds from public schools while leaving charter and private

schools unaccountable in terms of academic standards and civil rights protections. Other Democrats support some of the choice measures, which also divide Republicans . Patrick McGuinn, an education professor at Drew University, said he was

surprised that most Americans had little knowledge about school choice options. "That's pretty remarkable given the growth and high-profile politics around charters," he said. "As much as policymakers are talking the heck about this, the debate really hasn't permeated the general public's discussion yet." Charter schools operate in 42 states and the District of Columbia. D.C. has only the federally funded voucher program, while 30 states have voucher or similar education choice programs. Even though they are unfamiliar to many, Americans have largely positive reactions to charter schools and vouchers. While 55 percent of respondents say parents in their communities had enough options with regard to schools, about 4 in 10 feel the country in general would benefit from more choice. Forty-seven percent say they favor opening more public charter schools, 23 percent are opposed and 30 percent feel neutral about it. Meanwhile, 43 percent of respondents support giving low-income families tuition vouchers for private schools, 35 percent are opposed and 21 percent don't have a strong opinion either way. Republicans are slightly more likely than Democrats to favor opening more charter schools, 53 percent to 42 percent, but there is

little partisan variation for voucher programs. At the same time, opposition to vouchers is highest among those who have heard the most about them

Federal vouchers trigger massive funding fights and PC loss – specifically trades off with tax cutsCarey, 16 --- Kevin, Director Education Policy @ New American Foundation, NYT, 11/23, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/upshot/why-donald-trumps-education-pick-would-face-barriers-for-vouchers.html?_r=0

Why Betsy DeVos Won’t Be Able to Privatize U.S. Education We’re resurfacing this article after the narrow

confirmation of Betsy DeVos as education secretary on Tuesday. As we noted in November, she will be highly constrained in trying to voucherize American K-12 education . Betsy DeVos, a wealthy Republican

philanthropist, whom Donald J. Trump selected on Wednesday as the next secretary of education, has spent her career promoting a market-based , privatized vision of public education. If she pursues that agenda in her new role, she is quite likely to face disappointment and frustration . Market-based school reforms generally come in two flavors: vouchers and charter schools. They differ in both structure and political orientation. Charter schools are public schools, open to all, accountable in varying degrees to public authorities, and usually run by nonprofit organizations. Vouchers, by contrast, allow students to attend any school, public or private, including those run by religious organizations and for-profit companies. While charters enjoy support from most Republicans and some Democrats,

vouchers have a narrower political base , those who tend to favor free markets to replace many government responsibilities. Working primarily in Michigan, Ms. DeVos has been a strong advocate of vouchers, and her charter work has often focused on making charter schools as private as possible. The large majority of Michigan charters are run by for-profit companies, in contrast with most states. The DeVos family donated more than $1 million to Republican lawmakers earlier this year during a successful effort to oppose new oversight of charters. That support made Ms. Devos a natural choice for Mr.

Trump, who proposed a $20 billion federal voucher program on the campaign trail, and has likened the

public school system to a monopoly business that needs to be broken up. But any effort to promote vouchers from Washington will run up against the basic structures of American education. The United States spends over $600 billion a year on public K-12 schools. Less than 9 percent of that money comes from the federal government, and it is almost exclusively dedicated to specific populations of children, most notably students with disabilities and students in low-income

communities. There are no existing federal funds that can easily be turned into vouchers large enough to pay for school tuition on the open market. Mr. Trump’s $20 billion proposal would be, by itself, very expensive . It may be hard to fit into a budget passed by a Republican Congress that has pledged to enact large tax cuts for corporations and citizens, expand the military and eliminate the budget

deficit, all at the same time. Yet $20 billion isn’t nearly enough to finance vouchers nationwide, which is why Mr. Trump’s proposal assumes that states will kick in another $110 billion. States don’t have that kind of money lying around. The only plausible source is existing school funding. But even if Ms. DeVos were to find a

willing governor and state legislature, it’s not that easy. Roughly half of all nonfederal education funding comes from local property taxes raised by over 13,000 local school districts. They and their elected representatives will have a say, too.

Geography and politics ensures federal vouchers drain PCCarey, 16 --- Kevin, Director Education Policy @ New American Foundation, NYT, 11/23, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/upshot/why-donald-trumps-education-pick-would-face-barriers-for-vouchers.html?_r=0





This is where the intersection of geography and politics makes any national voucher plan much more difficult to enact . The practicality of school choice is highly related to population density . Children need to be able to get from home to school and back again every day . In a large metropolis

with public transportation, there could be dozens of schools within reasonable travel distance of most families. In a small city, town or rural area, there will be few or none. And population density , as Americans saw in the last election, is increasingly the dividing line of the nation’s p olitics . A significant number of Mr.

Trump’s most ardent supporters live in sparsely populated areas where school choice is logistically unlikely. At the same time, many of the municipalities where market reforms are theoretically much easier to put in voted overwhelmingly against the president -elect. On Election

Day, voters in liberal Massachusetts rejected a ballot measure by a 62-38 margin that would have increased the number of charter schools in the state, despite strong evidence that the state’s well-supervised charters produce superior results for low-income and minority schoolchildren. In theory, information technology offers a way around the population density problem. Virtual schools can be attended from anywhere with an internet connection. For-profit colleges that have pocketed billions of dollars by offering low-quality online courses are poised to make a comeback under the

Trump administration, which is likely to roll back President Obama’s efforts to regulate them. But the fed eral government is a much larger financial contributor to colleges and universities than to K-12 schools , and college students don’t need an adult looking after them all day. Ms. DeVos will probably be a boon to the relatively small, growing

population of families that home-school their children. But most parents will still want their children in a school building during the day, taught by a teacher, not by a computer. Ms. Devos will also be hamstrung by the fact that her deregulated school choice philosophy has not been considered a resounding success. In her home state, Detroit’s laissez-faire choice policies have led to a wild west of cutthroat competition and poor

academic results. While there is substantial academic literature on school vouchers and while debates continue between opposing camps of researchers, it’s safe to say that vouchers have not produced the kind of large improvements in academic achievement that market-oriented reformers originally promised.

No Turns – vouchers split GOP base, cause dems backlash and house GOP opposition – rural republicans hate itBump, 14 --- PHILIP BUMP is a former politics writer for The Atlantic Wire, The Atlantic, 1/22, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/why-dont-republicans-want-school-vouchers-places-republicans-actually-live/357277/

Why Don't Republicans Want School Vouchers in Places Republicans Actually Live? Republicans are

once again passionate about school vouchers , believing that "school choice" is a key to winning over minority voters. But

you know who often doesn't like the idea? Republicans from rural areas . A number of prominent members of the GOP have spoken about vouchers recently, largely in the context of addressing poverty and inequality. Politico documents a number of them: House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, state representatives around the country. "It’s a winning issue for us," the GOP's outreach director to African-American media told

Politico. "We’re going to be talking about educational opportunity in every state." Receptions in those states will vary. In statehouse battles over the past several years, it has been an alliance of Democrats and rural Republicans that have opposed expanding or implementing vouchers . For the same reason: vouchers pull resources from schools that need every dollar they can get after years of scaling back. The debate over vouchers is usually centered on urban schools, since it provides the Republicans' dream pitch: A failing local school has parents of every color and creed looking for alternatives. Siphon money from the big government education pool, and let parents decide if they'd like to use it toward a private or charter school. School choice. It appeals to those dissatisfied urban parents — urban parents who, the demographics tell us, would usually vote Democratic. "Failing" is a relative term, of course. But there's no question that public schools — like all components of government — are struggling with reduced budgets. According to a Census Bureau report that came out last year, 2011 marked the first year in



four decades that per-student spending in public schools declined — but that data wasn't adjusted for inflation. That year, 65.6 percent of spending was from local property taxes, but the amount from the federal government dropped 2.5 percent from 2010 when adjusted to 2013 dollars. That's a constriction that is part-and-parcel with the Republicans' higher-priority message: less government spending. As the graph at right shows, federal education spending in 2013 dollars dipped not quite as severely in the

1980s — during the tenure of Ronald Reagan. Break the schools, offer a fix. That fix has been less likely to resonate with Republicans representing only rural parts of states, as has been demonstrated a number of times in recent years . In Kansas last year, a proposal for a voucher program failed even after it received the stipulation that it would only apply to "high-density, at-risk" schools. That bill echoed one in Pennsylvania , an expansion of which went down in 2011, opposed by "Democrats and some rural Republicans." A big fight over vouchers in Wisconsin last year saw opposition to a

proposal by Gov. Scott Walker from the Wisconsin Rural Schools Alliance and Assembly Republicans. Fourteen members representing rural parts of the state called for more public school funding during that fight. In North Carolina , a pro-voucher group ran into opposition in 2013 from, among other groups, the Rural School and Community Trust. Education Week outlined the group's argument: "Rural school districts have long known their fundamental challenge is a lack of local wealth to devote to their schools. … This provision doesn't get to the root of the

problem and will most assuredly widen the equity gap in the N.C. education system." But the most evocative example comes, perhaps predictably, from Texas . In 2012, Tea Party leaders in the state renewed a "school choice" push that had stalled out several years before. The Texas Observer explains that failure: "The critical votes in past voucher fights have been rural Republicans , who don’t much care for vouchers because their districts don’t have private schools." Rewind to 2005, and the Observer offers a memorable quote from an unnamed rural Republican explaining the concern: In many parts of rural Texas, where schools and prisons are the only economic engines, the school superintendent is one of the most powerful people in the county. As one rural House member, who wishes to remain anonymous, will say after the debate: “I could fuck a goat and my constituents might forgive me, but I could never mess with the public schools in my district.” This is the same argument that urban parents often make, albeit less colorfully. Pulling resources from public schools is risky. Even if a school is faltering on objective and subjective measures, it's hard to see how reducing resources will improve the school. Instead, vouchers let for-profit private and charter schools skim the more capable — and wealthier — students from the public school system, risking an exacerbation of the existing problem. In rural areas, with fewer private school options and, often, a stronger sense of community around the school system, those risks are more exposed. Politico points to a pro-school-choice

presentation apparently created by the conservative group FreedomWorks. "School Choice For All," one section reads. "Ideally, parents will have access to their money with that money following the child to the school/institution of their choice." The

group is calling for a February 1 march to Washington, as part of a " bi-partisan effort" to garner support for the initiative. In a state-by-state effort, the opposition to vouchers has often been equally bipartisan .

Vouchers spark intense fights – turns only prove link – BOTH sides battle hardSchmidt, 17 --- Peter, Chronicle of Higher Education, 1/24, lexis


The prospect of Ms. DeVos overseeing the Education Department has inspired both intense opposition and strong support from key players in several educational policy debates. Although most of the controversy surrounding Ms. DeVos, a Michigan billionaire and philanthropist, stems from her role as a leading advocate of public charter schools and school vouchers , some of her statements about higher-education issues such as Title IX enforcement have also been divisive. Her confirmation hearing last week, before members of the Senate education

committee, proved rocky, with Democrats on the panel complaining that they did not get enough time to question her.






Supporters

Establishment Republicans. Strongly backing Ms. DeVos's nomination is Sen. Lamar Alexander, the chairman of the Senate education committee, who encouraged the creation of charter schools as education secretary under President George H.W. Bush and has characterized her views on them as mainstream. Senator Alexander, who on Monday denied a request from Democratic committee members to hold a second hearing on Ms. DeVos, is hardly the only big-name Republican to get behind her. Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who was the Republican party's nominee for president in 2012, wrote a Washington Post op-ed saying Ms. DeVos "cares deeply about our children" and dismissing her detractors as having a financial stake in thwarting needed changes at elementary and secondary schools. The former first lady Barbara Bush, who established a foundation to promote literacy, has similarly praised Ms. DeVos as having "a proven record of championing reforms," as has Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida. Twenty current Republican governors of states or U.S. territories have

endorsed her confirmation as someone who "will fight to streamline the federal education bureaucracy, return authority back to states and local school boards, and ensure that more dollars are reaching the classroom." Among them, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, a supporter of school vouchers who has frequently clashed with that state's public-college professors over their workplace rights, separately wrote the Senate education committee to say her appointment "will help to create an effective education system." (According to data compiled by the nonpartisan National Institute on Money in State Politics, Ms. DeVos has contributed to the campaigns of Mr. Walker and six other state governors who signed the letter. Her family has contributed to the campaigns of Mr. Walker and eight others.)

Critics of Public Schools. Republican senators and governors have been joined in their support for Ms. DeVos by other prominent advocates of change in the financing and governance of public schools. They include Grover G. Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. In a letter, he told the Senate committee that Ms. DeVos, in her former capacity as head of the American Federation for Children, a pro-school-choice advocacy group, has played a key role in persuading states to adopt policies that help children get needed educational services. Also praising Ms. DeVos: Eva Moskowitz, founder of Success Academy Charter Schools, which operates more than 40 charter schools in New York City, and scholars at the Thomas B. FordhamInstitute, which promotes charter schools. The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, which advocates school choice and the provision of federal services to children in nonpublic schools, has weighed in on her behalf.


Opponents

Teachers Unions. At the forefront in opposing the nomination of Ms. DeVos are the nation's two major teachers' unions, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, each of which has affiliates that represent college instructors. Both unions had uneasy relations with President Obama as a result of clashes over his administration's efforts to promote school accountability and make it easier for schools to fire teachers. Their leaders declared support for Hillary Clinton early in the Democratic primaries, based on her statements suggesting she would be more sympathetic. The election of Donald Trump and his nomination of Ms. DeVos, a longtime advocate of charter-school and school- voucher laws that the unions oppose, has dashed such hopes and put them even more on the defensive than they had been before. Randi Weingarten, president of the AFT, has faulted Ms. DeVos for lacking any experience as an educator, blamed her for advocacy efforts in Michigan for poorly performing charter schools there, and called her "the most ideological, anti-public education nominee" for education secretary since the position was created by President Jimmy Carter. Lily Eskelsen García, president of the NEA, has described Ms. DeVos as "dangerously unqualified," faulting her for, among other things, not being a public-school graduate or sending her children to public

schools. Helping to organize a recent protest against the appointment of Ms. DeVos: the Professional Staff Congress, which represents education workers at the City University of New York and is affiliated with both the AFT and the American Association of University Professors. The AAUP's national office, which collaborates with the AFT in organizing unions of college instructors, has not formally discouraged the Senate from confirming Ms. DeVos but last week emailed The Chronicle a statement that called her "part of the economic elite." It argued that Ms. DeVos "would implement whatever policies the new president wants to put into place which, frankly, could get scary."



Links---Native American Education---1NC

Native education legislation can’t pass congress without PCMeza, 15 --- Nizhone, BYU Education and Law Journal, lexisCurrent Federal Indian Education Policy Although there are provisions regarding Indian education in over 150 treaties between tribes

and the United States, n19 there are differing opinions , not explored in this Comment, on the extent and even on the existence of the United States' legal responsibility for Indian education. n20 And while the Supreme Court has continually upheld the unique trust responsibility to the tribes as "domestic dependent nations," n21 it is Congress and the Executive Branch that have agreed "that the federal government has a special responsibility for the education of Indian peoples." n22 In fact, not only has Congress included Indian education in bills such as the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act and specific provisions in the No Child Left Behind Act, but also "Congress has codified this responsibility more explicitly in the Native American Education Improvement Act." n23 A. Indian Education Act of 1972 The Indian Education Act addressed the special educational and cultural needs of American Indian and Alaska Native [*357] students through the Department of Education. The Act created the National Advisory Council. n24 It was also the source of funding for "research activities and various discretionary programs" and ""basic' funding to public school districts, tribes, and Bureau-funded schools based on eligible student enrollment." n25 A wide variety of programs could use the basic funding as long as the program addressed "the culturally related academic needs of Indian children, promoted high educational standards, included student performance goals and was developed with the active involvement of the Indian community and approved by a committee selected by Indian parents and students." n26 B. No Child Left Behind - Title VII: Indian Education In 2001, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was reauthorized as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). n27 The Statement of Policy and Purpose of Title VII of NCLB, or Indian Education, was amended to read as follows: Sec. 7101. Statement of Policy. It is the policy of the United States to fulfill the Federal Government's unique and continuing trust relationship with and responsibility to the Indian people for the education of Indian children. The Federal Government will continue to ... ensure that programs that serve Indian children are of the highest quality and provide for not only the basic elementary and secondary education needs, but also the unique educational and culturally related academic needs of these children. Sec. 7102. Purpose. (a) Purpose - It is the purpose ... to support the efforts ... to meet the unique educational and culturally related academic needs of American Indian and Alaska Native students, so that such students can meet the same challenging State student academic achievement standards as all other students are expected to meet. n28 Title VII of NCLB provides funding for research, [*358] evaluation, data collection, technical assistance as well as direct assistance for programs that meet the unique educational and culturally related academic needs of American Indian and Alaska Natives. n29 Title VII also provides for the training

of Indian persons as educators, counselors, and other professionals serving Indian people. n30 In 2013, House Republicans attempted to bring a partisan bill to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act HR 5 that would have consolidated federal funds designated for special populations . n31 This was met with some resistance and Congresswoman McCollum issued the following statement: I object in the strongest terms to this abandonment of our federal trust responsibility to Native American youth. Students throughout Indian Country are already bearing the brunt of sequestrations cuts to education. Now this partisan bill would strip away the guaranteed funding and the crucial academic and cultural supports that Native students need. n32 Subsequently, the House voted to pass the Young-Gabbard-Hanabusa-McCollum Amendment to the Student Success Act which not only restored funding for students throughout Indian Country, but illustrated "the recognized need for the federal government to live up to its trust responsibility for our Native students by guaranteeing the funding needed to provide high quality culturally appropriate education." n33 C. The Native American Languages Act In stark contrast to the assimilation period, the Native American Languages Act n34 "specifically recognizes the [*359] importance of indigenous language, including Native Hawaiian and Native Pacific Islander languages, and the policy of the United States to work with native communities to ensure their survival." n35 It has been noted that native language programs may be necessarily incorporated to ensure student achievement. This realization comes after generations of children have been denied an appropriate education due to the failure of addressing the needs of native speakers. n36 The Act recognized official Native American government languages as well as the rights of tribes "to use native languages as a medium of instruction." n37 The purpose of the Act was not only to ensure equal access to education, but its purpose was also "to support indigenous language survival, cultural awareness, and student success and self-confidence." n38 The Act encouraged "teaching native languages in the same manner, and with the same status, as foreign languages." n39 [*360] Amendments to the Native American Programs Act in 2006 "authorized funding for immersion programs and other programs designed to restore native languages as living languages, by funding "Native American language nests' for children under the age of seven, "Native American language survival schools' for school age students, and restoration programs, including native language and culture camps." n40 IV. Current State of Indian Education Native American students continue to perform at a much lower rate than the general population. n41 It is estimated that 81 percent of Indian students read below grade level. n42 In 2005, it was estimated that only 50.6 percent of Native American students graduated from high school. n43 Furthermore, American

Indians and Alaska Native students have significantly lower than average scores "on both the math and verbal portions of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT)" and are the least likely ethnic group to attend college. n44 American Indian Education policy can no longer be limited to the federal level. The 2010 Census revealed that about 70 percent of the American Indian and Alaska Native population now live in metropolitan areas. n45 About 90 percent of all American Indian and Alaska Native students attend regular public schools with only 7 percent attending schools administered by the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. n46 [*361] As a result, state education policy impacts the education of Native American and Alaska Native students more than federal policy. The influence of United States Indian Education policy on the independent sovereign states is limited and dependent on each individual state and its state school board's understanding of federal funds that are intended to benefit the American Indian and Alaska Native student. As a result, there are sporadic effects on Indian education. Tribal sovereignty is indirectly being affected by the education of the future generation. There are an estimated 209 indigenous languages still spoken in America with 562 recognized sovereign tribal nations in the United States. n47 A recent survey n48 by the National Indian Education Study (NIES) showed that a higher percentage of students at Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools reported having more knowledge of their American Indian/Alaska Native history than in low-density public schools. n49 Children are the tribes' most vital resource to tribal sovereignty, but without student success in education and the foundational knowledge of culture and language, tribal governments may be left ill prepared. V. The

Future of Indian Education The future of Indian Education remains unknown. However, the preservation of culture and language is beginning to be recognized federally and by a few states as an indirect means to improve the state of Indian Education. Proposed federal legislation includes financial support for preserving American Indian cultures and languages. State support varies between individual states as well as discrepancies of program implementation among individual school districts within the same state. When all major players influencing the education [*362] of Native American students work together, the state of Indian education has the potential to make a dramatic turn. A. Continued Support for Culture and Language Preservation 1. H.R. 5

- Student Success Act The recently proposed S tudent S uccess A ct contains many provisions that indirectly

preserve tribal sovereignty by restoring traditional culture and language to Indian Education. The bill would revise the current Title VII Indian Education program and consolidate federal funds designated for special populations. n50 The Student Success Act would add activities that could be supported by grants such as Native American language immersion programs and

Native American language restoration programs. n51 However, the pending Student Success Act has garnered mixed reactions. While the House passed the bill with amendments, H .R. 5 only has a 20 percent chance of passing the Senate . n52 As of the date of this publication, the bill remains in Senate Committee . n53

NCLB---1NC

Card mostly says “NCLB is bad” – links best to Reform/Reauth affs

Touching NCLB is a states’ rights nightmare that creates waves of backlashUsdan, 16 – Dr. Michael D. Usdan, PhD from Columbia, Senior Fellow and Former President of the Institute for Educational Leadership, 2-04-2016, “The Ever Debatable Federal Role: Implications for Education Policy”, Institute for Educational Leadership

I trust that this somewhat lengthy historical contextual presentation has provide d the necessary backdrop to fully understand the nature of the contemporary polarized debate about the appropriate role that should be played by the federal government in determining educational policy. The history is important because it helps to explain why the unprecedented proactive role played by the fed eral government in very recent years has elicited such negative responses from those who believe so strongly that it runs counter to the American tradition of local and state control of education which has prevailed throughout most of our history.

Passage of the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation in 2001, which was a further reauthorization of the original ESEA, represented a singularly important landmark in the history and evolution of the federal role in education. For the first time, federal legislation was enacted that had direct ramifications for the teachers and students in every school and classroom in the land. George W. Bush, a “compassionate conservative” Republican president, spearheaded passage of the bill which generated broad bipartisan support among influential “liberal” Democrats, particularly the late Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Representative George Miller of California. The irony is that NCLB, unquestionably the most intrusive federal legislation ever enacted by the U.S. Congress, was initiated by a Republican president leading the party which traditionally had opposed for decades more extensive federal involvement in school matters. Passage of the NCLB legislation, in essence, was the capstone of years of efforts to make schools more accountable—efforts that were supported by the country’s most influential business and political leaders.

NCLB imposed a host of requirements on school districts if they wished to maintain their eligibility for federal funding. The bill required (among other things): annual testing in reading and math in grades 3-8, interventions in low-performing schools, teacher evaluations, mandatory public school and supplemented services if school failures persisted, and reports on Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), disaggregated data.

This cascading of requirements, as NCLB was implemented, not surprisingly generated tremendous discontent among teachers, administrators, and school board members throughout the country. In addition to trampling on the hallowed traditions of local control of education, complaints were rampant that more and more decisions were being made by those who were furthest from the classrooms where teaching and learning occur.

These complaints were transmitted to elected officials at every government al level as NCLB ultimately became toxic . Efforts to reauthorize the legislation (an event that is to occur every five years) failed and the original legislation still stands at this writing 14 years after its original enactment. New political coalitions have formed over the years with very different perspectives as to what a newly authorized ESEA should look like. Civil rights and equity advocates remain distrustful as to whether states and localities will meet the educational needs of growing members of poor and minority children. They continue to have greater confidence that federal officials will be more mindful of equity concerns than their state and local counterparts.

The Dem ocrats themselves are divided over the shape of NCLB’s next iteration . For example, a relatively new organization, Democrats for Education Reform, has been supportive of charters and many of the accountability measures undertaken by the Obama Administration. The organizations representing educators such as the multimillion member teacher unions, school administrators, and school board members, who usually are firmly in the Democratic camp on federal legislative issues, have been alienated by policies of the present Department of Education. The Department, they feel, has ignored the perspectives of practitioners and professional educators and has pushed for unfair and unproven accountability measures that undermine teacher and administrator morale.

The Republicans, having gained control of both the House and the Senate in the November 2014 elections, have as their major agenda restoring the prerogatives of the states and localities in determining education policy . They sharply criticize federal overreach and desire to consolidate federal programs and give the states far greater influence . Indeed, Republicans advocate strip ping most of the federal authority and punitive elements currently embedded in NCLB. Although some components of a renamed NCLB, such as Title I, school ratings, charter school grants and disaggregated data, will probably survive the reauthorization process whenever it might occur, and the Republican Congress will no doubt persist in seeking to dramatically curb the federal role. Republicans simply will not support a continuation of the current level of fed eral influence, and the viability of compromise with Dem ocrat s and those supporting continued federal leadership on equity and related issues is a very open question , as is the issue of whether a presidential veto can be averted.

NCLB---Reform---2NC

Touching NCLB is a kiss of death---federal reform generates immediate backlash, regardless of content---prefer our author, he’s worked on itAldeman, 17 – Chad Aldeman, was a policy adviser at the U.S. Department of Education, where he worked on ESEA waivers, teacher preparation, and the Teacher Incentive Fund, 1-18-2017, “The Teacher Evaluation Revamp, In Hindsight: What the Obama administration's signature reform got wrong”, Education Next 17:2, http://educationnext.org/the-teacher-evaluation-revamp-in-hindsight-obama-administration-reform/

When President Obama took office in 2009, his administration quickly seized on teacher evaluations as an important public-policy problem . Today, much of his legacy on K–12 education rests on efforts to revamp evaluations in the hopes of improving teaching across the country, which his administration pursued via a series of incentives for states. In response, many states adopted new systems in which teachers’ performance would be judged, in significant part, on their contributions to growth in student achievement.

Those moves have paid off in some ways, but in others, they backfired . Teacher evaluations today are more nuanced than they were eight years ago, and have contributed to better decisionmaking and enhanced student achievement in some districts. But progress was uneven, hampered by both design flaws and capacity challenges. And the changes were unpopular , helping generate a backlash against much of the reform playbook for the last few decades —as well as a strong federal role in education policy writ large . As we look ahead into the next four or eight years, an honest reflection can yield useful lessons about the potential, and limits, of federally led reform.

In this piece, I attempt to assess what went right, what went wrong , and what we can learn from the Obama administration’s efforts to improve teacher evaluation systems. I do this as someone who played a role in the events that I describe : in 2011 and 2012, I was part of the policy team working on the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waiver initiative and grant programs like the Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF), and played a role in spreading the Obama administration’s teacher evaluation policies across the country.

touching NCLB causes massive congressional fights and PC drainLamiell, 12 --- Patricia, Director Media Relations @ Teachers College, University Columbia, 2/10, http://www.tc.columbia.edu/articles/2012/february/how-should-politics-influence-education-policy/How Should Politics Influence Education Policy? How much does national education policy make a difference in classrooms, and

how much do national politics drive education policy in America, where schools, curricula and teaching have been controlled at the local and state levels since the dawn of public schools? A lot ,



according to three distinguished education policy analysts who took part in a panel discussion on February 8 to

inaugurate the College’s new Education Policy and Social analysis (EPSA) Department — and potentially never more so than now , as Congress weighs reauthorization of the federal N o C hild L eft B ehind law against the backdrop of a highly polarized presidential campaign . The panel discussion, held in TC’s Cowin Conference Center, was moderated by Jeffrey Henig, Professor of Political Science and Education and EPSA department chair. It featured Christopher T. Cross, a former U.S. Under Secretary of Education and current Chairman of Cross & Joftus, an education-policy consulting firm; Jack Jennings, founder and recently retired Director of the Center on Education Policy, an education research firm; and Wendy D. Puriefoy, President of the Public Education Network (PEN), the nation’s largest network of community-based school












STEM---1NC

Drains PC – GOP backlash and appropriation fights – link only one wayRobelen, 11 --- Erik, Education Week, 1/12, lexis

With no fanfare , President Barack Obama last week signed a reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act,

legislation that contains a variety of measures to improve education in the STEM fields. Among those is a call for greater coordination across federal agencies in their work to advance education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, and another to reauthorize and make it easier for higher education institutions to participate in the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship program. Also, one of the new programs appears aimed at replicating the "UTeach" model of training math and

science teachers. The Senate passed the legislation in December by unanimous consent, but in the House it was approved by a partisan vote of 228-130, with most Republicans opposed . A chief concern was the bill s price tag of $46 billion over three years. Given the GOP s new majority in the House, that resistance could make it tougher to secure funding for existing and new programs authorized under the revised

law. President Obama, a vocal champion of STEM education who has hosted several White House events on the issue, held no special ceremony to sign the measure. Instead, a White House press release simply included it on a long list of bills he signed Jan. 4. That said, in a blog post last month, White House science adviser John P. Holdren hailed passage of the bill as a “major milestone on this nation’s path to building an innovation economy for the 21st century.” During floor debate in

late December, Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., the chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee at the time,

acknowledged that there have been concessions made in light of the economic environment.” Indeed, with time short in the lame-duck session, the House went along wholesale with a scaled-back Senate bill with fewer programs and less funding authorized. Nonetheless, Rep. Gordon, who retired from Congress this month, said the legislation was crucial to support basic scientific research, foster innovation, and improve education, and would help the nation “maintain its scientific and economic leadership.” Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Texas,

the new chair man of the science committee, didn't share the enthusiasm . "This measure continues to be far too expensive, particularly in light of the new and duplicative programs it creates," he said. Funding Questionable The legislation had widespread support outside Congress, including from the Business Roundtable, the National Science Teachers Association, the American Chemical Society, and university leaders. The reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act—the acronym stands for Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science—contains many STEM education provisions. For instance, it calls for the creation of a White House panel to better coordinate federal programs and activities in support of STEM education, including at the National Science Foundation, the departments of Education and Energy, and NASA. Also, the legislation amends the Noyce program to ease the participation of higher education institutions by lowering the financial match they must make from 50 percent to 30 percent. The $55 million program encourages talented STEM majors and professionals to become K-12 math and science teachers. In addition, the law authorizes $10 million each year for a new program that observers say is aimed at replicating the UTeach model of teacher preparation first developed at the University of Texas at Austin, or programs akin to that approach. The program would provide competitive grants to universities to launch undergraduate programs that produce high-caliber elementary and secondary

STEM teachers. Whether such new programs will ever be funded is an open question . In fact, many STEM education programs authorized in the law as first enacted in 2007 never received a dime. ("Many

Authorized STEM Projects Fail to Get Funding," Feb. 24, 2010.) Recognizing that, at least some were deleted from the law. Susan Traiman, the public policy director at the Business Roundtable in Washington, said stem education advocates will need to work hard to ensure Congress , especially the new Republican majority in the House,

sees the value in continuing to fund such initiatives . “In terms of everything in it, particularly

programs like Noyce,” she said, what’s going to matter, what’s going to make this real, is what happens in appropriations .

STEM---1NC

Federal STEM funding drains PC – triggers zero sum appropriation fights and congressional oppositionShastri, 16 --- Devi, Science Magazine, 6/21, http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/stem-educators-fear-spending-bill-undermines-goal-new-us-law

STEM educators fear spending bill undermines goal of new U.S. law A federal grant has helped 500 teachers in Tampa, Florida, discover new ways to teach science at every grade level. The knowledge they’ve gained over the past 3 years has translated into 24 new lessons and a curriculum that includes hands-on strategies such as engineering design challenges.

But the fate of that and dozens of other federally funded programs to improve STEM (science, technology,

engineering, and mathematics) education in U.S. elementary and secondary schools is up in the air following the first move by Congress to fund a new education law that reshuffles money allocated for STEM activities . A 2017 spending bill approved earlier this month by the Senate appropriations committee falls well short of what STEM educators had expected, setting off a potentially zero-sum game between science and other parts of the curriculum . Last year Congress replaced the 2002 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, reviled for its emphasis on annual testing, with the Every Student Succeeds Act

(ESSA). The new blueprint for federal oversight of public education wiped out the $153-million-a-year Math and Science Partnership (MSP) program that had funded the training of Tampa-area teachers, along with

three smaller accounts to support physical education, school counseling, and advanced placement courses. Those activities must now compete for money in a new account, called Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants. The block grants are designed to give local educators greater flexibility to tailor programs that meet the needs of their districts, according to federal lawmakers, while keeping STEM education a high priority. And to sweeten the pot, Congress authorized $1.65 billion for the grants, some six times the combined amount earmarked for the four programs under the old law. “Everyone who was involved had to give a little to get a little,” said David Evans, executive director of the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) in Arlington, Virginia. “Losing the MSP program was a real loss—I won’t pretend that that is something that we were willing to put on the chopping block easily. [But] given the authorized value of the bill, we were very hopeful that with the addition of the STEM language and the attention that it specifically called to those programs, the loss of the MSP would be

something we could sustain.” But instead of the $1.65 billion the lawmakers authorized for the new grants , Senate appropriators this month allocated just $300 million . Although the total is $22 million

higher than current levels for the four combined programs, it is lower than what they received from 2005 through 2010. (The amount has fluctuated in recent years, with a low of $222 million during the 2013 sequester.) The full

Senate has yet to act on the spending bill, and the House of Representatives has not begun debating its version, but House legislators are not expected to be any more generous than their Senate counterparts . The reduced funding has turned the increased local flexibility into a potentially catastrophic situation, says Larry Plank, director of K–12 STEM education for the Hillsborough County School District, which includes Tampa. Its $4.5 million MSP grant application won out over other STEM proposals from districts across the state. And although Plank couldn’t count on always being successful, he was at least guaranteed a chance to compete. Not any longer. “Perhaps [states] will maintain a significant level of funding for STEM or perhaps they won’t,” he says. “With MSP, we knew that [some] funding would be available for those types of things.” Under ESSA, school districts are required to spend at least 20% of their grants on each of two areas—providing students with a well-rounded education, and ensuring a safe and healthy environment. Another unspecified portion of the award must expand the use of technology to improve instruction. The money will be given out as block grants based on the overall size of the school district and the proportion of impoverished students it serves. Districts that receive less than

$30,000 don’t have to do a needs assessment and are exempt from the allocations in the law. With everything a possible priority, Evans says, the money won’t go very far—and the students could lose out. “[The funding level] is likely to engender more competition between subjects rather than what could have been an opportunity for

collaboration that would really benefit the kids,” he said. The low appropriation from the Senate , he adds, leaves the bill “ rather hollow .” Innovation could also fall by the wayside. “My biggest fear is that, with the language and the minimal appropriations, there is a risk that our country loses the ability to test new ways to teach kids science and engineering,” Plank says. That’s true for all fields, says Myrna Mandlawitz, director of government relations for the School Social Work Association of America based in London, Kentucky. She says that many school districts used the nearly $50 million allocated to school counseling under NCLB as seed money to hire their first social worker, psychologist, or counselor, who then demonstrated their value to

students. But she worries that grants to individual districts under the new law may be too small to finance such positions. The shift in power is forcing states and national groups like NSTA to work on a local level to guide STEM programs. Plank says that his district, the eighth largest in the country with 211,000 students, has plenty of experience assessing needs and deciding how to allocate for STEM programs. But he worries that smaller districts may receive little guidance from their

state and, given sparse funds, decide not to make STEM a priority. “We all know that art programs and music programs don’t receive enough funding,” he says. “Some districts may see this as an opportunity to fund programs that have been severely underfunded for many years. I would never be the person to say that art isn’t important, that [physical

education] isn’t important, that civics isn’t important. But when you lump all of that together with STEM and you underfund the entire portfolio , it’s a recipe for disaster.”

Strings-Attached Funding---1NCConditional school funding taps into widespread backlashMulholland, 15 – Quinn Mulholland, Harvard Political Review, 3-3-2015, “» A Party Divided: Why Education Is a Wedge Issue for Democrats”, http://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/education-wedge-issue-democrats/

The Obama administration has used federal funding as an incentive for states to adopt policies , such as encouraging the growth of charter schools and tying teacher evaluations to test scores, that are championed by the new reformers but opposed by public education activists. In urban centers like Chicago, Philadelphia, and Newark, strong grassroots movements, consisting primarily of Democratic constituencies, have emerged to oppose these policies , according to Jeff Bryant, a fellow at the Campaign for America’s Future, a liberal advocacy group. “These were supposed to be the communities that were going to be helped in the reform movement, and yet these are the communities where you’re seeing the most vociferous opposition ,” Bryant said in an interview with the HPR. “And it’s coming from advocacy groups that are on the ground there.”

According to Johnson, many public education activists were excited when Obama took office. But the President’s appointment of Arne Duncan as Secretary of Education over Linda Darling-Hammond, whom many of these activists preferred, and the subsequent policies that Duncan’s Department of Education implemented quickly alienated teachers unions and their allies . “The traditional side of the Democratic Party in education was sort of sidestepped,” Johnson said. Many of Obama’s education policies, especially those tying standardized test scores to teacher evaluations, were very similar to those of his predecessor. “A lot of them had come from George Bush, and people said that [Obama’s] Race To The Top was [Bush’s] No Child Left Behind on steroids,” Hiller explained.

Targeted Policy---1NCPolicies targeted at a narrow demographic are a heavy lift and generate widespread oppositionJennings, 15 – Jack Jennings, former president and CEO of the Center on Education Policy and general counsel for the House Committee on Education and Labor, “Lessons Learned from Federal Involvement in Schooling”, in Presidents, Congress, and the Public Schools: The Politics of Education Reform, p. 152-153





Trans- Bathrooms---1NC

Plan drains PC and courts don’t shield – GOP, public and religious backlash - congress will try to intervene – turns prove link because fighting is intense on both sidesSanchez, 16 --- Ray, CNN digital editor/writer/producer, foreign correspondent, author, NYU grad, CNN, 5/16, http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/14/politics/transgender-bathrooms-backlash/index.html

Fed s' trans gender guidance provokes fierce backlash The Obama administration's directive on the use of school bathrooms by transgender students has provoked a torrent of criticism . It also

marks a new front in America's long-running culture wars . The latest battle over trans gender rights and sexual identity comes in response to a joint letter Friday from the Departments of Education and Justice

directing public schools to ensure that "transgender students enjoy a supportive and nondiscriminatory school environment." Vanita Gupta, head of the Justice Department's civil rights division, addressed the issue Saturday in remarks at the University of Minnesota Law School commencement. "Even after the Supreme Court's landmark gay marriage decision last year in Obergefell v. Hodges that guaranteed all people 'equal dignity in the eyes of the law,' we see new efforts to deny LGBTI individuals the respect they deserve and the protection our laws guarantee," she said. "Efforts like House Bill 2 in North Carolina not only violate the laws that govern our nation, but also the values that define us as a

people." A legal standoff between the administration and North Carolina over the state's controversial House Bill 2 is part of a broader public debate on transgender rights in schools and public life . The statewide policy bans individuals from using public bathrooms that do not correspond to their biological sex and restricts cities from passing nondiscrimination laws. The Obama administration directive goes beyond the bathroom issue to touch on privacy rights,

education records and sex-segregated athletics. And that has unleashed a fierce backlash from ministers, parents and politicians who say the federal government has gone too far. The joint letter, of course, does

not carry the force of law. The threat of a cut in federal funding, however, is abundantly clear. Politicians lead the charge Prominent politicians across the nation are defiantly standing up against the guidance from Washington. Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick accused the Obama administration of "blackmail" and called the directive "social

engineering." "Families in America will not accept it ," he told reporters. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, on Twitter, promised a fight: "Obama can't rewrite the Civil Rights Act. He's not a king." Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who railed against such laws when he was a Republican presidential candidate, did not hold back. "America has woken up to yet another example of President Barack Obama doing through executive fiat what he cannot get done through our democratic process," Cruz said. He added, "Having spent many years in law enforcement, I've handled far too many cases of child molesters, of pedophiles, of people who abused little kids. The threats of predators are serious, and we should not facilitate allowing grown men or boys to be in bathrooms with little girls."

North Carolina Gov . Pat McCrory called on Congress to intervene. "Most Americans, including this

governor, believe that government is searching for a solution to a problem that has yet to be defined," he said in a statement. "Now, both the federal courts and the U.S. Congress must intercede to

stop this massive executive branch overreach, which clearly oversteps constitutional authority." 'It's up to Congress to write the law' Lamar Alexander, the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, reiterated that

the guidance was not federal. "This is the kind of issue that parents, schools boards, communities, students and teachers should be allowed to work out in a practical way with a maximum amount of respect for

the individual rights of all students," the Tennessee Republican said in a statement. "Insofar as the fed eral government goes, it's up to Congress to write the law , not the executive departments." Justice and Education

Department officials have repeatedly made clear that under their interpretation of Title IX, the federal anti-discrimination law in education, schools receiving federal funds may not discriminate based on a student's sex, including a student's transgender status. "The guidance makes clear that both federal agencies treat a student's gender identity as the student's sex for purposes of enforcing Title IX," the administration said Thursday. "There is no room in our schools for discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against transgender students on the basis of their sex," Attorney General Loretta Lynch said. "This guidance gives administrators, teachers and parents the tools they need to protect transgender students from peer harassment and to identify and address unjust

school policies." LGBT groups praised the guidelines as a validation of transgender rights and a repudiation of so-

called "bathroom bills" that ban people from using public bathrooms that do not correspond with their biological sex. "This is a truly significant moment not only for transgender young people but for all young people, sending a message that every

student deserves to be treated fairly and supported by their teachers and schools," Human Rights Campaign President

Chad Griffin said. But in North Carolina, Republican State Rep. Craig Horn told CNN affiliate WBTV that he received emails from parents worried about the safety of their children . "There certainly could be a safety issue," he told the station. "I am not ringing the bell of fear, but I have to be concerned. Kids are kids. We do crazy things." Horn said topics such as "underserved kids, failing schools, violence in schools, making sure kids get a great education" deserve as much

attention from the federal government as the use of bathrooms. 'The conflict has only just begun' Denny Burk, professor of biblical studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate school of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kentucky, wrote in his blog: "This radical directive is a heavy-handed, unconstitutional overreach in order to force Americans to pretend that

some boys are girls and some girls are boys. It is absurd and wrong." Burk predicted that the directive would "cause unrest and conflict all over the country . It is one thing for an individual to embrace a fictional identity. It is another

thing for the federal government to coerce everyone else to embrace it too. This is far from over. Indeed the conflict has only just begun." Rodney Cavness, superintendent of the Port Neches-Groves public school district in Texas, told CNN affiliate KFDM-TV that he was throwing the Obama administration directive in the trash. "I don't recognize President Obama," he

told the station. "Nothing he does has any shred of leadership ... This is one of those deals where it's total overreach of the federal government." A member of the Rowan-Salisbury Board of Education in North Carolina this week suggested the use of school bathrooms by transgender students justified allowing high school students to carry pepper spray to class. "Depending on how the courts rule on the bathroom issues, it may be a pretty valuable tool to have on the female students if they go to the bathroom, not knowing who may come in," board member Chuck Hughes said of the pepper spray, according to the Salisbury Post. The board voted Monday to change a policy prohibiting mace or pepper spray in high school, CNN affiliate WSOC-TV reported. But Hughes told the station and he and other board members -- after weighing the pros and cons -- will vote against the change later this month. "I was not thinking about the LGBT issue," Hughes said. "Perverts and pedophiles taking advantage of this law in bathrooms was my

major concern." A threat to federal funding In Fannin County, Georgia, hundreds of parents attended a school board meeting

Thursday night to voice concerns about bathroom policy , CNN affiliate WSB-TV reported. Some threatened to remove their children from school. "They will never set foot in a Fannin County school again," one mother said, according to the station. "I will stay home every day and homeschool as long as it takes. But that is my belief, and that is my motherly right, and that is where I stand." Fannin County Schools Superintendent Mark Henson told the station that losing about $3

million in federal funds was not an option. In a letter to U.S. Education Secretary John King this week, North Carolina's ten Republican members of Congress said they were " deeply troubled by the threat" to withhold federal funds and demanded assurances the state would not be punished. King said the directive came in response to requests from schools and parents seeking guidance. It's a clarification of the federal government's position that gender identity is protected under Title IX.

Trans- Batherooms---2NC

drains PC and courts don’t shield – it’s a foundational, litmus test issue and triggers congressional fights – aff spun as enabling predatory behavior Green, 16 --- Emma, staff writer at The Atlantic, where she covers politics, policy, and religion., The Atlantic, 5/31, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/americas-profound-gender-anxiety/484856/

America’s Profound Gender Anxiety Outrage over trans gender bathroom use is just the beginning of a long conflict over what it means to be men and women . In April, the state of Mississippi did something unusual. It made the definition of man and woman a matter of law: “Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.” The Magnolia state is not alone in grappling with the meaning of gender and sex. This spring, after North Carolina’s legislature ordered public agencies and local school boards to allow people to use only public bathrooms that correspond to their biological sex at birth, the U.S. Department of Justice announced it is suing the state. A similar bathroom bill was passed and vetoed earlier this spring in South Dakota. And the people of

Washington will vote on a bathrooms ballot initiative in November. America is experiencing a period of profound gender anxiety. Mainstream understandings of “gender” are changing, which may be why Mississippi legislators felt the need to codify concepts that have always seemed culturally implicit . Perhaps because the stakes are so basic, both sides tend to draw the other as caricatures : Those opposed to transgender bathroom

rights are obvious bigots; those who support them want to allow “men in women’s bathrooms” and enable other predatory behavior . Bigotry—fear or animus toward transgender people—is undoubtedly part of the

outcry over bathrooms. But that’s not a sufficient explanation. To some Americans, maleness and femaleness is a basic, absolute part of what makes us human , a fact that undergirds their faith, sense of self, and daily life . To others, gender is mutable, ambiguous, and ultimately chosen. American culture has been shifting in this direction for some time, pushed along by academic gender theorists, the sexual revolution, and the gay-rights movement. But even as feminists argued for decades that gender is socially constructed and multi-formed, and increasing numbers of people became

open about being gay, lesbian, or bisexual, most Americans remained comfortable with the notion that some people are men and some people are women . All of a sudden, a different consensus seems to have emerged. Culture can be selectively avoided, but the law cannot. Although some states have long protected transgender people’s access to public spaces, like bathrooms, those laws have been scattershot—roughly half the country does not have them. Until very recently, the federal government has not definitively protected transgender rights. Now, state governments that formerly did not

concern themselves with these issues are being forced to confront them. And so are their people. In some sense, America’s new wave of gender anxiety began with something very straight: marriage. Although recent debates have focused on trans people and bathrooms , they were enabled by the U.S. Supreme Court ’s decision to legalize gay marriage in the summer of 2015. The strategy behind the same-sex-marriage campaign has been well-documented: LGBT advocates purposefully tried to make gay marriage seem as disconnected from sex as possible by putting older lesbians on ads and focusing on “love” over “sexual freedom.” Yet, some gender bending is implicit: Married to a person of the same sex, men and women have to define and reinvent how they relate to one another. “So long as it’s just been an institution that’s made up of a man and a woman, a husband and a wife, [marriage] has had a kind of stabilizing effect,” said Katherine Franke, a law and gender-studies professor at Columbia University. Allowing gay people to get married is “destabilizing a gender binary,” she said. “I think it’s very unsettling to people, so it makes absolute sense to me that the next place they would go with that anxiety is

targeting transgender people.” At first, legislators focused on giving legal cover to business owners, government

officials, and clergy who did not want to participate in same-sex-marriage ceremonies. These kinds of exemption bills , ostensibly created to protect religious conscience, are still being debated in statehouses around the country. They are a clear, direct reaction to the Supreme Court ’s same-sex marriage decision. But why did bathrooms come next? These bills seem to be about something slightly different. They’re not objections to what people do—having gay sex, for

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/americas-profound-gender-anxiety/484856/


example, or getting married to a person of the same sex. They’re objections to what people are, which isn’t tied to any particular act. It doesn’t really matter who transgender people have sex with, or if they have sex at all. What matters is their status: If a person is designated a boy or girl at birth, the objectors say, that’s what determines his or her gender for life. There are a number of possible

answers to the question, why bathrooms? This is one of the last remaining gendered spaces in public life, where women and men are divided and body parts exposed. And transgender people consistently struggle with bathroom access—which can lead to higher rates of attempted suicide—making this a key issue for advocates. But there’s also a more complicated

explanation: Non-traditional notions of gender have finally become widespread enough to foment a sustained backlash. For a long time, the federal government hung back on creating firm protections for transgender people. But it has taken this question up in fits and starts over the last several years, recently making an unambiguous stand. The Justice Department maintains North Carolina’s bathroom law qualifies as sex discrimination under Title VII and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act. United States Attorney General Loretta Lynch compared the

legislation to Jim Crow in a recent press conference: “State-sanctioned discrimination never looks good in hindsight,” she said. As the fed eral government takes steps to create protections for transgender people —which, quietly, it

has—states will have less of a say in questions like where transgender people can use the bathroom. In one sense, these legal protections are everything. Comprehensive legislation would outlaw discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations and provide protections in arenas such as health care. The law is essential for making sure transgender people can move through the world free from violence and harassment, and mitigating the side effects of extreme marginalization, including significantly higher rates of depression and suicide. But it’s also curious that these questions are being hashed out via lawsuits and legislation. “This is a very recent dynamic, where legislatures feel they need to define what it is to be a man and what it is to be a woman,” Franke said. The law is an imperfect tool for shaping culture—a back-up cudgel for times when softer methods of

persuasion don’t work. The fact that legislators in overreach-hating, small-government-loving states like Mississippi and

North Carolina have resorted to the law to protect their notions of gender shows the depth of their panic about these ambient cultural shifts . Politicians are taking note. In the dying days of his campaign,

Ted Cruz picked transgender bathroom access—not the economy, not the fight against ISIS, not abortion—as his last hope to win conservatives away from Donald Trump. He stumped hard on the issue in the days before the

Indiana primary, proclaiming the country had gone “stark raving nuts.” It didn’t work. Trump—who has said he would let Caitlyn Jenner, the transgender former Olympic athlete, use any bathroom in Trump Tower—beat him by a wide margin.

Yet, Trump’s own rhetoric often emphasizes his masculinity and stresses the importance of traditional gender roles . Gender is becoming a new litmus test in the culture wars . That’s one reason it’s so

important to understand why, exactly, the specter of “men in women’s bathrooms ” causes such anxiety —to understand its parts, beyond simple hatred. Progressives may believe attitudes on gender and sexuality will go the way of race, with history neatly arcing toward acceptance, aided by generational replacement and a bit of federal strong-arming. But just as that story doesn’t really capture the evolution of race relations in the United States, so the progressive narrative might not hold true on

gender. While these bathroom bills may be a temporary flare-up, the divisions underlying them are foundational, and unlikely to be resolved by the Supreme Court or the Justice Department.

Drains PC - Massive religious and public backlash outweighs – depth of oppositionGreen, 16 --- Emma, staff writer at The Atlantic, where she covers politics, policy, and religion., The Atlantic, 5/31, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/americas-profound-gender-anxiety/484856/



One word that consistently shows up in legislation about bathroom s and same-sex-wedding vendors is “religion.” These bills claim to protect people with sincerely held religious beliefs about the nature of men and women . Some opponents of gay marriage—largely conservative Christians—fear being legally compelled to

participate in these ceremonies, with which they disagree. The exemption language tends to echo that in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a federal law that’s been emulated by many states, which was designed to protect Americans from being forced to violate their religious beliefs . Many publications have started using scare quotes or “so-called” when they write about these putatively religious claims, implying skepticism that refusal to serve LGBT people in any context is a matter of

conviction rather than bigotry. The two motivations—conviction and bigotry—are difficult to tease apart. Particularly in the U nited S tates , a country that remains more religious that its Western peers, faith and culture are in a feedback loop , complementing, responding, and reacting to one another. This is especially true when it comes to trans people in public bathrooms . Wisdom from the Bible can be brought to bear on any question, but on this issue, the ideas at stake are foundational . They are part of “the way of reading the Bible , going back to Genesis” said R. Marie Griffith, a professor of religion and politics at Washington University in St. Louis. “There’s this belief that God

created man, and out of man, he created woman. And these are really crystal-clear categories. There’s something very deep and fundamental about that for the Christians who have … a way of thinking about the Bible as the word of God.” The idea that someone might not identify with the gender that corresponds to the sex assigned to them at birth directly contradicts those

categories. “Anything that challenges that idea , of the clarity of gender, is really suspect. It’s anxiety- producing, and it makes people angry ,” Griffith said. Some Christian leaders have tried to wrestle thoughtfully with this challenge to their beliefs on gender. Russell Moore, who leads the Southern Baptist Convention’s political arm, responded to Caitlin Jenner’s Vanity Fair cover with empathy, writing, “We do not see our transgendered neighbors as freaks to be despised. They feel alienated from their identities as men or women … In a fallen universe, all of us are alienated, in some way, from who we were designed to be.” To Moore, gender is part of how humans are created by God, and it is not our role to change that. Many others share Moore’s belief, but without the same degree of empathy. Christians are used to being challenged on the truth of the Bible; after all, a core component of the faith is sharing the good news of Jesus with those who don’t yet know

him. But challenges to the Bible’s description of gender attack something basic . And in some communities,

these challenges are relatively new. This may be why the language of the bathroom backlash hasn’t been overtly religious. It has been the language of self-evident truth —gender difference as a fact that requires not faith, but logic, to understand. “It’s common sense,” said Vicki Wilson, a parent who is part of a lawsuit against an Illinois school district that has let a transgender student use the girls’ locker and restrooms. “All children must be protected and respected, and having common sense, reasonable boundaries in these private, intimate spaces is protected by law,” she said. Under an agreement with the U.S. Department of Education that took effect in January, Township High School District 211 agreed to let “Student A,” as the transgender child is called in the legal proceedings, have access to girls’ facilities. “Student A” is to use a “private changing station” behind a curtain, and any other girls in the school are also allowed to use these stations. The other girls can also request further accommodation, like changing in a single-stall facility or getting their own schedule for using the bathroom. With this new policy, the lawsuit claims, the 14-to-17-year-old girls at William Fremd High School “experience embarrassment, humiliation, anxiety, fear, apprehension, stress, degradation, and loss of dignity because they will have to use the locker room and restroom with a biological male.” They don’t want this person to see them without their clothes on, and they don’t want to have to look. They “are afraid of having to attend to their most personal needs, especially during a time when their body is undergoing often embarrassing changes as they transition from childhood to adulthood”—their periods, in other words. According to the filing, some girls avoid going to the bathroom to avoid sharing it with the transgender student, “thus risking certain health problems”; they wear their gym clothes under their regular clothes so they never have to be naked at school; or they’re late for class because of the time they spend looking for an empty restroom. As much as anything, this is an issue of body parts. If “Student A” has a penis, as the filing seems to imply, the girls may be uncomfortable for reasons similar to those that led “Student A” to ask to use the girls’ facilities. But more broadly, this is also a question

about gender roles. In a recent PRRI / The Atlantic poll, 42 percent of Americans said they believe society is becoming “too soft and feminine.” Thirty-nine percent said they believe society is better off “when men and women stick to the jobs and tasks they are naturally suited for,” including 44 percent of Republicans and 58 percent of white evangelical Protestants. These numbers suggest

nervousness about fluid gender identities—and that America isn’t even close to a consensus that men and women should choose the way they act.

Opponents control spin – framed as pro sexual assault – triggers intense fighting and unique political stalement Green, 16 --- Emma, staff writer at The Atlantic, where she covers politics, policy, and religion., The Atlantic, 5/31,


It’s no accident that the bathroom backlash has been framed in terms of sexual violence . If men—the putatively

stronger, more powerful, and more physically intimidating sex—are allowed in women’s bathrooms, the argument goes, women will be in danger of sexual assault . “What we’re looking at is a sex panic, ” said Franke, the Columbia

professor. Bathroom-based fear, particularly framed in the context of the safety of women, is not new. “One of the arguments against the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment is that it would require the dismantling of sex-segregated bathrooms, and that would be horrible both with respect to the privacy of women and the safety of women,” she said. If transgender people are able to use the bathroom of their choice, that suggests women are perfectly safe when former men, or women who have masculine characteristics, enter their intimate spaces. “Part of the threat here is that women are saying they do not need protection from men. That has long been a source of anger for men and women who believe in this notion of female submission to male authority,” said Griffith. At least in part, “men who are supporting this are reasserting a protective role.” In situations like the high-school bathroom, further work-arounds might be possible. The parents in the Illinois lawsuit, for example, say they support the possibility of an alternate arrangement for “Student A,” such as providing a single-stall restroom. (Although according to the lawsuit, “Student A” was dissatisfied with this original arrangement.) Arguably, this is as much a problem of school set-up as gender. “What we have to do in the schools is to increase privacy for all students,” said Mara Keisling, the executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality. “School lockers rooms aren’t being built anymore with wide-open dressing rooms and wide-open locker rooms. Nobody likes that. Nobody feels comfortable getting naked in front of strangers—especially teenagers.” But

there’s also a tension inherent in this conflict . “Student A” perceives herself to be female. The girls do not agree. Wilson said she empathizes with Student A’s feelings of discomfort, but “kids should have a right to choose when they are seen in a state of undress by the opposite sex, whether or not that child identifies as the opposite sex,” she said. “Many of us raise our kids to have modesty, and somebody else shouldn’t be able to come in and decide what your modesty should entail. That should be a personal decision.” Although this particular case is a legal dispute over rights—whether one student’s claim of sex discrimination should trump other students’

claims of a privacy violation—it’s evidence that a cultural truce over gender expression might not be possible . Queer sex acts can be private. Queer gender expression requires acknowledgement and acceptance. Trans people ask to be recognized as their chosen gender in everyday interactions. Going to the bathroom may be the most obvious, because parts are exposed and people may feel vulnerable. But these interactions include everything from securing IDs to seeking medical help to interacting with employers or salespeople or friends. Being seen is not primarily a matter of legal rights. It’s cultural: the composite of a thousand moments of locking eyes with someone in a restroom mirror and feeling fear, or not. Can

Americans live divided on issues of gender expression? On most political i ssues in the United States, there’s an acceptable band of opinion. Progressives and conservatives might disagree on topics like taxes, military spending, or entitlement reform, but opponents don’t typically see each other as hateful for their views. Debates over identity , however, are not this straightforward. They are personal , and carry a moral valence. While there is arguably still an acceptable band of racism in America, it has shifted. Those who believe it is right to enslave other humans as chattel or send black people to the back of the bus are a tiny minority, and most everywhere, those views are roundly shamed and condemned. Categorically denying someone’s personhood on the basis of race is no longer acceptable in mainstream American culture. For people who are trans, or who express their gender in non-stereotypical ways, gender is part of their personhood. When the parents and kids of William Fremd High School tell a student who identifies as female that she is a “biological male,” that is a denial of who she says she is. Many Americans think it’s fine for trans people to express their gender however they want. But as the bathroom controversies have shown, many others do not. For some, this may reflect some combination of fear or lack of knowledge. “Ignorance isn’t always bigotry,” said Keisling. “I don’t think everybody is a hateful bigot. But I wish they would go out and meet some trans people and understand that we’re spectacular, and not a threat, and I wish politicians would leave our children alone.” And it’s true: Exposure and education may change people’s views on bathroom access. This is largely what happened with people who are lesbian, gay, and bisexual, said Brian Powell, a

professor at the University of Indiana—as more Americans met gay people, gay people became more accepted. “Regarding transgender issues, we’re still at a really early stage on this, and in a very early stage of where it’s going to go,” he said. “Right now, [ people] have a visceral reaction . This is not unlike people’s views about same-sex marriage from 10 or 15 years ago.” Yet, it’s not clear that T will go the same way as L, G, and B.

Transgender people make up a tiny portion of the American population —the numbers alone will make it harder for people

to resolve these issues by education and exposure alone. Meanwhile, many Americans believe in the firmness of gender as a matter of conviction. They don’t see “male” and “female” as socially constructed , mutable categories, perhaps because God created them, or perhaps simply because that is what they believe. It will never be possible to completely disentangle “conviction” and “bigotry”—belief shapes prejudice, and prejudice shapes belief. But parents like those concerned about the girls’ locker rooms at William Fremd High School seem unlikely to change their views any time soon. And though their kids’ generation will likely be, on average, much more open to fluid gender expression than their parents, the lawsuit suggests that some of these beliefs are being passed to the next generation. Gender is not going to disappear. It’s part of how people navigate the world, a shorthand for understanding others, a set of cues for reading and placing them and interpreting them. It is central to how people understand themselves, whether they’re conservative Christians or choosing to transition.

Calls for pluralism fail to take this seriously —how deeply gender shapes people, and how viscerally both camps feel about its (im)mutability . Fights over bathrooms may seem trivial, but they are the logical meeting ground for this battle over the definition of gender , sitting between two irreconcilable camps



Drains PC – massive congressional backlash – perceived as annihilating local control and states rightsPaxton, 16 --- Ken, Attorney General Texas, National Review, 9/8, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439840/texas-battles-obamas-bathroom-edicts-defend-constitution

Why Texas Is Fighting Obama’s Unconstitutional Directives on Bathrooms and Locker Rooms The president does not have the power to rewrite Title IX, or any other law, of his accord. The president does not have the power to rewrite Title IX, or

any other law, of his accord. The New York Times is unhappy with me and the State of Texas for challenging yet another of

President Obama’s sweeping directives. This one would require all school districts across the country to permit transgender students to use the bathroom facilities of their choice . The editorial board of the paper calls the president’s order a “common-sense approach” and claims that our lawsuit against the administration amounts to

“legal assaults . . . based on bigotry.” This is nonsense. It is certainly correct that Texas and 23 other states are waging a massive legal battle against the president’s latest edict. Yet for some reason the New York Times editors refuse to

acknowledge what this legal fight is actually about: the Constitution. It should surprise no one that the New York Times has its own agenda — but it is still frustrating when it blatantly mischaracterizes the facts and the law to fit its own narrative.

Control over intimate facilities in schools has always been left to the states . In Texas, for example,

state law says that decisions over who uses what facilities will be made by local school districts —

most of which have chosen to decide such weighty issues on a case-by-case basis . The states have never ceded this control to the fed eral government , yet President Obama is now trying to seize it

through the use of Title IX — and he is violating the Constitution in the process. Congress passed Title IX in 1972 to forbid sex discrimination in schools. Under Title IX, “sex” means an individual’s biological sex at birth. This should not be a controversial conclusion. For decades, across multiple federal statutes, Congress has consistently used the term “sex” to refer to an

individual’s status as male or female as determined by the individual’s biological sex at birth. Congress made the deliberate decision for Title IX to address sex but not gender identity . EDITORIAL: The Obama

Administration Rewrites Title IX Make no mistake: Congress knows the difference between sex and gender identity, and it knows how to write a law to address both sex and gender identity . Recently, Congress amended the Violence Against Women Act and the Hate Crimes Act to address both sex discrimination and gender-identity

discrimination. In Title IX, however, Congress has chosen to address only sex discrimination — not gender-identity discrimination. In fact, Congress has repeatedly rejected attempts to amend Title IX to include gender -identity discrimination , even as recently as 2015. President Obama is apparently unhappy that “gender identity” is not included in Title IX. He has the right to be unhappy, and he doesn’t have to settle

for just being unhappy, either. The president is a powerful guy . He can do a lot of big, important things . He can ask Congress to pass a bill amending Title IX. He can go on TV and urge the American people to elect representatives who will

amend Title IX. He can beg, plead, cajole, and expend all the political capital he wants to try to get Congress to change the law .

Trans- Bathrooms---Plan = Trump Loss

Plan is a political loss for TrumpMead, 17 --- Rebecca, Rebecca Mead joined The New Yorker as a staff writer in 1997, 2/23, 17, http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/betsy-devoss-spineless-transgender-bathroom-politicsBETSY DEVOS’S SPINELESS TRANSGENDER BATHROOM POLITICS When historians write their accounts of the Trump era—assuming the practice of historical scholarship survives it—a small but significant portion of those chronicles will be concerned with the bewildering phenomenon of grown

Republican men policing the bathroom habits of vulnerable teen-agers. With the announcement today that Trump has rescinded a civil-rights

rule put in place under President Obama, providing trans gender students in public schools with the right to use the bathroom of their choice, the President and his Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, have scored a political victory . Voters who believe that a hazard is presented by , for example, a transgender eighth

grader using the bathroom corresponding to her gender identity will be satisfied by the new policy, which states that local districts will now be at liberty to make their own policies regarding who gets to go to the bathroom where. Schools will, presumably, be able to insist that transgender students use the bathroom that is opposite to their gender identity, or—as is often proposed as a reasonable, middle-ground solution—a separate bathroom altogether, such as one intended for teachers. Reports emerged yesterday

suggesting that Betsy DeVos, Trump’s recently appointed and highly controversial Education Secretary, had misgivings about rescinding or revising the policy as it stood. A story in the Times reported that DeVos had expressed concern that rolling back the recently acquired rights of transgender students would open such students up to potential harm, and noted that she had been “quietly supportive of gay rights” for some time. According to the report, DeVos expressed her reservations to Sessions, who could not be persuaded, and sought out Trump’s support for his own position. The President reportedly told DeVos that she could get onboard or she could resign. DeVos chose to keep her job, and signed off on the new rules. At the same time, the Times reported, she insisted that the letter rescinding the policy should incorporate wording that all students have the right “to learn and thrive in a safe and trusted environment,” and that the department’s Office of Civil Rights would remain committed to investigating claims of discrimination, harassment, and bullying. This account was greeted in some quarters with something approaching

approbation: “Betsy DeVos tried to do something good, but of course Trump overruled her ” was one take, in The New Republic.

Link—Actors

Courts---1NCLinks to both Supreme Court affs as well as lower courts

Court education decisions are highly controversial and derail the agenda---the plan causes court stripping and congressional backlashJennings, 15 – Jack Jennings, former president and CEO of the Center on Education Policy and general counsel for the House Committee on Education and Labor, “Lessons Learned from Federal Involvement in Schooling”, in Presidents, Congress, and the Public Schools: The Politics of Education Reform, p. 144-145

STRONG POLICIES

When the federal government has adopted forceful policies, the effect is greater than when weaker policies have been used—this is common sense. The means of carrying out federal policies exist along a continuum of forcefulness.

Supreme Court decisions are the most powerful means of ensuring action on a policy, and lower federal court rulings are also potent . The Supreme Court's 1974 Lau ruling , which held that the San Francisco school district violated the constitutional rights of students who were not proficient in English because they were not afforded additional assistance to learn English, changed practices throughout the country. Lower federal court decisions , which found violations of the Fourteenth Amendment in school districts' treatment of children with disabilities, not only affected the defendant school districts but more importantly spurred congressional action in writing what has come to be known today as IDEA.

Brown v. Board of Education, although it was issued somewhat before the time frame of this book, was tremendously important not only in desegregating the schools but also in establishing the ideal that America should be a country for all peoples. In sharp contrast , the Supreme Court's San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez closed the federal doors to efforts to bring greater fairness in the funding of public education. This 1973 case involved Texas's substantial reliance on local real estate taxes to fund the schools even though that meant that property-poor school districts had much less available for education than did property-rich school districts. The Court said that there was no remedy at the federal level, and so sent the issue back to the states.

As powerful as they are, federal court rulings can be affected by congressional action . Over a period of many years, the Congress enacted laws that sought to limit the Supreme Court's Swann decision , which held that the lower federal courts could order busing of school children for the purpose of desegregation. While enacting those laws, Congress tried not to go head-to- head with the courts, since they could rule those laws as unconstitutional, but eventually Congress succeeded in limiting busing, assisted by presidential appointments of judges disposed against that practice. With Title IX, Congress changed the law after the Supreme Court ruled in Grove City that only one part of that institution of higher education would be affected by the prohibition on discrimination against women. The Civil Rights Restoration Act, in effect,

overruled the Court's decision by clarifying congressional intent that entire institutions were affected, not only by Title IX but also by other civil rights laws. Even though court rulings are a powerful federal tool to execute policy, they are not necessarily the last word .

Courts---A2: Courts Shield---2NC

No Shielding – court decisions are highlight controversial and derail the agenda – the spur backlash, congressional action and legislative fights over court stripping – prefer education policy specific ev – that’s Jennings

Court uniquely politicized and rulings tied to trump – Blocking Garland vote changed the gameTurow, 17 --- Scott, partner of the international law firm Dentons, former US Assistant Attorney, member of the U.S. Senate Nominations Commission, 2/1, http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/02/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court

CAN NEIL GORSUCH DE-POLITICIZE THE SUPREME COURT? Or will he make matters worse? The ultimate consequence of a court viewed as a political instrument is that it will be disrespected, and even disobeyed, by the

political majority. The nomination of federal Appellate Court Judge Neil Gorsuch to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S.

Supreme Court is destined to speed up the already rapid politicization of the court , a process that threatens to

rob it of legitimacy and, sooner or later, produce open defiance of its decisions. This has next to nothing to do with the bona fides of Judge Gorsuch, who appears to have the intellectual qualifications—a doctorate from Oxford, no less—and the judicial experience that one, in theory, would

want in a Supreme Court justice. The problem , of course, is the way we got here . Even before Barack Obama nominated

Judge Merrick Garland to succeed Justice Scalia last year, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to allow hearings to proceed

on any name that the president sent forth. Instead, McConnell said, the nomination should belong to the next president chosen by the American people . There was virtually no precedent for McConnell’s position: Justice Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in the last year of President Reagan’s second term by a Democratic Senate.

Worse, by essentially proposing that the choice for a Supreme Court justice would be decided as the result of a plebiscite, McConnell was suggesting that the court should be controlled by the voters . McConnell’s actions were all the more ironic because they concerned the seat of the court’s most committed “originalist,” as those who supposedly interpret the Constitution according to the intent and understandings of its framers are called. In this case, the intent of the framers was pretty clear on a couple of matters. First, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution says: “The President...shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint...Judges of the [S]upreme Court...” Lawyers, including originalists, love “plain language,” and the plain language here vests the appointment power solely in the president, with the Senate’s role limited to advising and consenting. By withholding any vote in committee or on the Senate floor, McConnell clearly ignored the

constitutional command to offer advice or affirmation. Furthermore, by awaiting the next presidential election, McConnell was saying that the voters deserved to decide the direction of the court. Again, this is not what

the framers of the constitution wanted. They could have easily provided for the election of judges. They didn’t. The framers envisioned the court as a less political institution on which the justices would serve for life, so that they were not prisoners of the popular will.

President is the focal point of politics – they get the credit or the blame, deserved or notRosati 4. [Jerel A., University of South Carolina Government and International Studies professor “The Politics of United States Foreign Policy,” 2004, p. 80]

Given the popular image of presidential power, presidents receive credit when things are perceived as going well and are blamed when things go badly . Unfortunately, American politics and the policy process are incredibly complex and beyond considerable presidential control . With so many complex issues and problems to address – the debt problem, the economy, energy, welfare, education, the

environment, foreign policy – this is a very demanding time to be president . As long as presidential promises and public expectations remain high, the president’s job becomes virtually an impossible task. Should success occur, given the lack of

presidential power, it is probably not by the president’s own design. Nonetheless, the president – the person perceived to be

the leader of the country – will be rewarded in terms of public prestige, greater power, and reelection (for him or his successor). However, if the president is perceived as unsuccessful – a failure – this results not only in a weakened president but one the public wants replaced, creating the opportunity to challenge an incumbent president or his heir as presidential nominee.

No ShieldingGreenwald 6 (Glenn, Civil Rights Lawyer and Author “How would a Patriot Act?”, http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_glenngreenwald_archive.html)

Additionally, court opinions historically have a political impact as well as legal effects . Despite the concerted, destructive attacks on the credibility of the Supreme Court by the likes of Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, who hate and wage war on any institution (such as the media) which dares to challenge the Powers of the President, Americans still retain a respect for the Supreme Court as an important and credible institution. The Court's proclamation that the President has been acting beyond his

legal and constitutional authority strengthens that argument as a political matter. It is also likely to further galvanize those in Congress and the media who have been gradually taking a stand against the Administration. A Supreme Court ruling that is this decisive, on an issue this significant, is virtually never confined to the legal realm , but almost always has impact, often profound impact, in the political realm as well.

That’s true for individual rulings post GorsuchTurow, 17 --- Scott, partner of the international law firm Dentons, former US Assistant Attorney, member of the U.S. Senate Nominations Commission, 2/1, http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/02/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court

It goes without saying that McConnell’s actions , while the most recent and most radical step in politicizing the court, were hardly the first . Conservatives like to say, with some merit, that all of this began when the Democrat-controlled Senate refused to confirm Robert Bork, President Reagan’s first nominee for the seat that Kennedy eventually filled. Bork, who had the same kind of intellectual credentials and experience as Gorsuch, had tarnished himself for good during Watergate. As acting attorney general, he had followed President Nixon’s order to fire the independent special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, but only after Attorney General Eliot Richardson and his replacement, Deputy Attorney General William Ruckleshaus, had both resigned rather than fire Cox themselves. (Sound familiar?) Being “Borked,” in the conservative lexicon, soon became a synonym for being derailed only because of one’s political leanings. That said, it’s worth wondering where we would be today if the Democrats in the Senate in 1987 had had McConnell’s gall and guile and simply refused to bring Bork’s nomination to a vote

because Reagan was a lame duck. In terms of politicization, even McConnell’s overreach might have been exceeded by the court itself when it decided to step into the 2000 election in Bush v. Gore. Acres of precedent required the court to defer to the Florida Supreme Court’s interpretation of Florida law, which that court said required a recount. But to sidestep those decisions, the High Court offered an adventuresome interpretation of the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution—one that was so out of keeping with existing jurisprudence that it has been largely disregarded ever since. The case was a one-off and clearly result-oriented. In essence, the severely divided court decided to hold the election for president all over again—in its own chambers. I will always believe the nine justices voted on the case exactly as they did at their actual ballot boxes. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a variety of revered legal thinkers, starting with Oliver Wendell Holmes, began positing a theory of law called legal realism. In its many different strands, legal realism concedes that judges are inclined to validate

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_glenngreenwald_archive.html

their own personal moral and political beliefs in their decisions. To avoid politicizing decision-making, therefore, it is best for judges to restrict their decisions to the narrowest questions and grounds available, and to defer to legislative judgments whenever possible. Ever since, both liberals and

conservatives have invoked realist principles when the situation suited them. Judge Gorsuch himself, in words he’ll be chewing on for many months, has accused liberals of using the courts for social engineering . In an article for the conservative journal National Review, written in 2005 before taking the bench, Gorsuch asserted, “American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers, rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education.” Gorsuch concluded that doing so was “bad for

the judiciary.” The problem, Judge Gorsuch notwithstanding, is that conservatives have been no more restrained than liberals in using the judiciary to implement their political agenda . And originalists have been especially hypocritical. For example, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court in 2008 took up a 25-year-old D.C. statute that generally prohibited owning handguns. Deferring to legislative judgments would have meant giving wide berth to a longstanding law. Instead, Justice Scalia and his conservative allies found—more than two centuries after the adoption of the the Second Amendment—that it granted a constitutional right to keep handguns in one’s home, overruling the court’s own decision from 1934, which had read the Second Amendment as applying solely to weapons to be used for the local militia. Even more important, perhaps, to an originalist, should have been the fact that the modern repeat-action handgun was not invented until nearly a century after the Constitution was written. So how could its framers possibly have intended to protect the right to have such weapons in the home? Or take the great bête noir of liberals like me: the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United, which allowed corporations and unions to ignore congressionally enacted restrictions on political advertising. Most of the frenzied outcry about the decision has focused on its effects, which give the richest economic entities in our society a disproportionate voice in political discussions. But the fact of the matter is that the decision itself depended on radical jurisprudence. The conservative court majority invalidated not only a congressional enactment but also overruled not one, but two previous decisions of the court itself. Furthermore, its most outrageous conclusion—that corporations effectively have an unlimited right to free speech on political questions—cannot possibly be shoehorned into any sincere version of originalism. I challenge any conservative to find any declaration in the writings of Madison or Hamilton or Franklin or Washington—indeed, any of the other framers—that corporations have the same free-speech rights as individuals. The framers all would have fainted at the idea, since the modern corporate form essentially did not begin to evolve until the middle of the 19th century. Nevertheless, Judge Gorsuch’s declaration that using the courts as a proxy for politics is “bad for the judiciary” bears some heed. The ultimate consequence of a court viewed as a political instrument is that it will be disrespected and even disobeyed by the political majority. In fact, it’s been widely speculated that Chief Justice John Roberts voted twice to uphold the Affordable Care Act against challenges by Republican groups because he feared the consequences of using the court to invalidate legislation that was the signature political act of the Obama

administration and was passed by a super majority in the U.S. Senate. Which brings us back to Judge Gorsuch . He is being installed by a president who lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million ballots after Senate Republicans hijacked the constitutional prerogative of Obama to nominate Justice Scalia’s replacement. As a consequence, Gorsuch’s vote on the court will always be regarded as illegitimate by many people. For a while now, I have been thinking that the wisdom of the legal realists bears serious reconsideration. The only real hope of de-politicizing the court is by getting the institution out of the business of making the kinds of moral and political judgments that we have become accustomed to . But that means that those on both sides of the aisle need to make a pact to, in essence, put an ice pick through our hearts. For people like me, that means conceding, with enormous pain (and as the most inflammatory example) that legislatures, not courts, should have decided whether gay people had the right to marry. For conservatives that means conceding that Citizens United is bad law. Full stop. Will Neil Gorsuch, in his confirmation hearings, lead the way?

Congressional reaction inevitably draws plan into partisan politicization – process can’t be insulatedFloyd, ’17 --- John, director of United Kingdom manufacturing, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., vice president of manufacturing and international operations, General Tire & Rubber Co., and director of manufacturing, Chrysler Corp 4/14, http://www.gadsdentimes.com/news/20170414/john-f-floyd-judges-pulled-into-washingtons-quagmire

Judges pulled into Washington’s quagmire “Webster’s New World Dictionary” defines a judge as an elected or

appointed official with authority to hear and decide cases in a court of law. There is no mention of conservatism, liberalism or any other “isms.” All my life I have considered anyone with the annotation of judge before his or her name as someone who has answered a higher calling. Special, extraordinary and impartial are adjectives that come to mind

when describing individuals who that title. However, this hallowed description has been annihilated by the political process and present -day politicians . Today’s politics are rotten, corruptible and have pulled

http://www.gadsdentimes.com/news/20170414/john-f-floyd-judges-pulled-into-washingtons-quagmire

http://www.gadsdentimes.com/news/20170414/john-f-floyd-judges-pulled-into-washingtons-quagmire

judges and the U.S. court system into the quagmire . Judges fall into two categories: those who adhere to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and those who view the Constitution as a living document open to their personal

interpretation. Judge Neil M. Gorsuch’s recent confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court is a prime example of politicizing a process that should be inoculated from the normal merry-go-round of dumb questions for which Washington is famous. As Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, stated in an article in the Wall Street Journal, “Supreme Court nominees are

typically highly talented lawyers and judges. The Senate’s role is to probe their qualifications and judicial philosophies. At its best, the process is removed from the pettiness of partisan politics.” Unfortunately, with the

intellect of both Democrats and Republicans in Congress , pettiness in partisan politics is the name of the game. Judge Gorsuch , a man of impeccable integrity and extraordinary judicial accomplishments, was asked a

series of asinine questions by Democratic senators. They asked him how he would rule on hypothetical cases. He would not directly answer the questions because each case is to be decided by legal and factual determinations. Sen. Hatch went on to say that judges should be neutral arbiters, and asking them to prejudice themselves raises serious due process concerns for future litigants who deserve the opportunity to make their arguments in full. Judge Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing could have been shortened considerably by Democrats asking one question: “Are you a conservative judge and will your decisions reflect conservative values?” He could answer that question in many ways, but Democratic senators were already told how to vote. This mockery of a confirmation hearing was a waste of time. The Democrats initiated a filibuster to delay Judge Gorsuch’s

confirmation. For him to be confirmed, the Republicans resorted to an up or down vote known as the nuclear option. The nuclear option has been used by Democrats to confirm judges at the lower level, but never for a Supreme Court nominee. Republicans changed the rules of confirmation and applied the nuclear option to confirm Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, an act unparalleled in U.S. legislative history . Why would any man or woman want to endure the kind of cross-examination that has become standard procedure for taking on the mantra of government service? In the case of Judge Gorsuch, the patronizing ignorance of some senators must have given him second thoughts about pursuing the highest of judicial responsibilities. Many of President Donald Trump’s cabinet nominations

experienced the same mentality. Civility and respect are dead in Washington politics . It will take a completely new set of politicians to reverse the malaise that now affects the nation’s capital. Government agencies that should be politically neutral are now so politicized, there is no trust between parties . The two-party system has failed the American people when compromise is impossible. An example is Obamacare: Why not take the good parts of Obamacare, modify the troublesome aspects and create a bipartisan solution to its many inequities? I know, it is too simple.

Courts---A2: Courts Shield---ExtensionsYes political backlash Woodward 10. [Calvin, AP writer, “Obama’s high court smackdown prompts read-my-lips dissent from a justice and a decorum debate” Business News -- Jan 28 -- http://blog.taragana.com/business/2010/01/28/obamas-high-court-smackdown-prompts-read-my-lips-dissent-from-a-justice-and-a-decorum-debate-25811/]

An unusual piece of theater that unfolded in the blink of an eye at the State of the Union speech raises questions: Was President Barack Obama rude to criticize a Supreme Court decision in the company of the justices? Was his complaint about the decision, which removed corporate campaign spending limits, right? Was Justice Samuel Alito’s read-my-lips critique — “not true” — not true? Republicans huffed Thursday about Obama’s jab at the

court. But it was worth keeping in mind that presidents and lawmakers routinely criticize Supreme Court decisions and the justices who make them. Remember Bush v. Gore and the mutterings about a politically rigged court? Democrats huffed about the huffing and declared that one of the great things about America is that powerful people can disagree in public. But it also was worth remembering that the justices were guests for Wednesday night’s speech to Congress, placed as always in the best seats in the House. It was an odd time and place for Obama to deliver a Supreme Court smackdown. The ceremony and courtesies that attend rare assemblies of all three branches of power call on everyone to act with respect for tradition and a certain fellowship, however forced. Exhibit A: The robed justices only clap at the beginning, the end and the safest moments in between. Their applause is invariably judicious, tipping no hand about their political leanings or whether they actually liked what they heard. No fist bumps here. Still, this is not a nation of powdered wigs and genuflection. Authority is constantly, bluntly challenged, although not usually during wedding toasts, funeral rites or State of the Union addresses. Looking down at the six justices seated in front of him as well as to the wider masses, Obama departed from the scrolling text of his speech and added an unscripted preamble. “With all due deference to the separation of powers,” he began delicately, then reverted to his prepared remarks, “the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.” Alito, part of the 5-4 majority in the landmark case, objected to the reference to a century of law upended, to the notion that floodgates have been opened, or both. In any event, after Obama’s line on those subjects, he shook his head and quietly mouthed words that included the phrase “not true.” He did not mean for lip-readers to go viral with it. Still, the episode stirred memories of the decorum-shattering shout of “You lie” by Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., during Obama’s health care speech to Congress in September. Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah said Obama was “kind of rude” in his remark. “It’s one thing to say that he differed with the court but another thing to demagogue the issue while the court is sitting there out of respect for his position,” he told The Salt Lake Tribune. Obama spokesman Bill Burton saw it differently: “One of the great things about our democracy is that powerful members of the government at high levels can disagree in public and in private.” Vice President Joe Biden pointed out Obama did not question the integrity of the justices in criticizing the decision. Instead, Sen.

Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, questioned the integrity of the justices. He accused “conservative activists ” on the court of making decisions on their “whimsical preferences” and “ ideological agenda ” instead of the law . Not one for understatement, Leahy said the decision was even worse than the Bush v. Gore case that settled a disputed election in the Republicans’ favor in 2000 because conservative activist justices “have now decided to intervene in all elections.”

http://blog.taragana.com/business/2010/01/28/obamas-high-court-smackdown-prompts-read-my-lips-dissent-from-a-justice-and-a-decorum-debate-25811/

http://blog.taragana.com/business/2010/01/28/obamas-high-court-smackdown-prompts-read-my-lips-dissent-from-a-justice-and-a-decorum-debate-25811/

Courts---A2: Announced In June---2NC

Fiat means done at the soonest opportunity

That’s best:

Key to ground---they allow indefinite delay, ruining time-sensitive Das

Key to education---politics is the core obstacle to change---they bypass a key question, robbing ground and debates about a central issue

2AC specification is conditionality, making the Aff a moving target---it’s arbitrary and destroys clash

It’s real world---they can act instantlyHerz 2 – Michael Herz, Professor of Law at Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, “The Supreme Court in Real Time: Haste, Waste, and Bush v. Gore”, Akron Law Review, 35 Akron L. Rev. 185, Lexis

That day, President Bush sought a stay of the state Supreme Court's ruling from the United States Supreme Court. The lawyers argued that the recounts mandated by the state supreme court would run past the December 12 "deadline," were inconsistent with the state election statutes, and were arbitrary and standardless. Accordingly, they violated (1) the federal statutory provision governing congressional counting of electoral votes, 9 (2) the constitutional allocation of authority to the state legislature to determine the manner in which the state selects its electors, 10 and (3) the equal protection and due process clauses. 11 The Court granted the stay the next day, Saturday, December 9, and, treating the petition for a stay as a petition for

certiorari, granted certiorari as well. 12 Briefs were due by 4:00 p.m. on December 10, and oral argument set for 10:00 a.m.

Monday, December 11. 13 The Court handed down its decision at a little before 10:00 p.m. the following evening . 14 Only four similar instances come to mind in which the modern Court considered cases involving matters of great national importance on a highly expedited schedule . The steel seizure case, 15 the Nixon tapes case, 16 the Iranian assets case, 17 and the Pentagon Papers case 18 were all [*189] litigated in a matter of weeks or months and produced almost instant opinions from the Supreme Court (19, 16, 8, and 4 days after oral argument, respectively). But these are rarities. And even by these standards Bush v. Gore set new records for speed--for the overall litigation, for the briefing schedule, and for the period within which the Court reached its decision. The speed of Bush v. Gore is less striking when compared to the standards of an earlier time. The Supreme Court once decided cases much more quickly than is the current norm. During the period from 1815 to 1835, for example, the Court decided 66 constitutional cases with full opinion; 17 of those opinions were handed down within five days of the argument, including several of the Court's most significant rulings. 19 "By contemporary standards, the Marshall Court was breathtakingly swift to render decisions." 20 By the following century, the pace had slowed. Robert Post has calculated that during the 1912-1920 Terms the Court averaged 63.7 days from the argument of a case to the announcement of a full opinion. 21 In contrast, during the 1993-1998 Terms the Court took an average of 91.1 days after argument to hand down its decision. 22

http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc=&pushme=1&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&taggedDocs=&toggleValue=&numDocsChked=0&prefFBSel=0&delformat=XCITE&fpDocs=&fpNodeId=&fpCiteReq=&brand=&_m=4a8d2bb2542491f3547480df90b2654d&docnum=16&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzb-zSkAB&_md5=5b414020ee201b26081a15236db6b9d6&focBudTerms=supreme+court+w%2F50+court+w%2F35+announc!+or+decid!+or+decision!+w%2F35+expedi!+or+quick!+or+immediat!+or+speedy!+or+rapid!+w%2F35+term+or+june+or+docket&focBudSel=all#n18





“Not real world” or “unlikely to happen” links to aff and isn’t offense against our interpretation – EVERY inherent aff is NECESSARILY “unlikely in the real world”

Ground necessarily outweighs “real world” for fiat interpretations – the entire reason fiat exists is to bypass “real world” for sake of ground and good debate – anything else is indistinct from “bottom of docket”

Normal means is immediate announcementSegal 5 (Jeffrey Allan, Professor of Political Science – SUNY Stony Brook, The Supreme Court in the American Legal System, p. 275-276)

CASE SELECTION

The procedure that the Court employs to select the cases that it wishes to decide is formally uncomplicated. But because the justices provide very little information about this stage of their decision making, we do not know whether its operation is comparably simple.

However, we can infer that the procedure the Court uses to choose its cases does work efficiently. The justices manage to stay abreast of their docket, unlike judges in the vast majority of courts , state and federal. Little time elapses between receipt of a case and its disposition : A decision not to hear a case may be made within a week or two, but not for several months if the case reaches the Court during the summer, when it is not in session. Cases that the Court agrees to review are almost always heard and decided within a year. Finally, lay and professional criticism is notable by its absence, whereas assuredly if an affected or interested public considered the Court dilatory or thought it was ducking important issues, criticism would be swift.

LInk—Key Groups/Lobbies

Unions Key---AgendaTeachers’ unions key to the agendaMoe, 11 – Terry M. Moe, Senior Fellow at Hoover and Political Science Professor at Stanford, 7-13-2011, “The Staggering Power of the Teachers' Unions”, http://www.hoover.org/research/staggering-power-teachers-unions

UNION POWER AND AMERICA’S SCHOOLS

It might seem that the teachers’ unions would play a limited role in public education : fighting for better pay and working conditions for their members, but otherwise having little impact on the structure and performance of the public schools more generally. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. The teachers’ unions have more influence on the public schools than any other group in American society .

Their influence takes two forms. They shape the schools from the bottom up, through collective bargaining activities so broad in scope that virtually every aspect of school organization bears the distinctive imprint of union design. They also shape the schools from the top down , through political activities that give them unrivaled influence over the laws and regulations imposed on public education by government, and that allow them to block or weaken government al reforms they find threatening. In combining bottom-up and top-down influence , and in combining them as potently as they do, the teachers’ unions are unique among all actors in the educational arena.

It’s difficult to overstate how extensive a role the unions play in making America’s schools what they are—and in preventing them from being something different.

Before the 1960s, the power holders in America’s public school system were the administrative professionals charged with running it, as well as the local school boards who appointed them. Teachers had little power, and they were unorganized aside from their widespread membership in the National Education Association (NEA), which was a professional organization controlled by administrators. In the 1960s, however, states began to adopt laws that for the first time promoted collective bargaining for public employees. When the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) launched a campaign to organize the nation’s teachers into unions, the NEA turned itself into a labor union (and eventually kicked out the administrators) to compete, and the battle was on in thousands of school districts. By the time the dust settled in the early 1980s, virtually all districts of any size (outside the South) were successfully organized, collective bargaining was the norm, and the teachers’ unions reigned supreme as the most powerful force in American education.

This transformation—the rise of union power—created what was essentially a new system of public education. This new system has now been in equilibrium for roughly thirty years, and throughout this time it has been vigorously protected—and stabilized—by the very union power that created it.

POLITICAL WEAPONS AND HOW TO BLUNT THEM

The trademark of this new system is not just that the teachers’ unions are pre-eminently powerful. It is also that they use their power to promote their own special interests—and to make the organization of schooling a reflection of those interests. They say, of course, that what is good for teachers is good for kids. But the simple fact is that they are not in the business of representing kids. They are unions. They represent the job-related interests of their members, and these interests are not the same as the interests of children.

Some things are obvious. It is not good for children that ineffective teachers cannot be removed from the classroom. It is not good for children that teachers cannot be assigned to the classrooms where they are needed most. It is not good for children that excellent young teachers get laid off before mediocre colleagues with more seniority. Yet the unions fight to see that schools are organized in these ways.

And there’s more. The organization of schooling goes beyond the personnel rules of collective- bargaining contracts to include all the formal components of the school system : accountability, choice, funding, class size, special education, and virtually anything else policymakers deem relevant. These matters are subject to the authority of state and national governments, where they are fought out in the political process —and decisions are heavily determined by political power.

Here the unions’ great strength as political organizations comes into play. The NEA and the AFT, with more than four million members between them, are by far the most powerful groups in the politics of education. They wield astounding sums of money , year after year, for campaign contributions and lobbying. They have armies of well-educated activists in every political district. They can orchestrate well-financed p ublic- r elations and media campaigns any time they want, on any topic or candidate . And they have supremely well-developed organizational apparatuses that blanket the country .

They don’t always get their way on public policy, of course. The American system of checks and balances makes that impossible. But these same checks and balances also ensure that blocking new laws is much easier than getting them passed , and this is how the teachers’ unions have use d their power to great effect : not by getting the policies they want, but by stop ping or weaken ing the policies they don’t want —and thus preventing true education reform.

Unions Key---Agenda---ExtSpills over to other policies---they’ll fight the agenda nationallyMaloney, 14 – Ray Maloney, WSJ Letter to the Editor, 7-23-2014, “Teachers Unions and Political Power”, https://www.wsj.com/articles/teachers-unions-and-political-power-letters-to-the-editor-1406145848

Allysia Finley describes the National Education Association in "A Teachers Union With a Math Problem" (op-ed, July 12) as a business-as-usual progressive advocacy group that is ignoring harsh financial realities related to unfavorable client demographics (declining student enrollment), NEA teacher dropouts in right-to-work states and grossly underfunded pension plans. As basic math adds up to trouble for the NEA, however, the union's mission creep now has it considering the environmental effects of fracking, the outsourcing of post office functions to Staples, the name of the Washington Redskins , U.S. reparations for slavery, promotion of LGBTQ themes in classrooms and endorsement of a clean energy curriculum.

The NEA's mission has expanded and converged with the missions of most unions today (as well as many special-interest groups hijacked by progressive social engineers) that lobby for pro- union policies. That broad political agenda brings together a coalition that still can influence Washington, even as each component of the coalition is struggling with math.

Over the years, the specific issues that are most important to teachers, health-care workers or retirees were incorporated by their advocacy groups into a leftist package that compromised each organization's primary responsibilities to its constituents. Broader social transformation (and in the case of AARP, potential insurance revenues) trumped immediate interests of organization members.

One way for the NEA to buy a little time is, oddly enough, through strength in numbers . Align with as many other math-challenged progressive groups as possible and keep control of Washington's top-down agenda and the media message . If anyone can empathize with a math problem, it would have to be the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress.

Unions Key---PCAlienating teachers’ unions wrecks political capital and focusAP, 08 – Associated Press, 12-8-2008, “Obama education pick sparks conflict”, http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28113748/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-education-pick-sparks-conflict/

Teachers' unions, an influential segment of the party base, want an advocate for their members, someone like Obama adviser Linda Darling-Hammond, a Stanford University professor, or Inez Tenenbaum, the former state schools chief in South Carolina.

Reform advocates want someone like New York schools chancellor Joel Klein, who wants teachers and schools held accountable for the performance of students.

Thus far Obama has avoided taking sides , saying things that reassure the competing factions. Obama has said, for instance, that teacher pay should be tied to student achievement, which reformers like, but not solely based on test scores, which teachers like.

Unions, by the way, dislike the "reformer" label, pointing out they want reform, too. And the reform group says it cares about good teachers; it just wants bad ones out of the classroom.

"He's a wise man," said Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, chuckling. "He left himself some room to maneuver."

Bayh, a Democratic centrist who backed the No Child Left Behind law, thinks Obama will find a way to straddle the competing factions . "My strong impression of the president-elect is he is pragmatic. He won't pick an ideologue. He won't pick a side in this fight."

Even so, Bayh expects Obama to choose someone the unions can live with to carry out his education goals.

"You probably don't get there by having an overt, in-your-face fight with classroom teachers ," Bayh said. "That's going to take a lot of political capital and divert energy from other things ."

Can Obama make both sides happy? Not likely , said Republican Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina.

Parents Key---AgendaBacklash from parent groups shapes the agenda---outweighs other factorsJochim, 16 – Ashley Jochim, research analyst at the Center on Reinventing Public Education, and Patrick McGuinn, Associate Professor of Political Science and Education at Drew University, “The Politics of the Common Core Assessments”, Education Next 16.4, Fall 2016

Support from the Wrong Places

The Common Core standards and their aligned assessments drew many supporters from the federal and state governments , from the philanthropic community, and from reform advocates, but most members of these groups do not have a personal stake—a vested interest—in what happens in schools at the ground level . Therefore, their support alone is not enough to sustain education reform over time. Federal and state policymakers sometimes embrace high standards and quality assessments in principle, but when they experience intense pressure from interest groups and the public , their support is likely to falter . Indeed, many former supporters of Common Core, including Republican governors Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Chris Christie of New Jersey, and Mary Fallin of Oklahoma, have withdrawn support of the standards in the face of political opposition from conservative interest groups, teachers unions, and swarms of parents and other voters.

Advocacy organizations such as Achieve and the Collaborative for Student Success can help build political support, but in the case of Common Core, efforts have largely focus ed on lobbying policymakers, not building the kind of broad-based coalitions needed to reengineer the K–12 system around high standards, quality assessments, and accountability for results. Parents and other community members were often left to learn about the standards and assessments via their social networks, where ill-informed but powerful negative interpretations of the reforms circulated through social media and were passed along by teachers, or at the dinner table. And the standards won few advocates among the parents and guardians who struggled to help their children navigate the new expectations with little guidance to support their efforts.

Philanthropists who supported Common Core also underestimated what would be necessary to support the transition to higher standards. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation invested $230 million in design, implementation support, and advocacy. But, as Jay Greene of the University of Arkansas argues, foundations can’t compel change, because the resources they invest are so small relative to the budgets of the organizations they seek to affect, and any effort to impose a solution will draw out opponents who are far more powerful and vested than the foundations themselves. Greene finds that philanthropic investments have the greatest impact when they create constituencies that advocate for change, but this didn’t happen in the case of Common Core.

The lack of vested stakeholder support had particularly acute consequences for the assessments. Standards for student learning are not likely to draw many opponents when they are just words on a page, because they threaten no one. But when policymakers seek to hold

students, teachers, and schools accountable for those standards using aligned assessments, they are far more likely to stimulate opposition from those who have much to lose .

Parents Key---ExtAny encroachment on parents is politically unthinkableSawhill, 13 – Isabel V. Sawhill and Richard V. Reeves, Senior Fellows in Economic Studies, and Kimberly Howard, Senior Research Assistant, 9-8-2013, “Parenting, Politics, and Social Mobility”, Brookings

Currently, however, parenting policies are the Cinderella of early childhood initiatives , eclipsed by the focus on pre-K education. In part, this is because interventions in parenting are politically unpalatable. Conservatives are comfortable with the notion that parents and families matter, but too often simply blame the parents for whatever goes wrong. They resist the notion that government has a role in promoting good parenting. Judging is fine. Acting is not. Liberals have exactly the opposite problem. They have no qualms about deploying expensive public policies, but are wary of any suggestion that parents —especially poor and/or black parents—are in some way responsible for the constrained life chances of their children. Many liberals instinctively believe that reducing financial poverty is the only worthy social policy goal—and the principal route to reducing other social problems. Poverty reduction is, in and of itself, a vitally important ambition. But raising the abilities of parents is not just about raising their incomes.

Neither the standard conservative nor liberal position will do . Public education, no matter how lavishly funded, can never substitute for good parents. But it is absurd to cast the idea of taking broader responsibility for helping parents as closet communism , as some on the right do . What is needed is a policy agenda and political platform that recognizes the contribution of parenting to mobility and opportunity, and tackles the parenting gap.

Parents Key---Ext---Spills UpGrassroots opposition spills upOakes, 06 – Jeannie Oakes, Presidential Professor in Educational Equity in the Graduate School of Education at UCLA; John Rogers, UCLA Ed Prof; Gary Blasi, UCLA Emeritus Law Prof; and Martin Lipton, “Grassroots Organizing, Social Movements, and the Right to High-Quality Education”, Rethinking Rodriguez Symposium at The Warren Institute, 4-27-2006

What Role Can Grassroots Organizing Play?

In recent years, a number of grassroots and activist organizations have mobilized students, parents, and community members in powerful actions aimed at exposing and disrupting schooling inequalities. These organizations include neighborhood groups and national networks; religious congregations and secular organizations; and groups with a narrow focus on educational justice as well as organizations that address a range of social justice issues . The very diversity or these groups and alliances —their histories, core missions, size, and so forth—characterizes a central dynamic of movement (or pre-movement) organizing. As in a Venn diagram, their individual commitments to greater power for low-income communities of color overlap to define a joint agenda for providing high quality schooling for all students.

Through the mass participation of their members, these groups demand attention and accountability from public policymakers and public education officials. Importantly, these actions create new civic capacity and social capital for the groups . By presenting an inclusive and efficacious public, the actions also prompt questions about the logic of scarcity, merit, and deficits. Although such grassroots groups, in themselves, don’t constitute a social movement, they can be characterized appropriately as “social movement organizations.”23

The scholarly literature on grassroots organizing coheres with findings from the social movement literature. Stall and Stocker define community organizing as “the work that occurs in local settings to empower individuals , build relationships, and create action for social change.”24 Similarly, Marshall Ganz, former civil rights and farm worker organizer and now lecturer at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, argues that organizing activities seek to create networks that can sustain a new activist community , to frame a story about the network’s identity and purpose, and to develop a program of action that mobilizes and expends resources to advance the community’s interests. Ganz argues that these three domains of activity (building relationships, developing common understandings, and taking action), when combined into campaigns, enable ordinary people to develop the knowledge , capacity, and power that social change requires .25

We see all of these dynamics at work in the California’s grassroots organizations we discuss below, and in particular, the work of the Education Justice Collaborative (EJC), a loose coalition of approximately thirty organizations from around California with which we are most directly involved. The EJC groups range from state-wide youth groups like Californians for Justice, to civil rights organizations like MALDEF, to faith-based networks such as California PICO. .

They have incredible political power and shape broader movementsOakes, 06 – Jeannie Oakes, Presidential Professor in Educational Equity in the Graduate School of Education at UCLA; John Rogers, UCLA Ed Prof; Gary Blasi, UCLA Emeritus Law Prof; and Martin Lipton, “Grassroots Organizing, Social Movements, and the Right to High-Quality Education”, Rethinking Rodriguez Symposium at The Warren Institute, 4-27-2006

We have ample evidence that social movements have altered cultural logics, which in turn have brought new policies , social practices, and laws .16 Over the past few decades, social movement activism has changed the vast majority of Americans’ view about racial segregation and discrimination; women’s social, political, and economic positions; the environment; and more. As people construct new cultural meanings, new actions make sense, and new political arrangements become congruent with the movement’s ideological framework. New rules, structures, and practices follow, almost “naturally,” as the rules, structures and practices of the past no longer make sense. On the other hand, the concept of ongoing “struggle” runs deep throughout movements, as can be seen by the unfinished cultural work of the movements just mentioned.

Movement activism can expose through public discourse the cultural and political shifts required to establish a right to education . This discourse will need to examine and unpack the prevailing logics we have put forth in order to reveal how the logics serve or do not serve different groups. For example, elite parents may be the only group to reap unambiguous benefits from the current distributions of school opportunity and services. Conversely, the middle class is not well served by policies emerging from the logic of scarcity. Opposition to the universal provision of high quality schooling, based on ideology or fears of the ‘racial other’, may not, in fact, be in the material interest of middle class parents. Thus, an argument in favor of securing high quality education as a right may be persuasive to middle class constituencies. This opening means that building a movement for high quality education need not deceive middle class communities nor require them to adopt a “moral” position at odds with their own interests.

Build a Broad Base of Support. Notably, social movement participants include far more than those who stand to benefit directly (or narrowly) from demanding and winning policy or institutional change . Some whites act to achieve civil rights protections for blacks; some men advocate equal pay for women; some middle class people engage in welfare rights campaigns, and more. Appeals to the general welfare can garner adherents who do not necessarily benefit or are even personally disadvantaged ; for example, smokers who support no-smoking facilities or wealthy persons who support higher taxes. Social movements foster connections among individuals and groups whose material positions are quite different from one another. Social movement scholars argue that these connections and collective political action result from ideological shifts, the construction of new identities, and the development of new commitments. In turn, the relationships and joint action foster deeper ideological commitment and the construction of collective identities.17

Establishing a right to education could benefit enormously from these social movement dynamics. In addition to engaging middle class parents , they could foster other alliances , including alliances with organized teachers and others who work in schools . Currently, teacher unions are uncertain allies on matters of school equity, particularly as regards forced reassignment of teachers to achieve greater equity in access to qualified teachers. A shift in cultural norms, however, could not only bring significant changes to teachers’ perceptions of the desirability of teaching in low-income communities of color, it could also lead teachers’ unions to marshal the commitment necessary to improve the working conditions for teachers in those communities’ schools.

Shape the Law. Legal scholarship on the role of social movements in constructing constitutional concepts also suggests that social movement activism is likely to be necessary to secure high- quality education as a fundamental right. Over the past three decades, legal scholars have traced the impact that social movements have had on changes in the interpretation of constitutional provisions, including rights. Handler’s 1978 book, for example, shows the connection between social movement activism and changes in laws related to the environment, consumer protection, civil rights, and social welfare.18 Others have traced the origins of changes in federal and state constitutional doctrine to social movements. Even when changes are enacted through the formal processes of legislation, litigation, or referendum, far less legal change would have been accomplished , without the impact of social movement activism 19 Especially in California, provisions of the state constitution are born in the mass electoral process of the initiative and referendum .

Parents Key---EducationParent coalitions shape education policyEvans, 14 – Michael Pier Evans, May 2014, “Soccer Moms UNITE! Affluent Families and the Utilization of Grassroots Strategies for Education Reform”, Interchange 45.1

The research on family , school and community relationships suggest that affluent parents are major stakeholders in educational policy (Henderson and Mapp 2002). This is true to the extent that they are provided with a number of capital based advantages that can be applied effectively at the micro level; however, this study indicates that the power of these families is primarily limited to the school. The findings suggest that efforts to extend beyond the micro-level of involvement were foreign to many participants and that participation in SFC provided a sense of personal empowerment, increased social networking capacity, and inspired new perceptions regarding self-interest. Despite having more traditional forms of power than other less affluent community organizations the members of SFC still encountered many of the same struggles. These findings indicate that there is a general need to reform the way that education policy is shaped in our society to facilitate increased public participation.

Without these reforms, grassroots organizations provide an important alternative to traditional forms of family engagement . For individuals whose potential to impact education policy is limited by low perceptions of self-efficacy or a lack of opportunity these organizations provide a venue for more meaningful participation . Grassroots work can have a substantial impact on both its participants and policy . A meta-case study analysis of 100 research studies identified four primary outcomes stemming from citizen engagement: new constructions of citizenship, increased civic participation, improved responsiveness among government entities, and the potential to create more inclusive and cohesive communities (Gaventa and Barrett 2010). These outcomes were observed in the case study of SFC, where initial involvement was framed by narrow conceptions of self-interest, but participation led to the advocacy of social policies that benefitted all children. These types of revelations are in part developed through an organizational learning process, common in grassroots work, which emphasizes relationship building and active participation. As Polletta states, “participatory decision making… help(s) residents who had little prior experience in routine politics take on roles in strategizing and in mobilizing fellow residents. Talking through issues and options enabled people to connect local injustices to national policies , exposed them to diverse rationales for participation, and helped them negotiate short and long-term goals ” (Polletta 2002, p. 204). This study hints at the possibility that grassroots work could serve as a foundation for coalition building that crosses race and class lines despite research indicating that these types of alliances are extremely difficult to maintain (Rose 2000; Schutz 2010).

States Rights Lobby KeyStates’ rights lobby is incredibly powerful and shapes Congressional actionBarone, 12 – Charles Barone, director of federal policy in the Washington office of Democrats for Education Reform, and Elizabeth DeBray, associate professor of education at the University of Georgia, 5-02-2012, “The Role of Congress in Education Policy”, Education Week, http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/05/02/30barone.h31.html

Historically, many Republicans have supported robust and dynamic federal education reforms. However, after eight years of Republican leadership under President George W. Bush, who believed in a strong federal role in education, the pendulum of power in the Republican Party inside the Beltway has swung toward a much more limited fed eral role . House Republicans owe this split in large part to their takeover in 2010 by Tea Party groups. The fact that Tea Party activists were able to defeat Republican incumbents across the ideological spectrum in 2010 primaries is likely to make those who believe in even a modest federal role cautious about voting accordingly.

Republicans outside Washington see things somewhat differently. More recent federal policies, such as the Obama administration’s Race to the Top intitiative, have been embraced by high-profile outside-the-Beltway Republicans like former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida and Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana. They also have the support of Republican-leaning groups at the federal level such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. So far in the 112th Congress , inside-the- Beltway Republicans have prevailed , even though paradoxically they have ignored the views of state and local leaders in the name of state rights and local control .

Traditionally , congressional Dem ocrat s took their cues from the two national teachers’ unions, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, the single biggest source of donations to their campaigns. There are now , however, two wings in the Dem ocratic Party on education reform , and they differ on the mechanisms by and pace at which reform should take place. During the 2008 election season, Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., characterized this as a split between “incrementalists” and “disrupters.” Dianne Piché, a leading civil rights attorney, described it as a “fight for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party.”

This intraparty split emerged in 2008 when congressional Democrats attempted to suspend the accountability provisions of the ESEA. Democratic leaders in Congress assumed there was wide consensus within the party to do so. But civil rights groups upended those assumptions. Virtually every major civil rights group in the country rose up to oppose the amendment. We saw a similar effort vis-à-vis the ESEA markup by the Senate Democrats’ Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee last year and the ESEA markup by the House Republicans’ Education and the Workforce Committee earlier this year.

The ESEA may, ultimately, present an opportunity for the next president to build a coalition of reformist Democrats and those Republicans who are generally supportive of some federal role in education reform, particularly in areas where Congress has shown the ability to be effective. But the other, increasingly more likely scenario is an alliance of incrementalist Democrats and

states-rights Republicans advocating for a substantial scaling-back of federal requirements that have engendered positive change.

States Rights Lobby Key---ExtThere’s a huge shift towards states’ rights post-ESSA---state forces have enormous powerHess, 16 – Dr. Frederick M. Hess, resident scholar and the director of Education Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, 9-9-2016, “What to Do: Policy Recommendations for K-12 Education, an Agenda for K-12 School Reform”, https://www.aei.org/publication/an-agenda-for-k-12-school-reform/

In 2015, responding to many of these concerns, Congress overhauled the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). In adopting the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), Congress retained the requirements for annual testing in reading and math but gave states much more leeway in deciding what to do with the results. ESSA retains NCLB’s requirement that states test once a year in reading and math (in grades 3–8 and once in high school) and science (once in elementary, middle, and high school). At the same time, ESSA gets Washington mostly out of the business of judging whether schools are failing and wholly out of the business of mandating school-improvement strategies. The challenge is now to decide just what ESSA means in practice, as states explore their options and as the Obama administration seeks to use regulation to impose federal mandates that it couldn’t win in the legislation .

The goal for reformers today should be to build on what’s been working , work on fixing what hasn’t, and replace bureaucratic excess with a spirit of decentralized problem-solving . The Left, with its taste for federal control and grand policy solutions, is ill positioned to do that. Conservative reformers therefore have an enormous opportunity .

A2: “Winners Win”Trump PC is finite — he’ll take the heat for the plan — every ounce is key to legislation. Buchanan 17 — Neil H. Buchanan, Economist and Legal Scholar, Professor of Law at George Washington University and a Senior Fellow at the Taxation Law and Policy Research Institute at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, 2017 (“Neil Buchanan: Trump is Fast Blowing His Political Capital,” News Week, March 18th, Available Online at http://www.newsweek.com/neil-buchanan-trump-fast-blowing-his-political-capital-569695, Accessed 07/21/2017)

In short, Trump is making himself look like a fool. More importantly, he is doing this when it is absolutely unnecessary to do so. Trump might believe that he has unlimited p olitical c apital —and with most of his supporters, he might well be right—but he does not, and it makes no sense for him to make this unforced political error.

It makes no sense, that is, unless he has drawn one of two conclusions: (1) Going through with building the wall will actually become popular with people who currently do not support it, or (2) He is willing to lose political popularity over this issue, because the substantive advantages of building a wall are worth it.

If he believes explanation No. 1, he is fooling himself. If it is No. 2, he simply does not understand how border protection works. (See also his travel bans.) It could be both, and I am betting that it is.

The reason that this is all so odd is that Trump seemed to have figured out a way to glide through his presidency without actually doing anything important. He has created such a distorted political atmosphere that he can, for example, both confirm and deny that a 2005 tax form was accurate, leaving everyone to wonder whether the "leak" of that shred of information was planted by the White House.

Watching the press chase every crazy thing coming from his Administration was turning out to be a seriously plausible survival strategy. All Trump had to do was say something bizarre every time anything serious came up, and he could skate along to the next news cycle.

Would it matter that nothing ever happened under Trump's presidency? Not really. Trump could blame the Democrats, the Republicans (especially his chew toy, Paul Ryan), and pretty much anyone else for not getting it right. More importantly, he would not have to put his name on anything that would be open to attack.

This is especially important because a White House does have to do some things that are going to be politically contentious. The federal budget is a minefield, for example, and any president is going to be take heat for the choices of winners and losers that his budget implies.

Trump's first budget proposal makes it obvious that he is not going to do anything to help his non-rich supporters, and he is actually proposing to make their lives worse. (This is also true of the new health care bill.)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/trump-budget-military-analysis.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/trump-calls-2005-tax-return-release-fake-news.html

http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/03/trump-will-hang-on-because-press-will.html

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trumps-defense-his-wiretap-conspiracy-theory-goes-horribly-awry

http://www.newsweek.com/neil-buchanan-trump-fast-blowing-his-political-capital-569695

http://www.newsweek.com/neil-buchanan-trump-fast-blowing-his-political-capital-569695

All of which means that a president who came into office with historically low approval ratings , and who still cannot accept his drubbing in the popular vote, needs to do everything he can to avoid self-inflicted wounds.

Political capital is key and zero-sum– plan crowds-out tax reform. Rottinghaus ’10 – Assistant Professor of Political Science at U of H [Brandon, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, U of H-Town, “The Provisional Pulpit: Modern Presidential Leadership of Public Opinion”, page number below, CR]

Similarly, other issues (countervailing elements) may crowd out the president's agenda and complicate his

ability to focus the media and public on an issue. An administration may miscalculate the ability of the

political system (especially Congress) to deal with multiple issues simultaneously, as in the case of the Kennedy administration and their pursuit of several policies at once in Congress in addition to Medicare. This phenomenon may reflect a lack of planning but also

may reflect economic or electoral needs to rush passage of several pieces of legislation. The opposition (or support) from interest groups also

plays a role, one that is important to evaluating the limits to presidential leadership, especially in modern

presidential policymaking. More issues on the agenda mean more voices to compete with the president’s

message . As a result, especially in foreign policy cases, the president has less success when the issue has high salience, since more political activity is generated by more visible issues. The "size" of the presidents agenda (or the number of issues concomitantly pursued) clearly has an effect on his ability to lead public

opinion, especially related to his ability to sustain public attention to that agenda. A White Houses agenda is inherently limited, and, according to Paul Light, "the President's domestic agenda also reflects the allocation of resources, which often are fixed and limited. As the President moves through the term, each agenda choice commits some White House resources—time, energy, information, expertise, political capital"'' The restrictions that emerge in the modern presidency limit the resources presidents can devote to too many subjects —

focusing on one single issue (at a time) is critical . This slow, "spoon feeding" approach is important because it allows for a timely digestion by the public and the media (and eventually Congress) rather than a rapid-fire, adversarial approach that may sour stomachs . The reality of limited resources directly connects to the

conditional theory of presidential leadership that requires presidents to focus on single issues with intense focus. Indeed, there are several examples of how presidents fail to lead public opinion when too many issues are pursued at once or when a White House's laserlike focus on an issue enabled successful leadership . For instance, President

Kennedys rush to pursue several major pieces of legislation in 1961 and 1962 crowded the political agenda and complicated his ability to put the force of the White Houses popularity behind his Medicare legislation. President Ford's inability to secure passage of his anti-inflation proposals was not aided by his own reluctance about the proposals (in that the proposal was eventually withdrawn), the White Houses loose commitment to solving the inflation problem

over the un-employment problem, and the rush of the plan to the media. On the other hand, President Reagan focused exclusively

on tax and budget proposals in his first months in office and secured congressional passage of both pieces of

legislation. Likewise, President Clinton's intense focus on the issue of the budget late in his first term allowed him to focus public attention early, commit the information resources of the White House, and effectively organize his troops for battle against an averse Congress. [page 193-195]

Contentious debate ensures plan is not perceived as a victoryMann, Brookings Governance Studies senior fellow, 10

[Thomas, Brookings, November, “American Politics on the Eve of the Midterm Elections”, http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2010/11_midterm_elections_mann.aspx, accessed 6-20-11]

The well-documented successes of the financial stabilisation and stimulus initiatives are invisible to a public reacting to the here and now, not to the counterfactual of how much worse it might have been. The painfully slow recovery from the global financial crisis and Great Recession have led most Americans to believe these programmes have failed and as a consequence they judge the President and Congress

harshly. HIGHLY POLARISED That perception of failure has been magnified by the highly contentious process by which Obama’s initiatives have been adopted in Congress. America has in recent years developed a highly polarised party system, with striking ideological differences between the parties and unusual unity within each. But these

parliamentary-like parties operate in a governmental system in which majorities are unable readily to put their programmes in place. Republicans adopted a strategy of consistent, unified, and aggressive opposition to every major component of the President’s agenda, eschewing negotiation, bargaining and compromise, even on matters of great national import. The Senate filibuster has been the indispensable weapon in killing, weakening, slowing, or discrediting all major legislation proposed by the Democratic majority.

Link outweighs “winners win” turnSilber, Political Science PhD, 7

[Marissa Silber, Political Science PhD Student at the University of Florida, Prepared for delivery at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 30th-September 2nd, 2007, “WHAT MAKES A PRESIDENT QUACK? UNDERSTANDING LAME DUCK STATUS THROUGH THE EYES OF THE MEDIA AND POLITICIANS,” http://convention3.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/1/0/8/9/p210893_index.html, Accessed 7/9/12]

Important to the discussion of political capital is whether or not it can be replenished over a term. If a President expends political capital on his agenda, can it be replaced ? Light suggests that “capital declines over time – public approval consistently falls:

midterm losses occur” (31). Capital can be rebuilt, but only to a limited extent. The decline of capital makes it difficult to access information , recruit more expertise and maintain energy. If a lame duck President can be defined by a loss of political capital , this paper helps determine if such capital can be

replenished or if a lame duck can accomplish little. Before determining this, a definition of a lame duck President must be developed.

http://convention3.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/1/0/8/9/p210893_index.html

http://convention3.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/1/0/8/9/p210893_index.html

http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2010/11_midterm_elections_mann.aspx

Internals

Internals---General

PC Key---Theory True

PC’s real and finite---best studiesMadonna, 16 – Anthony J. Madonna, James E. Monogan III, and Richard L. Vining Jr, Associate Professors of Political Science at University of Georgia, 2-09-2016, “Confirmation Wars, Legislative Time, and Collateral Damage: Assessing the Impact of Supreme Court Nominations on Presidential Success in the U.S. Senate”, http://spia.uga.edu/faculty_pages/mlynch/Monogan.pdf

Time Management and the President’s Agenda

Presidents use a wide range of tactics to set policy , including their ability to influence the legislative agenda and staff vacancies to lower level federal courts. In terms of influencing the legislative agenda, modern presidents introduce legislation and define policy alternatives (Covington, Wrighton and Kinney 1995; Eshbaugh-Soha 2005, 2010). While not unconditional, presidents can use their time and effort to secure the passage of key policy proposals (Edwards and Wood 1999; Light 1999; Neustadt 1960). Importantly, though, presidents’ ability to persuade the public is limited . To be successful in enacting desired policies presidents have to time their proposals to align with favorable conditions in public opinion and legislative makeup (Edwards 2009).

Consensus of poli sci research confirms---True for several months after an election, especially post-surprises – proves PC finite and it’s now or never

Azari, 11-2 – citing political science professors Lawrence Grossback (WVU), David Peterson (Texas A&M), James Stimson (UNC Chapel Hill), and David Peterson (Iowa State) – Julia Azari, associate professor of political science at Marquette, 11-2-2016, “Presidential Mandates Aren’t Real, But Congress Sometimes Acts As If They Are”, FiveThirtyEight, http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/presidential-mandates-arent-real-but-congress-sometimes-acts-as-if-they-are/

Despite all this subjectivity, Congress’s behavior does seem to shift when there’s lots of mandate talk in the air. Political scientists Lawrence Grossback, David Peterson and James Stimson found that members of Congress responded to media cues that a mandate election had occurred, deviating from their usual voting habits for a few months at most. Surprise, these scholars argue, is the key element in the development of mandate narratives in the media. The elections of 1964 (for the effect of the presidential race on Congress), 1980 and 1994, for example, took observers by surprise and required explanation. The explanation offered by media observers was that voters had been clear in their desire for party’s agenda to be enacted. The media interpretations of the election after the fact created a convincing story about the policy meaning of the election.

Can presidents themselves convince Congress that an election carried with it a mandate? I’ve looked into this issue with David Peterson, an Iowa State University professor and co-author of the research mentioned above, and we found that when presidents identify the election as a mandate, members of Congress respond. Our study covered presidents from John F. Kennedy through Barack Obama , and drew on the research that I did on how presidents interpret election results in their rhetoric. Looking at a wide range of presidential remarks,1 I assessed whether each communication event used the election results to justify what the president was doing. I found that presidents interpret elections in a variety of ways: sometimes as mandates for their own leadership and judgment, but more often for the issues and governing philosophies they talked about during the campaign. Contrary to what we might expect, the final vote shares don’t seem to matter.

it tips the scales, through agenda-setting, signaling, and political coverGelman, 15 – Jeremy Gelman, University of Michigan; Gilad Wilkenfeld and E. Scott Adler, University of Colorado; “The Opportunistic President: How US Presidents Determine Their Legislative Programs”, August 2015, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 40:3

The president’s legislative program,1 which is the set of proposals sent from the president to the legislative branch, is viewed as pivotal in presidential-congressional relations. We see evidence of the privileged place these requests have in three ways. First, they shape Congress’s lawmaking agenda . Over 70% of the president’s issue priorities get congressional consideration, and significant legislation sent by the administration is almost always debated (Edwards and Barrett 2000; Peterson 1990). Second, these policy proposals are traditionally viewed as a tool the president can use to open policy windows and create more accommodating lawmaking environments. Kingdon reports that “no other single actor in the political system has quite the capability of the president to set agendas in given policy areas...” (1984, 23). Third, these proposals provide cues to legislators about which issues they can successfully politicize by opposing or supporting the president’s policy ideas (Lee 2009).

As the president’s program heavily influences legislative attention and the level of partisanship within Congress, it is also crucial to understanding the broader policymaking process . To that end, we examine why presidents select some issues to promote in their legislative agenda and not others.

PC Key---Trump SpecificTrump PC’s real and key to the agenda:Empirics---especially the first year---Key bridge to house leadership, solves gridlock, enables active lobbying – strong ties with Congress key

---Neither gridlock nor easy majority inevitable

O’Neill, 16 – Kevin O’Neill, co-chair of legislative practice, and L. Charles Landgraf, law partner, 11-9-2016, “The Policy Choices, Challenges, and Consequences of an Outsider in the White House: What You Need to Know After the 2016 Election”, Arnold & Porter LLP, http://www.arnoldporter.com/en/~/media/files/perspectives/publications/2016/11/postelection-analysis-2016-trump.pdf

The next two years will be a frenetic period in Washington but it remains to be seen if it will be one of legislative accomplishment or logjam . One-party rule would normally suggest a peak period of legislative and regulatory action, but the odd dynamic between the President-elect and his majority in Congress suggest we will see something less than peak productivity in the next two years. While there is a pent-up demand for major legislative action on a range of issues, the gulf between President-elect Trump and his party’s leadership must be bridged to maximize success in the next two years .

The first year of a new Presidency is typically a period of peak legislative activity, as the new Pres ident seeks to implement a new agenda and to spend the p olitical c apital built up in winning office. The majority of President Obama’s most significant legislative accomplishments - the economic stimulus package, Dodd-Frank, the Affordable Care Act, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Iran sanctions , sentencing reform, school nutrition policy - were all notched in the first two years of his first term when his party had complete control of Congress (and a stronger Senate majority). If President-elect Trump follows that model and forges strong congressional ties , he may enjoy a similarly comprehensive set of accomplishments, most of which will be targeted at dismantling the accomplishments of President Obama.

Whether one supports or opposes specific policy initiatives of the new administration, the next two years will belong to the players who engage in the policy conversation instead of watching from the sidelines. The first two years of the Trump Administration will see the federal government sailing in previously unchartered waters on many issues. Public policy problems increasingly defy easy categorization as purely legislative or executive branch issues. More and more, the business community confronts complex, multifaceted public policy challenges that encompass Congress, multiple federal agencies, and even legal action in the courts.

It shapes agenda through public pressure and the news cycleCatanese, 16 – David Catanese, Senior Politics Writer for U.S. News & World Report, 12-8-2016, “With Rallies and Tweets, Trump Reshaping the Bully Pulpit”, http://www.usnews.com/news/the-run-2016/articles/2016-12-08/donald-trump-builds-a-new-bully-pulpit-with-rallies-tweets

Donald Trump is still six weeks from his Inauguration Day, and yet he's already signaling he 'll expand the presidential bully pulpit to bounds not seen before . This week alone, the president-elect is holding rallies in three battleground states – North Carolina, Iowa and Michigan – as part of his "Thank you" tour.

But these rallies – which look, sound and feel indistinguishable from his campaign events – are about much more than simply offering thanks. They appear purposefully designed to portray Trump as a perpetual victor. He's placed squarely inside a reaffirming venue that's used as a vehicle to champion even the smallest of successes, and to push and press forward his unconventional ideas before adoring fans.

To the members of Congress watching from their television screens and Twitter feeds on Capitol Hill, it's a constant and powerful reminder that the masses are with him . And these events are more likely than not to remain a permanent fixture of his presidency .

"What it does is assist him with communicating and laying out his agenda . It helps build momentum for that agenda . People are just loving these. He didn't win and go into hiding," says Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, who serves on Trump's transition team. "It will help to put some pressure on Congress to move swiftly. 2017 is not going to be a usual , standard-operating-procedure year in Washington, D.C."

Take Trump's Tuesday night event in Fayetteville, North Carolina, home of Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the U.S. by population. Trump used it to formally unveil his selection for secretary of defense, retired Marine Gen. James "Mad Dog" Mattis.

"Mad Dog plays no games, right?" Trump crowed.

Because he's only been retired for three years, Mattis will need a special waiver from Congress in order to bypass a law that prohibits recent active officers from serving as secretary of defense.

Before thousands of supporters still waving campaign placards, Trump applied his case.

"If he didn't get that waiver, there'd be a lot of angry people," Trump said. "Such a popular choice."

It's just one example of how Trump is transferring the energy from his campaign to governance.

"He's a performance artist. That's what he does for a living. Performers must perform. He feeds off the crowds, he gathers his strength and momentum from them. I doubt he'll suddenly switch that light off, because he may feel unalive," says Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian and

professor at Rice University. "He won't make a differentiation between campaigning and governing – it's still all the Donald Trump show. He has a winning formula right now.

"Why change courses in midstream because people say other presidents haven't done that?"

What may get in the way of Trump's perpetual roadshow is the responsibilities of governing. A foreign policy crisis. A heightened national security threat. A budget battle. These are all nearly inevitable instances that require a president to huddle and strategize in person with his advisers.

But this is where Trump's second specialized weapon comes into play: his Twitter account .

While Obama became the first president to tweet in 2015, his miniature missives generally have been formal, banal and forgettable. Trump's tweets are the exact opposite, and there's no mistake about who's drafting them. They're spontaneous, humorous and often substantive, though the veracity of their substance has been called into question on multiple occasions.

Trump's tweets already are driving cable news coverage , molding policy and placing opponents on notice. For instance, just this week he's used his account to attack China's currency devaluation and activity in the South China Sea, propose canceling a plan for Boeing to produce a new Air Force One, and attack the head of a United Steelworkers branch.

The ability to singularly drive a news cycle from the palm of his hand is going to be a new phenomenon that will test the traditional roles of policymaking and journalism.

Yet there are some who believe the novelty of Trump's tweets eventually will wear off.

"He's got tremendous political capital now, but he's burning through it with tweets. You use these tweets too frequently and they're going to lose all force. It becomes entertainment, not persuasion," says Paul Light, a professor of public service at New York University.

That wasn't true of the campaign, however, when Trump's tweets were often the dominant topic of conversation, for better or for worse.

With Trump reducing the number of interviews he grants and not having held a press conference in months, his tweets have become the prime conduit to the president-elect's mind. News organizations have little choice but to track them.

"The new reality is Donald Trump's tweets are going to be running the news cycle. It's not going to stop," Brinkley says. "It's a new form of governing . Some people will find it tacky and crass. Others will say it's a clever way to go over Washington, D.C., officialdom and speak directly to the American people. It's going to make the press conference and pool reporters antiquated."

He adds, "It's almost like Confucius spreading strange wisdom. Every day he's pumping verbage into our news cycle and he's able to control – with the number of characters, using choice words – to goad people, get under people's skin, seek revenge and move policy forward in his direction."

Taken together, Trump's megarallies and tweetstorms are already ushering in a reimagined presidential pulpit , one that plays to his strength of pithy performance art laced with dashes of suspense.

PC real and ensures passage---it’s key to both the left and right---GOP reps can only buck Trump so many times, or they’ll lose primaries

---Trump PC effective with red/purple state Dems

Cusack, 16 – Bob Cusack, The Hill, 11-23-2016, “Trump’s new weapon? The bully pulpit”, http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/307194-trumps-new-weapon-the-bully-pulpit

It’s not just Democrats who have to worry.

Trump showed he isn't shy in going after members of his own party through out the 2016 presidential cycle. And that probably won't change in 2017 and 2018.

The conservative-leaning House Freedom Caucus and outside right-wing groups are wary of Trump's $1 trillion infrastructure proposal and want the 45th president to focus on reducing the nation's record debt levels. The Freedom Caucus was instrumental in pushing former Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) out the door, but picking a fight with Trump is another thing entirely . Most R epublican s in the House don't worry about their November election — they worry about their primaries. And crossing Trump could risk a challenge from the right in the 2018 cycle .

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Trump feuded in 2016, but in the name of party unity and policy, they have put aside their differences . And in a related development, Ryan's approval rating just hit an all-time high earlier this month .

After the election, Ryan said it's time for the Republican Party to “go big” and “bold.” Trump wouldn't have it any other way, though there are inherent risks with an aggressive strategy without a supermajority in the Senate .

Republicans who publicly ripped Trump are now getting in line, so muscling big-ticket items through the upper chamber using budget reconciliation shouldn't be that challenging. Those bills, such as ObamaCare repeal, would only need 51 Senate votes to pass. But replacing ObamaCare, building a wall along the southern border and clearing a Supreme Court nominee will necessitate 60 votes.

That’s where Trump's bully pulpit will come in , calling out Dem ocrat s from both red and purple states that he won on Election Day .

While Trump may not be up to speed on the nuances of the legislative process, those mechanics will be handled by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Ryan.

Still, the fate of pending bills isn't decided by tactics. It comes down to marketing and political muscle , which play to Trump's strengths .

Trump will surely have a slew of critics of anything he wants to do. They will throw everything they have to kill his agenda.

Trump's likely response: “This bill will help make America great again. It should be passed as soon as possible.”

Democrats will need to step up their messaging game to thwart Trump's agenda. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who will be minority leader next year, had pledged to work with Trump on areas of common ground. He has also vowed to battle Trump when warranted, most notably on attempts to eradicate Obama's legacy laws.

PC---FiniteSmall depletions key---his mandate is historically small---Public + GOP are skeptical, so they’ll seize on small mis-steps and won’t give him wins

Blake, 16 – Aaron Blake, senior political reporter for The Fix, 11-27-2016, “Donald Trump’s political mandate is historically small”, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/28/donald-trumps-political-mandate-is-historically-small/?utm_term=.17598a54d259

It’s unusually petty and strange for a president-elect to do this, yes. But there is actually good reason for Trump to be concerned about his share of the popular vote. After all, the current tabulation suggests that 53.5 percent of Americans cast ballots for someone not named Donald Trump, and politicians are generally stronger when they have demonstrated popular support . That translates to p olitical c apital and an easier time pursuing your agenda . It makes your opponents — and perhaps even skeptical congressional Republicans, in Trump’s case — less likely to stand in your way . (Witness President Obama’s mandate in the wake of the 2008 election, for example.)

Trump, though, has a historically small mandate . And if you compare his election to the 57 previous presidential votes, that reality begins to come into clearer focus.

As of now, Trump’s deficit in the popular vote — 1.7 points — is the third-largest on record for an election winner and the second-biggest for an electoral college winner. The only bigger deficits came in the 19th century, when Rutherford B. Hayes won the 1876 election by one(!) electoral vote despite losing the popular vote by three points, and when John Quincy Adams was declared the winner by the House of Representatives despite losing the electoral vote and the popular vote to Andrew Jackson by more than 10 points. (It was a crowded race, and Jackson was shy of a majority of electoral votes.)

Trump is also taking less of the popular vote — 46.5 percent — than all but seven previous winners. That number is likely to creep down closer to 46 percent as the remaining votes get counted, but he is still likely to finish eighth from the bottom (next lowest is Grover Cleveland in 1892 at 46.02 percent).

Among those seven winners who took less of the popular vote, though, six faced a third-party candidate who was formidable enough to actually win a state, and the seventh was Bill Clinton, who also faced a formidable third-party candidate — Ross Perot — who took 19 percent of the national vote but didn't quite carry a state. Clinton took just 43 percent of the vote but won the popular vote by six points over Bob Dole George H.W. Bush.

The strongest third-party showing in the 2016 election was from Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson, who is taking slightly more than 3 percent of the vote right now. The worst third-party showing in any of the other races was 8.5 percent, which is what Populist Party candidate James B. Weaver took in 1892 as a regional candidate who won five Western states. The leading third-party candidate in every other race won at least double digits.

In other words, there was far less splitting up of the vote in the 2016 election than in the seven elections that produced a winner with a smaller share of the vote. While those seven candidacies can all credibly point to a third-party candidate diluting the vote, Trump really can’t. Yes, Johnson set a record for a Libertarian candidate’s share of the vote, but he was ultimately a non-factor in the race.

Does that mean Trump is sunk as president ? Of course no t. The vote is one thing. From here, it’s about how he handles the presidency and builds his p olitical c apital . The best indicator of that will be his approval rating, which hasn’t been measured since he won the election. His favorable rating — which is more about his personal appeal than job performance — bumped up after his election but still stood at just 42 percent, according to Gallup. That’s lower than any president-elect on record and is notably less even than his 46.5 percent of the vote.

But for now, Trump’s political mandate is very, very small. He will probably succeed in getting some of his priorities through Congress thanks to the GOP’s congressional majorities, but the American people are skeptical of their president-elect, even as they elected him president.

The popular vote doesn’t technically matter when it come to electing presidents, but popular appeal does matter when it comes to how presidents can govern . And the idea that a majority of Americans still don’t like our president-elect is eating at Trump — as it probably should.

He has limited sway with lawmakers---establishment treats PC as finiteMcCaskill, 16 – Nolan D. McCaskill, graduate of Florida A&M University, where he received legacy, vision and student journalist of the year awards, 11-22-2016, “Conservatives put Trump on notice”, POLITICO, http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-conservatives-clinton-231768

“If personnel is the beginning of policy, we believe that he’s laying the groundwork to shake up a lot of the Washington establishment and the bureaucracy of the federal government,” Head said.

Vander Plaats expects Trump to follow through on his commitment to appoint conservative Supreme Court justices and repeal the Johnson Amendment, which bars churches and other tax-exempt organizations from engaging in political campaigns.

“Once the President Trump — versus President-elect Trump — and the Congress is working and he’s in administrative mode, I think the people, his base, others, they will find ways to remind him of ‘hey, this was a promise, we expect you to deliver ,’” he said. “And they’re also gonna give him I think a little bit of leeway for his own leadership right now . I think most of us know this country needs to be turned around, and we’re hoping and praying that he can deliver on turning this country around.”

Tyler, the former Cruz spokesman, used economic terms to convey his message to Trump and the fine line he’s walking.

“He basically has a surplus of p olitical c apital in his base. And what he seems to be doing is trading that political currency for establishment currency ,” Tyler explained. “And he can do that, as long as he keeps his accounts balanced . But he’s got to be careful that he doesn’t bankrupt himself of p olitical c apital or he’ll have no mandate to do anything .”

PC---A2: Polarization/GridlockPC’s uniquely effective now---vulnerable dems and GOP control make compromise likelyReston, 16 – Laura Reston, 11-10-2016, “Can Senate Democrats Stop Donald Trump?”, New Republic, https://newrepublic.com/article/138646/can-senate-democrats-stop-donald-trump

The dismal political landscape in 2018 threatens the opposition efforts against Trump . Endangered moderates up for reelection will be hesitant to stand up to a congressional agenda handed down from the White House. Consider the tax reforms or environmental policies that Trump is likely to introduce: A Democrat like Joe Manchin will have every incentive to go along, because the R epublican s would otherwise launch attack ad after attack ad against him in West Virginia, a state where almost 70 percent of voters backed Trump.

Mitch McConnell, you can be sure, will be sketch ing out an agenda designed to force these endangered Dem ocrat s to make excruciating votes over the next two years. It increases the likelihood that he can pick them off one after the other , expanding his Senate majority two years from now. It also means we can expect few proposals designed to attract bipartisan support. Don’t expect Senator Pat Toomey to introduce measures to create new background checks for gun buyers, or for Senator Marco Rubio to take another stab at immigration reform.

Can 48 Dem ocrat s in the Senate hold out long enough to ensure that at least some of Obama’s legacy remains in place? They can try , but it won’t be pretty .

PC---A2: Trump Won’t Use Effectively

Trump knows how to use PC - he’s got key leverage and effective bargaining skillsDelamaide, 17 --- Darrell, Politics Columnist @ MarketWatch, 1/3, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-will-play-congress-like-a-fiddle-2017-01-03

Trump will play Congress like a fiddle New president will bargain, not rubber-stamp Republican agenda The full scope of Hillary Clinton’s loss and Donald Trump’s victory will become apparent this week as the newly elected

Congress convenes. We all know the Republicans swept the elections, winning the White House and retaining control of both houses of Congress. But it is where these victories came from and how they were made that tells us what will happen in the

two years this 115th Congress will have until midterm elections in 2018. There is obviously a great deal of overlap between Trump’s campaign pledges and the standing agenda of congressional Republicans under House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. But there are also some significant differences — in the approach to trade issues and deficit spending, to name just two. Trump’s pledge to maintain and defend Medicare and Social Security is another important difference. Congressional Republicans may think they are about to reach the Promised Land, and Washington Post reporter David Weigel this week neatly summed up the various bills they have vetted on issues from deregulation to repealing Obamacare that are just waiting for a president to sign into law. But if Trump has proven anything in his idiosyncratic campaign, it is that he is hardly just “a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen” — the ideal president once dreamed of by tax reform activist Grover Norquist. In other words, it’s not likely Trump will simply rubber-stamp legislation that a Republican

Congress churns out. Why would someone who trumpets his expertise in negotiation simply give Congress what it wants? He will hold back on those signatures as leverage to get what he want s , especially when it runs counter to or simply beyond the lawmakers’ agenda. Salena Zito, a pro-Trump commentator who catapulted to prominence for her insights into the Trump campaign, reminds us that the key to understanding the incoming president is his 1987 book, “The Art of the Deal.” Trump

voters understood what mainstream media commentators still haven’t grasped — many of his statements are not ex

cathedra pronouncements on policies but negotiating ploys. And, yes, many of them are not completely true. “Throughout the book, he is always negotiating, no matter if he was coming from a full truth or not, didn’t matter,” Zito writes of the 1987 book in the Washington Examiner. “It is always about the value of what is at stake. In that type of barter, truthfulness becomes irrelevant, it only has actuality if the deal is struck and the facts come out.” Which brings us back to Congress and how Trump will deal with it. Even though Republicans retained control of both houses, Democrats trimmed those majorities even as Clinton won a commanding plurality in the popular vote for president. The Republican majority in the Senate went to 52 from 54, out of 100, and to 241 from 247, out of 435 in the House. The electoral upsets that enabled Republicans to maintain the Senate majority were the victories of Ron Johnson in Wisconsin and Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania, two Republican incumbents most pollsters predicted would lose to Democratic challengers, Russ Feingold and Kathleen McGinty. But Trump’s surprising win in those swing states also lifted the two incumbents to an unexpected victory. Had Clinton’s campaign in those states been slightly more effective she might be the president-elect with Democratic control of the Senate. Democrats were bound to recapture the Senate seat in Illinois, but they also won a closely fought battle in New Hampshire, where the popular governor, Maggie Hassan, defeated Republican incumbent Kelly Ayotte. It may well have been Ayotte’s disavowal of Trump that cost her the margin of victory. The lesson here, as with unsuccessful

Nevada Senate candidate Joe Heck, who lost ground after distancing himself from Trump, is that Republican lawmakers need Trump’s support to gain voter favor more than he needs them. The picture from the House results is a little less clear-cut. Although every member is up for re-election every two years, the rate of incumbency victories is very high. In 2016, 380 of the 393 incumbents seeking re-election won, for an incumbency rate of 96.7%. According to Ballotpedia, Democrats tend to gain seats in presidential election years with their higher voter turnout, while Republicans tend to gain in the midterm elections. For instance, Democrats gained eight sets in 2012 and 24 in 2008, which make the net gain of six in 2016 seem relatively

small. So Republicans are likely to make gains in the House in 2018. In the Senate, Republicans will be defending only eight seats,

while Democrats will be defending 25 — 10 of which are in states that Trump won. Those 10 Democratic senators will be very careful about thwarting Trump , which makes his leverage in the Senate considerably larger than the 52 Republicans. Trump may be a political novice, but if he’s half as skillful at negotiation as he claims to be, he will quickly grasp how to play the legislature like a fiddle.

Trump knows how to use PC effectively, but its finite and drained by major fights over external policiesCollinson, 17---Stephen, political columnist@CNN, 1/4, http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/03/politics/donald-trump-republicans-congress/

Trump throws weight around Washington Donald Trump isn't even in Washington yet, but he's already throwing his

weight around. The President-elect prevailed Tuesday in the first exchange of what could turn out to be an awkward,

sometimes turbulent relationship with fellow Republicans on Capitol Hill. A full-blown PR disaster threatened to derail the first day of the new Congress as House Republicans prepared to move forward with a measure that would have gutted an

independent ethics office. As the scope of the controversy became clear by mid-morning, Trump threw cold water on the plan, calling the ethics watchdog "unfair," but suggesting there were bigger priorities for lawmakers to tackle. "With all that Congress has to work on, do they really have to make the weakening of the Independent Ethics Watchdog, as unfair as it ... may be, their number one act and priority," Trump said in consecutive tweets. "Focus on tax reform, healthcare and so many other things of far greater importance!" Within hours, House GOP lawmakers met in an emergency session and decided

unanimously to remove the ethics provisions from a broader package slated for a vote later in the day. The episode was the first test of Trump's ability to exert influence over his party in Congress . It's unclear whether Trump's tweets were the sole deciding factor in the GOP's flip or whether lawmakers were responding to intense pressure from constituents. A brief history of the House GOP's failed ethics ploy Either way, it's certain the blowback intensified to a new level once Trump turned to Twitter. Rep. Steve King of Iowa, who backed the attempt to gut the ethics panel that many lawmakers believe overreaches, said Trump's comment "animated the press" and created pressure on GOP lawmakers to change course. "I'm concerned that now we have Republicans criticizing Republicans," King said. "We need to stay away from that." Some lawmakers

said they decided independently their move was unwise and didn't need Trump to tell them. Perception in Washington But

in a sense, it does not matter. The perception quickly jelled in Washington that Trump put himself at the center of the storm and changed the weather. Such actions tend to enhance a President's perceived power, especially in the crucial early months of his administration . The GOP wrangle was not Trump's only win on Tuesday. Ford announced it would nix a plan to build a factory in Mexico and would spend $700 million to bring 700 jobs to Michigan, crediting Trump's policies for the move. Democrats will argue that such interventions pale into comparison to the millions of jobs created by President Barack Obama. But Trump faces the likely impossible challenge of returning US manufacturing jobs from low-wage economies abroad. So in the case of Ford, as with the spat on Capitol

Hill, the symbolism and media coverage is far more important than context. In the meantime,

Tuesday's drama offered a preview of how Trump will govern . The Twitter president appears unlikely to be content with working congressional back channels and using conventional levers of power to get his way. The day's events also

showed that while Trump may be a Washington newbie, he knows how to score an easy political win. Trump hotel lawsuit at impasse, headed to trial For much of his transition, Trump has been hounded by ethics questions of his own, centering on potential huge conflicts of interests posed by his global business interests. His wealthy cabinet picks -- such as Rex Tillerson for secretary of state and Steve Mnuchin for Treasury -- are being accused by Democrats of failing to provide sufficient financial data and other information ahead of their confirmation hearings. But Trump can now present himself as a champion of ethical standards on Capitol Hill and argue that he has already taken a step to honor his vow of draining Washington's political swamp. The exchange also appeared to hint at the Republican hierarchy in Washington after the inauguration and the incoming president's relationship with Speaker Paul Ryan. Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, initially opposed the change to ethics rules. But once he was defied by his troops, he fell into line, issuing a statement defending the move -- only for GOP lawmakers to reverse

themselves later. Sway with the GOP The way the confrontation ended left an impression that Trump, basking in the p olitical c apital that new presidents enjoy, may have as much sway with the restive Republican caucus as Ryan himself, who was re-elected speaker on Tuesday. Of course, life is going to get a lot tougher for the President-elect. Despite their common political aims -- repealing Obamacare,

passing big tax cuts and beginning a new era of conservative rule -- Trump and the GOP will not always see eye to eye . And Ryan's new GOP conference looks as likely to b e as unruly as his last one .

PC---A2: Edwards 16He concedes it’s real at the margins---that’s key to the DAEdwards, 16 – George C. Edwards III, Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Jordan Chair in Presidential Studies at Texas A&M, 2016, “The Potential of Presidential Leadership”, Study Done for the White House Transition Project

The best evidence is that presidential persuasion is effective only at the margins of congressional decision making. Presidential legislative leadership operates in an environment largely beyond the president’s control and must compete with other, more stable factors that affect voting in Congress in addition to party. These include ideology, personal views and commitments on specific policies, and the interests of constituencies. By the time a president tries to exercise influence on a vote, most members of Congress have made up their minds on the basis of these other factors.

As a result, a president’s legislative leadership is likely to be critical only for those members of Congress who remain open to conversion after other influences have had their impact. Although the size and composition of this group varies from issue to issue, it will almost always be a small minority in each chamber . Whatever the circumstances, the impact of persuasion on the outcome will usually be relatively modest. Therefore, conversion is likely to be at the margins of coalition building in Congress rather than at the core of policy change.

The most effective presidents do not create opportunities by reshaping the political landscape. Instead, they exploit opportunities already present in their environments to achieve significant changes in public policy. Three of the most famous periods of presidential success in Congress illustrate the point.12

IL---Base KeyBase key but support not resilient –most robust theory proves the link trueWalsh, 17 --- PhD candidate in political science at Rutgers University, and a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps (David Hunter Walsh, “Yes, Trump will face a backlash if he doesn’t deliver on his promises,” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/01/20/yes-trump-will-face-a-backlash-if-he-doesnt-deliver-on-his-promises/?utm_term=.250bb333ed24, accessed on 1/21/17)

Trump’s penchant for sweeping promises — and the likelihood that he may have trouble keeping them — has Republicans concerned about what would happen if he doesn’t or can’t follow through. “If we’re given the White House and both houses of Congress and we don’t deliver,” Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said recently, “I think there will be pitchforks and torches in the streets.”

Although Cruz’s vision of a violent uprising may be an exaggeration, my research suggests that Trump would indeed face a backlash if he fails to deliver on key promises .

[Will Trump follow through on all his Day One promises? Doesn’t look like it.]

Losses outweigh gains in the human mind . What does that mean for politics?

That conclusion rests on one of the most robust theories of modern psychology , prospect theory. Prospect theory argues that in our minds, perceived losses outweigh perceived gains in ways that profoundly affect our decision-making .

In a political context, this means that when the president surprises you by doing something you like, you’re happy about it. But that happiness is not nearly as powerful as the disappointment — or even sadness or anger — that you experience when the pres ident does something you hate. One implication is that the backlash a president faces for breaking a promise to his supporters may be much stronger than whatever positive reactions come from voters who are pleasantly surprised by his decision not to pursue that campaign pledge.

For Trump, a shift away from some of the radical positions he has staked out may in fact please even a majority of Americans. But any positive reaction will likely be muted, while the disappointment of his original supporters will be amplified. He could find himself losing some of his supporters without picking up the same number from the other side — which could leave him even more unpopular than he already is.

Trump is only concerned with retaining the support of his Republican base --- if it starts to abandon him his approval rating will plummet furtherLauter, 2/13/17 (David, “Trump has gotten even less popular while in office,” http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-polls-20170213-story.html, accessed on 2/14/17, JMP)

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-polls-20170213-story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/01/20/yes-trump-will-face-a-backlash-if-he-doesnt-deliver-on-his-promises/?utm_term=.250bb333ed24


One of the enduring myths of President Trump’s political career is the belief that “nothing matters” — that the controversies that surround him have no effect on his standing with the public.

The three weeks since Trump’s inauguration have once again proven that untrue: Trump has lost significant ground in public approval in the aftermath of a rough start.

Without question, Trump , who won the presidency with a minority of the votes cast, has retained a strong hold on his core supporters , whose loyalty remains ardent. Republicans are more approving of his personal qualities than they were in the fall , according to several ratings. And Trump has plenty of time to turn around the current negative trend in his overall ratings .

But the pattern is consistent: After a brief increase in popularity early in his transition, almost all public polls show a decline in Trump’s support, though the exact amount varies.

In Gallup’s surveys, Trump’s job approval has gone from an even split the week of his inauguration, with 45% of Americans approving and 45% disapproving, to a 10-point deficit in the latest average, 42% to 52%.

Gallup has tracked every American president since Franklin D. Roosevelt, and before Trump, none hit 50% disapproval for months, sometimes years. Trump has fallen below all but the lowest points for President Obama and into territory plumbed by Harry Truman, Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter.

Asked about specific qualities of leadership, Americans in Gallup’s surveys give Trump strong marks for keeping his promises and being a “strong and decisive” leader. But majorities rate him negatively on inspiring confidence, managing the government effectively and being honest.

On each of those measures, a vast gulf separates the mostly positive views of Republicans from the negative views of most Democrats.

In addition to Gallup, other polls showing a decline in Trump’s job approval include a GOP favorite, Rasmussen, which has shown Trump dropping from a 14-point net approval rating when he started to four points now; YouGov, which has found a 13-point decline; and Quinnipiac, with a 17-point drop.

Among major nonpartisan surveys, the only one to depart from the pattern is the Reuters/Ipsos poll, which had Trump’s approval at a two-point deficit when he started and now has him barely in positive territory, with 48% approving and 47% disapproving.

For now, what matters most to Trump is holding the support of his core voters . That’s key to his strength in Congress, especially in the House, because his popularity remains high in most Republican-held congressional districts .

But if his decline persists, it could weaken Trump’s sway in the Senate , where members need to run statewide.

Whether Trump’s approval rating will drop further depends largely on independents and Republicans — he has almost no support to lose among Democrats. If those voters do sour on

him, that could pose a threat to Republicans in the midterm election in 2018. The incumbent president’s approval rating historically serves as a good predictor of how many seats his party will lose at midterm.

Most presidents lose ground during their first two years. The average decline since World War II is just short of eight points, according to a compilation by Marquette University political scientist Charles Franklin. If Trump follows that pattern, he could end up with an approval rating in the high 30s — perilous territory for congressional candidates running in swing districts.

Trump’s base is keyO’Reilly 6/8 (William F.B., staff @ Newsday, “Will Comey testimony begin to crack Trump’s base?”, http://www.newsday.com/opinion/columnists/william-f-b-o-reilly/will-comey-testimony-begin-to-crack-trump-s-base-1.13715337)

It shouldn’t matter how the president is perceived by his political base. But it means everything in reality: As long as Trump retains significant grass-roots Republican support, just 20 or 25 percent, members of Congress won’t break with him en masse. Doing so would spell political suicide for them in 2018 , through primary challenges and/or Republicans bass fishing instead of voting during the midterm elections (the same may happen if this Congress can’t pass tax reforms). Republican support for Trump hovers at around 80 percent right now, with somewhere between a quarter and half of that hard core support.

Only the conservative base matter & it outweighs every turn – Size, media, & money generate intensity & focus that opposition can’t matchHacker & Pierson 15 (Jacob, Stanley Resor Professor of Political Science at Yale University, & Paul, John Gross Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley, “No Cost for Extremism”, http://prospect.org/article/no-cost-extremism)

Conventional images of the two parties see them as symmetrical reflections of each other. But when it comes to the activist core of

the parties, there is no comparison. The Republican base is larger, more intense, better organized, and fueled by distinctive partisan media outlets that make those on the other side look like pale imitations. Strong liberals are often motivated primarily by one issue—the environment, say, or abortion, or minority rights.

Strong conservatives tend to describe themselves as part of a broad effort to protect a way of life. Even during the George W. Bush presidency, liberals wanted Democratic Party leaders to take moderate positions and

expressed a strong desire for compromise. Conservatives consistently indicate they want Republicans to take more conservative positions and never, ever compromise with opponents . Not surprisingly, self-described conservatives also show up when it counts. Whatever the form of participation—voting, working for

candidates, contributing to campaigns—the GOP base does more of it than any other group. At the same time, the ideological distance between the party’s most active voters and the rest of the party’s electorate is greater on the GOP side than the Democratic side. Democratic activists are moderate as well as liberal (and occasionally even conservative). Republican activists are much more consistently conservative, even compared with other elements of the GOP electoral coalition. Nonetheless, the imbalance in prevalence and intensity between self-identified liberals and self-identified conservatives hasn’t changed much in 35 years—even as the role of the Republican base in American politics has changed dramatically. Something has happened that has given that base a greater weight and a greater focus on “Washington” as the central

threat to American society. Here, we need to turn our attention from the GOP’s most committed voters to the organized forces that have jet-propelled the GOP’s rightward trip . Even the most informed and active voters take their cues from organizations and elite figures they trust. (Indeed, there’s strong evidence that such voters are most likely to process information through an ideological lens.) The far right has built precisely the kind of organizations needed to turn diffuse and generalized support into focused activity on behalf of increasingly extreme candidates. Those organized forces have

two key elements: polarizing right-wing media and efforts by business and the very wealthy to backstop and bankroll GOP politics. Pundits like to point to surface similarities between partisan journalists on the left and right, but the differences in scale and

organization are profound. The conservative side is massive; describing its counterpart on the left as modest would be an act of true generosity.

They’re the last line of defense against his total collapse – but could flipCatanese 6/2 (David, staff @ US News, “Trump's Last Line of Defense”, https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2017-06-02/donald-trumps-supporters-are-his-last-line-of-defense)

Inside Washington, Donald Trump's 4-month-old presidency appears to spin in a perpetual state of crisis and chaos, achieving few tangible successes and beset by weekly distractions. But in far and wide pockets of the country, where legions of loyal Trump supporters remain, a very different picture is being discerned. They see a media corps obsessed with a Russia investigation despite no evidence of a crime, all too easily swallowing an excuse for Hillary Clinton's loss. They see a Democratic Party lurching further to the left and practicing pure obstructionism to appease its inflamed base. They see a coterie of prosperous, smug elites stationed in power centers and unable to comprehend the everyday hardships spoken to by this president. And they see all of them hellbent on taking down Trump, whatever the cost to the country. U.S. News conducted email interviews with more than a dozen readers who defended Trump in their reactions to previous stories. These folks are angry, distrustful and sometimes intemperate, reflecting similar characteristics of the commander in chief. Some are true believers who salute all of Trump's actions, no matter how contentious or disputed. Others are clear-eyed about the president's flaws, but are more disturbed by the drumbeat of a contemptuous opposition. Not all of them consider themselves conservatives; some even voted for former President Barack Obama – twice. Given the current polls showing Trump's subpar popularity, members of this group are clearly the minority, but they also constitute the president's last line of defense as he toils in a capital that becomes more hostile by the day.

only support of trump’s Republican base matters --- if it starts to abandon him his approval rating will plummet further – decline below 40 is threshold for DALauter, 2/13/17 (David, “Trump has gotten even less popular while in office,” http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-polls-20170213-story.html, accessed on 2/14/17, JMP)



Without question, Trump , who won the presidency with a minority of the votes cast, has retained a strong hold on his core supporters , whose loyalty remains ardent. Republicans are more approving of his personal qualities than they were in the fall , according to several


ratings. And Trump has plenty of time to turn around the current negative trend in his overall ratings .








For now, what matters most to Trump is holding the support of his core voters . That’s key to his strength in Congress, especially in the House, because his popularity remains high in most Republican -held congressional districts .

But if his decline persists , it could weaken Trump’s sway in the Senate , where members need to run statewide.

Whether Trump’s approval rating will drop further depends largely on independents and Republicans — he has almost no support to lose among Democrats. If those voters do sour on him, that could pose a threat to Republicans in the midterm election in 2018. The incumbent president’s approval rating historically serves as a good predictor of how many seats his party will lose at midterm.


IL---A2: Base Support Resilient

Base support not resilient – Trump’s only maintaining their support BECAUSE he’s refusing to alienate them with liberal concessions on conservative policy issuesStanley 2/21 (Timothy, staff @ CNN, “Why Trump's supporters still love him”, http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/19/opinions/why-trump-supporters-love-him-not-the-media-stanley/)

Aside from hatred of the press, the other thing I've found that binds Trumpites together is a fear of decline. It's often noted that Trump supporters are wealthier than the working-class they claim to speak for, but that's beside the point.

These are concerned citizens who have a patriotic dislike of unemployment or Islamist terrorism. They voted for Trump because he promised to restore the nation's greatness, by building

a wall and locking jobs inside. From this point-of-view, conservatives are keeping faith with Trump because Trump is keeping faith with them . His list of executive orders is a wish list for the right : reverse Obamacare's spiraling costs, start planning for a border wall, reduce regulations, etc. His Supreme Court pick is a younger Antonin

Scalia. The whiteness, maleness and conservatism of his Cabinet proves he's not making any concessions to political correctness.

They’re watching the White House closely for signs of liberal accommodationEasley 4/25 (Jonathan, staff @ The Hill, “Infighting cools down in Trumpland”, http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/330341-infighting-cools-down-in-trumpland)

Conservatives say they’re watching closely for signs that the “liberal” wing is winning . They haven’t seen it yet . Trump’s message in recent weeks has focused heavily on manufacturing and creating American jobs, and he hasn’t wavered on trade, immigration, building the border wall or defeating the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, said Tea Party leader Mark Meckler. “We are watching closely what the White House is actually doing,” Meckler said. “All the rest of this is just noise.”

Conservative supporters need constant reassurance – The plan breaks their faithIsenstadt 4/13 (Alex, staff @ Politico, “Trump’s base turns on him”, http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/trump-base-supporters-turn-on-him-237200)

This week, some Trump die-hards passed around a column by conservative commentator Kurt Schlichter headlined: “Trump Can’t Let His Real or His Fake Friends Turn Him into Schwarzenegger Part 2.” Schlichter, in an interview, said conservatives are fundamentally distrustful of Republican politicians who had often misled them. He urged the president to take some immediate actions, however small, to put his supporters at ease. “You’ve got to understand the base. It’s like dating a girl whose father cheated on her mother. She’s always going to be suspicious,” he said. “He’s got to constantly provide wins because he’s got an emotionally damaged base that’s been abused.”

The base is key to Trump – He can’t split their support, threshold is lowMorrisey 4/12 (Ed, writes for HotAir.com, columns have appeared in the Washington Post, the New York Post, The New York Sun, the Washington Times, “Syria is a dead end for President Trump”, http://theweek.com/articles/691660/syria-dead-end-president-trump)

Politically, such a move would present a sharp reversal from the promises Trump made in the campaign to the anti-establishment

voters who carried him to victory last November. More than most presidents, Trump has to rely on his base for political capital. Unlike Barack Obama, whose personal popularity saw him through political setbacks, or even George

W. Bush, whose own promises of a more "humble" foreign policy fell by the wayside after 9/11, Trump has no personal- popularity margin for error.

Trump base starting to have doubts – maintain support but its fragile– they could flipKehoe 3/24 (John, staff @ Financial Review, “Trump's 'Art of the Deal' health setback for markets”, http://www.afr.com/markets/trumps-art-of-the-deal-health-test-for-markets-20170323-gv52qw)

Trump's personal popularity may also affect which way members and senators decide to vote on the delicate healthcare issue. His personal approval rating has slumped to just 37 per cent according to a Quinnipiac University poll, following Trump erroneously claiming Obama wire tapped Trump Tower during the election and a cloud of controversy over his campaign team's potential links to Russia. "Most alarming for Trump, the demographic underpinnings

of his support, Republicans, white voters, especially men and those without a college degree, are starting to have doubts," says pollster Tim Malloy.

IL---Demsplan disrupts party unity and dem sign-on that are key to legislationLongman, 16 – Martin Longman, web editor for the Washington Monthly and the main blogger at Booman Tribune, 11-14-16, “Democrats shouldn't cling to the filibuster”, Washington Monthly, http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/11/14/the-democrats-shouldnt-cling-to-the-filibuster/

Theoretically, the Senate’s filibuster rule could serve as one of only two tools the Democrats have to limit the scope of the complete Republican takeover of government. But it doesn’t look like the filibuster will be worth a warm bucket of spit, assuming it survives at all. It has already been substantially weakened by Harry Reid who got fed up with the Republicans’ constant stonewalling of executive branch nominees and appointments to the lower federal courts. He eliminated its use for those two purposes, which means that Trump can fill his cabinet with virtually anyone he wants and make quick work of rolling back the partisan advantage President Obama built on the district and appeals courts. However, Harry Reid left in place the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees and for regular Senate legislative business. For this reason, there still could be some necessity for Trump to reach across the aisle to fill Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court and to enact his ambitious and radical policy agenda through Congress .

However, the Democrats know that the Republicans will only tolerate a limited amount of obstruction and that they could easily eliminate the filibuster completely, making a simple 50 votes in the Senate all the Republicans need for all Senate business.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wouldn’t comment on this possibility but he had a pretty straightforward warning on Friday, saying that Democrats are “going to want to be cooperative with us.”

The Senate Dem ocrat s aren’t inclined to behave as obstructively as McConnell’s Republicans in any case:

“What we’re not going to do is what Mitch McConnell stands for, which is obstructing things because of who proposed it,” said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), a prominent liberal. But “if Trump puts plans forward that aren’t about working Americans, if it’s tax cuts for billionaires, we’ll certainly fight that.”

I suppose the Democrats shouldn’t invite McConnell to take away their last remaining parliamentary tool for resisting Trump, but if they’re afraid to use it because they believe it will be taken away, no one should expect it to be used for anything of true priority and significance to the Trump administration. It will be useless for the big stuff.

But there is an effective way to resist, and that’s by exploiting divisions with in the Republican caucus. Those divisions are substantial and it’s going to take a lot of creativity and horse trading to utilize them effectively . Trump wants an infrastructure bill, and he’ll probably need Dem ocratic votes to get it . He’s going to want to do tax reform , and he may need Dem ocratic votes to get that, too . It’s unclear if he can avoid running afoul of the deficit hawks in the

Republican Party (in both the Senate and House) as he looks to explode the deficit in nearly every area from increased defense spending, to lowering rates and repealing the Estate Tax, to eliminating the cost savings in ObamaCare, to jacking up spending on immigration enforcement and wall building.

Instead of relying on a filibuster rule that will be taken away the moment it matters, the Democrats should stand on their principles rather than pretending that they can keep a meaningful filibuster by playing nice. If they’re going to be a successful minority party, they’re going to have to do it the old-fashioned way. And that means that they’ll have to use the amendment process to sow divisions and make Trump rely on them as much as possible.

It should become clear fairly quickly if Trump can govern his own caucus any better than Boehner and Ryan have been able to do. The Republicans can barely legislate their way out of a paper bag on a good day, and now they have a president coming in who, by all reports, has the attention span of a gnat and no knowledge whatsoever of how to run the federal government or to move legislation through Congress.

If Trump wants to steamroll the Dem ocrat s with some hard right conservative agenda then they can refuse to help ease the divisions in his party even on things like infrastructure and tax reform where they might otherwise be willing to give him a win .

And those days of giving the votes to raise the debt ceiling? Well, that’s a Sword of Damocles that shouldn’t be given up easily. The Republicans will have to pass their own appropriations bill with their own votes, and if they can’t do it any better under Trump than they did it under Obama, well then that will be another way for Dem ocrat s to have influence and force moderation and compromise .

IL---GOP RelationsAlienating the GOP wrecks the agenda---Trump will go scorched-earthReston, 16 – Laura Reston, 11-10-2016, “Can Senate Democrats Stop Donald Trump?”, New Republic, https://newrepublic.com/article/138646/can-senate-democrats-stop-donald-trump

Trump may also butt heads with congressional Republicans in other areas. He has said that on his first day in office he would name China “a currency manipulator,” implementing a 45 percent tariff on Chinese imports. Most Republicans in Congress, many of whom were elected with help from the Chamber of Commerce, support free trade and would likely oppose this. Should he pick those battles, Trump will encounter a Congress far less willing to be a rubber stamp on his agenda. “That will be quite an adjustment for someone who spent his career as a CEO, without the separation of powers,” Galston says. “We have no idea what his governing style is going to be. But we know what happens when things go against him: He tends to lash out and pit himself against others.”

Policy fights disrupt Trump’s fragile relations with GOP---that ends the agendaO’Neill, 16 – Kevin O’Neill, co-chair of legislative practice, and L. Charles Landgraf, law partner, 11-9-2016, “The Policy Choices, Challenges, and Consequences of an Outsider in the White House: What You Need to Know After the 2016 Election”, Arnold & Porter LLP, http://www.arnoldporter.com/en/~/media/files/perspectives/publications/2016/11/postelection-analysis-2016-trump.pdf

A normal environment where the White House and Congress are controlled by the same party would be a period of intense coordinated legislative and regulatory action by the majority party. Yet, the Trump Presidency will be different for many reasons. First, President-elect Trump previously had a strained and distant relationship with congressional leaders of his own party . Speaker Ryan has a frosty relationship with President-elect Trump, and declined opportunities to campaign together and, in an effort to preserve his House majority, stopped defending the Republican nominee weeks before the election. In turn, President-elect Trump regularly ridiculed the Speaker on the campaign trail and, at key moments, appeared to be campaigning as much against his own congressional majority as he was against his actual opponent, Secretary Clinton. This is an uneasy partnership where allies will have to be very careful in working together if they are to achieve their common goals.

In the Senate, Majority Leader McConnell was on record early in 2016 saying that it was essentially every candidate for themselves, and Republican Senators needed to do whatever it took to win reelection. It was a strategy that worked. The President-elect knows how to hold a grudge, and now his success is going to be closely linked to his ability to get along with his own party in Congress. We expect that the shared policy ambitions of President-elect Trump, Speaker Ryan and Majority Leader McConnell, each eager to see big things accomplished in a

unified government, will be sufficient to work through the inevitable friction in their personal leadership styles.

There is one interesting constitutional upside to the strained relationship between the White House and Congress. For the last several Presidencies, there has been a continuum of activity that tilts the federal government’s balance of power toward the White House and away from Congress. The deep, bipartisan skepticism and antipathy toward the incoming President creates the conditions needed for Congress to begin to shift the balance of power between coequal branches of government back to equilibrium.

President-elect Trump’s relations with the Senate also will impact the speed with which his nominees move towards confirmation. Congressional Republicans will be concerned about the level of vetting done by the transition team and will be wary of being trapped supporting controversial nominees with issues that should have shaken out before nominees are submitted. Senate Democrats will have every incentive to throw up procedural roadblocks and coordinate with outside interest groups to attack the qualifications of President-elect Trump's nominees. To the extent that the Trump Administration seems likely to appoint more political outsiders and business leaders, some of the political attacks on nominees are sure to succeed, and those nominations will fail.

While President Obama suffered from a reputation of holding legislators at arms-length, President-elect Trump may have troubles of his own on this front. He will need to be magnanimous in victory and embrace key Republicans who were publicly skeptical or opposed to his campaign. In turn, congressional R epublican s who opposed the Trump candidacy will need to reconcile with the President -elect. President-elect Trump could excel at some of the interpersonal elements of his job and may use golfing and other social events as a way to build goodwill he can use to advance his agenda in Congress . If the President-elect's agenda stalls or fails in a Republican -controlled Congress , the autopsy will show the failure was a combination of policy disagreements exacerbated by poor relationships with individual senators and representatives essential to the policy issues involved .

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) are now the de facto heads of the Democratic Party. While both are articulate spokespersons for their party, their age and experience eliminate them as potential 2020 presidential nominees, limiting their control of the party to a short-term proposition. Instead, we will soon see an open battle among key senators, representatives and governors to be identified as heirs to the Bill Clinton-Barack Obama policy legacy. Hillary Clinton’s defeat will make it hard for her to exert much control over the party’s future. Indeed, the party bearer in fighting Trump in the next two years may be former President Obama himself, as he plans to live in Washington, DC for a few years until his younger daughter goes to college. With a leaderless party, former President Obama seems unlikely to stand by quietly as Republicans seek to unravel his signature achievements.

Overall, President-elect Trump enters office knowing he has the potential to achieve sweeping transformation to a smaller, more conservative federal government, but his success depends in large part on showing he can get along with others in Washington . To the extent he can forge relations hips with congressional Republicans , he will see legislative success .

IL---Flip Flops

Flip-flops kill the agenda - it’s the most destructive political label in America Rainey, 8 (6/25/08 (James, Staff @ LA Times, "ON THE MEDIA: Candidates Show Lack of Leadership on Iraq," Daily Herald, http://www.heraldextra.com/component/option,com_contentwire/task,view/id,61544/Itemid,53/)

The Iraq experts I interviewed agreed that one of the most problematic barriers to a real debate is -- as author and journalist George Packer said -- a culture that has "made flip-flopper the most feared label in American politics ." They could point to another politician, fact averse but stalwart, who took too long to adapt once it became clear Iraq was going sideways. "It seems in America you are stuck with the position you adopted, even when events change , in order to claim absolute consistency ," Packer said. "That can't be good."

Flip-flops are politically devastating The Dallas Morning News, 1 (4/16/2001 (lexis))

A high number of flip-flops can bleed a president dry , they added, especially one who campaigned for a "responsibility era"

in contrast to the scandal-ridden Clinton era. "His stock-in-trade more than anything else is , 'This is a guy who keeps his commitments , even when it's painful ,' " said Norman Ornstein , a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Democrats said the coal companies applied pressure to Bush, forcing a decision they say ignores the threat of global warming. In mocking Bush's prior campaign pledge, many cited the chemical formula for carbon dioxide, CO2. "The president and his team have really made a 180-degree turn on their position here, suggesting now that CO2 is somehow A-OK," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who ran against Bush as the Democratic candidate for vice president. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., wife of Bush's predecessor, called it "a promise made and a promise broken." "In less than eight weeks in office, President Bush has gone from CO2 to 'see you later,' " Hillary Clinton said. During a campaign speech in Saginaw, Mich., on Sept. 29, Bush outlined a clean air strategy targeting four pollutants. "With the help of Congress, environmental groups and industry, we will require all power plants to meet clean air standards in order to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury, and carbon dioxide within a reasonable period of time," Bush said. And since his inauguration, Bush's Environmental Protection Agency chief, Christie Whitman, has publicly backed the carbon dioxide restrictions. But late Tuesday, he sent a letter to Republican senators saying he was still committed to new emission standards on the first three items. "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act," Bush wrote. Critics said broken promises are especially troublesome for Bush, who promised a more straightforward approach than his predecessor. During an Oct. 26 speech titled "Responsible Leadership," Bush told supporters in Pittsburgh that "in a responsibility era, government should trust the people." "And in a responsibility era, people should also be able to trust their government," Bush said. Ornstein said it may be hard for Bush to make those kind of comments in the future. "Now his opponents are going to jump up and say, 'Oh yeah?' " Ornstein said. "This is going to be used against him." White House aides said they believe most voters will understand the circumstances behind the decision. They cited a recent Energy Department study saying that capping carbon dioxide emissions would escalate the shift from coal to natural gas for electricity generation, thus boosting prices. "It's better to protect the consumer and avoid worsening the energy crisis," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. If Bush has any doubt how much damage a broken promise can do, he needs only to ask his father , President George Bush, who hurt himself by reversing his nationally televised "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge. The younger Bush's carbon dioxide pledge came in an energy policy speech, and most of the attention at the time was devoted to his proposal to drill for oil in an

Alaska wildlife refuge. Thomas E. Patterson, a professor of government and the press at the Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, said the damage done to Bush depends on what happens in the future. He likened broken campaign promises to "razor cuts ." "If you only have a few of them, they really can get lost in everything else that's going on," Patterson said. " It's the accumulation of these razor cuts that starts the real bleeding ."

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc

IL---Losers Lose

This would wreck him politically. Losers Lose and GOP is KeyCollender, 16 --- adjunct professor at the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University (Stan, “The 3 Things That Could Stop Trump Cold Next Year (And It's Not The Democrats),” 11/16, http://www.forbes.com/sites/stancollender/2016/11/16/the-3-things-that-could-stop-trump-cold-next-year/#1031d47d1597, accessed on 12/10/16,)

That didn't take long.

Less than a full week after Donald Trump was elected president, Republican Senator Rand Paul (KY) publicly announced that several of the senior people being considered for cabinet positions in the new administration were unacceptable and that he will vote against them if they are nominated.

Senator Paul's statement may be sincere; he actually might not approve of the rumored cabinet choices. Or he may be letting the Trump team know early on that his vote shouldn't be considered automatic and that he's going to want something in return for it . After all, that's how Washington often -- or perhaps typically -- works .

But it's also a reminder that, for all the talk about Trump being able to get things done easy and

quickly because the GOP will control the White House and Congress, the biggest and longest lasting threat to his ability to accomplish anything will come from other Republicans.

Here are the top 3 Republican-caused legislative challenges the Trump agenda could face in the next Congress.

Any 3 Republican Senators

With a likely 52-48 Senate majority after the run-off in Louisiana is settled, Trump will only be able to lose 2 votes on any legislative initiative. At 50-50, Vice President Mike Pence, in his role as president of the Senate, will vote to break a tie and give the president a victory.

But as Paul's announcement indicates, Republican unity won't be automatic . Although it's not always likely to be the same 3 GOP senators on every issue, it's not hard to believe that there will always be a small group of Republicans willing to oppose the Trump White House on the

most controversial votes . It's even easier to imagine GOP opposition will develop if the Trump administration is mired in controversy, appears not to be in control, loses some early fights with Congress or gets stuck in a foreign policy or military problem.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stancollender/2016/11/16/the-3-things-that-could-stop-trump-cold-next-year/#1031d47d1597

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stancollender/2016/11/16/the-3-things-that-could-stop-trump-cold-next-year/#1031d47d1597

Losers lose uniquely for trump – his power with congress comes from fear not love – tanks his agendaNewmyer, 17 --- Tory, author @ Fortune, 1/12, http://fortune.com/2017/01/12/trumps-known-unknowns/

As the newsletter’s title suggests, the form these changes take will depend in significant measure on something we

don’t yet know: How Donald Trump will lead. He remains largely undefined on all but the most generalized policy preferences. Will he fill them in himself — or defer to the advisors he’s still busy hiring? How far will that team, already heavy on Wall Street experience, go to sand the edges off the populist platform that delivered Trump to power? And once the White House

decides what it wants, will it seek to drive the agenda on Capitol Hill, or hand the wheel over to Congressional

Republicans, whose priorities diverge on some key questions? We’ll begin to get some answers imminently, as this

much is clear: Trump is itching to rack up early wins. At the same time, the ethics questions shadowing the president-elect loom as a major distraction with the potential to kneecap his agenda. This newsletter will not be a daily digest of, say, stories relating to ongoing concerns about his business holdings or so far unsubstantiated speculation about his Russian ties. But both are dominating this morning’s headlines. Trump faced an assembled press corps Wednesday for the first time since July, trashing reports that intelligence officials briefed him and President Obama on allegations that Russian operatives compiled personal and financial material to blackmail him. And in the same news conference, he outlined plans to hand control of the Trump Organization to his sons while maintaining his stake — an arrangement ethics experts denounced, including the director of the Office of Government Ethics, who called it “wholly inadequate.” (Trump also sent pharma stocks tumbling by declaring the industry has been "getting away with murder" with drug pricing; said Republicans will be repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act "essentially

simultaneously;" and announced he'd name a Supreme Court pick within two weeks.) Any president’s p olitical c apital has a precariously brief half-life that must be constantly renewed. That is especially true for a newcomer taking office with a historically low approval rating — one who’s arguably more feared than loved among his own party on Capitol Hill . And fissures with the Hill GOP were already evident Wednesday. As Trump was preparing to take the stage at Trump Tower in New York, his nominee for Secretary of State, former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, was in a Senate hearing room, absorbing a withering line of questioning from Florida Sen. Marco Rubio. Trump’s former rival in the Republican presidential primaries later sounded noncommittal about whether he’d vote to move Tillerson’s nomination to the full Senate. Since Republicans only enjoy a one-vote margin in the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, a defection by Rubio would stall the nod there. Senate Republican leaders could then bypass the panel, but it would amount to a major black eye for the incoming administration. Rubio has a finely-tuned political antenna and ambitions manifestly bigger than the Senate.

Such an early stand against the president-elect would signal turbulence ahead for the matters that matter to business.

Best Scholarship confirms the link---rallying against the plan and failing destroys political capital and blocks compromise for future policy---Empirics

Edwards, 16 – George C. Edwards III, Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Jordan Chair in Presidential Studies at Texas A&M, 2016, “The Potential of Presidential Leadership”, Study Done for the White House Transition Project

Undermining the Potential for Compromise

Strategies for governing based on the premise of creating opportunities for change are prone to failure. Presidents—and the country—often endure self-inflicted wounds when they fail to appreciate the limits of their influence . The White House not only wastes the opportunities that

do exist but sometimes—as in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Court-packing bill, Bill Clinton’s health care reform proposal, and George W. Bush’s effort to reform Social Security— presidents also create the conditions for political disaster and undermine their ability to govern in the long- term.23 The dangers of overreach and debilitating political losses alert us that it is critically important for presidents to assess accurately the potential for obtaining public and congressional support.

There is an additional danger to failing to understand the limits of persuasion . Presidents and their opponents may underestimate each other and eschew necessary compromises in the mistaken belief that they can persuade members of the public and Congress to change their minds.

Loses tank trump agenda and cause GOP rebellions – perception of strength is keyCollinson, 17---Stephen, political columnist@CNN, 1/4, http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/03/politics/donald-trump-republicans-congress/










showed that while Trump may be a Washington newbie, he knows how to score an easy political win. Trump hotel lawsuit at impasse, headed to trial For much of his transition, Trump has been hounded by ethics questions of his own, centering on potential huge conflicts of interests posed by his global business interests. His wealthy cabinet picks -- such as Rex Tillerson for secretary of state and Steve Mnuchin for Treasury -- are being accused by Democrats of failing to provide sufficient

financial data and other information ahead of their confirmation hearings. But Trump can now present himself as a champion of ethical standards on Capitol Hill and argue that he has already taken a step to honor his vow of draining Washington's political swamp. The exchange also appeared to hint at the Republican hierarchy in Washington after the inauguration and the incoming president's relationship with Speaker Paul Ryan. Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, initially opposed the change to ethics rules. But once he was defied by his troops, he fell into line, issuing a statement defending the move -- only for GOP lawmakers to reverse



Early political losses deplete the foundation of polcap*Careful – it sounds like a “winners win” card if you don’t understand the argument

Mann, 9 – Thomas E. Mann, Senior Fellow in Governance Studies at Brookings, 4-21-2009, “From Campaigning to Governing: Politics and Policymaking in the New Obama Administration”, Brookings, https://www.brookings.edu/on-the-record/from-campaigning-to-governing-politics-and-policymaking-in-the-new-obama-administration/

In reality, each presidency has its own political dynamic, shaped by the size of the initial election victory, the contours of the economy, conditions of war or peace, public impressions, and legislative victories and defeats. P olitical c apital is not a finite commodity generated in the election and then quickly depleted in battles to enact a policy agenda. It can be replenished through early legislative victories , reassuring leadership, and improving conditions at home and abroad. Presidents have often garnered significant policy victories well after their first year in office. The challenge is to begin one’s presidency in a way that banks some initial achievable goals, avoids personal missteps and legislative defeats, and lays the political groundwork for sustained leadership throughout the life of his administration.

Losers lose – perception of weakness undermines trump PC – aff thumpers only make him look strongSilver, 16 --- Nate, and Cohen, Micah, Five Thirty Eight, 12/14, http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/will-trump-take-a-honey-badger-approach-to-congress/

micah: So that seems like one of the central takeaways with Tillerson: His nomination suggests that Trump might not GAF/ won’t defer much to political winds or Congress ional considerations . clare.malone: You can’t tell from one move with Trump. micah: Normally, if a trial balloon is bombarded with crap, it isn’t then cleaned off and re-released officially. clare.malone: Ew. micah: OK … how about: Normally, if a trial balloon is popped, it isn’t then patched up and re-released officially. clare.malone: But yes, Trump must just like the cut of Tillerson’s jib an awful lot, to go against the blowback. natesilver:

Well, there are three or four interpretations. Interpretation No. 1: The honey badger don’t give a shit. Trump’s gonna

Trump, even if it’s sort of a risky move where the downsides outweigh the upsides. micah: But maybe this is partly why voters like Trump : He clearly thinks Tillerson will do a good job and doesn’t give a damn about what John

McCain or Rubio thinks. Or any other D.C. naysayers. natesilver: There’s also interpretation No. 2: Trump thinks it’s

good power politics to make everyone subservient to his whims instead of compromising . They’ll confirm this guy, who got some freakin’ medal from freakin Putin — at the very moment that Putin’s suspected of meddling

with/hacking the American election? Why, yes, they maybe/probably will! And that proves how far Trump can go and how much power he has. Cont…. natesilver: Trump gets a lot of mileage out of assuming that his opponents are weak-willed , in part because he’s usually proven right . We’ll see how much Rubio is willing to stand up for himself. He has a lot of leverage over Trump on Tillerson, and we’ll see if he’s willing to use it.

Kills PC – viewed as a huge lossToobin 12 {Jeffrey, B.A. and J.D. (Harvard University and Law School), senior analyst for CNN on legal issues, “The Real Stakes in the Health-Care Case: A Guide,” The New Yorker, 6/5, http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-real-stakes-in-the-health-care-case-a-guide#THUR}

It’s been said that Obama might somehow be better off politically if the Court were to strike down the unpopular parts of the law (or even all of it). According to this reasoning, he could then avoid the problem of defending the law on the campaign trail and concentrate instead on issues on which the Democratic view is more popular. This is nonsense.

In the first place, in politics and the rest of life, it’s always better to win than lose . Winners win, and losers lose . Moreover, the invalidation of such a central achievement of his Administration would taint

Obama’s Presidency forever. To casual followers of politics (and the Supreme Court), which is to say most people, it would look like Obama overreached in the

way that the stereotype suggests that liberals often do—in expanding the size of government. In the event of a loss , Obama would blame the Court , perhaps for good reason, but for better or worse the Justices will have the last word . In the famous words of Justice Robert Jackson, “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.”

IL---Unpopular Policies---Congress

Forcing through areas of policy disagreement will disrupt Trump’s fragile relations with Congress---that ends the agendaO’Neill, 16 – Kevin O’Neill, co-chair of legislative practice, and L. Charles Landgraf, law partner, 11-9-2016, “The Policy Choices, Challenges, and Consequences of an Outsider in the White House: What You Need to Know After the 2016 Election”, Arnold & Porter LLP, http://www.arnoldporter.com/en/~/media/files/perspectives/publications/2016/11/postelection-analysis-2016-trump.pdf


In the Senate, Majority Leader McConnell was on record early in 2016 saying that it was essentially every candidate for themselves, and Republican Senators needed to do whatever it took to win reelection. It was a strategy that worked. The President-elect knows how to hold a grudge, and now his success is going to be closely linked to his ability to get along with his own party in Congress. We expect that the shared policy ambitions of President-elect Trump, Speaker Ryan and Majority Leader McConnell, each eager to see big things accomplished in a unified government, will be sufficient to work through the inevitable friction in their personal leadership styles.


President-elect Trump’s relations with the Senate also will impact the speed with which his nominees move towards confirmation. Congressional Republicans will be concerned about the level of vetting done by the transition team and will be wary of being trapped supporting controversial nominees with issues that should have shaken out before nominees are submitted. Senate Democrats will have every incentive to throw up procedural roadblocks and coordinate

with outside interest groups to attack the qualifications of President-elect Trump's nominees. To the extent that the Trump Administration seems likely to appoint more political outsiders and business leaders, some of the political attacks on nominees are sure to succeed, and those nominations will fail.

While President Obama suffered from a reputation of holding legislators at arms-length, President-elect Trump may have troubles of his own on this front. He will need to be magnanimous in victory and embrace key Republicans who were publicly skeptical or opposed to his campaign . In turn, congressional R epublican s who opposed the Trump candidacy will need to reconcile with the President -elect. President-elect Trump could excel at some of the interpersonal elements of his job and may use golfing and other social events as a way to build goodwill he can use to advance his agenda in Congress . If the President-elect's agenda stalls or fails in a Republican -controlled Congress , the autopsy will show the failure was a combination of policy disagreements exacerbated by poor relations hips with individual senators and rep resentative s essential to the policy issues involved .


Overall, President-elect Trump enters office knowing he has the potential to achieve sweeping transformation to a smaller, more conservative federal government, but his success depends in large part on showing he can get along with others in Washington . To the extent he can forge relations hips with congress ional Republicans , he will see legislative success .

IL---Unpopular Policies---Senate

Especially in the Senate---unpopular policies trade offMcLaughlin, 16– Dan McLaughlin, attorney practicing securities and commercial litigation, 11-16-2016, “Does Donald Trump Have a Mandate?”, National Review, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442227/donald-trump-gop-congress-2016-election-mandates

Whether Trump needs a legislative mandate depends on what he tries to do. House Republicans have a commanding majority, so if Trump tries to push policies most R epublican s agree with , he will succeed in the House without needing to expend much p olitical c apital . Senate Republicans have 52 votes, plus Vice President Pence in the case of ties, so they too can win floor votes on anything that attracts Republican support, and on tax and budget bills subject to 51-vote reconciliation rules. But the real action in the Senate always revolves around the additional eight votes needed to get cloture on legislation and judges . For those votes, Trump may need to dip into the well of eleven Dem ocratic Senators from states he carried in 2016, ten of whom are up for reelection in 2018: Joe Manchin, Claire McCaskill, Heidi Heitkamp, Jon Tester, Joe Donnelly, Bob Casey, Bill Nelson, Sherrod Brown, Debbie Stabenow, and Tammy Baldwin. Some of those are senators from deep-red states who only survived 2012 due to bad opponents and Obama turnout, so they ought to be nervous. Others, such as Sherrod Brown, are making conciliatory noises already. But this will be a delicate dance for Dem ocrat s who depend on turnout from voters now demanding a hard line against Trump.

A legislative mandate gets more complicated if Trump ( as expected ) pushes some legislation and nominees that appeal more to Dem ocrat s than to Republicans ; in those cases, he will need both Democrats willing to put policy gains above partisanship and Republicans willing to do the opposite.

IL---PopularityPreventing popularity decline is key to Trump’s agenda---he’s at a crossroads now with the GOPEnten, 16 – Harry Enten, senior political writer and analyst for FiveThirtyEight, 11-22-2016, 11-22 “Trump Won Despite Being Unpopular, So Can He Govern That Way?”, http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-won-despite-being-unpopular-so-can-he-govern-that-way/

Once Trump becomes president, the main measure the press and American public will use to gauge his performance will be his job-approval rating. And this is where his popularity could matter. As John Sides of The Monkey Cage blog noted back in 2013, presidents have a better chance of get ting Congress to pass favored legislation when they are more popular . Political science research has found a relationship between a president’s approval rating and whether the House approves high-profile bills that get a lot of news coverage (as opposed to run-of-the-mill, non-controversial legislation). A Trump immigration plan would fall into that category. Another study also found that Congress has been more willing to rubber-stamp a president’s agenda when his approval rating has been higher.

For now, though, Republican lawmakers seem united behind Trump despite his limited popularity. Although many Democrats have criticized Trump’s selections of Steve Bannon as chief strategist and Sen. Jeff Sessions as attorney general, Republicans are mostly standing by the president -elect . It could be that in a highly partisan era, job-approval ratings matter far less than party labels in terms of securing support from Congress. As Sides pointed out, there is some support for that thesis in a paper from political scientists Jon Bond, Richard Fleisher, and B. Dan Wood. If that’s the case, Trump may be able to ride partisanship to legislative success , at least initially. Republicans do, after all, have a large majority in the House and a small majority in the Senate.

Still, it’s probably not helpful for Trump if he remains unpopular. Every House member is up for re-election in 2018 and there are still some Republican senators from purple and blue states . These legislators may still be influenced by Trump’s standing with the American public . According to Gallup, Trump’s net favorability this past week was only minus-13 percentage points. That’s up from where it was before the election, but it’s still really low. Indeed, Trump’s net favorability is lower than any president-elect (or incumbent president after re-election) since at least 1980.1

No previous winner had a negative net favorability rating. The closest was George W. Bush in 2004, who had a net favorability rating of +9 percentage points. Bush went on to face major struggles in his second term. Trump’s lack of popularity stands in direct contrast to his soon-to-be predecessor, President Obama. Obama in 2008 was the most popular incoming president since at least 1980. He was even more popular than Ronald Reagan was after the 1984 election, when he won 49 states. (Obama’s occasional bursts of popularity, however, didn’t seem to help him win legislative victories once Republicans took control of the House in 2010.)

The good news for Trump is that his approval rating after his inauguration will probably be higher than his favorability rating is now. Although we’re working with a small sample size — just nine elections since 1980 — you get a pretty good idea of what a president’s first net approval rating from Gallup will be by knowing his net favorability rating after being elected, and whether he was an incumbent.

For re-elected presidents, there hasn’t been a big difference between their favorability rating after election and approval rating after taking the second oath. People know what they are getting when they re-elect a president. There isn’t much room to be surprised. Presidents sometimes get a popularity boost after being re-elected, but they don’t get another one after inauguration.

New presidents, however, tend to get a big bump from their post-election net favorability rating — about 10 to 20 percentage points . That makes sense. Whether because of Americans rallying behind their leader or just giving the new guy a chance, the honeymoon period is a clearly defined phenomenon in American politics. A 10 to 20 percentage point bump would land Trump in positive territory, or close to it, in terms of his first net approval rating upon entering office.

But make no mistake: Trump’s in a deep hole, and his atypical personality may make it difficult to climb out. Even a 20-point bump from Trump’s current net favorability rating to his first net approval rating would leave him with an opening net approval rating of +7 percentage points. That’s not only lower than any of the presidents studied here, it would be the lowest first net job-approval rating for any president since at least 1941, when Franklin Roosevelt entered his third term.

Trump will probably be hampered at least a little bit by his lack of popularity at the beginning of his term. He didn’t really defy his favorability rating during the presidential election, so there’s no reason to think he’ll be able to escape the normal effects of approval ratings. The more popular he is, the more likely he’ll be to have legislative success . Without popular support , however, he’ll likely encounter more pushback .

Best studies confirm agenda-setting---but popularity’s key---It’s true during times of unified party control (GOP controls house + senate + prez)

Lovett, 15 – John Lovett, PhD in political science, Visiting Lecturer of Political Science at the University of Richmond; Shaun Bevan, Lecturer in Quantitative Political Science at the University of Edinburgh; and Frank R. Baumgartner, Distinguished Professor of Political Science at UNC Chapel Hill, “Popular Presidents Can Affect Congressional Attention, for a Little While”, The Policy Studies Journal 43:1

In this paper we show that presidential power to set the congressional agenda is conditional on presidential approval , shared party control of the White House and the houses of Congress, and timing. We test our argument by modeling the effect of mentions of particular issue areas in the SoU on the number of congressional hearings in those same areas in the subsequent period. Using time series cross-sectional analyses , we find that mentions by popular presidents move congressional attention to the prioritized topics , but that the effect dissipates over time.

Further, the impact is greater in the House than in the Senate, and depends on divided versus unified control of the presidency and each chamber of Congress. Popular presidents affect House attention in the short term for the House during divided government, with a stronger and more lasting effect when the House is controlled by the party of the president . In the Senate, a popular president can have a short-term impact under unified party control, but not under divided control. Presidents without strong approval ratings in the public lose any agenda-setting influence in Congress no matter which party controls a majority.

Our paper makes several important contributions to the literature on presidential–congressional relations. Most importantly, we reinforce findings from the literature that influence is highly conditional on popularity. Faced with an initiative from a popular president , congress ional leaders find it to be in their electoral interest to address the same issues , even if they may not enact the legislation favored by the president. They may not rubber-stamp his initiatives, but neither do they ignore them, on average. On the other hand, any powers of the president to influence the congressional agenda disappear completely when presidents lose their popular luster. Faced with policy initiatives by unpopular presidents, congressional leaders are free to follow completely unrelated initiatives of their own. This affects allied party leaders as much as those from the rival party, as no congressional committee leader has an electoral incentive to bind himself or herself to a president who has become an electoral liability.

IL---A2: No BlameThe president is a lightning rod – They’ll be blamed regardlessIngraham 3/1 (Christopher, staff @ Wash Post, “How the presidency changes the president”, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/01/how-the-presidency-changes-the-president/?utm_term=.5a421cb1ea2c)

The office of the president has grown much more powerful in the past 80 years, in Edwards's telling, as the executive branch “swelled and assumed unprecedented power over foreign and domestic policies.” More powerful presidents may

feel more emboldened to act, to state policy preferences, and even to effectively write policy via the “pen and phone.” The net result? A president who has more leeway to proactively shape public opinion, rather than to simply respond to it. Partisanship

plays a role in all this too. For better or for worse, the modern president is a lightning rod for criticism from the

opposing party. As a result he may push back against criticism with vigorous defenses of his, and his party's, policies.

Again, the net effect is a president more enmeshed in partisan concerns, whose fate is more tied to his parties' victories in Congress than ever before.

Voters will pin the plan on himMiller 3/10 (Zeke, staff @ Time, “What We Learned in President Trump's First 50 Days”, http://time.com/4697879/what-we-learned-in-president-trumps-first-50-days/)

He doesn't like taking responsibility: Time and again Trump has punted responsibility for legislating to Congress , crafting policy to his Cabinet Secretaries or the military, and even suggested that his generals were the ones responsible for the

death of the Navy SEAL killed in Yemen. But voters are watching: Ultimately, this is Trump's Administration and he'll be the one held accountable by voters. Trump has worked to maintain his connection with his base while his office (he'll hold his second

campaign rally since taking office next week in Nashville), and he'll always have his die-hards. And while many others are willing to look past some of the more outlandish antics to "give him a chance," the patience of everyone else may expire if Trump can't deliver on some of his campaign promises.

The public overestimates President’s involvement – They assign them blame incommensurate with their roleBenen 11 (Steve, 11/30, staff @ Washington Monthly, “Overestimating presidential power”, http://washingtonmonthly.com/2011/11/30/overestimating-presidential-power/)

Based on nothing but my own perceptions, this seems like a fairly common sentiment. The public likes to think of the President of the United States, no matter who’s in office, as having vast powers. He or she is “leader of the free world.”

He or she holds the most powerful office on the planet, making life and death decisions every day. If the president — any president — wants a proposal to create jobs and grow the economy, it must be within his or her power to force one into the Oval Office, if necessary, through sheer force of will. This notion has appeal. It’s also badly mistaken. There are some modest steps a president can take — and Obama is taking them through the White House’s “We Can’t Wait” campaign — but it’s simply not possible for a president to strengthen the economy “with or without Congress.” Obama has no such

option; the American political system doesn’t work this way. This creates a dramatic political dilemma for the White House. Americans hate Congress, overwhelmingly dislike Republicans, and the notion that the GOP is

sabotaging the economy just to undermine Obama is widely believed. And yet, the president may suffer politically because many voters expect Obama to succeed — despite unprecedented Republican obstructionism — by “getting it done with or without Congress.”

The public won’t care about the details of credit/blame – They’ll assign responsibility to the PresidentHart 3 (John, Politics @ Hawaii Pacific U., “Introduction”, Governing America: The Politics of a Divided Democracy, edited by Robert Singh, p. 169-70)

American presidents stand out as the most important and powerful political individuals in the United States, but they operate within a framework of government that fragments power and subjects the president to a host of political forces with independent sources of power and the ability to obstruct and oppose the president if they choose to do so.

Presidents are expected to lead. Many Americans quite naturally see their president as the focal point of the

system of government. Public expectations are high. Presidents are expected to solve the nation's problems and are held accountable when they do not. American voters have rejected the incumbent president

or his party in five of the last nine presidential elections. But few Americans fully absorb the impact of the fragmented and pluralistic structure of American government on presidential leadership. It is not easy for presidents to change the way things are. The American Constitution imposes the doctrines of separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism on its political institutions, which makes the American president subject to constraints and limitations that do not operate on executive government in most other western democracies. The president is constrained by Congress quite frequently, sometimes by the decisions of the Supreme Court, and limited by the difficulties of managing the executive branch of government of which the president is nominally head. Presidents also face potential opposition from political institutions that are

not mentioned in the Constitution, such as the media and interest groups. It would be no exaggeration to say that the American public overestimates the real power that resides in the office of president, and imposes on presidents unrealistic expectations.

Internals – Tax Cuts Specific

Tax Cut Internals---PC Key/Trump PushTrump’s pushing tax reform – PC is key to tax cutsMerica 6-6 [Dan Merica, CNN Politics Producer,6-6-23017 http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/06/politics/trump-agenda-russia-congress/index.html]

To spur his legislative agenda, Trump will meet with House Speaker Paul Ryan, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy,

Majority Whip Steve Scalise, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn Tuesday afternoon, according to a White House official.

The meeting will focus on health care, tax reform and next steps in the President's agenda, Short said.

Republicans, like Graham, are hopeful that the meeting will lead to more coordination between the White House and Capitol Hill.

GOP future on the line

These congressional leaders also have their futures on the line. Failing to get much done during Trump's first year in office, when Trump's power is at its highest, could mean GOP disaster in the 2018 midterm election. Democrats, invigorated by a sputtering Trump, have already began laying out plans to target vulnerable Republicans whose future relies on Trump's popularity and effectiveness.

Later Tuesday, Trump will have dinner with Sens. Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton, Cory Gardner and Todd Young and Reps.

Lee Zeldin and Francis Rooney, according to the same official. The focus of that meeting will be the President's recent foreign trip and foreign policy.

Trump's renewed focus on his legislative agenda comes days before one of the most consequential moments in Trump's presidency, when Comey heads to Capitol Hill to testify about his conversations with Trump and memos he kept about requests the President made to him. The hearing before the Senate intelligence committee could be the most watched moment of the year in Washington, largely thwarting any momentum Republicans had hoped for on tax reform or infrastructure spending.

Short said that the White House believes Trump "is often very effective in driving our message in Congress"

despite the fact he does "not have a conventional of style."

"Many of his efforts are extremely helpful to us in getting our legislation accomplished," Short said.

Finite PC key to tax cuts – plan trades offKapur 17 --- Sahil, Bloomberg News, http://www.norwichbulletin.com/news/20170201/four-hurdles-that-could-block-republicans-tax-cut-ambitions

If House Speaker Paul Ryan wants to achieve his goal of passing massive tax cuts for individuals and businesses before

August, he'll have to navigate around obstacles posed by his own party , members of Congress say.

Early hurdles include distractions posed by President Donald Trump as well as opposition to a key part of the plan among such conservative stalwarts as Charles and David Koch, the billionaire industrialists.

While campaigning, Trump promised sweeping tax cuts -- including middle-class tax relief -- that analysts said would add trillions of dollars to the national debt. But he gradually moved more in line with the less costly House GOP tax blueprint that was released in June, embracing shallower rate cuts for individuals and businesses.

Since his surprise victory, the president and Republican leaders in both chambers have described a tax overhaul as a top priority -- a once-in-a-generation opportunity for meaningful change . Here's a closer

look at four of the hurdles they'll have to overcome.

1. Trump's controversies.

Some GOP lawmakers worry that Trump's actions in the first two weeks of his administration -- including his allegations of voter fraud, his comments about the size of his inauguration crowd and his executive order imposing immigration restrictions -- have "distracted" Congress from taxes and other issues, said Rep. Charlie Dent, a Pennsylvania Republican.

"A lot of us want to work with this administration on important issues like tax reform , health care, infrastructure," Dent said. "But it doesn't help when we get distracted by crowd size, recounts, and now this poorly thought-out and developed executive order on immigration."

Trump has to avoid squandering p olitical c apital , Dent said. "There are limits as to what can be accomplished and we have to set priorities and be much more f ocused than has been the case up to this point," he said.

PC key to overcome fights with GOP on details – plan trades offMcCuller, 17---Brian McCuller is shareholder in charge of the tax practice at LBMC, a Tennessee-based professional services firm, The Tennessean, 1/17, http://www.tennessean.com/story/sponsor-story/lbmc/2017/01/18/tax-cut-plans-let-games-begin/96713808/

Tax cut plans: Let the games begin As the Trump Administration begins, the rubber is meeting the road on tax reform — and the trip could be a little bumpy . During the election campaign, candidate

Donald Trump supported a cut in corporate tax rates, changes in individual income taxes, curtailment of incentives for U.S. companies to locate operations and profits abroad, and a variety of other tax initiatives. House Republicans had their own plan, similar in many ways but with some important differences . Now comes the hard part: Translating these platforms into a bill that can pass Congress and secure the President’s signature. Complicating that process are conflicting priorities for powerful interest groups that would be affected by a tax bill and competition from other issues — such as replacing the Affordable Care Act — that demand time and attention by the administration and Congress. (The ACA also has tax issues of its own.) The issues are many, and the details and potential arguments are too numerous to lay out here, but here are some highlights:

Curtailing incentives for offshore business While the Trump plan and the House plan have the same ultimate goal, they get there in very different ways. Under the Trump plan, U.S. companies that locate plants abroad would have to pay a 35 percent fee (some would call it a tariff) on sales in the U.S. The House plan would significantly change the overall rationale behind corporate taxes and would impose taxes based on where products are sold. Products sold in the U.S. would be taxed; those sold abroad would not. That would have the impact of taxing imports but not exports. Business reaction to these ideas has been extremely divided. Retailers and oil refiners, for example, have objected to the House plan because, as big importers, they would feel the brunt of a sales-based approach. Others say this plan would greatly reduce the incentive for U.S. companies to move headquarters and plants abroad, since they would still have to pay taxes on products sold in the U.S. Trump’s plan has been criticized on a number of grounds, such as its potential for greatly upsetting international trade and possibly running

afoul of the numerous tax treaties to which the United States is a party. This will be a vigorous debate , to say the least. Individual tax deductions Both the Trump plan and the House plan would raise the standard deduction, although by different amounts . In addition, the Trump plan would cap total deductions at $100,000 for single filers and $200,000 for married couples. This, too, brings powerful interests into conflict . Both the House plan and the Trump plan would reduce the top tax rate, which could have powerful appeal to some . But among other things, the Trump plan could have substantial impact on the housing market, since it would potentially limit the amount of mortgage interest some taxpayers could deduct, while also greatly reducing the number of taxpayers who file itemized returns. That brings the housing industry, parts of the retail industry and other influential

stakeholders into the debate. Another potential sticking point : the big political issues raised along class lines . Some perceive the intent behind plans for individual tax cuts — and cuts in the corporate tax rate — as a way to benefit the very rich. That could make the plans hard to sell . Where’s the money? Business

and individual tax cuts, the cost of whatever might replace the ACA, and Trump’s plans for spending on infrastructure all raise questions about how this will be paid for . One answer is that tax cuts could stimulate growth and the taxes on that growth will provide a big funding mechanism. Others say the numbers don’t add up and the result could be a big decline in

federal tax revenues. Historically, Republicans haven’t wanted to add to the national debt. So what are the politics of all this? Timing and the use of p olitical c apital During the first two years of the Obama administration, there was a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate, and it still took two years to pass the ACA . That was followed by mid-term elections in which the Democrats lost control of the House. As the Trump administration begins, the ACA is back on the table, along with tax policy, highly significant foreign policy

issues and a host of other big domestic issues. A natural question to ask is how much can a President and a Congress tackle at one time , even when they control both branches? How much p olitical c apital, not to mention time and energy , is available? These are interesting times.

Tax cuts top priority and PC Key – trump must avoid agenda losses and keep GOP in lineRussell, 17 --- David, Bryan Cave LLP, Lexology, 1/17, http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c4ab05e0-fd50-4aab-ab25-18f17c9efc99

As the United States rings in a New Year, it also welcomes a new president. All eyes are trained on Washington in

anticipation of what President-elect Donald Trump will tackle in his first 100 days in office. Trump’s initial success will depend on how well he defines his own agenda and how he navigates the difference in details between his goals and the policy priorities of Congressional Republicans . Trump will also need to divide his p olitical c apital between the things his administration wants to do versus what it needs to do in the New Year. Confirmation of the Cabinet The consideration of a Cabinet nomination, while nominally about the qualifications of a particular individual, also serves as a proxy for a broader policy debate. For example, a significant portion of the debate over the next director of the Environmental Protection Agency will be about the Trump Administration’s position on climate change and whether the new regime intends to reverse Obama-era regulations implemented in the name of combating it. The Senate confirmation process is time consuming and relies on building some amount of consensus to move quickly. However a recent change in Senate rules allows Cabinet nominees to be confirmed with a simple majority vote, so unless a nominee loses Republican support, he or she will be confirmed. For purposes of comparison, President Obama was first sworn-in to office in January of 2009 but his Cabinet was not fully in place until late spring of that year. Supreme Court Nomination Confirming a Supreme Court nominee in the Senate is often a highly partisan battle. The debate over the late Justice Scalia’s replacement has been fought for nearly a year already, the result of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s decision not to allow a vote on President Obama’s nominee during an election year. President-Elect Trump will likely send a name to the Senate very soon after he is inaugurated and Senate Republicans will act quickly on the nomination. Democrats can delay the vote but unless the nominee is unusually polarizing, he or she is likely to be confirmed. Debt Ceiling Federal law limits how much money the government can borrow. Congress suspended this “debt ceiling” as part of a budget deal negotiated in the fall of 2015. When the suspension expires on March 15, 2017, the debt ceiling will need to be raised or suspended again for the United States to avoid default. The Treasury Department often implements “extraordinary measures” to extend the deadline by a few weeks, but it cannot be delayed indefinitely. Conservative deficit hawks may seek to pair any increase in the debt ceiling with cuts in spending. Social Security and Medicare have become the primary drivers of the nation's growing debt, but Trump signaled on the campaign trail his hesitancy to cut these popular programs. Deregulation Candidate Trump spoke often about reducing the federal regulatory burden, which he described as an impediment to growth. Many of President-elect Trump’s Cabinet nominees have since expressed a commitment to deregulation. In December, a group of conservative House Republicans released a list of 228 rules and regulations that they believe should be tackled immediately. This list covers everything from trucking regulations to alternative-energy mandates to new school lunch requirements. Two of the top targets on the list are the Overtime Rule, which determines if employees are eligible or exempt for overtime pay; and the Fiduciary Rule, which expands the definition of "investment advice fiduciary,” involving stricter conflict-of-interest standards on a wide range of financial advisers. Repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), i.e., Obamacare Enactment of the Affordable Care Act is one of President Obama’s most significant legislative accomplishments. Its repeal was one of Donald Trump's major campaign platforms and is something Congressional Republicans have unsuccessfully attempted to do since its passage. However, now that Republicans will control both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, they plan to make this goal a reality. Politically, the

largest hurdle for Republicans is not repealing Obamacare but replacing it. Many provisions in the ACA – such as preventing denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions and children’s access to their parents’ coverage – have proven popular and will be hard to leave out of any new healthcare law. This puts the onus on President-elect Trump to formulate an ACA alternative that not only preserves the ACA’s most popular provisions for millions of Americans, but also meets with the approval of Congressional Republicans. Immigration Reform Donald Trump’s presidential campaign gained early notoriety for his promise to secure the country's southern border and end illegal immigration. While advocates of stricter legal enforcement of existing immigration laws have been heartened by the nomination of Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions for attorney general, President Trump will still face political and fiscal constraints as he rolls out his early immigration policies. He will have to consider how to fiscally and logistically “build a wall” along the southern border. Although the Senate passed an immigration bill in the last Congress, it proved unpopular with voters and did not make it to President Obama’s desk. President Trump can act in some limited ways without Congress. Notably, he can reverse President Obama’s executive orders shielding and granting work permits to millions of undocumented immigrants who otherwise could face deportation. But funding any new significant measures would all require congressional action. Furthermore, Republicans will need to recruit at least eight Senate Democrats to overcome a filibuster and pass any legislative bill. Infrastructure President-elect Trump has made clear his intention to pursue an infrastructure investment package as one of his first orders of business, but it appears Congressional Republicans want to take up infrastructure later this summer, after other must-pass fiscal matters have been addressed. An infrastructure package could garner bipartisan support, as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has already indicated he would welcome the opportunity to work with the new President in this area. Major issues to address include how large the investment will be, whether the price tag will scare off fiscal conservatives, and how to pay for the new spending. For his part, Minority Leader Schumer has said he will oppose cuts to social programs to offset new infrastructure spending, and said he favors $1 trillion of direct federal funding, instead of private equity tax credits. Expanding the use of public-private partnerships remains on

the table as a way to leverage private investment into public infrastructure. Tax Reform Perhaps the most ambitious and impactful agenda item for the new administration and Congress is a massive overhaul of the U.S. tax system, an endeavor that could affect families of every income level and businesses of every size. It has been thirty years since Congress last enacted comprehensive tax reform of this scope and size . Equally as ambitious is the timetable for passage of a tax reform package. The Trump Transition Team and Congressional Republican Leadership have privately laid out a schedule that puts tax reform legislation on President Trump’s desk by the summer of 2017. Speaker Paul Ryan and

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have vowed to pass a tax package that is revenue-neutral, meaning the legislation will not add to the budget deficit. To accomplish this goal, every reduction in the corporate or individual rates must be

offset by reducing or eliminating a deduction elsewhere, meaning negotiators will have to pick winners and losers. The House Republican tax plan of 2016 appears to be a starting point. The plan would lower the top individual income tax rate from 39.6 percent to 33 percent and reduce the number of tax brackets from seven to three. In a corresponding move, the plan would scale back exemptions, deductions, and credits. The plan maintains some of the more popular tax breaks, including the mortgage deduction and the charitable contribution deduction. Small business owners would get a special top tax rate of 25 percent. Investment income would be taxed like wages, but investors would only have to pay taxes on half of this income. Both the President-elect and House Republicans have stated they want to lower the corporate tax rate and pay for it by scaling back tax breaks. President-elect Trump has stated publicly he wants to lower the corporate tax rate to 15 percent while Speaker Ryan has said 20 percent is more realistic. One of the more controversial issues that will need to be tackled is the border adjustment tax. The issue

pits exporters against importers. How tax reform legislation handles this open issue will be the subject of intense lobbying in the months to come.

PC finite and key to tax cuts – plan trades offDiStefano, 17 --- Joseph, Columnist @ Philadelphia Inquirer, 1/5, http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-phillydeals/In-Washington-this-year-Which-tax-and-spending-promises-will-pass.html

In Washington this year: Which tax and spending promises will pass ? President-elect Trump and his fellow

Republicans in Congress have long lists of promises; some conflict. John Silvia, chief economist at Wells Fargo Securities, lists Congress's likely top missions in this report. Highlights: • Pass the late 2017-18 budget and a 2018-19 budget, including "a slight boost to defense spending" • "Repeal the Affordable Care Act," phasing it out over three years, so Republicans could delay any replacement plan until they (hope to) beat vulnerable Democratic Senators up for re-election in 2018. •

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-phillydeals/In-Washington-this-year-Which-tax-and-spending-promises-will-pass.html

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-phillydeals/In-Washington-this-year-Which-tax-and-spending-promises-will-pass.html

Tax reform will look more like House Speaker Paul Ryan's plan than Donald Trump's campaign promises: Cut top corporate rates to 20% of profits (from 35%); cut taxes on foreign profits sent back to the U.S. below 10%. But plans to cut taxes on rich people will more likely "be scrapped," or at least delayed, as Republicans feel pressure to balance the budget. • Trade: Trump doesn't need Congress to impose five-month, 15% tariffs, or to give Canada and Mexico six months' notice before pulling out of the North American Free Trade Agreement. He needs to show China meets Congressional standards before labeling that giant rival a "currency manipulator" and tightening trade rules. Anti-trade moves are likely to "increase consumer and producer prices" which could slow the economy -- unless Trump really does grow the economy a lot faster than it has expanded under Obama. • Infrastructure: Trump's promises to spend more than half a trillion dollars on roads and other public projects "remain in question." Congress shows "little desire for another increase in infrastructure spending" after last year's highway bill, though road projects might still be handed to Democrats for support on tax cuts. • Immigration: Trump could block Obama's rule letting immigrants who arrived as children apply for labor permits. But he'd need Congress to build his famous Mexico border wall or cut immigration visas, and Trump's proposals face 'stiff resistance" in both parties. Restricting immigraiton is likely to create "labor shortages," with "the greatest risks" to farm, mine, construction, hotel and engineering jobs Americans alone aren't filling, Silvia adds. • Regulations: The Republican Congress could ease, but is unlikely to end, the Dodd-Frank bank-lending limits. It will also likely

weaken oil and gas development limits, and environmental and labor protection rules. It took Ronald Reagan and a Democratic Congress five years to pass tax reforms , Silvia notes. With the GOP in control all around, can Trump move a lot faster? "Political capital , like its financial cousin, is a finite resource."

Yes Spillover – PC Key but major congressional fights derailStanion, 17 --- Percival Stanion is head of multi-asset at Pictet Asset Management, Pensions Expert, 1/25, http://www.pensions-expert.com/Comment-Analysis/Investing-in-a-Trump-era-Calm-with-risk-of-storm?ct=true

Investing in a Trump era: Calm with risk of storm We are still in the early days, but so far markets have taken a fairly optimistic stance toward the broad outlines of Donald Trump’s policies . Investors have focused on plans for generous tax cuts and infrastructure spending, conveniently overlooking the potentially

negative slogans from the presidential campaign – tariff barriers, immigration control and a more isolationist foreign policy. For the time being – until we see more evidence of the Trump regime in action – we are content to support the benign market view . This is partly because we recognise the immense barriers to any radical policy shifts arising from the division of power within the US constitution . Given the limited budget of p olitical c apital available to the Trump administration, there are probably only so many things it can achieve . The switch towards more fiscal stimulus seems most likely , accompanied and counterbalanced by tighter monetary policy. The main tenets of the Trump economic platform should add

momentum to an already strong economy, lifting both the real growth rate and inflationary pressures. Indeed, the possibility of a US economic boom, which would have been easily dismissed just a few months ago, is now a non-trivial prospect. Markets are also now even more certain that the Fed will continue to raise interest rates next year.

But we should remember that an awful lot can go wrong . Controversial or unpopular candidates for the

cabinet, Supreme Court, or even vacant Federal Reserve Board positions could become bogged down in Congressional trench warfare and undermine cohesion on the few areas where it exists.

Tax Cut Internals---GOP Key/Dems Irrelevant

Only GOP matters – dems can’t block because Reconciliation procedures - Pianin, 16 --- Eric, Fiscal Times, Business Insider, 12/13, http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tax-cuts-gop-us-congress-2016-12

How the GOP could ram Trump's tax cuts through Congress

President-elect Donald Trump and congressional Republican leaders are preparing to merge their proposals on tax reform next year and then ramming them through Congress with a budget process that would defy Democratic resistance.

Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) have both devised detailed descriptions of what they want to achieve. And while they are not identical, both approaches would provide massive tax cuts for individuals and businesses – especially for the wealthiest Americans -- and contribute substantially to the long-term debt absent real offsetting cuts and savings.

As a foretaste of what they have in mind, Republicans intend to use arcane budget reconciliation rules in the Senate and House to push through legislation dismantling the Affordable Care Act next month. Their idea is to repeal Obamacare now wait for at least two years to come up with a suitable replacement.

And because of the special budget rules invoked, they will be able to pass the legislation with a simple majority vote instead of the 60-vote super majority typically required to get anything passed in the Senate. They will essentially be hijacking a fiscal 2018 budget bill and using it as the vehicle for the expedited process.

On Monday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel l (R-KY) confirmed that the Republicans intend to use that same expedited budget process to attempt to pass comprehensive tax reform legislation next spring.

The Congressional Budget Act permits lawmakers to use reconciliation for legislation that changes spending, revenues, and the federal debt limit. However, reconciliation has traditionally been viewed as mostly a means of enacting deficit-reduction legislation, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Congress has used it on occasion to expedite passage of tax cuts that have increased deficits – as the Republicans did in passing major tax cuts proposed by GOP President George W. Bush.

This time around, the reconciliation bill will include specific instructions to the House and Senate tax-writing committees to technically change the tax code to reduce the deficit. They would do this, presumably, by projecting accelerated economic growth from the tax cuts that would generate new revenues to offset the total cost of the plan.

“I think using reconciliation for long-term tax cuts violates the spirit of reconciliation, although it does not violate the letter of the law,” William G. Gale, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, said in an interview Monday.

While the Republicans technically can use reconciliation to adopt a major change in the federal tax code, he added, it might turn out to be a strategic mistake. That’s because it would preclude the possibility of some Democrats joining with them to give the legislation a bipartisan sheen.

And if they rely strictly on Republican support to push the bill through the Senate, they could be running the risk of a small handful of GOP senators defecting and stopping the legislation in its tracks. The Republicans will hold a narrow 52 to 48 seat majority beginning in January. While the GOP appears near unanimous on the need to make good on its pledge to repeal Obamacare, there is far less unity on the issues of tax reform.

“If they only get Republican support, they’re going to need near-unanimous Republican support ,” added Gale, the co-director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. “So a [Trump-promoted] tax on imports and denial of interest deductions from the right … makes it hard for me to believe that the bill will pass on a party-line basis.”

What’s more, incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and other Democrats in the Senate and House have voiced interest in working on rewriting the tax code on a bipartisan basis. McConnell and Ryan may have a tough time slamming the door on Democratic input considering the complexity and controversial nature of reworking tax code.

McConnell said he prefers a “revenue-neutral” tax package – meaning it would neither add to nor subtract from the deficit. But that would seem improbable in light of independent analyses of the plans tentatively offered by Trump and Ryan.

The sheer magnitude of the proposed tax cuts and the highly optimistic economic assumption that accompany the plans have deficit hawks uneasy. The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center says the House plan “would cut taxes at every income level in 2017, but high-income taxpayers would receive the biggest cuts, both in dollar terms and as a percentage of income.”

The Trump proposal, by comparison, “would cut the average tax bill in 2017 by $2,940, increasing after-tax income by 4.1 percent. Yet the wealthiest taxpayers with incomes over $3.7 million in 2016 dollars would receive an average tax cut of nearly $1.1 million, or over 14 percent of after-tax income.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a prominent anti-deficit organization, has complained that Trump’s overall policy agenda is far from “fiscally responsible.” And on the subject of tax cuts in particular, “our estimate shows his tax policies would cost about $4.5 trillion over a decade.”

In his remarks to reporters at the Capitol, McConnell raised the possibility of using budget reconciliation for other GOP priorities as well -- such as

undoing financial regulations imposed by executive order of President Obama or under the Dodd-Frank law. Trump made tax cuts and the

slashing of government red tape high priorities throughout his campaign against Democrat Hillary Clinton.

“The President-elect has made it very clear he’s going to move on as many regulatory changes as he can make as soon as he takes office,” McConnell said according to the Morning Consult.

“The two biggest impediments to growth in our country are overregulation and the tax structure,” McConnell continued.

“And the President-elect seems to be committed to addressing both of those. And the Republican majorities in the House and the Senate are as well.”

GOP Key - policy disagreement will disrupt Trump’s fragile relations ---that ends the agendaO’Neill, 16 – Kevin O’Neill, co-chair of legislative practice, and L. Charles Landgraf, law partner, 11-9-2016, “The Policy Choices, Challenges, and Consequences of an Outsider in the White House: What You Need to Know After the 2016 Election”, Arnold & Porter LLP, http://www.arnoldporter.com/en/~/media/files/perspectives/publications/2016/11/postelection-analysis-2016-trump.pdf


In the Senate, Majority Leader McConnell was on record early in 2016 saying that it was essentially every candidate for themselves, and Republican Senators needed to do whatever it took to win reelection. It was a strategy that worked. The President-elect knows how to hold a grudge, and now his success is going to be closely linked to his ability to get along with his own party in Congress. We expect that the shared policy ambitions of President-elect Trump, Speaker Ryan and Majority Leader McConnell, each eager to see big things accomplished in a unified government, will be sufficient to work through the inevitable friction in their personal leadership styles.


President-elect Trump’s relations with the Senate also will impact the speed with which his nominees move towards confirmation. Congressional Republicans will be concerned about the level of vetting done by the transition team and will be wary of being trapped supporting controversial nominees with issues that should have shaken out before nominees are submitted. Senate Democrats will have every incentive to throw up procedural roadblocks and coordinate with outside interest groups to attack the qualifications of President-elect Trump's nominees. To the extent that the Trump Administration seems likely to appoint more political outsiders and

business leaders, some of the political attacks on nominees are sure to succeed, and those nominations will fail.

While President Obama suffered from a reputation of holding legislators at arms-length, President-elect Trump may have troubles of his own on this front. He will need to be magnanimous in victory and embrace key Republicans who were publicly skeptical or opposed to his campaign . In turn, congressional R epublican s who opposed the Trump candidacy will need to reconcile with the President -elect. President-elect Trump could excel at some of the interpersonal elements of his job and may use golfing and other social events as a way to build goodwill he can use to advance his agenda in Congress . If the President-elect's agenda stalls or fails in a Republican -controlled Congress , the autopsy will show the failure was a combination of policy disagreements exacerbated by poor relations hips with individual senators and rep resentative s essential to the policy issues involved .


Overall, President-elect Trump enters office knowing he has the potential to achieve sweeping transformation to a smaller, more conservative federal government, but his success depends in large part on showing he can get along with others in Washington . To the extent he can forge relations hips with congress ional Republicans , he will see legislative success .

Tax Cut Internals---Dems Key

Dems key to tax cuts – vital to overcome deficit hawks and ease internal GOP divisionsLongman, 11-14 – Martin Longman, web editor for the Washington Monthly and the main blogger at Booman Tribune, 11-14-16, “Democrats shouldn't cling to the filibuster”, Washington Monthly, http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/11/14/the-democrats-shouldnt-cling-to-the-filibuster/

Theoretically, the Senate’s filibuster rule could serve as one of only two tools the Democrats have to limit the scope of the complete Republican takeover of government. But it doesn’t look like the filibuster will be worth a warm bucket of spit, assuming it survives at all. It has already been substantially weakened by Harry Reid who got fed up with the Republicans’ constant stonewalling of executive branch nominees and appointments to the lower federal courts. He eliminated its use for those two purposes, which means that Trump can fill his cabinet with virtually anyone he wants and make quick work of rolling back the partisan advantage President Obama built on the district and appeals courts. However, Harry Reid left in place the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees and for regular Senate legislative business. For this reason, there still could be some necessity for Trump to reach across the aisle to fill Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court and to enact his ambitious and radical policy agenda through Congress .

However, the Democrats know that the Republicans will only tolerate a limited amount of obstruction and that they could easily eliminate the filibuster completely, making a simple 50 votes in the Senate all the Republicans need for all Senate business.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wouldn’t comment on this possibility but he had a pretty straightforward warning on Friday, saying that Democrats are “going to want to be cooperative with us.”

The Senate Dem ocrat s aren’t inclined to behave as obstructively as McConnell’s Republicans in any case:

“What we’re not going to do is what Mitch McConnell stands for, which is obstructing things because of who proposed it,” said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), a prominent liberal. But “if Trump puts plans forward that aren’t about working Americans, if it’s tax cuts for billionaires, we’ll certainly fight that.”

I suppose the Democrats shouldn’t invite McConnell to take away their last remaining parliamentary tool for resisting Trump, but if they’re afraid to use it because they believe it will be taken away, no one should expect it to be used for anything of true priority and significance to the Trump administration. It will be useless for the big stuff.

But there is an effective way to resist, and that’s by exploiting divisions with in the Republican caucus. Those divisions are substantial and it’s going to take a lot of creativity and horse

trading to utilize them effectively . Trump wants an infrastructure bill, and he’ll probably need Dem ocratic votes to get it . He’s going to want to do tax reform , and he may need Dem ocratic votes to get that, too . It’s unclear if he can avoid running afoul of the deficit hawks in the Republican Party (in both the Senate and House) as he looks to explode the deficit in nearly every area from increased defense spending, to lowering rates and repealing the Estate Tax, to eliminating the cost savings in ObamaCare, to jacking up spending on immigration enforcement and wall building.

Instead of relying on a filibuster rule that will be taken away the moment it matters, the Democrats should stand on their principles rather than pretending that they can keep a meaningful filibuster by playing nice. If they’re going to be a successful minority party, they’re going to have to do it the old-fashioned way. And that means that they’ll have to use the amendment process to sow divisions and make Trump rely on them as much as possible.

It should become clear fairly quickly if Trump can govern his own caucus any better than Boehner and Ryan have been able to do. The Republicans can barely legislate their way out of a paper bag on a good day, and now they have a president coming in who, by all reports, has the attention span of a gnat and no knowledge whatsoever of how to run the federal government or to move legislation through Congress.

If Trump wants to steamroll the Dem ocrat s with some hard right conservative agenda then they can refuse to help ease the divisions in his party even on things like infrastructure and tax reform where they might otherwise be willing to give him a win .

And those days of giving the votes to raise the debt ceiling? Well, that’s a Sword of Damocles that shouldn’t be given up easily. The Republicans will have to pass their own appropriations bill with their own votes, and if they can’t do it any better under Trump than they did it under Obama, well then that will be another way for Dem ocrat s to have influence and force moderation and compromise .

Impact

Impact - Growth

Impact – Growth – 2NCDisad outweighs the case---

Magnitude---economic collapse causes escalation in every global hotspot---China, Japan, India Pakistan, and Middle East will implode, causing nuclear conflict that goes global and causes extinction---tsunami of global instability turns every aff impact –Kemp

Makes solving global problems impossible – strong growth keyLieberthal & O'Hanlon 12, Director of the China center and Director of research at Brookings, 12

(7/10, The Real National Security Threat: America's Debt, www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/07/10-economy-foreign-policy-lieberthal-ohanlon)

Lastly, American economic weakness undercuts U.S. leadership abroad. Other countries sense our weakness and wonder about our purported decline . If this perception becomes more widespread, and the case that we are in decline becomes more persuasive, countries will begin to take actions that reflect their skepticism about America's future. Allies and friends will doubt our commitment

and may pursue nuclear weapons for their own security, for example; adversaries will sense opportunity and be less restrained in throwing around their weight in their own neighborhoods. The crucial Persian Gulf and Western

Pacific regions will likely become less stable . Major war will become more likely. When running for

president last time, Obama eloquently articulated big foreign policy visions: healing America's breach with the Muslim world, controlling global climate change, dramatically curbing global poverty through development aid, moving toward a world free of nuclear weapons. These

were, and remain, worthy if elusive goals. However, for Obama or his successor, there is now a much more urgent big-picture issue: restoring U.S. economic strength . Nothing else is really possible if that fundamental prerequisite to effective foreign policy is not reestablished.

Strong growth solves their impacts---it’s a conflict dampener – Prefer our impact – robust statistics proveReghr 13 – Senior Fellow in Arctic Security at The Simons Foundation Ernie, 2-4-13, “Intrastate Conflict: Data, Trends and Drivers” http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Articles/Special-Feature/Detail/?lng=en&id=158597&tabid=1453496807&contextid774=158597&contextid775=158627

“ The most robustly significant predictor of [armed] conflict risk and its duration is some indicator of economic prosperity. At a higher income people have more to lose from the destructiveness of conflict; and higher per-capita income implies a better functioning social contract, institutions and state capacity.”[3] This correlation between underdevelopment and armed conflict is confirmed in a 2008 paper by Thania Paffenholz[4] which notes that “ since 1990, more than 50% of all conflict-prone

countries have been low income states…. Two thirds of all armed conflicts take place in African countries with the highest poverty rates. Econometric research found a correlation between the poverty rate and likelihood of armed violence….[T]he lower the GDP per capita in a country, the higher the likelihood of armed conflict.” Of course, it is important to point out that this is not a claim that there is a direct causal connection between poverty and armed conflict. To repeat, the causes of conflict are complex and context specific, nevertheless, says Paffenholz, there is a clear correlation between a low and declining per capita income and a country’s vulnerability to conflict. It is also true, on the other hand, that there are low income countries that experience precipitous economic decline, like Zambia in the 1980s and 1990s, without suffering the kind of turmoil that has visited economically more successful countries like Kenya and Cote d’Ivoire. Referring to both Zambia and Nigeria, Pafenholz says these are cases in which “the social compact” has proven to be resilient. Both have formal and informal mechanisms that are able to address grievances in ways that allowed them to be aired and resolved or managed without recourse to violence. A brief review of literature on economics and armed conflict, published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, indicates the complexity and imprecision behind the question, “does poverty cause conflict?” While many of the “world’s poorest countries are riven by armed conflict,” and while poverty, conflict and under-development set up a cycle of dysfunction in which each element of the cycle is exacerbated by the other, it is also the case that “conflict obviously does not just afflict the poorest countries” – as Northern Ireland and the former Yugoslavia demonstrate. “Many poor countries are not at war; shared poverty may not be a destabilizing influence. Indeed, economic growth can destabilize, as the wars in countries afflicted by an abundance of particular natural resources appear to show.”[5] Another review of the literature makes the general point that “the escalation of conflict during economic downturns is more likely in countries recovering from conflict, or fragile states.” That makes Africa especially vulnerable on two counts: economic deprivation and recent armed conflict are present in a relatively high number of states, making the continent especially vulnerable to economic shocks. As a general rule, “weak economies often translate into weak and fragile states and the presence of violent conflict, which in turn prevents economic growth.” One study argues that “the risk of war in any given country is determined by the initial level of income, the rate of economic growth and the level of dependency on primary commodity exports.” Changes in rates of economic growth thus lead to changes in threats of conflict . As unemployment rises in fragile states this can “exacerbate conflict due to comparatively better income opportunities for young men in rebel groups as opposed to labour markets.”[6] The concentration of armed conflict in lower income countries is also reflected in the conflict tabulation by Project Ploughshares over the past quarter century. The 2009 Human Development Index ranks 182 countries in four categories of Human Development – Very High, High, Medium, Low. Of the 98 countries in the Medium and Low categories of human development in 2009, 55 per cent experienced war on their territories in the previous 24 years. In the same period, only 24 per cent of countries in the High human development category saw war within their borders, while just two (5 per cent) countries in the Very High human development ranking had war on their territory (the UK re Northern Ireland and Israel). The wars of the recent past were overwhelmingly fought on the territories of states at the low end of the human development scale. A country’s income level is thus a strong indicator of its risk of being involved in sustained armed conflict. Low income countries lack the capacity to create conditions conducive to serving the social, political, and economic welfare of their people. And when economic inequality is linked to differences between identity groups, the correlation to armed conflict

is even stronger. In other words, group based inequalities are especially destabilizing.[7] These failures in human security are of course heavily shaped by external factors, notably international economic and security conditions and the interests of the major powers (in short, globalization),[8] and these factors frequently combine with internal political/religious/ethnic circumstances that create conditions especially conducive to conflict and armed conflict .

Impact – Growth – IL – 2NCTax Cuts key to growth in every sector - outweighs turns – Trump pushing and PC keyLA Times 3-24 – “Investors Wonder If The Collapse Of A Healthcare Bill Signals Trouble For Trump's Tax Cuts”, 2017, http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-trump-healthcare-markets-20170324-story.html

A tax overhaul is next up on the Republicans’ agenda , Trump said Friday. And the admin istration has set an ambitious goal of getting it enacted by August .

“I would say that we will probably start going very, very strongly for the big tax cuts and tax reform. That will be next,” Trump told reporters after House Republican leaders canceled Friday’s late-afternoon vote on the healthcare bill because there wasn’t enough support to pass it.

But House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) said the bill’s defeat made passing tax reform more difficult.

Under complex budget math, enacting the healthcare bill would have made it much easier to cut taxes by lowering the baseline against which deficits are measured by $1 trillion over the next 10 years

There are other difficulties in pushing tax legislation through Congress. Trump said in his joint address to Congress that his plan “would provide massive tax relief for the middle class.” But an analysis by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution of the revised tax plan Trump campaigned on last fall found that the biggest cuts would go to high-income earners.

And House Republicans are pushing a controversial border adjustment tax that could hit consumers and some businesses hard.

Still, Ryan said he was optimistic .

“We have even more agreement on the need and nature of tax reform,” Ryan said, adding that healthcare “had a big difference of opinion, not whether we should repeal and replace Obamacare but how to replace it.”

John Lonski, chief economist at Moody’s Capital Markets Research Group, said Republicans might try to rally around a tax bill to show the public that they can get things done in Washington now that they control the White House and Congress.

“It heightens the incentive to go ahead and make up for the damage they did to their image by not taking care of healthcare reform,” he said.

But even so, the difficulties pulling on healthcare signaled to investors not to expect things to happen quickly in Washington, Lonski said.

“What we’re finding out is that the Republicans have a lot of difficulty coming together on these issues and it might well be that the tax cuts also prove to be difficult to resolve,” he said.

That would be bad news for investors and could stall the market rally that followed Trump’s election.

Investors were so bullish that, in February, the Dow Jones industrial average set record highs for 12 consecutive trading sessions. All of which made the market due for some sort of a pullback, if only because prices had gotten rich relative to the stocks’ underlying corporate profits.

“The markets got all jazzed up on this stuff moving quickly,” Valliere said of Trump’s agenda. “I thought all along things are glacial in this town and I think the markets got really ahead of themselves.”

The Dow jumped 88 points Friday on initial reports of the healthcare bill’s collapse, but then drifted lower. It ended the day down 59.86 points, or 0.3%, at 20,596.72. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index was down just 0.08%. And the technology-heavy Nasdaq closed up 0.2%.

The muted reaction was partly because the legislation’s troubles had been telegraphed in recent days. But it also reflects that the financial effects of healthcare reform were largely limited to insurers, hospitals and drugmakers.

Trump’s pledge to slash the U.S. corporate tax rate — the highest among major economies — would help all companies . A special tax break to lure overseas profits back to the U.S. would help multinational companies . And accompanying cuts in personal income tax rates that Trump has also promised would boost consumer spending and help the overall economy , analysts said.

“If that failed, that would have a major impact on corporate profits right across the board,” Valliere said of a tax overhaul.

Tax reform vital to fast growthKudlow 16 “Trump Must Spend His Political Capital on Tax Cuts Now” Larry Kudlow is a senior contributor at CNBC, and also co-author with Brian Domitrovic of the new book JFK and the Reagan Revolution: A Secret History of American Prosperity, December 24, 2016, http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2016/12/24/trump_must_spend_his_political_capital_on_tax_cuts_now_102482.html

. Yet with less than a month until the inauguration, it is crucial that Mr. Trump embarks on immediate bipartisan efforts to strengthen the economy. It was the number-one election-year issue. And despite strong postelection increases in business and consumer-confidence -- along with the stock rally -- the econ omy is weakening yet again. Measured year-to-year, real GDP is rising only 1.7 percent. B usiness f ixed i nvestment continues to decline . Productivity is flat . Consumer spending has barely risen in the last two months, while both auto production and sales are slumping. Non-financial domestic profits have declined year-to-year for the last six quarters. Of all these factors the slump in business fixed investment is the most harmful. If you go back in history, across the four long post-war recoveries of the '60s, '80s, and '90s, BFI averaged nearly 7 percent. In the Obama recovery, BFI was only 4 percent. Over the past two years, it has been flat . Using a back-of-the-envelope rule of thumb, if the JFK/Ronald Reagan/Bill Clinton

investment performance were in place now, our economy would be growing at 3 rather than 2 percent. A big difference. That's why pro-growth tax reform is so important . It is reported that Mr. Trump will immediately move to overturn costly Obama regulations, especially on small business. This is good. It will add to growth. But the big decision will be whether to repeal and rewrite Obamacare or enact tax reform as the first order of legislative business. Replacing Obamacare is

hugely important, both to improve our health-care system and remove the economic drag of its taxing, spending, and regulating. But business tax reform -- with low marginal corporate rates for large and small companies, easy repatriation, and immediate expensing for new investment -- will have an enormous ly positive impact on the weakest part of our economy , namely business investment . That's where we'll see 3 or 4 percent growth , higher productivity , more and better paying jobs , and fatter family pocketbooks . If there were a way to combine a two-year

budget resolution with reconciliation instructions (51 Senate votes) to reform health care and taxes in one full sweep, that would be ideal. However, if tax reform (be

it business or individual) comes second, and the start dates are postponed until 2018, then businesses and consumers will postpone economic activity . That could make 2017 a much weaker economic story than confidence surveys and the recent stock market suggest. There's a great transition going on, but the economy needs immediate attention . Tax reform is the key .

Tax cuts not key is non responsive – even if cuts don’t SOLVE growth - Delay imposes massive economic uncertainty that wrecks economy – decks financial markets, capital investments, equity markets, exports, trade deficitsSmick, 17 --- David, financial market consultant He is the chairman and CEO of Johnson Smick International, an advisory firm in Washington, D.C. where he is in partnership with Manuel H. Johnson, Fox News, 2/14, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/02/14/tax-reform-flip-flop-trump-desperately-needs-to-make.html

For the GOP, the smarter strategy would be to immediately push tax reform under the first budget reconciliation vehicle. No, tax reform won’t be easy either. But the Democrats have far more emotional attachment to

ObamaCare and the chances of outright partisan warfare over tax reform are relatively small. True, there will be opposition to the border adjustment tax, particularly from retailers. And those who suggest that the tax reform package not include individual tax reform are misreading the situation. Today 80 percent of businesses are so-called “pass-through” entities that are exempt from the corporate tax system. Any tax reform would have to include these smaller “corporate” entities -- i.e. it would have to include reform of the individual tax code in addition to the corporate tax code. Capitol Hill moves at a snail’s pace. In the successful 1986 tax reform effort, legislators spent several years prior to enactment ironing out difficulties over thorny issues. Today’s tax reform will

entail the same process of negotiations, albeit compressed timewise. The chances, nevertheless, that Congressional Republicans, with some Senate Democratic help, come together with 51 votes by the August 2017 Congressional recess and enact a package are hardly certain . But they are a lot better than the chances that

Obamacare is passed through the Senate easily with 60 votes by that time. The stakes for financial markets are high . If there is a chance tax reform and expensing are not be enacted until some unspecified time in the future, how does a company make a decision on new capital investment? Hold off investing this year in anticipation of much more favorable tax treatment in the future ? But such delay could come at a cost to the economy and equity market. Under a border adjustment tax, exports would not be taxed. Should a corporation hold up on its exports until some unspecified future date to achieve tax savings? But such a delay would increase the trade deficit and harm the economy. For Trump and the Republicans, the money play is to build a more robust economy quickly. With the credibility of such an achievement, ObamaCare, by then hanging by a thread, will become the responsibility of both parties in Congress. The program, even before enactment of a replacement, will likely have died its own death.

Growth is stagnant---reform’s keyUhler 16 – Lewis K. Uhler and Peter J. Ferrara, National Tax Limitation Foundation, “Trump’s Tax Reform Is The First Step To Booming Economic Recovery”, The Daily Caller, 10-12,

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/12/trumps-tax-reform-is-the-first-step-to-booming-economic-recovery/

Just as with the Reagan tax reforms, Trump’s lower rates on everyone would promote new jobs, rising wages and incomes, and long overdue booming recovery and growth . The Tax Foundation scores the plan dynamically over 10 years as creating over 2 million new jobs, increasing capital investment by 23.9% and wages by 6.3% over the baseline, with higher economic growth increasing GDP by 8.2%.

Counting that growth, the plan would involve a tax cut of $3.9 trillion over the next 10 years. Trump’s energy deregulation and repeal and replacement of Obamacare would promote even faster growth. His trade policies can be implemented in ways that would promote faster growth as well. With such growth, feasible spending restraint can balance the budget within 10 years, as accomplished by the policies implemented under former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Given the long term stagnation under President Obama ’s policies , such tax and spending cuts are sorely needed now . But Hillary Clinton is promising just the opposite, $1.5 trillion in further tax increases, maintaining and even increasing the world’s highest tax rates on American corporations and capital investment, and trillions more in increased federal spending.

Tax cuts key to infrastructure spending – that solves weaknesses of tax cuts alone and solves growthLaVorgna, 17---Joseph LaVorgna is the chief U.S. economist for Deutsche Bank Securities. LaVorgna is a regular guest on CNBC, The Hill, 1/5, http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/312920-trump-to-address-dodd-frank-tax-reform-before-aca

Furthermore, individual tax reform can be separated from corporate tax reform , because this will make passage easier and quicker . Then, the latter can be tied into infrastructure spending, but more on this later.

The focus on tax cuts does not mean the administration will not be working on its other initiatives; it certainly will. The dismantling of Dodd-Frank is arguably easier than tackling the Affordable Care Act (ACA) because many of the rules in the former have yet to be codified.

Additionally, there remains significant leeway in terms of how the various regulatory bodies will interpret the current law. After individual taxes have been cut, and the slow, arduous process of watering down Dodd-Frank has begun, the administration will tackle

the second half of tax reform — reducing corporate taxes.

At this point, the economy should already have seen a lift from the reduction in household marginal income tax rates, giving the administration added political capital.

C orporate t ax r eform will include an initiative to address the roughly $1 to $2 trillion in profits held overseas by U.S. companies . To be sure, these profits would be repatriated back to the U.S. at a reduced rate.

In turn, these funds , which could total anywhere between $100 to $200 billion, could be used by state and local governments for infrastructure projects. Essentially, the proceeds from repatriation would be used as tax credits/federal subsidies to help finance infrastructure spending , similar to what was done under President Obama with "Build America Bonds".

Since these would be municipal securities , they would not count against the federal debt .

Essentially, the first half of the year will likely see individual tax reform and some Dodd-Frank rollback, and the second half of the year will likely see corporate tax reform and infrastructure spending .

The latter will help maintain the economy's glide path in 2018 as the demand-side stimulus of the tax cuts abates.

Best studies prove unique sensitivity to corporate tax rates – cuts keyEdwards, 15 --- Chris, Director of Tax Policy, Cato Institute, White Paper, https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/policy-priorities-white-paper-114th-congress-update.pdf#page=49

Policymakers in both parties say that they favor corporate tax reform and cuts to the corporate tax rate. With Republican majorities in Congress and new leadership on the House and Senate tax committees, now is a good time to take a fresh crack at reform.

C orporate t ax r eform is important because corporate investment is a major driver of investment and innovation in the U.S. economy . High corporate tax rates reduce the incentive to build new factories and buy new business equipment. If investment is suppressed , economic growth will slow, fewer jobs will be created , and wages will stagnate. Globalization has increased the power of corporate taxes to drive investment . As industries have become more mobile, international competition to attract investment has increased . Unfortunately, America has been sitting on its hands while other nations have slashed their tax rates. America has the highest general corporate tax rate in the world at 40 percent, which includes the federal rate plus the average state rate. The

average global rate is now just 24 percent, according to KPMG. A large body of academic research confirms that corporate investments and reported profits are sensitive to differences in international tax rates. And frequent news stories highlight the movement of investment and profits to lower-tax countries such as Ireland. By retaining a high tax rate, America is shooting itself in the foot . U.S. businesses and workers lose , but so does the government, because the corporate tax base is being eroded by our high rate.

Its reverse causal – failure of tax cuts deck investor confidence and fast growth – PC key and trades offStanion, 1/25 --- Percival Stanion is head of multi-asset at Pictet Asset Management, Pensions Expert, http://www.pensions-expert.com/Comment-Analysis/Investing-in-a-Trump-era-Calm-with-risk-of-storm?ct=true

Investing in a Trump era: Calm with risk of storm We are still in the early days, but so far markets have taken a fairly optimistic stance toward the broad outlines of Donald Trump’s policies . Investors have focused on plans for generous tax cuts and infrastructure spending, conveniently overlooking the potentially

negative slogans from the presidential campaign – tariff barriers, immigration control and a more isolationist foreign policy. For the time being – until we see more evidence of the Trump regime in action – we are content to support the benign market view. This is partly because we recognise the immense barriers to any radical policy shifts arising from the division of power within the US constitution . Given the limited budget of p olitical c apital available to the Trump administration, there are probably only so many things it can achieve . The switch towards more fiscal stimulus seems most likely ,

accompanied and counterbalanced by tighter monetary policy. The main tenets of the Trump economic platform should add momentum to an already strong economy, lifting both the real growth rate and inflationary pressures.

Indeed, the possibility of a US economic boom , which would have been easily dismissed just a few months ago, is now a non-trivial prospect . Markets are also now even more certain that the Fed will continue to

raise interest rates next year. But we should remember that an awful lot can go wrong . Controversial or

unpopular candidates for the cabinet, Supreme Court, or even vacant Federal Reserve Board positions could become bogged down in Congressional trench warfare and undermine cohesion on the few areas where it exists.

Recession coming now—this time is different – only tax cuts solve and create resilience from shocksHorowitz 12/1 (Evan, staff economist for the Boston Globe, “A recession is coming, and we’re not prepared to deal with it” https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/12/01/recession-coming-and-not-prepared-deal-with/JYzEFc24DFBAunwMdTctRJ/story.html )

The United States is due for a recession. But if it arrives too soon, we may not have the tools to fight back.¶ Not once in the full sweep of history has the United States gone more than 10 years without a recession. We’re seven years into our slow but steady recovery, which means one of these two things must be true: Either we’re on track to break the record for the longest period of sustained economic growth, or there will be a recession under President Donald

Trump.¶ Even if you lean toward optimism, it’s still best to steady yourself for the unexpected . And right now, the U nited S tates is unusually unprepared — bereft of the resources governments traditionally use to limit the crippling effects recessions can have on workers, businesses, and struggling families.¶ In general, there are two time-tested strategies for beating back a recession: cut interest rates or give people more money. Right now, both approaches are compromised .¶ Start with the

rate cuts, which would be overseen by the Federal Reserve.¶ For two generations, the Fed has taken the lead in the fight against recessions, acting more quickly than Congress and aided by a tool as powerful as it is reliable: the federal funds rate. By lowering that one target, the Federal Reserve can spur investment, encourage spending, and turn the economy around.¶ But to have a big impact, you need big rate reductions. Ideally , when a recession hits, the Fed eral Reserve would be able to cut the federal funds rate by 4 to 5 percentage points. That’s what it did during the slowdown in 2001 and again in 2007-2008.¶ Bu t cuts of that size are impossible today, because the federal funds rate is already close to zero , at around half a percent. And while there’s still time for that to change — including at the

Fed’s December meeting, where it’s expected to raise rates a quarter point (the first increase since last December) —there isn’t a single member of the Federal Reserve board who expects the rate to breach 4

percent in coming years.¶ When the next recession hits, the Fed is likely to be stuck — unable to cut rates as much as it would need to combat

the economic contraction.¶ Now, it’s true that there are alternatives, other approaches the Fed could take to help mitigate the impact of a recession. For instance, it could try a larger version of the bond-purchase program that was used after the Great Recession, or perhaps experiment with negative

interest rates — charging banks a small fee whenever they want to store money.¶ Trouble is, the further you move from the established playbook, the greater the uncertainty. When the Fed reaches for exotic instruments, their precise impact will be harder to predict and potentially more difficult to control. ¶ This is where , theoretically,

Congress could ride to the rescue with its own plan to stoke a recession-plagued economy by giving people money to spend. Maybe in the form of tax cuts , maybe via a jobs program, maybe by mailing out checks.¶ It’s not unprecedented.

Congress played a vital role in the fight to end the Great Recession, with a roughly $800 billion package of tax cuts and spending initiatives bundled together as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.¶ Next time around, however, it may be harder to mobilize congressional support. Partly that’s because Republicans now control

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/12/01/recession-coming-and-not-prepared-deal-with/JYzEFc24DFBAunwMdTctRJ/story.html

both branches of Congress, and they tend to be more skeptical of the virtues of deficit spending .

Even now, many Republicans deny that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act produced any benefits, despite a fairly broad consensus among economists that it helped.¶ What’s more, Trump seems ready to use up his recession-fighting ammunition before the enemy even comes into view.¶ Among the top priorities of the incoming Trump administration are large tax cuts and a burst of

infrastructure spending, both of them costly endeavors that are likely to increase the federal deficit.¶ Pursuing this kind of deficit spending now, when we’re already near full employment, could push the US economy into overdrive — which isn’t necessarily bad. Among other things, it could help push wages up, speed the Federal Reserve’s

efforts to raise interest rates, and give the economy enough resilience to shake off otherwise dangerous shocks.¶

Corporate tax reform key to solve inversions – that’s vital to foreign markets – key to econEdwards, 15 --- Chris, Director of Tax Policy, Cato Institute, White Paper, https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/policy-priorities-white-paper-114th-congress-update.pdf#page=49

These issues are highlighted by the trend toward inversions, which occur when U.S. companies merge into foreign parent companies . Inversions are designed not only to reduce the harm of our high corporate tax rate , but also to avoid the punitive U.S. treatment of corporate foreign earnings. While we tax the global profits of U.S. companies, most countries have territorial tax systems that tax their firms’ domestic profits but do not tax foreign active business income . Suppose that a U.S. company is competing in the Chinese market against a firm based in Britain. Britain has a 21 percent corporate

tax rate and a territorial system, so the U .S. company will be at a disadvantage and may lose sales . That is important for the U.S. economy because domestic jobs depend on U.S. corporations succeeding in foreign markets . As U.S. firms expand abroad, they tend to boost exports from their U.S. operations, and they tend to employ more high-paid people in headquarters-related activities , such as management, marketing, and research. By adopting a territorial tax system and a lower tax rate, policymakers would make the United States a better place for corporations to locate their headquarters, to build factories, and to hire high-skilled workers. All this points to the need for Congress to slash the corporate tax rate. The first step should be a simple rate cut from 35 to 25 percent. That step would probably not lose the federal government any revenue over the long run, as discussed below. The second step should be to cut the rate further to 15 percent. This second step should be matched with reductions to unjustified tax breaks and with spending cuts.

High corporate taxes ensure slow growth and hinders competitiveness in the long term

Tori Whiting 16, Research Assistant in the Center for Trade and Economics at The Heritage Foundation, August 4th, “Soaring Business Taxes Hurt America’s Ability to Compete,” The Daily Signal, http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/04/soaring-business-taxes-hurt-americas-ability-to-compete/, Date Accessed: 8-29-16

As a result, the U.S. now has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, exceeding the Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development average by nearly 15 percentage points. By maintaining such a high corporate tax rate, the U nited S tates hinders its competitiveness in the global economy . In 1993, the U.S. corporate tax rate was increased from 34

to 35 percent, where it has remained since. Corporations in the U.S. also are subject to state and local taxes, resulting in a combined average corporate tax rate of 39 percent. In contrast, Estonia, for example, has decreased its corporate tax rate by 6 percentage points since 2005. Hong Kong has a simple and efficient tax system, and a top corporate tax rate of only 16.5 percent. According to Curtis S. Dubay and David R. Burton, research fellow and senior

fellow at The Heritage Foundation, respectively, the current business tax system is “ slowing investment , which depresses economic growth , slows job creation , and suppresses wages .” These problems are reflected in

Heritage’s 2016 Index of Economic Freedom, where the U.S. is ranked 154th out of 178 countries in fiscal freedom . In June, House Republicans released a blueprint for tax reform, which included proposals to change the way the government taxes corporations and

other businesses. Reforms clearly are needed . In the end, reforming the corporate tax rate is about making America a place where domestic and foreign businesses can invest , grow , and prosper while supporting jobs right here at home .

Corporate rate reduction solves—globalization magnifies the impactRobert Carroll 11, National Director at the Quantitative Economics and Statistics at Ernst & Young LLP, September, “The Economic Benefits of Reducing the US Corporate Income Tax Rate,” Ernst and Young LLP, http://ratecoalition.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ey-report-economic-benefits-of-a-lower-corporate-tax-rate-2011-09-17.pdf, Date Accessed: 8-30-16

Increased competitiveness of the United States in the global economy Most other developed nation s have lowered their corporate tax rates over the past decade while the U.S. corporate tax rate has remained unchanged . At the same time, increasing globalization amplifies the importance of differences in corporate tax rates across

countries. In a global economy capital flows more freely across borders. Increased capital mobility makes it more sensitive to differential in its tax treatment . In addition, other advantages the U nited S tates once held such as a highly educated work force, large open markets, and infrastructure are less significant as former ly developing countries mature in the global economy. Rates have fallen in other nations, while the US corporate tax rate has remained unchanged As shown in Figure 2, the US statutory corporate income tax rate has remained largely unchanged for over two decades. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 lowered the top federal corporate income tax rate from 46% to 34%, which was followed by a 1% increase in 1993, bringing the rate to its current level of 35%. At the beginning of the 1980s, the US statutory corporate income tax rate was slightly above the OECD average, but since the late 1980s most other developed nations have reduced their statutory corporate income tax rates to levels often significantly below those of the United States. Today, the United States has a 39.2% combined federal-state statutory corporate income tax rate, which is significantly above the average 25.5% rate within the OECD (or 29.9% when weighted by GDP). Countries continue to lower their corporate tax rates. Of the 34 OECD nations, 30 have lowered their statutory corporate income tax rates since 2000. The United Kingdom is scheduled to lower its corporate tax rate to 23% by 2015. Canada has lowered its federal corporate tax rate to 16.5% in 2011, with a reduction to 15% in 2013. 8 The Japanese government earlier proposed lowering their corporate tax rate by five percentage point, but has been deferred due to the

tsunami. Some policy analysts argue the US statutory corporate income tax rate is not the right measure for comparing the United States to other nations because it does not reflect differences in the tax base . The same trends , however, are reflected in other metrics for comparing effective corporate income tax rates . In several recent studies the effective marginal tax rates on new investment were found to be higher in the U nited S tates than the average for member nations of the OECD . 9 In another study on effective tax rates based on financial statement data, the United States had an effective tax rate that was the second highest among the 15 countries analyzed, exceeded only by Japan.10 Furthermore, statutory tax rates do matter, and have

significant economic effects as described below. Globalization amplifies the economic effects from differences in corporate tax rates Changes in the corporate income tax rate are much more important in the current global economy than in the past. Capital flows more freely across borders, and other countries‟ economies have grown rapidly as they have adopted more market-economy policies. Nearly one-third of the US economy is now integrated with the rest of the world through international trade. US imports and exports increased dramatically over the past half century, growing 311% between 1962 and 2007, and now representing 29% of US gross domestic product (GDP). The total stock of foreign direct investment by US companies grew to 30.3% of GDP in 2009, up

from just 7.7% in 1980.11 For many US companies, foreign operations account for more than half of all sales. Foreign investments by US companies are expected to accelerate , as the International Monetary Fund

projects 69% of the world‟s growth through 2014 will occur in developing countries. Table 1 shows the rapidly changing global economy from the perspective of the locations of headquarters of the Fortune Global 500 companies. The number of Fortune Global 500 headquarters in the United

States and Japan, the two major economies with the highest corporate income tax rates, has fallen 30 percent in just the past eleven years. The United States is the only country in the top ten that has not reduced its corporate tax rate in the past eleven years. The US corporate rate is eight percent age points above the average for the other

top ten countries and almost ten percentage points above all of the other major global companies. This globalization makes it easier for businesses and investors to reallocate or move their capital across borders in response to differences in countries ‟ tax policies , which amplifies the detrimental effects of a high US corporate income tax rate. Research has found that the corporate income tax can have a large impact on where multinational companies choose to place their production facilities and on the

size of these investments.12 A lower US corporate tax rate The Economic Benefits of Reducing the US Corporate Income Tax Rate would reduce the tax on repatriated earnings of US-headquartered multinational corporations, and reduce the competitive disadvantage US multinationals currently have in bidding against foreign competitors for acquisition targets. Additional US investment is important because it can spur additional local employment , increases in productivity that spill over to other segments of the local economy , and other benefits commonly associated with foreign direct investment. Research generally finds that foreign direct investment is highly sensitive to cross-country differences in after-tax returns. One study summarizing research in this area found that a 1 percentage point reduction in a host country’s tax rate increased foreign direct investment by 2.9% and also found that the responsiveness of foreign direct investment has risen over time.13 Foreign direct investment in the US supported 5 million US jobs in 201014; additional foreign investment would result in additional US employment.

Impact---Growth---IL, CTR Key

It’s the single largest internal link to strong growth through lower corporate rates.Hendrie 6/7 - Alex Hendrie, director of tax policy at Americans for Tax Reform, 6/7/17("Trump's tax plan is the right approach to reinvigorating the economy," published by The Hill, Available online at http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/economy-budget/336594-trumps-tax-plan-is-the-right-approach-to-reinvigorating-the, Accessed 7/6/2017, AJ)

Last month, President Trump released a set of tax reform principles that serve as an excellent first blueprint toward enacting pro-growth reform. The plan to lower the tax rate for all businesses to 15 percent and

enact a modern, territorial system of taxation would help to reinvigorate the economy and serve as a catalyst for reaching three percent economic growth , as the president has promised.

The plan will also lead to a simpler tax code and lower the tax burden for middle class families by doubling the standard deduction to $12,000 for an individual ($24,000 for a family), reducing the number of brackets to three, and consolidating or eliminating existing tax credits.

Each of these proposals are undeniably pro-growth, however the plan can be improved by converting the business tax to a consumption based “cash-flow” model that increase investment incentives and reduces distortions.

In addition, tax reform must be permanent so that businesses have the certainty to make long-term decisions that allow the economy to grow.

Ensuring both of these concepts are in a tax reform package are crucial to meeting Trump’s three goals of tax reform - growing the economy, simplifying the tax code, and encouraging businesses competitiveness and innovation.

The Trump plan is already a great first step to achieving these goals.

The corporate rate of 39 percent (35 percent federal plus an average 4 percent state rate) is far higher than the average rate in the developed world, which is just 25 percent . Businesses organized as pass- through entities face even higher tax rates, reaching as much as 50 percent in some states.

These high rates mean businesses are unable to compete with foreign competitors that have aggressively reduced their rates. In contrast, the U.S. business rates remain barely unchanged three decades after President Reagan signed tax reform.

Lowering the corporate tax rate will again ensure American companies are able to compete with foreign competitors, and will ensure start-ups and small businesses are able to innovative and thrive.

While this low rate will help reinvigorate the economy, Trump should go bold on reform and move toward a consumption base that equitably taxes different types of investments and financing.

Currently, businesses must recover the cost of new investments in an arbitrary way where different types of investments are deducted, or “depreciated” over many years as dictated by more than one hundred pages of IRS rules.

Under the code, a computer is depreciated over five years, a desk over seven years, and a building as many as 39 years. This system distorts business decisions by forcing business owners to account for tax considerations when making choices.

The more appropriate tax policy would be moving to a cash-flow system so that 100 percent of business expenses can immediately be deducted. In addition, a cash-flow model would equalize the treatment of debt financing and equity financing.

In net, these changes would make the code simpler and fairer as businesses would no longer be treated differently based on different purchases.

Immediately allowing businesses to recover their costs also serves as a booster shot to increase economic growth, as a cash flow system increases investment in the economy leading to more jobs and higher wages.

According to research by the Tax Foundation, allowing businesses to immediately deduct investments by moving toward full business expensing will increase GDP growth and wages by 5 percent over the long-term creating one million new jobs.

In addition, tax reform must also be permanent, unlike the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Business and family decisions are often made years in advance, so permanency is needed to provide certainty for taxpayers and investors

In the current, politicized political environment, tax reform will almost certainly have to occur under budget reconciliation. For this to happen, lawmakers need a package that is dynamically scored as deficit-neutral. This means that tax cuts must be accompanied by base broadeners, like the border adjustment component proposed by House Republicans.

massively increases corporate spending, R&D, and job growth.Escandon and Busto 5/2 - Emilio Escandon, principal-in-charge of national operations for the Tax and Accounting Department at MBAF, Juan Busto, Counsel at MBAF, 5/2/17("Trump’s Proposed Tax Reform and the Impact on Economic Growth," published by Accounting Web, Available online at https://www.accountingweb.com/tax/business-tax/trumps-proposed-tax-reform-and-the-impact-on-economic-growth, Accessed 7/6/2017, AJ)

The United States currently has the highest corporate tax rate in the world at 35 percent . President

Trump’s plan wants to cut that to 15 percent. However, 15 percent may not be feasible. The decreased rate may actually wind up being closer to 21 percent or 22 percent. Even a cut like that could have a significant impact on economic growth.

Certain current economic indicators may indicate strength in the economy . For example, the stock

market has been doing well over the past few years. Yet, despite gains in the market, gross domestic product (GDP)

has remained sluggish . In fact, the US Commerce Department’s just-released figures show that for 2017, the economy barely grew , expanding at an annual rate of only 0.7 percent.

Notwithstanding sluggish GDP growth, many corporations reporting increased earnings are holding onto significant levels of cash. They are neither creating jobs nor putting out new,

innovative products because of the high corporate tax rate . CEOs have not had widespread confidence in the policies coming out of Washington prior to the Trump administration. A lot of the companies that could have expanded, hired new employees, or developed new products have instead remained on the sidelines waiting for a better understanding of what is happening with the federal government.

By lowering taxes, a lot of these corporations will increase spending and develop new products and services that will create more jobs and improve the economy . This is not a new idea; in fact, this goes back all the way to 1974, when economist Arthur Laffer drew a curve on the back of a cocktail napkin to illustrate how cutting taxes could spur the economy. That napkin now hangs in the National Museum of American History, and the “Laffer curve” has, in many ways, changed the course of contemporary economics.

Lowering the corporate tax rate will no doubt provide more available cash flow to corporate stakeholders – both large and small . How they choose to deploy that revenue remains to be seen; however, it is reasonable to assume it will be in adding jobs and expansion in terms of new product lines, mergers and acquisitions, etc.

The cut should also help small business stakeholders who should now be able to put money aside for retirement/savings , put money aside for their children’s education , perhaps finally be able to afford health insurance for their employees, or to set up a 401(k) plan for their employees.

In addition, a lower corporate tax rate will mean less desire by these corporations to shelter taxes and provide less of an incentive for them to generate profits overseas, which could also bring jobs back to the states. More jobs could make up for the shortfall in tax revenue with increased payroll taxes, more income taxes, more sales taxes as people spend more on goods and services, and, of course, more people working means less that needs to be paid out in welfare and unemployment benefits.

Of course, what remains to be seen is how the proposed plan translates into actual policies. As a whole, the CPA profession has always been in favor of simplifying the tax code. If nothing else, this one-page plan is simple and straightforward.

It is clear that tax reform is needed in order for the economy to improve . However, the changes need to be prudent. They will require a great deal of analysis and must be implemented correctly. We expect that the Trump administration will draw on the resources of the accounting community to help successfully achieve its tax reform goals.

will pass and turns US economy around overnightAdam Shapiro 7/10, previously a general assignment reporter in New York for WNBC-TV's "Today in New York" morning show. He also occasionally provided reports for the early evening and nightly newscasts, editor for FOX, 7/10/17, “Tax reform push heats up this week, Sen. Hatch lays groundwork, http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/07/10/tax-reform-push-heats-up-this-week-sen-hatch-lays-groundwork.html





House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) wants to cut taxes, but pay for those cuts with a border adjustment tax that critics say will raise prices for everyday goods consumers buy at places like Walmart (WMT) and Target (TGT). Hatch is opposed to the border adjustment tax, but says he will consider it if Brady can make a case for its inclusion in tax reform.


Impact---Growth---IL, Repatriation Key

provides necessary stimulus through repatriation of offshore profits.Chicago Tribune 4/24 - Chicago_Tribune, National News Source, 4/24/17("Trump's tax reform challenge: Cut taxes, grow the economy, tame the debt," published by The Chicago Tribune, Available online at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-tax-reform-trump-congress-edit-20170424-story.html, Accessed 7/6/2017, AJ)

The case for tax reform starts on the business side because that's where an overhaul could make a direct contribution to economic growth : the creation of more jobs. The lower the tax burden, the more competitive American businesses will become , the more likely they will invest at home . U.S. corporations are on the hook for a 39.1 percent tax rate, one of the world's highest ,

according to a Tax Foundation report. Savvy companies probably don't pay that rate, but the ways they reduce their tax l iabilities can come at the cost of America's prosperity . Some multinationals move their headquarters overseas, while others keep their foreign-generated profits abroad . U.S. companies now hold more than $2 trillion in profits overseas .

Cutting the corporate rate to, say, 20 percent would make a big difference in how businesses manage worldwide earnings . They'd be more likely to stay headquartered in the U.S. and bring home earnings generated abroad. To recapture some of the $2 trillion out there now, one sensible proposal is to offer companies a repatriation discount : Bring your money home and pay just 10 percent or 15 percent. That tax revenue bonanza could be used by the federal government to repair roads and bridges. Another smart proposal: Allow businesses to deduct the full cost of investment at once rather than spread over years, also to encourage growth.

Impact – Growth – A2: No Impact – Growth NowGrowth now not responsive - Delay imposes massive economic uncertainty that wrecks economy – decks financial markets, capital investments, equity markets, exports, trade deficitsSmick, 2/14 --- David, financial market consultant He is the chairman and CEO of Johnson Smick International, an advisory firm in Washington, D.C. where he is in partnership with Manuel H. Johnson, Fox News, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/02/14/tax-reform-flip-flop-trump-desperately-needs-to-make.html

For the GOP, the smarter strategy would be to immediately push tax reform under the first budget reconciliation vehicle. No, tax reform won’t be easy either. But the Democrats have far more emotional attachment to

ObamaCare and the chances of outright partisan warfare over tax reform are relatively small. True, there will be opposition to the border adjustment tax, particularly from retailers. And those who suggest that the tax reform package not include individual tax reform are misreading the situation. Today 80 percent of businesses are so-called “pass-through” entities that are exempt from the corporate tax system. Any tax reform would have to include these smaller “corporate” entities -- i.e. it would have to include reform of the individual tax code in addition to the corporate tax code. Capitol Hill moves at a snail’s pace. In the successful 1986 tax reform effort, legislators spent several years prior to enactment ironing out difficulties over thorny issues. Today’s tax reform will

entail the same process of negotiations, albeit compressed timewise. The chances, nevertheless, that Congressional Republicans, with some Senate Democratic help, come together with 51 votes by the August 2017 Congressional recess and enact a package are hardly certain . But they are a lot better than the chances that

Obamacare is passed through the Senate easily with 60 votes by that time. The stakes for financial markets are high . If there is a chance tax reform and expensing are not be enacted until some unspecified time in the future, how does a company make a decision on new capital investment? Hold off investing this year in anticipation of much more favorable tax treatment in the future ? But such delay could come at a cost to the economy and equity market. Under a border adjustment tax, exports would not be taxed. Should a corporation hold up on its exports until some unspecified future date to achieve tax savings? But such a delay would increase the trade deficit and harm the economy. For Trump and the Republicans, the money play is to build a more robust economy quickly. With the credibility of such an achievement, ObamaCare, by then hanging by a thread, will become the responsibility of both parties in Congress. The program, even before enactment of a replacement, will likely have died its own death.

Growth is stagnant---reform’s keyUhler 16 – Lewis K. Uhler and Peter J. Ferrara, National Tax Limitation Foundation, “Trump’s Tax Reform Is The First Step To Booming Economic Recovery”, The Daily Caller, 10-12, http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/12/trumps-tax-reform-is-the-first-step-to-booming-economic-recovery/

Just as with the Reagan tax reforms, Trump’s lower rates on everyone would promote new jobs, rising wages and incomes, and long overdue booming recovery and growth . The Tax Foundation scores the plan dynamically over 10 years as creating over 2 million new jobs, increasing capital investment by 23.9% and wages by 6.3% over the baseline, with higher economic growth increasing GDP by 8.2%.

Counting that growth, the plan would involve a tax cut of $3.9 trillion over the next 10 years. Trump’s energy deregulation and repeal and replacement of Obamacare would promote even faster growth. His trade policies can be implemented in ways that would promote faster growth as well. With such growth, feasible spending restraint can balance the budget within 10 years, as accomplished by the policies implemented under former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Given the long term stagnation under President Obama ’s policies , such tax and spending cuts are sorely needed now . But Hillary Clinton is promising just the opposite, $1.5 trillion in further tax increases, maintaining and even increasing the world’s highest tax rates on American corporations and capital investment, and trillions more in increased federal spending.

Impact – Growth – A2: No Impact – US Not Key to Global Economy

Goes global---no resiliencyIrwin 16 – Neil Irwin, Senior Economic Correspondent at The New York Times, Formerly a Washington Post Columnist and the Economics Editor of Wonkblog, “Foreign Crises Test America's Resilience”, International New York Times, 1-6, Lexis

Seven days in, 2016 is shaping up to be a chaotic year in global economics and geopolitics, with profound challenges nearly everywhere. Except, for now at least, in the world's

largest economy. The America n economy is acting as a steadying force in a volatile world .

A giant question for 2016 - not just for Americans but for people across the globe who benefit from having one of the world's major economic engines revving while others sputter - is how resilient the U nited States

will prove to be.

On one hand, in an interconnected global economy , troubles in one place can spread easily , whether

through financial markets , the banking system or trade linkages . Just Thursday the World Bank downgraded its forecast of 2016 global growth, which implies less demand for American products around the world - and fewer jobs for American workers.

On the other hand, in the past, the United States has shown an uncanny tendency to benefit economically from tumult abroad.

''The United States may not have incredibly robust economic growth and has plenty of problems you can point to,'' said Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia Group, a geopolitical consultancy. ''But from a stability perspective, when things are more unstable, the United States in some ways gets stronger,'' as both people and investment dollars gravitate to the nation's relative stability.

The truth is, not one of the problems that have flared across financial news tickers so far in 2016 is completely new or surprising. Rather, they are continuations of trends that were well established in 2015.

And as disturbing as it may be to see tensions rise, conflict in the Middle East is not exactly new. Usually the way those tensions ripple through the global economy is by driving the cost of oil up; instead, the opposite is happening.

Oil prices fell to $37 a barrel from around $53 a barrel over the course of last year and are now under $34. The Shanghai composite index fell sharply, starting in June of last year, and even after steep declines in the opening days of 2016 is above its late-August level (though it is anybody's guess how much it would have fallen, absent a string of government interventions to try to stanch the declines).

Economic growth has been slowing not just in China but across many emerging markets , including Brazil

and Nigeria, for two years now. Europe and Japan are growing only barely , and even formerly hot advanced economies like Canada are suffering from the commodity glut.

Against that gloomy backdrop, the consensus economic forecasts for the U nited States - the International

Monetary Fund forecasts 2.8 percent growth in 2016 - look pretty terrific . The American stock market indexes, despite the global sell-off and

major hits to oil companies' earnings, remain above their September levels.

But there are two basic questions about the notion that the U nited States can serve as an island of economic and political stability in a messy world.

First, what happens if that changes? Second, what happens if it doesn't?

The ''things change'' situation is the risk that these global headwinds become too powerful for the United States to overcome.

Already, oil producers and their suppliers are suffering. The American industrial sector is groaning under the weight of a strong dollar, which drives up the price of exported goods. That's a consequence of the mismatch between growth in the United States and the rest of the world.

The strength in the service sector and the broader consumer economy in the U nited States has offset any damage so far. But the 2008 crisis showed how the global economy is intertwined in ways that are hard to predict - and that's before accounting for the geopolitical dangers from the Middle East and the Korean Peninsula that could cause major economic disruptions if they take a dark turn.

If something does go wrong , the usual buffers in the global economy look to be weakened or nonexistent right now. Government deficits are high in much of the world, and even where they

aren't, political leaders have shown no desire to open the spending floodgates in an effort to bolster economies.

Stall out goes globalLarsen 15 – Peter Thal Larsen, Asia Editor for Reuters, Degree from the London School of Economics, “No Chance for India to Rescue the World Economy Next Year”, The Nation (Thailand), 12-25, Lexis

India will not rescue the global economy in 2016 . The subcontinent's expanding GDP is one of next year's few economic

bright spots. But Indian output is still too small . Any negative shocks from the sluggish U nited S tates

and decelerating China will reverberate more widely .

India is finally emerging from China's shadow in the global growth stakes. Helped by a controversial overhaul of its GDP statistics, the Indian economy probably expanded by 7.5 per cent in 2015 and is set to swell by a further 7.8 per cent in 2016. Contrast that with the People's Republic, which is struggling to maintain the near-7 per cent pace promised by its leaders.

The prospect of sustained rapid growth has drawn the attention of prominent central bankers. India's economy has "enormous potential" to recharge Asia's growth engine, Stanley Fischer, the US Federal Reserve's vice chairman, declared in a recent speech.

For now, however, the country's economic progress has relatively little impact on the rest of the world â€“ although it is enormously important to India's 1.3 billion citizens. The economy accounts for little more than 3 percent of global output , according to Reuters calculations based on World Bank forecasts. China is almost four times as large, while

the U nited S tates is still responsible for more than a fifth of all economic activity .

On current projections, India will produce about 7 per cent of global growth in 2016 while the United States and China will together be responsible for about 45 per cent of GDP expansion. Put another way, India's growth rate would need to rise by about 3 percentage points in order to add 0.1 percentage point to next year's expected global growth rate of 3.3 per cent. China could have the same impact with a 1-point increase in the pace of expansion. For the United States, an extra half point would suffice.

With Europe stuck in the doldrums and Japan struggling to recover, the world economy still depends heavily on its two largest growth engines , both of which are sputtering. A severe slowdown in China or a stalled recovery in the U nited S tates would be felt around the world . By comparison, India's economic performance, no matter how impressive, will barely register .

Impact – Growth – A2: No Impact – Econ ResilientRecession coming now—this time is different – only tax cuts solve and create resilience from shocksHorowitz 12/1 (Evan, staff economist for the Boston Globe, “A recession is coming, and we’re not prepared to deal with it” https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/12/01/recession-coming-and-not-prepared-deal-with/JYzEFc24DFBAunwMdTctRJ/story.html )

The United States is due for a recession. But if it arrives too soon, we may not have the tools to fight back.¶ Not once in the full sweep of history has the United States gone more than 10 years without a recession. We’re seven years into our slow but steady recovery, which means one of these two things must be true: Either we’re on track to break the record for the longest period of sustained economic growth, or there will be a recession under President Donald Trump.¶ Even if you lean toward optimism, it’s still best to steady yourself for the unexpected . And right now, the U nited S tates is unusually unprepared — bereft of the resources governments traditionally use to limit the crippling effects recessions can have on workers, businesses, and struggling families.¶ In general, there are two time-tested strategies for beating back

a recession: cut interest rates or give people more money. Right now, both approaches are compromised.¶ Start with the rate cuts, which would be overseen by the Federal Reserve.¶ For two generations, the Fed has taken the lead in the fight against recessions, acting more quickly than Congress and aided by a tool as powerful as it is reliable: the federal funds rate. By lowering that one target, the Federal Reserve can spur investment, encourage spending, and turn the economy around.¶ But to have a big impact, you need big rate reductions. Ideally , when a recession hits, the Fed eral Reserve would be able to cut the federal funds rate by 4 to 5 percentage points. That’s what it did during the slowdown in 2001 and again in 2007-2008.¶ Bu t cuts of that size are impossible today, because the federal funds rate is already close to zero , at around half a percent. And while there’s still time for that to change — including at the Fed’s December meeting, where it’s expected to raise rates a quarter point (the first

increase since last December) —there isn’t a single member of the Federal Reserve board who expects the rate to breach 4 percent in coming years.¶ When the next recession hits, the Fed is likely to be stuck — unable to cut rates as much as it would need to combat the economic contraction.¶

Now, it’s true that there are alternatives, other approaches the Fed could take to help mitigate the impact of a recession. For instance, it could try a larger version of the bond-purchase program that was used after the Great Recession, or perhaps experiment with

negative interest rates — charging banks a small fee whenever they want to store money.¶ Trouble is, the further you move from the established playbook, the greater the uncertainty. When the Fed reaches for exotic instruments, their precise impact will be harder to predict and potentially more difficult to control. ¶ This is where ,

theoretically, Congress could ride to the rescue with its own plan to stoke a recession-plagued economy by giving people money to spend. Maybe in the form of tax cuts , maybe via a jobs program, maybe by mailing

out checks.¶ It’s not unprecedented. Congress played a vital role in the fight to end the Great Recession, with a roughly $800 billion package of tax cuts and spending initiatives bundled together as the American Recovery and Reinvestment

Act.¶ Next time around, however, it may be harder to mobilize congressional support. Partly that’s because

Republicans now control both branches of Congress, and they tend to be more skeptical of the virtues of deficit spending. Even now, many Republicans deny that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act produced any benefits, despite a fairly

broad consensus among economists that it helped.¶ What’s more, Trump seems ready to use up his recession-fighting ammunition before the enemy even comes into view.¶ Among the top priorities of the incoming Trump administration are large tax cuts and a burst of infrastructure spending, both of them costly endeavors that are likely to increase the federal deficit .¶ Pursuing this kind of deficit spending now, when we’re already

near full employment, could push the US economy into overdrive — which isn’t necessarily bad. Among other things, it could help push wages up, speed the Federal Reserve’s efforts to raise interest rates, and give the economy enough resilience to shake off otherwise dangerous shocks.¶


Goes global---no resiliencyIrwin 16 – Neil Irwin, Senior Economic Correspondent at The New York Times, Formerly a Washington Post Columnist and the Economics Editor of Wonkblog, “Foreign Crises Test America's Resilience”, International New York Times, 1-6, Lexis




will prove to be.


















If something does go wrong , the usual buffers in the global economy look to be weakened or nonexistent right now. Government deficits are high in much of the world, and even where they aren't, political leaders have shown no desire to open the spending floodgates in an effort to bolster economies.

Econ’s fragileHansen, 16 – Steven Hansen, international business and industrial consultant, 3-26-2016, “The Economy Keeps Stumbling Along”, Seeking Alpha, http://seekingalpha.com/article/3961069-economy-keeps-stumbling-along

Once a month, I assemble an economic forecast based on analysis of various data points which have led the economy. Historically,

most of the time the economy trends up or trends down - but recently the econ omy simply has been frozen with little change in the rate of growth . My view of the economy is at Main Street level - not necessarily GDP.

My position is that GDP has disconnected from the real economy . A thinking person might say that GDP never projected the real economy - and it was never more obvious with the current situation where rate of change of growth slowed to a

crawl. The jumping around of GDP in a flat economy is noticeable. We will be releasing our economic forecast next week -

and conditions have been flat ( near the zero growth line) for three months . All indicators I view

outside the elements of our forecast are mixed and confused. Nothing is strong . One of my favorite indicators to understand if the rate of economic growth is accelerating or decelerating is the relationship between the year-over-year growth rate of non-farm private employment and the year-over-year real growth rate

of retail sales . This index is currently showing no growth differential . When retail sales grow faster than the rate of employment gains (above zero on the below graph) - the rate of growth of the economy is usually accelerating.

Impact – Growth – A2: No Impact – No Conflict – Trump Specific

Economic decline under Trump is particularly likely to trigger diversionary war---their defense only applies to normal, non-awful Presidents---we have better stats Dennis M. Foster 12-19, professor of international studies and political science at the Virginia Military Institute, 12/19/16, “Would President Trump go to war to divert attention from problems at home?,” http://inhomelandsecurity.com/would-president-trump-go-to-war-to-divert-attention-from-problems-at-home/

If the U.S. economy tanks , should we expect Donald Trump to engage in a diversionary war? Since the age of Machiavelli, analysts have expected world leaders to launch international conflicts to deflect popular attention away from problems at home. By stirring up feelings of patriotism, leaders might escape the political costs of scandal, unpopularity — or a poorly performing economy.

One often-cited example of diversionary war in modern times is Argentina’s 1982 invasion of the Falklands, which several (though not all) political scientists attribute to the junta’s desire to divert the people’s attention from a disastrous economy.

In a 2014 article, Jonathan Keller and I argued that whether U.S. presidents engage in diversionary conflicts depends in part on their psychological traits — how they frame the world, process information and develop plans of

action. Certain traits predispose leaders to more belligerent behavior.

Do words translate into foreign policy action?

One way to identify these traits is content analyses of leaders’ rhetoric. The more leaders use certain types of verbal constructs, the more likely they are to possess traits that lead them to use military force.

For one, conceptually simplistic leaders view the world in “black and white ” terms ; they develop unsophisticated solutions to problems and are largely insensitive to risks. Similarly, distrustful leaders tend to exaggerate threats and rely on aggression to deal with threats. Distrustful leaders typically

favor military action and are confident in their ability to wield it effectively.

Thus, when faced with politically damaging problems that are hard to solve — such as a faltering economy — leaders who are both distrustful and simplistic are less likely to put together complex , direct responses . Instead, they develop simplistic but risky “solutions” that divert popular attention from the problem, utilizing the tools with which they are most comfortable and confident (military force).

Based on our analysis of the rhetoric of previous U.S. presidents, we found that presidents whose language appeared more simplistic and distrustful, such as Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and George W. Bush, were more likely to use force abroad in times of rising inflation and unemployment. By contrast, John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton, whose rhetoric pegged them as more complex and trusting, were less likely to do so.

What about Donald Trump?

Since Donald Trump’s election, many commentators have expressed concern about how he will react to new challenges and whether he might make quick recourse to military action. For example, the Guardian’s George Monbiot has argued that political realities will stymie Trump’s agenda, especially his promises regarding the economy. Then, rather than risk disappointing his base, Trump might try to rally public opinion to his side via military action.

I sampled Trump’s campaign rhetoric, analyzing 71,446 words across 24 events from January 2015 to December 2016. Using a program for measuring leadership traits in rhetoric, I estimated what Trump’s words may tell us about his level of distrust and conceptual complexity. The graph below shows Trump’s level of distrust compared to previous presidents.

As a candidate, Trump also scored second-lowest among presidents in conceptual complexity. Compared to earlier presidents, he used more words and phrases that indicate less willingness to see multiple dimensions or ambiguities in the decision-making environment. These include words and phrases like “absolutely,” “greatest” and “without a doubt.”

A possible implication for military action

I took these data on Trump and plugged them into the statistical model that we developed to predict major uses of force by the U nited States from 1953 to 2000. For a president of average distrust and conceptual complexity , an economic downturn only weakly predicts an increase in the use of force .

But the model would predict that a president with Trump ’s numbers would respond to even a minor economic downturn with an increase in the use of force . For example, were the misery index (aggregate inflation and unemployment) equal to 12 — about where it stood in October 2011 — the model predicts a president with Trump’s psychological traits would initiate more than one major conflict per quarter.

Of course, predictions from such a model come with a lot of uncertainty. By necessity, any measures of a president’s traits are imperfect. And we do not know whether there will be an economic downturn. Moreover, campaigning is not governing, and the responsibilities of the Oval Office might moderate Donald Trump. The psychologist Philip Tetlock has found that presidents often become more conceptually complex once they enter office.

Nevertheless, this analysis suggests some cause for concern about the international ramifications of an economic downturn with a President Trump in the White House.

Nuclear warStreet 16 – Tim Street, Fellow of the Sustainable Security Programme at the Oxford Research Group, Previously Researcher with the British American Security Information Council, Ph.D. from Warwick University, “President Trump: Successor to the Nuclear Throne”, Oxford Research Group Briefing Paper, 11-30, http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers_and_reports/president_trump_successor_nuclear_throne

Donald Trump’s arrival in the White House as US President has deeply unnerved people from across the political spectrum, both inside the US and around the world. The fact that many regard Trump as an indecent individual and his government as potentially the number one threat to their dignity,

liberty and life means that the civil strife already raging in the US is unlikely to fade away soon. The wide-ranging implications of Trump ’s election to the most powerful office on Earth—for the peace and stability of both that nation and the world—cannot be emphasised enough. In this regard, of the many uncertainties and worries brought on by a Trump presidency, the two existential questions of climate change and nuclear war stand out .

With the former, Trump’s recent comment that he now has an ‘open mind’ about the importance of the Paris climate agreement—having previously said climate change is a ‘hoax’—is unlikely to assuage fears that he will seek to dramatically expand the US’s extraction and reliance on fossil fuels. With the latter, strong doubts have been raised over whether the new President is capable of responsibly handling the incredible power that will be at his

fingertips. Moreover, several commentators are already raising concerns that a Trump administration will pursue policies that will aggravate and disappoint his supporters , a situation that could increase the possibility of the US engaging in a ‘diversionary’ war .

In order to consider what we can expect from a Trump presidency, as well as noting whom Trump empowers as members of his cabinet and those whom he draws on for advice, it is vital to study the track record of recent administrations and appreciate the powers Trump will inherit. In doing so this briefing focuses on the question of what a Trump presidency might mean for international relations with a focus on nuclear arms, including

doctrine and disarmament. This means reviewing policies relevant to the US’s nuclear arsenal and pressing international challenges such as non-proliferation, including in East Asia and the Middle East, as well as the US’s relationship with Russia and its role in NATO.

The power and responsibilities of the nuclear monarch

The US President is solely responsible for the decision to use the near-unimaginably destructive power of the nation’s nuclear arsenal . Thus, as Bruce Blair—a former intercontinental ballistic missile launch control officer—

makes clear, ‘Trump will have the sole authority to launch nuclear weapons whenever he chooses with a single phone call.’ The wider political meaning of the bomb for the world is aptly summarised by Daniel Deudney, who describes nuclear weapons as ‘intrinsically despotic’ so that they have created ‘nuclear monarchies’ in all nuclear-armed states. Deudney identifies three related reasons for this development: ‘the speed of nuclear use decisions; the concentration of nuclear use decision into the hands of one individual; and the lack of accountability stemming from the inability of affected groups to have their interests represented at the moment of nuclear use’.

Similarly, Elaine Scarry has explained in stark terms in her 2014 book Thermonuclear Monarchy: Choosing between Democracy and Doom, how the possession of nuclear weapons has converted the US government into ‘a monarchic form of rule that places all defense in the executive branch of government’ leaving the population ‘incapacitated’. In response to this situation, Scarry argues that the American people must use the Constitution as a tool to dismantle the US nuclear weapons system, thereby revitalising democratic participation and control over decision-making. Scarry also outlines

the incredible might the president wields, with each of the US’s fourteen nuclear-armed sub marine s alone carrying ‘ enough power to destroy the people of an entire continent’ , equivalent to ‘eight times the full-blast power expended by Allied and Axis countries in World War II’. Nuclear specialist Hans Kristensen has described how the US’s strategic nuclear war plan ‘ if unleashed in its full capacity’ could ‘kill hundreds of millions of people, devastate entire nations, and cause climatic effects on a global scale’ . This war plan consists of a ‘family of plans’ that is aimed at ‘six potential adversaries’ whose identities are kept secret. Kristensen understands that they include ‘potentially hostile countries with nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons (WMD)’, meaning China, North Korea, Iran, Russia and Syria as well as a terrorist group backed by a state that has conducted a catastrophic WMD attack. The ‘dominant mission’ for US nuclear weapons within these plans is termed counterforce, meaning strikes on ‘military, mostly nuclear, targets and the enemy’s leadership’.

Despite these plans, the US’s nuclear arsenal is often described by mainstream commentators as being solely intended to ensure mutual assured destruction (MAD), i.e. as part of the ‘balance of terror’ with Russia, in order to prevent armed conflict between the two nations and to ensure a response in kind to a surprise nuclear attack. However, as Joseph Gerson and John Feffer explain, rather than deterrence just being about enough nuclear forces surviving a surprise first strike attack to ensure MAD, US military planners have also understood it to mean ‘preventing other nations from taking “courses of action” that are inimical to US interests’.

David McDonough thus describes the ‘long-standing goal of American nuclear war-planners’ as being the achievement of the ability to launch a disarming first-strike against an opponent- otherwise known as nuclear superiority. This has been magnified in recent years as the US seeks to ‘prevent’ or ‘rollback’ the ability of weaker states—both nuclear and non-nuclear powers—to establish or maintain a deterrence relationship. Taking all this into account, the new commander-in-chief’s apparently volatile temperament thus raises deep concerns since his finger will be on the nuclear trigger as soon as he assumes office on 20th January 2017. Given his past experience, Bruce Blair’s statement that he is ‘scared to death’ by the idea of a Trump presidency is but one further reason why urgent discussion and action, both in the US and globally, on lessening nuclear dangers—and reviving disarmament—is vital. A recent report by the Ploughshares Fund on how the US can reduce its nuclear spending, reform its nuclear posture and restrain its nuclear war plans should thus be required reading in Washington.

However, as the Economist has rightly noted, ‘It is not Mr Trump’s fault that the system, in which the vulnerable land-based missile force is kept on hair-trigger alert, is widely held to be inherently dangerous’ since, as they point out, ‘no former president, including Barack Obama, has done anything to change it.’ Over sixty years after the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclearism thus remains very much embedded in the nation’s strategic thinking. Yet the election of Obama, and the rhetoric of his 2009 Prague speech, in which he stated ‘America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons’ led many to think that a real change was on the cards.

Obama’s visit to Hiroshima earlier this year to commemorate the bombings was thus a painful reminder of how wide the gap is between the rearmament programmes that the US and other nuclear weapon states are engaged in and the disarmament action that they are legally obliged to pursue under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT). Obama himself said in Japan that, ‘technological progress without an equivalent progress in human institutions can doom us. The scientific revolution that led to the splitting of an atom requires a moral revolution as well.’ For this statement to be meaningful it is necessary to identify who is responsible for the existing, highly dangerous state of affairs. In short, the US government’s recent record supports Scarry’s suggestion that a democratic revolution is what, in reality, is most needed if the US is to make substantial progress on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. Short-term reforms towards the democratic control and ultimate dismantlement of the US’s nuclear arsenal have been outlined by Kennette Benedict, who writes that the next administration should:

place our nuclear weapons on a much lower level of launch readiness, release to the public more information about the nuclear weapons in our own arsenals, include legislators and outside experts in its nuclear posture review and recognize Congress’ authority to declare war as a prerequisite to any use of nuclear weapons.

Assessing Obama’s nuclear legacy

In order to properly appreciate what a Trump presidency may bring, we need to revisit the range and types of powers bequeathed to the commander-in-chief by previous administrations. Despite the military advances made by China and Russia in recent years, it is important to recognise that the US remains far and away the biggest global spender on conventional and nuclear weapons and plans to consolidate this position by maintaining significant technological superiority over its adversaries, which will, as is well appreciated, push Beijing, Moscow—and thus other regional powers—to respond. Yet spending on nuclear weapons alone is set to pose significant budgeting difficulties for future US governments.

According to a 2014 report by the James Martin Center, the Departments of Defense and Energy plan to spend approximately $1 trillion over the next 30 years ‘to maintain its current nuclear arsenal and procure a new generation of nuclear-armed or nuclear capable bombers and submarines’ as well as new submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). Arms Control Today has found that total Defense Department nuclear spending ‘is projected to average more than $40 billion in constant fiscal year 2016 dollars between 2025 and 2035, when modernization costs are expected to peak’. Including costs for the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration’s projected weapons-related spending during this period ‘would push average spending during this period to more than $50 billion per year’. If anywhere near these sums are spent, then the modest reductions to the US’s nuclear stockpile achieved during the Obama presidency will be entirely overshadowed. Moreover, as analyst Andrew Lichterman notes, the US’s continued modernisation of its nuclear forces is ‘inherently incompatible’ with the ‘unequivocal undertaking’ given at the 2000 NPT Review Conference to eliminate its nuclear arsenal and apply the ‘principle of irreversibility’ to this and related actions.

For Lichterman, the huge outlays committed to the nuclear weapons complex were part of a political ‘bargain’ made by the Obama administration with Republicans. This ensured that the New START nuclear arms control treaty would pass in the Senate whilst also not disturbing the development of missile defense and other advanced conventional weapons programmes. New START is a bilateral agreement between Russia and the US, which Steven Pifer describes as ‘one of the few bright spots’ that exists in these nations’ relationship. Under the treaty Moscow and Washington must, by 2018, reduce their stockpile of operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550. Furthermore, both must keep to a limit of 700 deployed strategic launchers (missiles) and heavy bombers, and to a combined limit of 800 deployed and non-deployed strategic launchers and heavy bombers.

Despite New START ‘proceeding smoothly’ according to Pifer, Hans Kristensen recently produced a report comparing Obama’s record with that of the previous presidents holding office during the nuclear age, which found that, hitherto, Obama has cut fewer warheads—in terms of numbers rather than percentages—than ‘any administration ever’ and that ‘the biggest nuclear disarmers’ in recent decades have been Republicans, not Democrats. Kristensen thus drily observes of this situation that,

a conservative Congress does not complain when Republican presidents reduce the stockpile, only when Democratic president try to do so. As a result of the opposition, the United States is now stuck with a larger and more expensive nuclear arsenal than had Congress agreed to significant reductions.

As his presidency draws to a close, presumably as a means of securing some sort of meaningful legacy in this area, it has been reported that Obama considered adopting a no first use (NFU) policy for nuclear weapons, something which, whilst reversible, could act as a restraint on future presidents. Yet this was apparently abandoned, according to the New York Times, after ‘top national security advisers argued that it could undermine allies and embolden Russia and China’. Furthermore, according to Josh Rogin of the Washington Post, the governments of Japan, South Korea, France and Britain all privately communicated their concerns about Washington adopting NFU. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter is also said to have argued that such a move would be unwise because ‘if North Korea used biological weapons against the South the United States might need the option of threatening a nuclear response’.

However, as Daryll Kimball explains, the US’s ‘overwhelming’ conventional military advantage means that ‘there is no plausible circumstance that could justify—legally, morally, or militarily—the use of nuclear weapons to deal with a non-nuclear threat’. Such resistance to NFU is thus deeply disappointing given that, as Kimball goes on to note, this move would go some way to reassuring China and Russia about the US’s strategic intentions. It would also be an important confidence-building measure for the wider community of non-nuclear weapon states, showing that the US is willing to act in 'good faith' towards its disarmament obligations under the NPT.

Thinking about the causes of proliferation more widely requires us to understand what drives weaker states to seek deterrents, if their reliance on them is to be reduced. For example, as Dr Alan J. Kuperman observes, NATO’s bombing and overthrow of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 ‘greatly complicated the task of persuading other states such as Iran and North Korea ‘to halt or reverse their nuclear programs’. The lesson Tehran and Pyongyang took is thus that because Gaddafi had voluntarily ended his nuclear and chemical weapons programmes, the West now felt free to pursue regime change. When assessing the importance of the Iran nuclear deal, which is often hailed as one of Obama’s landmark achievements, and which the next President must not be allowed to derail, it is thus important also to consider carefully what behaviour by the most powerful states will enable existing or potential nuclear possessors to embrace disarmament and reduce their interest in seeking non-conventional deterrents.

The inability of Washington to make substantial progress towards reducing the salience of nuclear weapons at home and abroad is all the more noteworthy when one considers the state of US and Russian public opinion on nuclear arms control and disarmament. As John Steinbrunner and Nancy Gallagher observe, ‘responses to detailed questions reveal a striking disparity between what U.S. and Russian leaders are doing and what their publics desire’. For example, their polling found that:

At the most fundamental level, the vast majority of Americans and Russians think that nuclear weapons have a very limited role in current security circumstances and believe that their only legitimate purpose is to deter nuclear attack. It is highly consistent, then, that the publics in both countries would favor eliminating all nuclear weapons if this action could be taken under effective international verification.

Another important measure which the US has failed to hitherto ratify is the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). This is despite President Obama stating in 2009 that he intended to pursue Senate ratification of the treaty ‘immediately and aggressively’. Once more, there is notably strong public support–82% according to a 2010 poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs—for the US joining the CTBT but, again, the Republican-controlled Senate has blocked the treaty at every opportunity.

Overall, the gap between the public’s will and the government’s inaction on nuclear issues is alarming and redolent of the wider democratic deficit in the US. On a more positive note, the fact that the citizenry supports such measures suggests that groups advocating arms control and disarmament initiatives should continue to engage with and understand the public’s positions in order to effectively harness their support.

Stepping back from the brink

In terms of priorities for the incoming administration in the US, stepping back from military confrontation with Russia and pushing the threat of nuclear war to the margins must be at the top of the list. Whilst much has been made of a potential rapprochement between Trump and Putin, the two have, reportedly, only just spoken for the first time on the phone and still need to actually meet in person to discuss strategic issues and deal with inevitable international events and crises, including in relation to Ukraine and Syria. As of now, whilst the mood music from both sides might suggest a warming of relations, as has been seen with previous administrations, unless cooperation is rooted in a real willingness to resolve problems (which for Russia includes US ballistic missile defense deployments in Eastern Europe and NATO expansion) then tensions can quickly re-emerge. Another related question concerns how Trump will conduct himself during any potential crisis or conflict with Russia or another major power, given the stakes and risks involved, as highlighted above.

Whilst we must wait to find out precisely what the new administration’s approach to international affairs will be, in the past week, NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told the BBC that he had been personally informed by Donald Trump, following the election, that the US remains ‘strongly committed to NATO, and that the security guarantees to Europe stand’. Trump had previously shaken sections of the defence and foreign policy establishment by suggesting that NATO was ‘obsolete’ and that countries such as Japan (and by extension others such as South Korea and Saudi Arabia) ‘have to pay us or we have to let them protect themselves’, which could include them acquiring the bomb. One reason why some in Washington have, in the past, not wanted their regional allies to develop their own nuclear weapons is because the US might then become dragged into an escalating conflict. Moreover, if an ally in one region seeks the bomb, this may cause others elsewhere to pursue their own capabilities- an act of strategic independence that might make these states harder to influence and control.

The US’s key relationships in East Asia and the Middle East illustrate why, if a future US President wishes to take meaningful moves towards a world free of nuclear weapons, then developing alternative regional political agreements, including strategic cooperation with China and Russia, will be necessary. As Nancy Gallagher rightly notes, the ‘weaknesses of existing international organizations’ thus requires ‘more inclusive, cooperative security institutions’ to be constructed regionally ‘to complement and someday, perhaps, to replace exclusive military alliances’, alongside progressive demilitarisation. Such confidence-building measures would also support efforts to halt missile and nuclear tests by states such as North Korea, which may soon be capable of striking the US mainland.

Imagining the next enemy

As well as mapping out the US’s current nuclear weapons policies and its regional relationships, it is important to reflect upon how domestic political dynamics under a Trump presidency might drive Washington’s behaviour internationally , particularly given the nuclear shadow that always hangs over conflicts involving the US.

For example, in the near-term, Trump’s economic plan and the great expectations amongst the American working class that

have been generated, may have particularly dangerous consequences if, as seems likely, the primary beneficiaries are the

very wealthy. Reviewing Trump’s economic plans, Martin Wolf of the Financial Times concludes that ‘the longer-term consequences are likely to be grim, not least for his angry, but fooled, supporters. Next time, they might be even angrier. Where that might lead is terrifying’. Gillian Tett has also highlighted the ‘real risks’ that Trump’s policies could ‘ spark US social unrest or geopolitical uncertainty’ . Elsewhere, George Monbiot in the Guardian, makes the stark

assertion that the inability of the US and other governments to respond effectively to public anger means he now

believes that ‘we will see war between the major powers within my lifetime’.

If these warnings weren’t troubling enough, no less a figure than Henry Kissinger argued on BBC’s Newsnight that ‘the more likely reaction’ to a Trump presidency from terror groups ‘will be to do something that evokes a reaction’ from Washington in order to ‘widen the split’ between it and Europe and damage the US’s image around the world. Given that Trump has already vowed to ‘bomb the shit out of ISIS’ and refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons against the group, it goes without saying that such a scenario could have the gravest consequences and must be avoided so that the US does not play into the terrorists’ hands.

Looking more widely, President-elect Trump’s existing and potential cabinet appointments, which Glenn Greenwald has summarised as ‘empowering…by and large…the traditional, hard, hawkish right-wing members of the Republican Party’ also point to the US engaging in future overseas conflicts, rather than the isolationism which many in the foreign policy establishment criticised Trump for proposing during the presidential campaign. William Hartung and Todd Harrison have drawn attention to the fact that defence spending under Trump could be almost $1trillion (spread over ten years) more than Obama’s most recent budget request. Such projections, alongside Trump’s election rhetoric, suggest that the new nuclear monarch will try to push wide open the door to more spending on nuclear weapons and missile defense, a situation made possible, as we have seen, by Obama’s inability to implement progressive change in this area at a time of persistent Republican obstruction.

Conclusion

The problem now, for the US and the world, is that if Trump does make good on his campaign promises then this will have several damaging consequences for international peace and security and that if Trump does not sufficiently satisfy his supporters then this will likely pour fuel on the flames at home , which may then quickly spread abroad. The people of the US and the world thus now have a huge responsibility to act as a restraining influence and ensure that the US retains an accountable, transparent and democratic government. This responsibility will only grow if crises or shocks take place in or outside the US which ambitious and extremist figures take advantage of, framing them as threats to national security in order to protect their interests and

power. If such scenarios emerge the next administration and its untried and untested President will find themselves with a range of extremely powerful tools and institutional experience at their disposal, including nuclear weapons , which may prove too tempting to resist when figuring out how to respond to widespread anger, confusion and unrest , both at home and abroad .

Trump lashes-out Foster 16 – Dennis M. Foster, Professor of International Studies and Political Science at the Virginia Military Institute, 12/19/16, “Would President Trump go to War to Divert Attention from Problems at Home?”, Washington Post, http://inhomelandsecurity.com/would-president-trump-go-to-war-to-divert-attention-from-problems-at-home/

If the U.S. economy tanks , should we expect Donald Trump to engage in a diversionary war? Since the age of Machiavelli, analysts have expected world leaders to launch international conflicts to deflect popular attention away from problems at home. By stirring up feelings of patriotism, leaders might escape the political costs of scandal, unpopularity — or a poorly performing economy.

One often-cited example of diversionary war in modern times is Argentina’s 1982 invasion of the Falklands, which several (though not all) political scientists attribute to the junta’s desire to divert the people’s attention from a disastrous economy.

In a 2014 article, Jonathan Keller and I argued that whether U.S. presidents engage in diversionary conflicts depends in part on their psychological traits — how they frame the world, process information and develop plans of

action. Certain traits predispose leaders to more belligerent behavior.

Do words translate into foreign policy action?

One way to identify these traits is content analyses of leaders’ rhetoric. The more leaders use certain types of verbal constructs, the more likely they are to possess traits that lead them to use military force.

For one, conceptually simplistic leaders view the world in “black and white ” terms ; they develop unsophisticated solutions to problems and are largely insensitive to risks. Similarly, distrustful leaders tend to exaggerate threats and rely on aggression to deal with threats. Distrustful leaders typically

favor military action and are confident in their ability to wield it effectively.

Thus, when faced with politically damaging problems that are hard to solve — such as a faltering economy — leaders who are both distrustful and simplistic are less likely to put together complex , direct responses . Instead, they develop simplistic but risky “solutions” that divert popular attention from the problem, utilizing the tools with which they are most comfortable and confident (military force).

Based on our analysis of the rhetoric of previous U.S. presidents, we found that presidents whose language appeared more simplistic and distrustful, such as Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and George W. Bush, were more likely to use force abroad in times of rising inflation and unemployment. By contrast, John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton, whose rhetoric pegged them as more complex and trusting, were less likely to do so.

What about Donald Trump?

Since Donald Trump’s election, many commentators have expressed concern about how he will react to new challenges and whether he might make quick recourse to military action. For example, the Guardian’s George Monbiot has argued that political realities will stymie Trump’s agenda, especially his promises regarding the economy. Then, rather than risk disappointing his base, Trump might try to rally public opinion to his side via military action.

I sampled Trump’s campaign rhetoric, analyzing 71,446 words across 24 events from January 2015 to December 2016. Using a program for measuring leadership traits in rhetoric, I estimated what Trump’s words may tell us about his level of distrust and conceptual complexity. The graph below shows Trump’s level of distrust compared to previous presidents.

As a candidate, Trump also scored second-lowest among presidents in conceptual complexity. Compared to earlier presidents, he used more words and phrases that indicate less willingness to see multiple dimensions or ambiguities in the decision-making environment. These include words and phrases like “absolutely,” “greatest” and “without a doubt.”

A possible implication for military action

I took these data on Trump and plugged them into the statistical model that we developed to predict major uses of force by the U nited States from 1953 to 2000. For a president of average distrust and conceptual complexity , an economic downturn only weakly predicts an increase in the use of force .

But the model would predict that a president with Trump ’s numbers would respond to even a minor economic downturn with an increase in the use of force . For example, were the misery index (aggregate inflation and unemployment) equal to 12 — about where it stood in October 2011 — the model predicts a president with Trump’s psychological traits would initiate more than one major conflict per quarter.

Of course, predictions from such a model come with a lot of uncertainty. By necessity, any measures of a president’s traits are imperfect. And we do not know whether there will be an economic downturn. Moreover, campaigning is not governing, and the responsibilities of the Oval Office might moderate Donald Trump. The psychologist Philip Tetlock has found that presidents often become more conceptually complex once they enter office.

Nevertheless, this analysis suggests some cause for concern about the international ramifications of an economic downturn with a President Trump in the White House.

Impact – Growth – A2: No Impact – No Conflict - StudiesStats go neg --- growth solves war

- GPI = global peace index- GCI = global competitive index

Dinov and Ho 13 – Associate Professor of Statistics at UCLA, PhD, Mathematics, Florida State University MS, Statistics, Florida State University; MA in finance and statistics from USC

(Ivo, “An Empirical Study on Economic Prosperity and Peace”, Spring 2013, http://www.socr.ucla.edu/docs/KaManHo_UCLA_USJ_paper_2013_text.pdf, UCLA)

Moreover, the data of GPI was expanded to additional new countries in a more rapid pace than the data of GCI each year. As a result, the number of missing values for GCI increased every year. In 20 11, there were 25 "new" countries that had their GPI score available, but not the corresponding GCI scores. The median of GPI scores (154 countries) was 1.92 while within the 25 "new" countries, 22 had their GPI scores larger than the overall median of 1.92. The average GPI score indicated that these missing values of GCI might not be at random. The new ly investigated countries tended to be less peaceful and had missing values on GCI . A missing value on GCI reflected that the country was paid less attention to in terms of competiveness . With these missing values on GCI, the Discrimination Analysis between GCI and GPI could not be performed and the positive relationship between economic prosperity and peacefulness was underestimated : if there were less missing values on GCI, the statistical evidences of the finding of the significant positive association between economic prosperity and peace would be even stronger. THE INTEGRATION OF THE DISCRIMINATION ANALYSIS AND THE LOG-LINEAR REGRESSION MODEL CONNECTED THE TWO APPROACHES In Table 5, the first column displayed

the colored labels produced by the Discrimination Analysis while the second column displayed the residuals £ produced by the Log-Linear Regression Model of all the observations (without missing values in any variables) in the year 2010. In the second column, the residuals £ were ranked in descending order in terms of absolute values. Interesting patterns can be discovered in the observation of the two columns of 92 observations: since the residuals £ were ranked in the table, the "location" of a country (top or bottom in Table 5) indicated some information about the group that the particular country belonged to. Let observation No.23 (Syria) be the 25th percentile, observation No.46 (Austria) be the 50th percentile, and observation No.69 (Belgium) be the 75th percentile. All the "red" countries located at the bottom of the table above 7th percentile. Twelve out of thirteen (92.31 %) The Discrimination Analysis was presented to complement the Log-Linear Model because of the limitation of the regression function. Inserting a regression to the data means that the connection between a particular explanatory variable and the response variable is represented by one single coefficient. However, that coefficient represents the overall trend of the data but is not necessarily representative of an individual country's data. This limitation of a regression in investigating the relationship between the explanatory variables and the response variable of an individual country gives incentives to further examine correlations for individual countries. For instance, for the 2010 data of North America, the range of the correlation between the variable GPI and GCI was -0.94 to 0.96, while the range of the correlation between GPI and exports was -0.59 to 0.95. Suppose the coefficient of GCI were 0.01 (the average of -0.94 and 0.96), then the coefficient 0.01 would be representative of the overall trend, i.e. when the coefficient for individual countries between GPI and GCI was close to 0.01. However, for countries with extreme values of coefficient (close to either -0.94 or 0.96), the value 0.01 could not be considered representative in helping to explain the relationship between GPI and GCI. Many more inconsistent relationships between variables could be found and these details given by the study of correlations suggested that a different model other than the Log-Linear Regression Model is necessary. Robert Solow's article "A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth" is known as the cornerstone of the modem Neoclassical Growth Model in which economic growth is separated into technical progress, capital, and labor (Solow, 1956). In his calculation, four-fifths of the growth in the United States output was derived by technical progress (Solow, 1956). Understanding that labor, capital, and technical process are the ingredients that generate economic growth helps to explain why the between economic prosperity and peace in the Log-Linear Model was 0.55. Under the assumption of the Neoclassical Growth Model, economic growth is driven by technology, capital, and labor, but not exogenous factors such as history, policy, and social structure that could ultimately shape the condition of peacefulness (Harberger, 2005). However, the purpose of the present study is not to argue that peace should be a new variable to be added to the Neoclassical Growth Model. Instead, it is to enhance the understanding about the interaction between economic prosperity and peace and to state a challenge to the assumptions of the Neoclassical Growth Model. In addition, the original Neoclassical Growth Theory assumed that capital was subject to diminishing returns in a closed economy. Diminishing returns implies that marginal or per-unit output of production decreases as the amount of production increases. A closed economy is a self-sufficient system without international trade or external assistance. A model capturing economic growth in a closed economy may not be sufficient for discussion of the present empirical study because in real life international trade is a significant component in the world economy. Therefore, it was necessary to take Lucas (1988) and Romer's (1991) expansion with international trade into consideration. Economic prosperity in this study was captured by the variables trade, GCI, and exportslimports as a percentage of GDP. The selection of these variables in the two approaches was justified by Lucas's finding of the positive association between exports and economic development (Lucas, 1988). The variables in the LogLinear Model were representative of the endogenous factors including labor, wage rate of labor, capital, technology, and international trade in an open economy. The underlying justification was that large amounts of exports and imports entailed correspondingly large amounts of labor, capital, and technology as long as international trade, an indicator that the Log-Linear Model was a good candidate to represent elementary components of the Neoclassical Growth Model, was present. The interaction between the explanatory variables and the response variable GPI provided helpful insights into the interaction between economic prosperity and

peace. The Log-Linear Model presented a n overall statistically significant trend between economic prosperity and peace. The Discrimination Analysis presented a further investigation between economic prosperity and peace by dividing countries into four types. The results of the

"yellow" and the "green" countries complemented the finding in the Log-Linear Model such that economic prosperity and peacefulness have a positive association, or alternatively a negative correlation between GPI and GCI. In addition, the discussions of the "red" and the "blue" countries revealed that each set of countries shared some characteristics, for instance the "red" countries tended to involve in certain armed conflicts. In this approach, the classification method, without intentionally maximizing the success rate in the analysis, fitted the evidence of similar characteristics between countries that fell into the same group. Shared characteristics, such as engagements in conflicts, could be found by further investigation among different groups of countries implied that these countries truly belonged to the same group. For example, based on the numerical values of GCI and GPI, France and the United States in 2011 were classified to be "red" countries, both of which were simultaneously involved in the armed conflict in Afghanistan. Furthermore, this classification exposed that the overall trend of the Log-Linear Model could be interpreted as four distinct groups. The four groups, i.e. four performance groups distinguished by colors,

demonstrated how economic prosperity and peace interacted with each other at a certain level of competitiveness and peacefulness. In the integration part, the "red" and the "green" countries had a tendency to have smaller values of residuals £ compared to other countries, which implied that the statistically significant variables GCI , military, and trade explained a larger proportion of peace within the "red" and the "green" countries. A small residual in a

regression indicated that the geometric distance between the point of the observation and the fitting straight line of the linear model. One common characteristic of the "red" and the "green" countries was that

they were more competitive relative to other countries with a GCI > 4.72, meaning that these economies are prosperous or would potentially become prosperous. These more

http://www.socr.ucla.edu/docs/KaManHo_UCLA_USJ_paper_2013_text.pdf

competitive economies were equipped with sufficient labor, capital, technology, population, and other endogenous elements that determined economic growth according to the mechanisms of the Neoclassical Modem Growth

Model. In the present study, these endogenous elements were represented by the variables GCI, exports, imports, and population. To compare, correlating with larger residuals £ within the "blue" countries, the endogenous forces of the growth theory explained the smaller proportion of peacefulness. In other words, the exogenous forces such as history, policy, and other factors beyond the endogenous mechanisms of

economic development played a larger role in explaining peacefulness for the "blue" countries. When the endogenous forces (for example trading and competitiveness) of the growth mechanism were more active, they contributed more in terms of explaining economic prosperity; when they were less active, the exogenous forces entered the fray and played a more important role in explaining

economic prosperity. If the exogenous forces serve as criteria that enable growth, then there should not be any discernible differences of residuals among different types of countries. Table 5 compared the color labels produced by the Discrimination Analysis and the residuals produced by the Log-Linear Model. The four colors were classified according to GCI and GPI, which reflected both endogenous and exogenous

forces. On the other hand, the residuals overwhelmingly reflected exogenous forces. The result of the integration of the two approaches showed that less competitive countries were usually attached to larger residuals. The difference in magnitude of the residuals implied that the exogenous forces ' potentially present a mechanical impact on economic prosperity. The integration result stated a fair challenge to the model Neoclassical Growth Theory's assumption that the exogenous forces do not have any mechanical impact on growth . The different residuals among various types of countries were not produced by luck because observations were classified according to the

variables GCI and GPI in magnitude instead of any random classification rules. In conclusion, this study explored the relationship that peacefulness , as a condition shaped by exogenous factors, interacted with economic growth or prosperity- there was a clear association between economic prosperity and peacefulness . Peaceful countries participated more in trading activities and achieved greater economic prosperity. The endogenous forces including trading and

competitiveness explained the larger proportion of peace in more competitive economies, while the proportion became smaller in less competitive economies. This result challenges the Neoclassical Modern Growth Theory's assumption that exogenous forces do not have any mechanical impact on growth. Moreover, this study paved the way for future research on the interactions between economic prosperity and peace and the interplay between the endogenous and exogenous factors of economic growth.

Best studiesRoyal 10 (Jedediah, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction – U.S. Department of Defense, “Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises”, 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 ma y 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 . C rises 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 s trong correlat ion 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 U nited 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.

Collapse causes nationalism and wrecks multilat---goes nuclearMerlini 11 – Cesare Merlini 11, nonresident senior fellow at the Center on the United States and Europe and chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Italian Institute for International Affairs, May 2011, “A Post-Secular World?”, Survival, Vol. 53, No. 2

Two neatly opposed scenarios for the future of the world order illustrate the range of possibilities, albeit at the risk of oversimplification. The first scenario entails the premature crumbling of the post-Westphalian system. One or more of the acute tensions apparent today evolves into an open and traditional conflict between states, perhaps even involving the use of nuclear weapons. The crisis might be triggered by a collapse of the global economic and financial system , the vulnerability of which we have just experienced, and the prospect of a second Great Depression, with consequences for peace and democracy similar to those of the first . Whatever the trigger, the unlimited exercise of national sovereignty , exclusive self-interest and rejection of outside interference would self-interest and rejection of outside interference would likely be amplified, empty ing , perhaps entirely, the half-full glass of multilateralism, including the UN and the European Union. Many of the more likely conflicts, such as between Israel and Iran or India and Pakistan, have potential religious dimensions. Short of war, tensions such as those related to immigration might become unbearable. Familiar issues of creed and identity could be exacerbated. One way or another, the secular rational approach would be sidestepped by a return to theocratic absolutes , competing or converging with secular absolutes such as unbridled nationalism.

Impact – Growth – A2: Doesn’t Solve – Too SmallCorporate reform likely even if other components get stalled – it avoids most difficult budget issues Silvia, 17 --- John, Chief Economist @ Wells Fargo Securities, 1/3, http://image.mail1.wf.com/lib/fe8d13727664027a7c/m/1/115th-Congress-20160103.pdf?utm_source=SFMC&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=&utm_content=&utm_term=7230679&sid=44116


spending, immigration reform, trade policy reconfiguration and regulatory changes. This laundry list of potential policy changes raises two overarching questions: how politically feasible are each of these ideas , and what potential impacts could they

have on different sectors of the economy? In this report, we will explore each of these key issues and provide a general overview of what we think is most likely to become law over the next couple of years. In general, our view is that there is a path by which Congress can quickly enact some of these policies , while others will take time to work through budgetary and procedural processes.

The most likely policy changes to occur relatively quickly are a federal budget for the rest of federal fiscal year

2017 and the upcoming 2018 fiscal year, a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, some form of corporate and individual tax reform and

changes to trade policy. Other policy areas, such as infrastructure spending, immigration reform and regulatory changes, are likely to play out over time and may take longer than markets and some commentators currently anticipate. Our baseline economic forecast includes a slight boost to defense spending for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 but does not include any other policy changes at this time. It is clear that there are a wide range of possible fiscal policy outcomes, which has made forecasting such economic outcomes challenging. We will make changes to our baseline forecast when the policy debates unfold to a point where we

can evaluate the aggregate economic impact of specific, concrete pieces of legislation. Cont… Corporate Tax Reform: A Potomac Two Step? The U nited S tates’ top statutory corporate income tax rate is the highest among its OECD peers (Figure 5), which has led corporate tax reform to be a popular topic for several years, in some cases with bipartisan support . C orporate income ta xes comprise a much smaller share of federal revenues than the individual side of the tax system, which makes the fiscal realities of a tax cut a bit easier on the corporate side (Figure 6). As a result , we believe that at least some form of a corporate tax cut is likely to get done during the next 12 months. Other key changes may take more time. There are some differences between President-elect Trump’s tax plan and the plan developed in the House of

Representatives led by Speaker Paul Ryan known as “A Better Way.” While it is difficult to pin down exactly what the final corporate tax reform package will look like, we expect the tax rates and policy changes to look more like the “A Better Way” plan. So what are the key

corporate tax provisions of the House GOP plan? First, the plan would reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent and cap taxes on pass-through businesses, or firms taxed under the individual tax code, at a maximum rate of 25 percent.

In addition, the plan would institute a repatriation rate of deferred foreign income of 8.75 percent on cash and cashequivalent profits and 3.5 percent on other profits. The other reforms proposed include allowing for full expensing of capital investments in equipment, structures and inventories and eliminating the tax deduction for interest on new borrowing. 3 The plan would also setup a border adjustability tax that would allow businesses to exclude receipts from exports but disallow any deductions for imports. Another key provision would shift the corporate tax code to a destination-based tax system where U.S.

multinational corporations would be exempt from tax on both domestic and foreign income generated overseas but still taxed on any production for U.S. consumption. Of all these tax policy proposals, we see the lower tax rates on corporate and pass-through entities as well as the lower repatriation rate as the most likely to be enacted quickly . The other elements

of the plan are likely to face uphill battles given the number of firms that rely on interest deductibility and those firms that rely heavily on imports, such as

retailers. In addition, the proposal to move to a border adjustment tax may face some challenges by the World Trade Organization. 4 Just as the budget reconciliation process could be employed for an ACA repeal, it could also be used to push through corporate and/or individual tax cuts/reforms. It is expected that at least some of these reforms/cuts will be passed in 2017 in one of the two reconciliation processes. There is, however, one other option to ram through tax policy (or other policy) changes: invoking what is known on Capitol Hill as the “nuclear option.” Essentially the rules of the Senate could be modified to remove the 60-vote threshold for legislation thus allowing for the passage of tax cuts/reforms or even health care reform. This would clearly be a last resort and would be a dramatic departure from Senate tradition but could happen if the Senate Parliamentarian interpreting the

rules of the chamber does not allow many of the proposed policy changes through the budget reconciliation process. In short, we see corporate tax cuts as the most likely immediate policy change and, in fact, early indications from the Trump transition team suggest that corporate tax policy

changes are likely to occur in two steps.5 The remaining tax policy proposals will likely take more time and face tougher political battles .

Impact – Growth – A2: Doesn’t Solve – BTA KeyTax cuts solve without border adjustmentMcIntosh, 1/31 --- David, Club For Growth President, Quoted in Newsmax, http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/david-mcintosh-club-for-growth-border-adjustment-tax-tax-breaks/2017/01/31/id/771346/

Yes to Tax Breaks, No to B order A djustment T ax Congress has to move quickly to give Americans the tax breaks President Donald Trump has promised — and should "just skip " the GOP's proposed

border adjustment tax , Club for Growth president David McIntosh told Newsmax TV. In an interview Tuesday on "America Talks Live" with host J.D. Hayworth, McIntosh, a former Indiana lawmaker, argued "Republicans aren't the party of raising taxes."

"We're not used to the [border adjustment tax] or any of these hidden taxes," he said, urging Congress to "just go straight for the tax cuts that Trump won the election with." See J.D. Hayworth on Newsmax TV: Tune in beginning at 1 PM ET to see "America Talks Live" — on FiOS 615, YouTube Livestream, Newsmax TV App from any smartphone, NewsmaxTV.com, Roku, Amazon Fire — More Systems Here The border adjustment tax is included in "A Better Way" package proposed by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady and House Speaker Paul Ryan, along with a call for a

reduction of the federal corporate rate from 35 percent to 20 percent. "My concern is that this is a brand new tax that is a hidden tax, but eventually the people that pay for it are middle Americans who go shopping anywhere," McIntosh said. "Because essentially what this tax would say is anything that comes into the country that is sold, you pay roughly a 20 percent sales

tax on it." "Almost everything we buy, the prices will go up," he added. "So, it's not a tax on our trading partners or on foreign

countries, it's a tax that Americans pay." McIntosh said the new Congress cannot wait too long to cut taxes. " They've got to pick up and be serious about these tax cuts and get them done in the first six,

eight months of this new Congress," he said. "Otherwise it gets bogged down in Washington business as usual and politics . . . That's another reason why I think they should just skip this new tax."

Impact – Growth – A2: Plan Key Econ

Our internal link is bigger

1. Impacts LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE SECTOR in short term – massively outweighsTerrell, 16 --- Dalton, Bureau Labor and Statistics, former Economist, in the Division of Occupational Employment Projections, Office of Employment and Unemployment Statistics, US Bureau Labor and statistics, may, https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-5/pdf/the-high-tech-industry-what-is-it-and-why-it-matters-to-our-economic-future.pdfThe high-tech industry, what is it and why it matters to our economic future cont… High-tech industries accounted for 16.9 million jobs in 2014, or 12.0 percent of total employment . (See chart 1.) From 1994 to 2024, the share of employment in high-tech industries has stayed within a narrow range of 11.3 percent to 12.1 percent. Notable during this period was the impact of the two recessions, the dot-com bubble recession of 2001, and the Great Recession of 2007–09.4 High-tech employment fell from 12.1 percent of all jobs in 2001 to 11.3 percent in 2004, a decline of 1.1 million jobs, as the high-tech sector was harder hit by the bursting of the dot-com bubble and its aftermath than other sectors of the economy. Non-high-tech industries lost 689,000 jobs between 2001 and 2002, but recovered the lost jobs by 2004. During the Great Recession, however, the opposite trends played out: the high-tech sector share of total employment grew from 11.4 percent In terms of output, high-tech industries contributed $7.1 trillion in 2014, accounting for 22.8 percent of total output, down slightly from an all-time high of 23.3 percent in 2011. The high-tech share of output remained relatively constant between 20 percent and 21 percent from 1994–2006, aside

from a slight increase right before the dot-com recession of 2001. However, the high-tech share of output has been at a higher level since the Great Recession , remaining close to 23 percent since 2010. From 2014 to 2024, the high-tech sector is projected to gain 691,000 jobs as it grows at a slightly lower than average rate, resulting in an 11.7-percent share of total employment in 2024. Output is projected to grow by $2.4 trillion, in line with the overall

economy, as the high-tech sector maintains its share of output at 22.9 percent. High-tech subsectors In 2014, high-tech services industries accounted for 52.6 percent of high-tech employment, compared with just 17.0 percent in high-tech manufacturing industries . (See chart 2.)5 The dominance of high-tech services industries is a relatively recent phenomenon: in 1994, high-tech services were only

slightly larger than high-tech manufacturing industries. However, over the past 20 years , high-tech services industries grew by 3.4 million jobs, while high tech manufacturing industries declined by 1.0 million jobs. In projections to 2024, this trend is expected to continue , with high-tech services industries adding 1.0 million jobs and high-tech manufacturing losing 212,000. This growth will take the high-tech services share of all high-tech employment up to 56.4 percent . High-tech industries are an essential part of the U.S. economy , providing about 12 percent of all jobs but producing almost 23 percent of output . Although they were hit harder by the 2000–01 recession, they were largely insulated from the effects of the 2007‒09 recession.

While overall high-tech employment has remained relatively stable as a share of total employment, the high-tech sector has seen dramatic shifts from manufacturing to services, which now account for 52.6 percent of all high-tech employment , and is projected to increase to 56.4 percent by 2024.

2. Best studies prove unique sensitivity to corporate tax rates – causes investment and jobs to stagnate – cuts key

Edwards, 15 --- Chris, Director of Tax Policy, Cato Institute, White Paper, https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/policy-priorities-white-paper-114th-congress-update.pdf#page=49


C orporate t ax r eform is important because corporate investment is a major driver of investment and innovation in the U.S. economy . High corporate tax rates reduce the incentive to build new factories and buy new business equipment. If investment is suppressed , economic growth will slow, fewer jobs will be created , and wages will stagnate . Globalization has increased the power of corporate taxes to drive investment . As industries have become more mobile , international competition to attract investment has increased . Unfortunately, America has been sitting on its hands while other nations have slashed their tax rates. America has the highest general corporate tax rate in the world at 40 percent, which includes the federal rate plus the average state rate. The

average global rate is now just 24 percent, according to KPMG. A large body of academic research confirms that corporate investments and reported profits are sensitive to differences in international tax rates. And frequent news stories highlight the movement of investment and profits to lower-tax countries such as Ireland. By retaining a high tax rate, America is shooting itself in the foot . U .S. businesses and workers lose , but so does the government, because the corporate tax base is being eroded by our high rate .

3. That means any jobs and investment created by the aff are offshored – causes inversions denying benefit to US – corporate tax cuts are prerequisite to access foreign markets – that’s vital

Edwards, 15 --- Chris, Director of Tax Policy, Cato Institute, White Paper, https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/policy-priorities-white-paper-114th-congress-update.pdf#page=49


tax rate and a territorial system, so the U .S. company will be at a disadvantage and may lose sales . That is important for the U.S. economy because domestic jobs depend on U.S. corporations succeeding in foreign markets . As U.S. firms expand abroad, they tend to boost exports from their U.S. operations, and they tend to employ more high-paid people in headquarters-related activities , such as management, marketing, and research. By adopting a territorial tax system and a lower tax rate, policymakers would make the United States a better place for corporations to locate their headquarters, to build factories, and to hire high-skilled workers. All this points to the need for Congress to slash the corporate tax rate. The first step should be a simple rate cut from 35 to 25 percent. That step would probably not lose the federal

government any revenue over the long run, as discussed below. The second step should be to cut the rate further to 15 percent. This second step should be matched with reductions to unjustified tax breaks and with spending cuts.

4. Otherwise decline in competitiveness is structurally inevitableEngler, ’13 --- John, Governor of Michigan, et al, Business Roundtable, “Corporate Tax Reform—The Time Is Now,” Submission to the House Committee on Ways and Means, Tax Reform Working Groups, 4—15—13, p. 11-15.

Global trade and investment is increasingly important to world economies The growing global interconnections of the world’s economies are evident in our daily life. Global trade has increased from 19 percent of world output in 1980 to 29 percent in 2011. Global cross-border investment has increased even more rapidly, rising from 5 percent of world output in 1980 to 31 percent in 2011 (Exhibit 5). The United States also has increased participation in global markets over this period, expanding both trade and foreign direct investment relative to U.S. GDP (Exhibit 6): Exports of goods and services have increased to an average of 13.3 percent of GDP in 2010–12, up from an average of 8.4 percent of GDP in the 1980s.20 The share of total corporate earnings from abroad has increased to an average of 34.3 percent in 2010–12, up from an average of 16.7 percent in the 1980s.21 Foreign direct investment by American companies has increased to an average of 31.3 percent of GDP in 2010–11 (the two most recent years for which data are available), up from an average of 9.9 percent of GDP in the 1980s.22 U.S. share of world

exports and foreign investment is in decline Despite the increased importance of foreign markets to the U.S. economy, American companies have not kept pace with expanding global markets . In 2011, exports from the United States accounted for about 9.4 percent of world exports, down from 17 percent in 1960. U.S. outward investment as a share of worldwide crossborder investment has declined even more significantly. In 2011, outward foreign direct investment from the United States accounted for about 21 percent of global cross-

border investment, down from 39 percent in 1980 (Exhibit 7). With American companies responsible for a smaller share of world exports and cross-border investment , the U.S. economy is losing its share of the global marketplace to foreign competitors . American companies account for a declining share of

the Global Fortune 500. The declining relative importance of American companies in the world economy also is reflected in the rankings of the largest companies in the world. In 1960, American companies comprised 17 of the top 20 global companies ranked by sales. In 2012, the latest data show just five American companies in the top 20.23 Among the companies listed in the Global Fortune 500, the number of U.S.-headquartered companies declined 26 percent between 2000 and 2012, from 179 to 132. The countries with the largest number of additions to the top 500 global companies over this period were the socalled BRICs: China added 63, India added seven, and Brazil and Russia each added five (Exhibit 8). In 2012, China was second to the United States in the number of companies in the top 500, up from 14th in 1995. Growth of the emerging market economies will continue to offer new markets for Americanproduced goods and services — 95 percent of the world’s population growth is forecast to be in emerging markets, with increasing spending by their middle-class populations relative to developed countries. 24 Goldman Sachs estimates that within the next 10 years emerging market economies in aggregate will be as large as industrialized economies.25 American companies compete in these emerging markets with both locally headquartered companies as well as multinational companies headquartered in other developed countries. Within the OECD, 93 percent of the non-U.S. companies in the Global Fortune 500 in 2012 are headquartered in countries that use more favorable territorial tax systems, and all have a lower home-country corporate tax rate. 26 Reflecting the increasing use of territorial systems around the world, in 1995 only 27 percent of the non-U.S. OECD companies in the Global Fortune

500 were headquartered in territorial countries. This heightened world competition makes U.S. corporate tax policy more important than ever . American companies require an internationally competitive tax system to compete on a level playing field with their most advanced competitors from around the world in markets at home and abroad . Wherever American companies compete abroad, they are virtually certain to be competing against foreign companies with more favorable tax rules . Corporate tax rules that hinder the competitiveness of American companies disadvantage American workers and impede the strength of the U.S. economy.

Impact---Competitiveness

critical to competitiveness---current tax system encourages offshoring David Williams 7/6, journalist for Morning Consult, 7/06/17, “Wanted: Bipartisan Tax Reform,” https://morningconsult.com/opinions/wanted-bipartisan-tax-reform/

Meanwhile, American businesses are struggling to remain competitive in a rapidly expanding global marketplace thanks to a tax code that seems determined to hold them back . Between the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world and an outdated worldwide tax system that can subject a company’s foreign earnings to double taxation, the United States continues to fall further behind its competitors, inhibiting economic and job growth here at home along the way. In the meantime, those same competitors are going above and beyond to bring new businesses to their shores – unfortunately, that includes American businesses.

It’s not too late to reverse course through permanent, comprehensive tax reform. Streamlining and simplifying the tax code will allow taxpayers to keep more money in their pockets . By lowering the corporate tax rate more in line with the worldwide average of 25 percent and switching to the more prevalent territorial system, the U nited States can make up lost ground .

Impact---Tech Industry/Heg

Tax reform is the only way to save the tech industry and preserve tech leadership---innovation and investment encourage startup creation and spur R&DLinda Moore 6/14, president and CEO of TechNet, a national bipartisan network of technology executives, 6/14/17, “Tax reform could create 5 million jobs,” http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tax-reform-could-create-5-million-jobs/article/2625524

The United States can create 5 million new jobs over the next five years if our nation puts in place an innovation agenda that includes business tax reform.

That's according to a groundbreaking study that demonstrates startups are sprouting up across the country, both in traditional technology hubs as well as 25 "Next in Tech" cities.

Despite the challenging political environment, Congress and the White House have a window of opportunity to act . If we get tax reform right, it will jumpstart dynamic growth and job creation in our nation. If we fail to act, it puts in jeopardy America's tech nology leadership around the world and the creation of good-paying jobs here at home.

America's corporate tax system is broken, posing a long-term threat to investment, innovation, and job creation in the United States. The U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world – higher than France, Brazil, Venezuela, and dozens of other nations. As a consequence, there are $3 trillion in earnings from U.S. companies locked overseas that otherwise could be invested in the American economy . This makes no sense. Our tax laws should encourage investment here at home.

The last major overhaul of our nation's tax code was in 1986 when many of today's leading technology companies were just in their infancy or did not exist at all. Our tax system was built for a different age. That's why it is so imperative that we build a system for the modern era, one that encourages innovation from dynamic startups and iconic companies alike.

Here are a few things the reforms should accomplish:

Encourage startup creation – Startups are our nation's job engine. High-growth startups create jobs faster than traditional companies, and many of these jobs pay well above median wages. We are seeing the creation of a new wave of jobs that blend traditional industries with high-tech skills. This could be a "junior merchandiser" near Cleveland that helps curate on-trend looks for an e-commerce website, or it could be a "laundry facility assistant" at an on-demand dry cleaner in Charlotte. If we want to create more good-paying jobs across the country, we must do all we can to make it is easier for startups to grow.

Support Research & Development (R&D) – If startups are the source of job creation in our nation, then R&D is the foundation for innovation. In 2015, America spent a record $500 billion on research and development, 69% of which came from the private sector. But there's no

guarantee that these dollars will remain in our country . Other nations are rolling out the red carpet for American businesses to establish innovation centers abroad because they want a larger piece of the R&D pie. That's why it is imperative that our tax code continues to prioritize R&D investment in the United States.

Ensure that intellectual property is both created and commercialized in the U.S. – Europe is in the midst of a concerted campaign to unfairly target American companies and steer more tax revenue into their treasuries. If we do not act, American companies that operate abroad will continue to be targeted, causing irreparable harm to the U.S. tax base and our overall economy.

So, what should be done? To spur dynamic growth, support innovation, and encourage job creation, the United States should lower its corporate tax rate to ensure that American companies can compete on a level playing field with competitors across the globe. This would encourage the risk-taking associated with startups and help the most successful businesses put more money back into jobs, research and development, and growth here in the United States.

Beyond that, American businesses should be able to bring home the $3 trillion that is locked overseas so it can be invested in the U.S. economy. Additionally, we must preserve and enhance the research and development tax credit, which is the cornerstone of U.S. innovation. Finally, we must update our rules governing intellectual property in a way that creates incentives for R&D, job creation, and services to remain in the U.S., rather than fly abroad.

There is no doubt that tax reform is difficult, particularly in today's climate. But this issue is too important to put off. Congress should move forward in putting together legislation to modernize our tax code so we can encourage businesses to create jobs here at home and ensure our nation remains the global leader in innovation.

Tech competitiveness key to US hegemony.Martino, ‘7

(Rocco, Senior Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, A Strategy for Success: Innovation Will Renew American Leadership, Orbis, Volume 51, Issue 2)

Much of the foreign policy discussion in the United States today is focused upon the dilemma posed by the Iraq War and the threat posed by Islamist terrorism. These problems are, of course, both immediate and important. However, America also faces other

challenges to its physical security and economic prosperity, and these are more long-term and probably more profound. There is,

first, the threat posed by our declining competitiveness in the global economy, a threat most obviously represented by such rising economic powers as China and India.1 There is, second, the threat posed by our increasing dependence on oil imports from the Middle East. Moreover, these two threats are increasingly connected, as China and India themselves are

greatly increasing their demand for Middle East oil.2 The United States of course faced great challenges to its security and economy in the past, most obviously from Germany and Japan in the first half of the twentieth century and from the Soviet Union in the second half. Crucial to America's ability to prevail over these past challenges was our technological and industrial leadership, and especially our ability to

continuously recreate it. Indeed, the United States has been unique among great powers in its ability to keep on creating and

recreating new technologies and new industries, generation after generation. Perpetual innovation and technological

leadership might even be said to be the American way of maintaining primacy in world affairs . They are almost certainly what America will have to pursue in order to prevail over the contemporary challenges involving economic

competitiveness and energy dependence. There is therefore an urgent need for America to resume its historic

emphasis on innovation. The United States needs a national strategy focused upon developing new technologies and creating new industries. Every successful strategy must define an objective or mission, determine a solution, and assemble the means of execution. In this case, the objective is economic superiority; the solution is new industries which build upon the contemporary revolution in information technology; and the means of execution will have to include a partnership of industry, government, and people.3

Failed US leadership causes extinction—no alternative to hegemonyBrzezinski ‘12

Zbigniew K. Brzezinski - CSIS counselor and trustee and cochairs the CSIS Advisory Board, holds honorary degrees from Georgetown University, Williams College, Fordham University, College of the Holy Cross, Alliance College, the Catholic University of Lublin, Warsaw University, and Vilnius University. He is the recipient of numerous honors and awards) February 2012 “After America” http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/03/after_america?page=0,0

For if America falters, the world is unlikely to be dominated by a single preeminent successor -- not even China. International

uncertainty, increased tension among global competitors, and even outright chaos would be far more likely outcomes. While a sudden, massive crisis of the American system -- for instance, another financial crisis -- would produce a fast-

moving chain reaction leading to global political and economic disorder, a steady drift by America into increasingly

pervasive decay or endlessly widening warfare with Islam would be unlikely to produce, even by 2025, an effective global successor. No single power will be ready by then to exercise the role that the world, upon the fall of the Soviet Union in

1991, expected the United States to play: the leader of a new, globally cooperative world order. More probable would be a protracted phase of rather inconclusive realignments of both global and regional power , with no grand winners and many more losers , in a setting of international uncertainty and even of potentially fatal risks to global well-being . Rather than a world where dreams of democracy flourish, a Hobbesian world of enhanced national security based on varying fusions of authoritarianism, nationalism, and religion could ensue. RELATED 8

Geopolitically Endangered Species The leaders of the world's second-rank powers, among them India, Japan, Russia, and

some European countries, are already assessing the potential impact of U.S. decline on their respective national interests. The Japanese, fearful of an assertive China dominating the Asian mainland, may be thinking of closer links with Europe. Leaders in India and Japan may be considering closer political and even military cooperation in case America falters and

China rises. Russia, while perhaps engaging in wishful thinking (even schadenfreude) about America's uncertain prospects, will almost certainly have its eye on the independent states of the former Soviet Union. Europe , not

yet cohesive, would likely be pulled in several directions: Germany and Italy toward Russia because of commercial interests, France and insecure Central Europe in favor of a politically tighter European Union, and Britain toward manipulating a

balance within the EU while preserving its special relationship with a declining United States. Others may move more rapidly to carve out their own regional spheres: Turkey in the area of the old Ottoman Empire, Brazil in the

Southern Hemisphere, and so forth. None of these countries, however, will have the requisite combination of economic, financial, technological, and military power even to consider inheriting America's leading role. China, invariably mentioned as America's prospective successor, has an impressive imperial lineage and a strategic tradition of carefully calibrated patience, both of which have been critical to its overwhelmingly successful, several-thousand-year-long history. China thus prudently accepts the existing international system, even if it does not view the prevailing hierarchy as permanent. It recognizes that success depends not on the system's dramatic collapse but on its

evolution toward a gradual redistribution of power. Moreover, the basic reality is that China is not yet ready to assume in full America's role in the world. Beijing's leaders themselves have repeatedly emphasized that on every important

measure of development, wealth, and power, China will still be a modernizing and developing state several decades from now, significantly behind not only the United States but also Europe and Japan in the major per capita indices of modernity and national power. Accordingly, Chinese leaders have

been restrained in laying any overt claims to global leadership. At some stage, however, a more assertive Chinese nationalism could arise and damage China's international interests. A swaggering, nationalistic Beijing would unintentionally mobilize a powerful regional coalition against itself. None of China's key neighbors -- India, Japan, and Russia -- is ready to acknowledge China's entitlement to America's place on the

global totem pole. They might even seek support from a waning America to offset an overly assertive China. The resulting regional scramble could become intense , especially given the similar nationalistic tendencies among China's neighbors. A phase of acute international tension in Asia could ensue . Asia of the 21st century could then begin to resemble Europe of the 20th century -- violent and bloodthirsty . At the same time, the security of a number of weaker states located

geographically next to major regional powers also depends on the international status quo reinforced by America's global preeminence -- and would be made significantly more vulnerable in proportion to America's decline. The

states in that exposed position -- including Georgia, Taiwan, South Korea, Belarus, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, and the greater Middle East -- are today's geopolitical equivalents of nature's most endangered

species. Their fates are closely tied to the nature of the international environment left behind by a waning America, be it ordered and restrained or, much more likely, self-serving and expansionist. A faltering United States could also find its strategic partnership with Mexico in jeopardy. America's economic resilience and political stability have so far mitigated many of the challenges posed by such

sensitive neighborhood issues as economic dependence, immigration, and the narcotics trade. A decline in American power, however, would likely undermine the health and good judgment of the U.S. economic and political systems. A waning U nited S tates would likely be more nationalistic , more defensive about its national identity, more paranoid about its homeland security, and less willing to sacrifice resources for the sake of others' development. The worsening of relations between a declining America and an internally troubled Mexico could even give rise to a particularly ominous phenomenon: the emergence, as a major issue in

nationalistically aroused Mexican politics, of territorial claims justified by history and ignited by cross-border incidents. Another consequence of American decline could be a corrosion of the generally cooperative management of the global commons -- shared interests such as sea lanes , space, cyberspace, and the environment , whose protection is imperative to the long-term growth of the global economy and the continuation of basic geopolitical stability. In almost every case, the potential absence of a constructive and influential U .S. role would fatally undermine the essential communality of the global commons because the superiority and ubiquity of American power creates order where there would normally be conflict. None of this will necessarily come to pass. Nor is the concern that America's decline would generate global insecurity, endanger some vulnerable states, and produce a more troubled North American neighborhood an argument for U.S. global supremacy. In fact, the strategic complexities of the world in the 21st century make such supremacy unattainable. But those dreaming today of America's collapse would probably come to regret it. And

as the world after America would be increasingly complicated and chaotic, it is imperative that the United States pursue a new, timely strategic vision for its foreign policy -- or start bracing itself for a dangerous slide into global turmoil.

Impact---Tech Industry

Repatriation and a lower rate are essential to tech competitiveness. Ross 4/27 - Michaela Ross, Journalist for Bloomberg BNA, 4/27/17("Trump Tax Plan Checks Tech Boxes," published by BNA Bloomberg, Available online at https://www.bna.com/trump-tax-plan-n57982087250/, Accessed 7/9/2017, AJ)

President Donald Trump is championing several tech industry priorities in his tax plan , but not a border-adjusted tax that has sparked criticism from the sector.

The White House unveiled a plan April 26 that would slash the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent. The plan also includes a one-time tax cut to repatriate the more than $2 trillion in profits U.S. companies, including Alphabet Inc.'s Google and Apple Inc., are stockpiling abroad.

The proposal is the opening bid in what promises to be a lengthy debate over revamping the tax code. The tech sector is looking to prospective tax legislation as a potential area of common ground with Trump after his early moves to crack down on immigration and pull out of trade deals that contained provisions they backed.

Tech companies are among the top lobbying clients around tax issues, according to Bloomberg Government data. Oracle Corp., Intuit Inc. and Microsoft Corp. were among the most active filers on tax issues across all industries in the first quarter of 2017. The companies each spent between about $130,000 to $500,000 respectively on lobbying efforts on such issues in that quarter alone.

Tech groups such as ACT |The App Association and the Consumer Technology Association (CTA),

which represents companies such as Apple Inc. and Facebook Inc., are likely to keep pushing for both a lower corporate rate and repatriation , which they say will encourage domestic investment by U.S. tech companies.

Trump did not propose a border tax on imported goods. Tech trade groups have been wary of the border-adjustment tax idea, championed by House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), saying it may increase the cost of electronics and goods produced abroad for U.S. consumers and businesses.

Trump’s proposal aligns tech companies and the president’s goals for a more competitive U.S. economy, Tiffany Moore, CTA’s vice president of congressional affairs, told Bloomberg BNA.

‘Great Potential’

“There’s great potential given that you have a Republican White House and a Republican Congress that are all committed to

corporate tax reform and broader tax reform,” Moore said. “There’s definitely an opportunity to make U.S. companies more competitive.”

Apart from a corporate tax cut, tech trade groups have also supported Trump’s plan to allow company profits earned overseas to be repatriated at a lower rate than the current 35 percent . U.S.

companies, including several global tech giants, have kept profits from overseas sales abroad in order to avoid paying U.S. taxes on the earnings. Unlike most developed nations, the U.S. taxes a company’s global earnings, not just those earned from domestic sales.

Trump’s plan would allow a one-time tax cut for funds brought back to the U.S. Administration officials U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn declined to specify the rate during an April 26 press conference. Mnuchin said the White House was finalizing a rate with Congress, and that “it will be a very competitive rate that will bring back

trillions of dollars.” Bloomberg Government previously reported that White House officials had outlined a 10 percent repatriation tax rate.

Tech trade groups are looking for a win-win deal from a one-time repatriation tax plan. CTA

president Gary Shapiro has encouraged funds from the tax to be funneled to infrastructure projects or an infrastructure bank. That’s an appealing idea to an industry that’s lobbying for any infrastructure package to include build out for broadband to support the next generation of wireless and internet technologies.

A one-time cash infusion from overseas profits into U.S. companies would also benefit small and mid-sized tech companies, said Morgan Reed, president of ACT | The App Association. A wave of repatriated profits could fund venture capital investments and acquisitions of smaller players and app developers whose success depends on larger tech companies such as Apple.

“Repatriation reform that benefits big tech companies can spark significant downstream investments for small app companies because their success is so intimately intertwined ,” Reed told Bloomberg BNA.

The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) called for the White House to support tax credits for research and development and allowing companies to deduct the costs of investment of new software and equipment, the nonprofit technology think tank said in a statement.

Mnuchin said Trump’s tax plan would also establish a territorial system, where U.S. companies would pay tax “on income related to the U.S.” Tech trade groups such as ITI, which represents companies including

Google and Amazon.com Inc., have supported a territorial system that allows businesses to be taxed where earnings occur. Companies would then avoid paying taxes on overseas profits to both the county where they were earned and the U.S.

Tax reform is key to tech and pharma companies---trillions used to pay down debt---they are the biggest beneficiaries of reform Jeff Cox 7/13, finance editor for CNBC.com where he manages coverage of the financial markets and Wall Street. His stories are routinely among the most-read items on the site each day as he interviews some of the smartest and most well-respected analysts and advisors in the financial world, 7/13/17, “Companies have big plans for trillions in overseas cash — if tax reform ever happens,” http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/13/companies-have-big-plans-foroverseas-cash--if-tax-reform-ever-happens.html

U.S. companies in line to bring home trillions in cash stored overseas would use the windfall primarily to pay down debt , return cash to shareholders and do deals, according to a survey released this week.

A central part of President Donald Trump's tax reform plan is to allow companies to repatriate profit earned abroad without having to pay the highest -in-the-world corporate tax rate . Estimates are that U.S. firms are holding about $2.5 trillion in cash abroad.

If tax reform is passed and the overseas cash gets taxed at a much lower rate, 65 percent of companie s say they would pay down debt , according to the 2017 Bank of America Merrill Lynch Corporate Risk Management Survey. American business debt stood at $13.7 trillion through the first half of 2017, according to the Federal Reserve.

After paying down debt, the next most likely use at 46 percent is share repurchases, followed by mergers and acquisitions and only then capital expenditures. [The figures do not add to 100 percent because BofAML instructed recipients to check all uses that would apply.]

Opponents of the repatriation plan worry that instead of dedicating the money to equipment, workers and research and development, companies will spend most of the cash on shareholders. That's what happened the last time the government gave a break on overseas profits in 2004. Back then, the biggest recipients not only shoveled the cash back to investors but also in many cases cut jobs.

A tax reform proposal earlier this year from the Trump administration was short on details. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said then that the plan would include "a very competitive rate that will bring back trillions of dollars."

However, BofAML credit strategists say companies may not wait until the administration finally pushes its tax plan through Congress. Some companies may wish to use commercial paper or lines of credit to start cutting debt costs before the expected new corporate tax rates and removal of interest deductions make current high-coupon debt undesirable.

The firm believes tech nology and pharma companies, with their high levels of debt, will be the biggest beneficiaries of tax breaks for overseas cash. Those sectors also received the most benefits in the 2004 repatriation.

Tax reform is critical to boost the tech industry---tax cuts and corporate tax reform proveBill Gunderson 7/5, CEO and Chief Market Strategist of Gunderson Capital Management, 7/5/17, “The Impact That Tax Reform Would Have On Companies Like Facebook,” https://seekingalpha.com/article/4085838-impact-tax-reform-companies-like-facebook

The technology stocks are watching the healthcare debate as a proxy for the big debate that will follow. Not that healthcare is not an important debate, but tax reform is the cherry that the tech nology stocks are looking forward too .

It stands to reason that the companies that make the most money, stand to gain the most from a healthy tax cut. As a group, the technology stocks make the most money .

Consider that Facebook is expected to make about $20 billion in pre-tax earnings this year on about $40 billion in sales . That works out to a whopping pre-tax profit margin of about 50%. I know that it sounds obscene, but it does not sound so obscene if you are a shareholder in the stock.

Now consider that the U.S. currently has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. With a 39.5% (includes state and local) corporate tax rate, the only country higher than us is Japan, at a whopping 41% rate (also including state and local taxes).

Impact---A2 Revenue Neutral Bad

Large frontloaded will pass and key to growth---Revenue Neutrality bad claims don’t assume massive loopholesDaniel Clifton et al 7/6, DC based policy analyst focused on the interaction of policy/politics with the economy/financial markets. Seeking to chart all policy related events, head of policy research at Strategas, 7/6/17, “How Tax Reform Is Likely to Pan Out,” http://www.cetusnews.com/business/How-Tax-Reform-Is-Likely-to-Pan-Out.HyxUwt5jVZ.html






MAIN POINTS


2. Once the reconciliation instruction is developed, we will have a good idea of the parameters that Congress is dealing with, which allows us to handicap the potential outcomes for tax reform. The reconciliation provision that will get the most attention from investors is whether the measure is “revenue neutral,” “deficit neutral,” or allocates a specific amount to increase the deficit. For example, President Bush’s 2003 tax cut allowed Congress to increase the deficit by $350 billion over 10 years and still qualify for reconciliation protection.







8. Moreover, Congress is likely to change the Congressional Budget Office ( CBO) baseline which is used to measure whether a tax cut is revenue neutral. Specifically, Congress is likely to direct the CBO to assume any temporary tax cut in place today to be permanent in the baseline used to measure revenue neutrality. This generates an additional $500 billion over the next 10 years. Budget experts call this a shift from a current law to a current policy baseline.




Tax reform will be deficit-neutral instead of revenue neutral---most recent developments proveVeronique de Rugy 7/12, senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, 7/12/17, “The Border-Adjustment Tax, Tariffs, and More WTO Questions,” http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/449380/republicans-border-adjustment-tax-tariffs-foreign-imports

The Wall Street Journal has an article about the meetings taking place on tax reform and the problems that participants are trying to solve. According to the article, “the resulting bill is most likely going to be deficit-neutral, [says a] senior White House official .” If this is correct, it means that Speaker Paul Ryan and House Ways and Means chairman Kevin Brady have finally moved away from their misguided plan to make tax reform revenue neutral by having tax cuts offset by tax increases.

Tax reform will be deficit neutral---republicans have an incentive to bypass PAYGO and the Byrd ruleAdam Michel 7/10, Policy Analyst in the Thomas A. Roe Institute, 7/10/17, “A Pathway for Pro-Growth, Fiscally Responsible Tax Reform,” http://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/pathway-pro-growth-fiscally-responsible-tax-reform

Two rules pose a potential threat to tax reform in the Senate if the proposed package increased deficits: the pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rule and the Byrd rule.

The Senate pay-as-you-go rule requires that any legislation that decreases revenues must also include spending cuts, revenue increases, or a combination of the two to remain deficit neutral.

The Senate can waive this rule in its budget resolution, if it so chooses.

The Byrd rule, which is specific to the reconciliation process, requires that reconciliation must not increase the deficit outside the budget window . Waiving this rule is not so easy. Doing so requires 60 votes in the Senate.

The rules of reconciliation require deficit neutrality, not revenue neutrality. Spending reforms, such as the $6 trillion in eligible mandatory spending cuts outlined in Heritage’s “Blueprint for Balance,” can make tax reform deficit neutral without being revenue neutral.

Impact - BioPharma

Impact---BioPharma---2NC

Patent expirations will decimate BioPharma---tax reform’s key to revive their pipelines to sustain growthFortunre 12-6 – via Reuters, “How Donald Trump’s Corporate Tax Holiday Could Spur a Pharma M&A Boom”, 2016, http://fortune.com/2016/12/06/donald-trump-corporate-tax-holiday-pharma/

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's plan to incentivize U.S. companies to repatriate their swelling overseas cash piles could spur a new wave of dealmaking in a pharma ceutical industry seeking to buy its way into growth .

For years, big U.S. drugmakers have turned to acquisitions of foreign companies to put their overseas cash to work, rather than bring it home at a 35% tax rate. Trump has proposed allowing repatriation of this cash at a 10% tax rate, hoping some of it will be spent on hiring and investing in their businesses .

However, drugmakers are much more likely to spend this money on acquisitions that could revive their drug development pipeline by acquiring smaller peers with promising offerings , as opposed to risking more of their own dollars on research and development, corporate executives and dealmakers say.

Some of these deals could even result in job cuts as companies seek to eliminate overlaps.

"Would we consider to repatriate the cash? I would say yes, and what we would look at would be first to maintain the lowest weighted average cost of capital for the company," Amgen (AMGN, -0.73%) chief financial officer David Meline told analysts and investors on the company's most recent earnings call in October.

"Then we would look at certainly deploying cash towards external opportunities, but in that instance we would certainly lead with other strategic opportunities that make sense where we could get a return for our own shareholders from such investments."

Trump's transition team did not respond to a request for comment on the potential impact of his proposed tax holiday on the drug industry.

Corporate America had $1.3 trillion, or 74% of its total cash, stashed overseas in 2016, according to Moody's Investors Service. That's up from an estimated $1.2 trillion, or 72% of total cash, a year earlier.

While the top five overseas cash holders are technology companies such as Apple (AAPL, +0.18%) and Microsoft (MSFT, +2.64%), the pharmaceutical industry accounts for a big chunk of that cash.

The five U.S. pharmaceutical companies with the largest cash piles, namely Pfizer (PFE, +0.67%), Merck (MRK, +0.20%), Johnson & Johnson (JNJ, -0.85%), Amgen and Eli Lilly (LLY, -0.36%), hold

nearly $250 billion in overseas funds, according to data from U.S. non-profit research and advocacy group Citizens for Tax Justice.

At the same time, big pharma is in hot pursuit of the next blockbuster drug . Many of the industry's most successful franchises , from Gilead's Hepatitis C cure and Biogen's multiple sclerosis treatments, to AbbVie's arthritis drug Humira, are all bracin g for declining revenues as patents age and competition heats up .

Valuations of biotechnology companies that could be acquisition targets for major drug firms are still hovering near historic lows after being dragged down by election -season political criticism of high drug prices .

"Tax repatriation i s a more likely situation now, benefiting large biotechs and (pharma ceutical companies) with significant offshore cash and a desire to buy mid-cap companies ," RBC Capital equity analyst Michael Yee wrote in a research note.

Pharma innovation solves disease---extinctionEngelhardt 8 – PhD, MD, Professor of Philosophy @ Rice (Hugo, “Innovation and the Pharmaceutical Industry: Critical Reflections on the Virtues of Profit,” EBrary)

Many are suspicious of, or indeed jealous of, the good fortune of others. Even when profit is gained in the market without fraud and with the consent of all buying and selling goods and services, there is a sense on the part of some that something is wrong if considerable profit is secured. There is even a sense that good fortune in the market, especially if it is very good fortune, is unfair. One might think of such rhetorically disparaging terms as "wind-fall profits". There is also a suspicion of the pursuit of profit because it is often embraced not just because of the material benefits it sought, but because of the hierarchical satisfaction of being more affluent than others. The pursuit of profit in the pharmaceutical and medical-device industries is tor many in particular morally dubious because it is acquired from those who have the bad fortune to be diseased or disabled. Although the suspicion of profit is not well-founded, this suspicion is a major moral and public-policy challenge. Profit in the market for the pharma ceutical and medical-device industries is to be celebrated . This is the case, in that if one is of the view (1) that the presence of additional resources for r esearch and d evelopment spurs innovation in the development of pharmaceuticals and med-ical devices (i.e., if one is of the view that the allure of profit is one of the most effective way s not only to acquire resources but productively to direct human energies in their use), (2) that given the limits of altruism and of the willingness of persons to be taxed, the possibility of profits is necessary to secure such resources, (3) that the allure of profits also tends to enhance the creative use of available resources in the pursuit of phar-maceutical and medical-device innovation, and (4) if one judges it to be the case that such innovation is both necessary to maintain the human species in a n ever- changing and always dangerous environment in which new microbial and other threats may at any time emerge to threaten human well-being, if not survival (i.e., that such innovation is necessary to prevent increases in morbidity and mortality risks ), as well as (5) in order generally to decrease morbidity and mortality risks in the future, it then follows (6) that one should be concerned regarding any policies that decrease the amount of resources and energies

available to encourage such innovation. One should indeed be of the view that the possibilities for profit, all things being equal, should be highest in the pharmaceutical and medical-device industries. Yet, there is a suspicion regarding the pursuit of profit in medicine and especially in the pharmaceutical and medical-device industries

Biopharma is key to solve inevitable rapidly mutating pandemicsJeffery Sachs 14—Professor of Sustainable Development, Health Policy and Management @ Columbia University [Jeffrey D. Sachs (Director of the Earth Institute @ Columbia University and Special adviser to the United Nations Secretary-General on the Millennium Development Goals) “Important lessons from Ebola outbreak,” Business World Online, August 17, 2014, http://tinyurl.com/kjgvyro]

Ebola is the latest of many recent epidemics, also including AIDS, SARS, H1N1 flu, H7N9 flu , and others.

AIDS is the deadliest of these killers, claiming nearly 36 million lives since 1981. Of course, even larger and more sudden epidemics are possible, such as the 1918 influenza during World War I, which claimed 50- 100 million lives (far more than the war itself). And, though the 2003 SARS outbreak was contained, causing fewer than 1,000 deaths, the disease was on the

verge of deeply disrupting several East Asian economies including China’s. There are four crucial facts to understand about Ebola and the other epidemics. First, most emerging infectious diseases are zoonoses, meaning that they start in animal populations, sometimes with a genetic mutation that enables the jump to humans. Ebola may have been transmitted from bats; HIV/AIDS emerged from chimpanzees; SARS most likely came from civets traded in animal markets in southern China;

and influenza strains such as H1N1 and H7N9 arose from genetic re-combinations of viruses among wild and farm animals. New zoonotic diseases are inevitable as humanity pushes into new ecosystems (such as formerly remote forest regions); the food industry creates more conditions for genetic recombination ; and climate change scrambles natural habitats and species interactions . Second, once a new infectious disease appears, its spread through airlines, ships, megacities, and trade in animal products is likely to be extremely rapid . These epidemic diseases are new markers of globalization, revealing through their chain of death how vulnerable the world has become from the pervasive movement of people and goods. Third, the poor are the first to suffer and the worst affected. The rural poor live closest to the infected animals that first transmit the disease. They often

hunt and eat bushmeat, leaving them vulnerable to infection. Poor, often illiterate, individuals are generally unaware of how infectious diseases -- especially unfamiliar diseases -- are transmitted, making them much more likely to become infected and to

infect others. Moreover, given poor nutrition and lack of access to basic health services, their weakened immune systems are easily overcome by infections that better nourished and treated individuals can survive. And “de-medicalized” conditions -- with few if any professional health workers to ensure an appropriate public-health response to an

epidemic (such as isolation of infected individuals, tracing of contacts, surveillance, and so forth) -- make initial outbreaks more severe. Finally, the required medical responses, including diagnostic tools and effective medications and vaccines, inevitably lag behind the emerging diseases. In

any event, such tools must be continually replenished . This requires cutting-edge biotech nology, immunology, and ultimately bioengineering to create large-scale industrial responses (such as millions of doses of vaccines or medicines in the case of large epidemics). The AIDS crisis, for example, called forth tens of billions of dollars for research and development -- and similarly substantial commitments by the pharmaceutical industry -- to produce lifesaving antiretroviral drugs at global scale. Yet

each breakthrough inevitably leads to the pathogen’s mutation , rendering previous treatments less effective.

There is no ultimate victory, only a constant arms race between humanity and disease-causing agents.

Diseases causes extinction—no burnout{Ross D. E. MacPhee et al. 13, Ph.D. in Physical Anthropology from University of Alberta, Former chairman of the Department of Mammalogy at the American Museum of Natural History, Professor at Richard Gilder Graduate School, Alex D. Greenwood, Head of the Department of Wildlife Diseases at the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Professor of wildlife diseases in the Department of Veterinary Medicine of the Freie Universität Berlin, “ Infectious Disease, Endangerment, and Extinction,” Hindawi Publishing Corporation, http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijeb/2013/571939/, Date Accessed: 4-14-16}

Infectious disease, especially virulent infectious disease, is commonly regarded as a cause of fluctuation or decline in biological populations. However, it is not generally considered as a primary factor in causing the actual endangerment or extinction of species. We review here the known historical examples in which disease has, or has

been assumed to have had, a major deleterious impact on animal species, including extinction, and highlight some recent cases in which disease is the chief suspect in causing the outright endangerment of

particular species. We conclude that the role of disease in historical extinction s at the population or species level may have been underestimated. Recent methodological breakthroughs may lead to a better understanding of the past and present roles of infectious disease in influencing population fitness and other parameters.

1. Background

Although lethal epi- or panzootics are obvious risk factors that can lead to population fluctuation or decline in particular circumstances, infectious diseases are seldom considered as potential drivers of extirpation or extinction—that is, of the complete loss of all populations or subunits comprising a given biological species. For example, in conservation biology, infectious disease is usually regarded as having only a marginal or contributory influence on extinction, except perhaps in unusual circumstances (e.g., [1–4]). In their examination of 223 instances of critically endangered species listed by the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) as allegedly threatened by infectious disease, Smith et al. [4] found that in the overwhelming majority of cases there was no conclusive evidence to support infectious disease as a contributing threat. Although this record should improve with increasing awareness of the effects of infectious diseases on wildlife, as this paper illustrates progress has so far been slow.

Both of the authors of this paper are primarily concerned with mammals, which is the group that will receive the bulk of attention here. However, at the pragmatic, data-gathering level, the issues concerned with properly accounting for and evaluating the effects of infectious diseases on natural populations differ little from one phylogenetic grouping to another.

First, narrowing down extinction events or even catastrophic population declines to single causes is almost always problematic. In most real cases, extinction is multicausational, even if one cause can be identified as being predominantly responsible [5]. Habitat fragmentation and climate change are currently regarded as the leading prime movers behind most instances of extreme endangerment, to which other stressors such as pollution, invasive competitors, and so forth, might be of greater or lesser importance in particular circumstances. Disease, however, is rarely mentioned as a possible contributing factor in such contexts (but see [6]).

Another difficulty is lack of knowledge about pathogen diversity and susceptibility in wildlife. In the absence of sufficient means of detection and characterization, it is difficult to assess or to give quantitative expression to the degree to which pathogens might influence population decline or extinction. Thus it has been estimated that only a small fraction of bacterial diversity has been identified at even the most basic systematic level. This problem is exacerbated in the case of viruses, which often evolve rapidly and defy, in any case, classical methodologies for identifying “species” [7]. For example, bat viruses have only recently begun to be described systematically, even though many chiropterans are known vectors of numerous zoonotic diseases and corporately represent the second largest grouping (by species richness) of mammals after rodents [8, 9]. A similar lack of knowledge affects our understanding of parasites and fungi that affect wildlife.

The foregoing difficulties are compounded when one considers that, unless a species is studied extensively during and up to the actual extinction event affecting it, all extinction studies are retrospective. Retrospective investigation of losses in which disease is possibly implicated is often severely hindered by limitations in the number and quality of samples available for study, as well as the inability to satisfy Koch’s postulates —especially if both host and pathogen became extinct simultaneously

[10]. Performing isolation, reisolation, and reinfection experiments to directly establish that a particular pathogen was indeed the causative agent behind a given infection is either very difficult or impossible to do retrospectively. Isolation and recreation of the 1918 H1N1 influenza A virus [11], for example, were performed by sequencing from extractions derived from individuals thought to have died of the disease in WWI, not by directly isolating the infectious virus from tissues (as would be required to formally comply with Koch’s postulates). Although most studies will have to be correlative rather than dispositive, one can nevertheless test hypotheses concerning plausible causal agents and examine samples for presence/absence of specific pathogens [12].

Forensically, decay, degradation, and chemical changes in DNA post mortem produce severe methodological challenges to retrieving and accurately determining sequences [13]. In addition, in any retrospective investigation involving “ancient DNA,” pathogen nucleic acids will be less abundant than those of the host, and this dilution effect will make sequence retrieval even more complex [10]. For example, relatively abundant mitochondrial DNA is generally easier to retrieve from fossils or historical samples than lower copy per cell nuclear DNA. Pathogen nucleic acids are generally even lower copy than host DNA sequences in a given extraction. These and other factors reviewed here may help to explain the paucity of conclusive studies of disease-mediated extinction, except in the very few instances in which sampling and methodological roadblocks could be overcome. Nonetheless, in favorable circumstances it should be possible to genetically analyze ancient pathogens with sufficient accuracy to make the endeavor worthwhile, especially because next-generation sequencing methods are beginning to make such endeavors ever more feasible [14–18].

Why should the possible role of infectious disease in endangerment and extinction be regarded as a critical issue in modern conservation? Whether or not disease was ever a major cause of extinction in the fossil record [19], in our times it plays an acknowledged but perhaps underestimated role. Pathogen-driven population declines have been identified in a wide array of invertebrate and vertebrate taxa (cf. [20]), suggesting that the phenomenon is probably universal. Yet without the kinds of monitoring methods now available, some and perhaps most of these declines would have gone undetected, or attributed to other causes. Further, the processes forcing such declines are as diverse as the pathogens themselves and are far from being clearly understood. The apparent increase in zoonotic diseases during the last few decades [21] may be objectively real or merely due to better monitoring, but it seems highly likely that loss or reduction of pristine habitats and the overall impact of invasive species should promote the introduction of opportunistic pathogens into wildlife with increasing frequency.

Thus, understanding the dynamics of disease-mediated species declines may be critical to conservation missions concerned with a wide variety of species and habitats. Recent advances in molecular biology and microbiology have permitted the detection and identification of hosts of novel microorganisms, many of which are pathogenic, and the technology needed to assess threat levels is becoming increasingly available.

2. Disease as an Agent of Extinction: Some Considerations

Although the fossil record clearly establishes that the fate of all species is to eventually die out, it is obvious from the same record that the rate of disappearance of individual species varies significantly [22]. As already noted, inferences about how (as opposed to when) an individual species disappeared must be developed inductively and retrospectively. An important guideline is that apparent causes of extinction that are diachronic (repeatedly affect species across time) are inherently more plausible than ones that are claimed to have occurred only once, or apply to only one taxon. Although this means that explanations about individual extinctions are not strictly testable, they can nevertheless be evaluated in terms of likelihood, which is the approach currently taken by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and several other conservation organizations interested in compiling extinction statistics [23, 24].

It is an accepted tenet in conservation biology that any severe, continuing threat to a species might eventually contribute to its extinction [25]. From this perspective, it is also accepted that diseases presenting with very high levels of mortality—as in the case of a highly transmissible infection that is newly emergent in a population—can cause outright endangerment. But are there conditions under which a disease, probably in combination with other threats, might so imperil a species to cause its complete disappearance? MacPhee and Marx [19] considered this issue from the standpoint of model pathogenic features that a disease-provoking organism might exhibit in forcing the extinction of a given species. These features include:

(1) a reservoir species presenting a stable carrier state for the pathogen,

(2) a high potential for causing infections in susceptible species, affecting critical age groups,

(3) a capacity for hyperlethality, defined here as mortality rates in the range of 50–75%.

Only under the most extreme conditions is it conceivable that a species would suffer extinction in a single epizootic event. Much more likely would be repeated outbreaks over a period of years gradually reducing the fitness level of the species, with final disappearance potentially caused by stochastic events (such as causally unassociated climate change). One way in which this condition might be achieved would be through a stable carrier (i.e., a species other than the target, living in similar circumstances in the same environment, and in which the infection is inapparent or at least sublethal). A well-studied example is the transfer of simian acquired immunodeficiency virus from one species of macaque to another [26]. Although this instance occurred under captive conditions, repeated outbreaks of distemper in lions and African wild dogs have long been thought to be due to transfer from domestic dogs (although the mechanism is debated; see [27]). Obviously, for a disease to have a very severe impact, it would be necessary for the pathogen to occur in highly lethal, aggressive strains that strongly impact the target species before attenuated strains arise and become common.

High potential for causing infections in a susceptible species is usually associated with the ability to successfully enter the organism through a major portal, such as the respiratory tract, where it can be lodged and transmitted easily (e.g., via aerosol). To achieve hyperlethality and produce serious mortality, all age groups within a species would probably have to be susceptible, not just the very young or very old (or the

immunocompromised), with death the usual outcome. In large-bodied mammals, a fundamental consideration is that any process that deleteriously affects young individuals will have a pronounced effect on survivorship because of the lengthy intervals in birth spacing [19].

Lethality in the range of 50–75% is obviously extremely high and thus extremely unusual, although historically seen in Ebola infections in humans and in experimental transmission studies from pigs to macaques [28]. High percentages may have also been

achieved in rinderpest outbreaks among East African bovids in the early 20th century [29], although quantitative data on this are largely lacking. An important issue here, however, is whether pathogens causing this level of lethality could maintain themselves in nature long enough to seriously imperil a species. Speculatively, a possible outcome with hyperlethal infections producing a rapid, fatal outcome is that affected populations would be reduced to small numbers of widely dispersed and/or relatively or completely immune individuals. Under these

circumstances, the epizootic would necessarily abate as it ran out of new hosts, leading to the conclusion that exceptionally lethal diseases cannot be indefinitely maintained in a population or species under normal circumstances.

However, if reservoirs exist from which the pathogen could repeatedly emerge , in principle epizootics might resurge year after year until population sizes were reduced below viable levels

(~50–500 individuals). At this point stochastic effects might intervene and lead to complete loss of the species. Among possible examples of this “perfect storm” of circumstances and consequences is the loss of Christmas Island rats, detailed elsewhere in this paper. Among birds, the severe impact of avian

malaria on Hawaiian honeycreepers is also pertinent and discussed later in this paper. Although a number of honeycreeper species survive at high elevations, above the limit at which introduced Culex mosquitos can survive, there are multiple adventitious threats, such as deforestation and competition from invasive species, which add to their endangerment picture [30].

Impact---BioPharma---BioTerror Module

Continual research solves and deters bioattacksChyba 4 - Co-Director of the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC), Stanford Institute for International Studies, and an Associate Professor at Stanford University

[Christopher & Alex Greninger, “Biotechnology and Bioterrorism: An Unprecedented World” Survival, 46:2, Summer 2004, http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/20722/Chyba_2004.pdf]

In the absence of a comprehensive and effective system of global review of potential high-consequence research, we are instead trapped in a kind of

offence–defence arms race. Even as legitimate biomedical researchers develop defences against biological

pathogens, bad actors could in turn engineer countermeasures in a kind of directed version of the way natural pathogens evolve resistance to anti-microbial drugs. The mousepox case provides a harbinger of what is to come: just as the United States was stockpiling 300m doses of smallpox vaccine as a defence against a terrorist smallpox attack, experimental modification of the mousepox virus showed how the vaccine could possibly be circumvented. The United States is now funding research on antiviral drugs and other ways of combating smallpox that might be effective against the

engineered organism. Yet there are indications that smallpox can be made resistant to one of the few known antiviral drugs. The future has the appearance of an eternal arms race of measures and countermeasures. The ‘arms race’ metaphor should be used with

caution; it too is in danger of calling up misleading analogies to the nuclear arms race of the Cold War. First, the biological arms race is an offence–defence race , rather than a competition between offensive means. Under the BWC, only defensive research is legitimate. But more fundamentally, the driver of de facto offensive capabilities in this arms race is not primarily a particular adversary, but rather the ongoing global

advance of microbiological and biomedical research. Defensive measures are in a race with nefarious applicationsof basic research, much of which is itself undertaken for protection against natural disease. In a sense, we are in an arms race with ourselves. It is hard to see how this arms race is stable – an offence granted comparable resources would seem to be necessarily favoured. As with ballistic missile defence,

particular defensive measures may be defeated by offensive countermeasures. In the biological case, implementing defensive measures will require not only research but drug development and distribution plans. Offensive measures need not exercise this care, although fortunately they will likely face comparative resource constraints (especially if not associated with a state programme), and may find that some approaches (for example, to confer antibiotic resistance) have the simultaneous effect of inadvertently reducing a pathogen’s virulence. The defence must always guard against committing the fallacy of the last move, whereas the offence may embrace the view of the Irish Republican Army after it failed to assassinate the British cabinet in the 1984 Brighton bombing: ‘Today we were unlucky, but remember we have only to

be lucky once – you will have to be lucky always’.40 At the very least, the defence will have to be vigilant and collectively smarter

than the offence. The only way for the defence to win convincingly in the biological arms race would seem to be to s ucceed in discover ing and implementing certain de facto last-move defences, at least on an organism-by-organism basis. Perhaps there are defences, or a web of defences, that will prove too difficult for any plausible non-state actor to engineer around. Whether

such defences exist is unclear at this time, but their exploration should be a long-term research goal of US biodefence efforts. Progress might also have an important impact on international public health. One of the ‘Grand Challenges’ identified by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in its $200m initiative to improve global health calls for the discovery of drugs that minimise the emergence of drug

resistance – a kind of ‘last move’ defence against the evolutionary countermeasures of natural microbes.41 Should a collection of such

defensive moves prove possible, bioterrorism might ultimately succumb to a kind of globalised dissuasion by denial:42 non-state groups would calculate that they could not hope to achieve dramatic results through bio logical programmes and would choose to direct their efforts elsewhere.

Bioweapons cause extinction

Anders Sandberg et al., James Martin Research Fellow, Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University, "How Can We Reduce the Risk of Human Extinction?" BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC

SCIENTISTS, 9--9—08, http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/how-can-we-reduce-the-risk-of-human-extinction.

The risks from anthropogenic hazards appear at present larger than those from natural ones. Although great progress has been made in reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the world, humanity is still threatened by the possibility of a global thermonuclear war and a resulting nuclear winter. We may face even greater risks from emerging technologies. Advances in synthetic biology might make it possible to engineer pathogens capable of extinction- level pandemics . The knowledge, equipment, and materials needed to engineer pathogens are more accessible than those needed to build nuclear weapons. And unlike other weapons , pathogens are self-replicating , allowing a small arsenal to become exponentially destructive . Pathogens have been implicated in the extinctions of many wild species. Although most pandemics "fade out" by reducing the density of susceptible populations, pathogens with wide host ranges in multiple species can reach even isolated individuals. The intentional or unintentional release of engineered pathogens with high transmissibility, latency, and lethality might be capable of caus ing human extinction. While such an event seems unlikely today, the likelihood may increase as biotechnologies continue to improve at a rate rivaling Moore's Law.

Synthetic biology makes bioterror inevitable- creates means and motiveRose, 14 -- PhD, recognized international biodefense expert

[Patrick, Center for Health & Homeland Security senior policy analyst & biosecurity expert, National Defense University lecturer, and Adam Bernier, expert in counter-terrorism, "DIY Bioterrorism Part II: The proliferation of bioterrorism through synthetic biology," CBRNePortal, 2-24-14, www.cbrneportal.com/diy-bioterrorism-part-ii-the-proliferation-of-bioterrorism-through-synthetic-biology/, accessed 8-16-14]

In Part I of this series, we examined how the advancement of synthetic biology has made bio-engineering accessible to the mainstream biological community . Non-state actors who wish to employ biological agents for ill intent are sure to be aware of how tangible bio-weapons are becoming as applications of synthetic biology become more affordable and the probability of success increases with each scientific breakthrough. The willingness of non-state actors to engage in biological attacks is not a new concept; however, the past biological threat environment has been subdued compared to that of conventional or even chemical terrorism. The frequency and deadliness of biological attacks has, thankfully, been limited; much of which can be

attributed to the technical complexity or apparent ineptitude of the perpetrators developing biological weapons. Despite the infrequency and

ineffectiveness of bio logical attacks in the last four decades , the threat may be chang ing with the continued advancement of synthetic biology applications. Coupled with the ease of info rmation sharing and a rapidly growing do-it - yourself-biology (DIYbio) movement (discussed in Part I), the chances of not only, more attacks, but potentially more deadly ones will inevitably increase . ¶ During the last half century

terrorist organizations have consistently had an interest in using biological weapons as a means of attacking their targets, but only few have actually made a weapon and used it. The attraction is that terrorist activities with biological weapons are difficult to detect and even more difficult to attribute without a specific perpetrator claiming responsibility. Since 1971 there have been more than 113,113 terrorist

attacks globally and 33 of them have been biological. The majority of bio-terrorism incidents recorded occurred during the year 2001 (17 of the 33); before 2001 there were 10 incidents and since 2001 there were 6 (not counting the most recent Ricin attacks). The lack of a discernable trend in use of bio-terrorism does not negate the clear intent of extremist organizations to use biological weapons. In fact, the capacity to harness biological weapons

more effectively today only increases the risk that they will successfully be employed.¶ The landscape is changing: previously the instances where biological attacks had the potential to do the most harm (e.g., Rajneeshees cult’s Salmonella attacks in 1984, Aum Shinri Kyo’s Botulinum toxin, and Anthrax attacks in the early 90’s) included non-state actors with access to large amounts of funding and scientists. Funding and a

cadre of willing scientists does not guarantee success though. The assertion was thus made that biological weapons are not only expensive, they require advanced technical training to make and are even more difficult to effectively perpetrate acts of terrorism with. While it is difficult to determine with certainty whether the expense and expertise needed to create biological weapons has acted as a major deterrent for groups thinking of obtaining them, many experts would argue that the cost/expertise barrier makes the threat from biological attacks extremely small. This assertion is supported by the evidence that the vast majority of attacks have

taken place in Western countries and was performed by Western citizens with advanced training in scientific research.¶ In the past decade the cost/expertise assertion has become less accurate. Despite the lack of biological attacks, there are a number of very dangerous and motivated organizations that have or are actively pursuing biological weapons. The largest and most outspoken organization has been the global Al Qaeda network, whose leaders have frequently and

passionately called for the development (or purchase) of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The principal message from Al Qaeda

Central and Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has included the call to use bio logical WMDs to terrorize Western nations. Al Qaeda has had a particular focus on biological and nuclear weapons because of their potential for greatest harm. Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Anwar al-Awlaki have all called for attacks using biological weapons, going so far as to say that Muslims everywhere should seek to kill Westerners wherever possible and that obtaining WMDs is the responsibility of all Muslims. Before the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, Al Qaeda had spent significant funds on building a bio-laboratory and had begun collecting scientists from around the world; however, the Afghanistan invasion and subsequent global War on Terrorism is thought to have disrupted their capabilities and killed or captured many of their assets. Despite the physical

setbacks, this disruption does not appear to have changed the aggressive attitude towards obtaining WMDs (e.g., more recently U.S. Intelligence has been concerned about AQAP attempting to make Ricin).¶ The emergence of synthetic biology and DIYbio has increased the likelihood that Al Qaeda will succeed in developing biological WMDs . The low cost and significantly reduced level of necessary expertise may change how many non-state actors view bio logical weapons as a worthwhile investment. This is not to say that suddenly anyone can make a weapon or that it is easy. To the contrary making an effective bio logical weapon will still be difficult , only much easier and cheaper than it has been in the past . ¶ The rapid advancements of synthetic bio logy could be a game changer , giving organizations currently pursuing biological weapons more options, and encouraging other organizations to reconsider their worth. Because the bar for attaining bio logical weapons has been lowered and is likely to continue to be lowered as more advances in biological technology are made, it is important that the international community begin to formulate policy that protects advances in

science that acts to prevent the intentional misuse of synthetic biology. Disregard for this consideration will be costly. A successful attack with a potent biological weapon, where no pharmaceutical interventions might exist, will be deadly and the impact of such an attack will reverberate around the globe because biological weapons are not bound by international borders.

Impact---BioPharma---Tax Cuts Key

BioPharma lagging now—corporate tax reform is key to sustaining the industry and spur innovationJohn Lechleiter, PhD, Chair and CEO, Eli Lilly and former National Science Foundation Fellow, Harvard University, “To Guarantee the U.S.’s Economic Future, We Need Tax Reform Now,” FORBES, 1—15—14, http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlechleiter/2014/01/15/to-guarantee-the-u-s-s-economic-future-we-need-tax-reform-now/#6624ddfd4caa, accessed 9-9-16.

America is the world leader in innovative industries such as biopharma ceuticals , but we’re kidding ourselves if we think that continued U.S. leadership is guaranteed . Among the many challenges we

have to confront is a corporate tax system that’s way out of step with competitors around the world. High corporate tax rates disadvantage U.S. companies in the global marketplace and deny them investment opportunities here at home that could boost the economy and create jobs. We are long overdue for reform . So it’s good news that both House Ways & Means Chairman Dave Camp and Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus have released discussion drafts that provide a useful platform for public dialogue. Now, some elements of these discussion drafts are problematic, but they will be refined in the months ahead. Corporate tax reform is bound to be a long and difficult process, so rather than stress points of disagreement, I’d like to seek common ground by

outlining some general principles for reform – and the clear solutions that flow from them. Lower tax rates. Fact: America has one of the high est statutory corporate tax rates in the world – 39.1 percent. That’s 14 percentage points above the average

for OECD countries, according to the Tax Foundation. And in case you’ve heard that the U.S. tax rate is offset by generous deductions, let me add that we have the highest effective tax rate , with an average burden of 30.9 percent in 2012. That’s the finding of a recent study by PricewaterhouseCoopers . It’s not hard to see how the world’s highest tax rate discourages investment in the U nited S tates , when a company can expect to pay nearly twice as much in taxes here on average as it would in the United Kingdom (16.7 percent effective tax rate)

or Hong Kong (16.5). If we want the U.S. to be competitive in the global marketplace, we need a statutory corporate tax rate of no more than 25 percent. Global companies make complex investment decisions in markets around the world, often with years of advance planning. We look at factors like ease of market access, the availability of a qualified workforce and existing resources, and the cost of operations – all of which can be impacted by tax rates. When we’re talking about investments in the billions of dollars – for example, it costs north of $1 billion to take a new medicine from concept to pharmacy or to build a modern pharmaceutical production facility – even fractions of tax percentage points can make or break investment decisions . Lowering rates should be a guiding principle for corporate tax reform .

Inorganic growth is key to BioPharma---tax cuts are keyRamsey 16 – Lydia Ramsey, Reporter at BI, “What We Know So Far About What A Trump Presidency Means For The Drug Industry”, Business Insider, 11-11, http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-presidency-pharmaceutical-industry-2016-11

Beyond drug-pricing pressure being removed, analysts seem to be anticipating more mergers and acquisitions in the pharma industry. Corporate tax reform , a nother part of Trump's platform, could free up more cash to spend on deals .

"Given that many BioPharma companies are looking for inorganic growth to drive new topline growth , the increased access to cash could potentially drive a new wave of pipeline acquisitions ," Morgan Stanley analysts wrote in a note Thursday.

Impact---BioPharma---Solves Disease

US biopharma is key to solve emerging biogenic threatsPCAST 12-- President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (An advisory group of the nation’s leading scientists and engineers, appointed by the President to augment the science and technology advice available to him from inside the White House and from cabinet departments and other Federal agencies), “Report To The President On Propelling Innovation In Drug Discovery, Development, and Evaluation,” (September 2012)

Innovative Medicines Have Made Tremendous Contributions to Public Health Biomedical innovations—including advances in medicines,

medical procedures, and public health—have provided extraordinary benefits to the U.S. public. We live longer and we live

healthier than our forebears. Life expectancy at birth has risen from around 47 years at the turn of the 20th century to 78 years today. 4 Many diseases that were once fatal or debilitating can now be prevented , delayed, or ameliorated . While nutrition, sanitation, other public health measures, and expanded access to care have been major sources of increasing human health, innovative

medicines have also played a profound role in this progress. Infections that were the leading cause of mortality in the early

20th century are now largely eliminated. Pneumonia, the leading cause of death in the early 20th century, is now effectively treated with

antibiotics. Vaccines have led to the eradication or control of many devastating infectious diseases , including polio, small pox, diphtheria, and measles. First recognized in 1981, HIV is now treated with over 20 FDA-approved drugs, although more progress is still needed. Multi-drug regimens effectively control HIV infection, preventing the development of AIDS. Pharmaceutical therapies have led to cures for multiple malignancies that were once universally fatal; for example, childhood leukemia is now cured in 80 percent of cases, testicular cancer in over 90 percent of cases, and Hodgkin’s lymphoma in over 90 percent of cases. Recombinant proteins, replacing specific proteins that are not effectively produced by individuals carrying certain genetic mutations, have transformed the therapies for multiple debilitating disorders including type I diabetes and hemophilia. Immunosuppressive drugs have offered effective therapies for autoimmune disorders, such as multiple sclerosis, and have enabled organ transplantation. Along with a reduction in smoking and better medical care, cholesterol-lowering therapy, blood pressure- lowering drugs, anti-platelet agents, and diabetes treatment have contributed to a substantial decrease in death from heart attacks (70 percent decline5 over

the past 60 years). Innovation in Medicine has Depended on a Partnership Among Researchers, Industry, and Regulators These innovations have been brought forth by a remarkable ecosystem consisting of three major components: (1) academic researchers who have unlocked secrets of basic biology and revealed mechanisms that underlie disease, as well as the Federal and other funders who support their research; (2) a robust bio-pharmaceutical industry, which has develop ed molecules to treat disease and conduct ed clinical trials to demonstrate their safety and efficacy; and (3) government regulators, who have balanced the benefits and risks that are inherent in any medical innovation. Patients themselves have played a critical role in propelling advances by focusing attention on the urgency of developing therapies and spurring creative approaches, and by

participating in clinical trials. Medical progress depends on a successful partnership among these sectors. Others,

including physicians, health care payors, pharmacists, and consumer groups, also play crucial roles. The United States has consistently led the world in all these areas: (i) Academic research. By any measure, the Nation has been the world leader in groundbreaking biomedical research. This success is owed in large part to the strength of its extraordinary universities and research institutions . Federal investments in the biomedical research enterprise, led by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and augmented by other agencies, have for the last 60 years propelled research advances by supporting a robust academic community that generates biomedical knowledge, patentable inventions, and trained scientists, including 135 NIH-funded Nobel Laureates.6 In 2010, Federal funding for health research totaled about $46 billion (about $35 billion from NIH, of which $5 billion was provided under the Recovery

Act 7), while private and public health research funding combined reached $140 billion.8 (ii) Biopharmaceutical industry. The United States has

also been an indisputable leader in the global biopharma ceutical industry. This leadership has resulted from a combination of factors, including: a strong patent system, access to capital, strong support for research and development (R&D) by both public and private funders, a high-quality science-based regulatory system at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and a market that recognizes and pays for innovative new medicines . As of 2005, 8 of the world’s top 15 pharmaceutical companies (by sales)

were headquartered in the United States.9 Since the 1960s, the United States has been the headquarters for a larger share of firms that invent and introduce to market new chemical entities (NCEs) than any other country, and from 2001-2010, U.S.-based firms invented 57 percent of the NCEs produced globally.10 More than half of all clinical trials underway are being conducted in whole or

in part in the United States.11 In the last three decades of the 20th century, a revolution in molecular biology and associated

technologies, including recombinant DNA, gave birth to a new industry, biotech. The biotech industry arose and has flourished in the United States, with strong early clusters in the high-tech and highly-educated areas

near San Francisco and Boston, and subsequent expansion to other locations including Seattle, San Diego, North Carolina, Maryland, and Virginia. A unique combination of access to academic research institutions, scientists, and venture capitalists created the ripe conditions for the industry to take hold and grow from the 1980s to today,

aided by supportive legislation, such as the Bayh-Dole Act, that encouraged universities and businesses to commercialize scientific discoveries in biotech nology. The United States accounts for more than 40 percent of the world’s patents in biotechnology—far more than the E.U. at 25 percent and Japan at 17 percent. 12 The Nation’s leadership in biomedical innovation has been supported by a robust industry, and, in

turn, investments in biomedical research and corresponding medical advances have allowed industry and the economy to thrive. Biomedical innovation has supported U.S. economic growth , and high-value, high-skilled jobs for Americans . The medical innovation sector as a whole (including the public and private enterprises) employs nearly one million people 13 and industry-contracted

studies show that exports in 2010 from the biopharmaceutical industry reached nearly $47 billion, with a

subset of the industry, biotechnology products yielding a net positive trade balance. 14 This is a source of significant export strength relative to major industries, such as automobiles ($38.4 billion in 2010 exports); plastics and rubber products ($25.9 billion in 2010 exports); communications equipment ($27 billion); and computers ($12.5 billion). Pharmaceutical sales have increased steadily over the past decade, 15 reaching a record high of $856 billion in 2010. The biopharmaceutical industry estimates that it pays an average salary of $96,563 to the 650,000

people it employs, and that it has indirectly contributed more than $300 billion to U.S. GDP.16 Moreover, public health gains as a result of biomedical innovation bolster the U.S. economy ; the growth in life expectancy between 1970 and 1990, for example, had added approximately $2.4 trillion to the U.S. GDP by the year 2000. 17 pg. 1-3

Impact---BioPharma---Disease - A2: Burnout

causes extinction—no burnout – Best methodological studies{Ross D. E. MacPhee et al. 13, Ph.D. in Physical Anthropology from University of Alberta, Former chairman of the Department of Mammalogy at the American Museum of Natural History, Professor at Richard Gilder Graduate School, Alex D. Greenwood, Head of the Department of Wildlife Diseases at the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Professor of wildlife diseases in the Department of Veterinary Medicine of the Freie Universität Berlin, “ Infectious Disease, Endangerment, and Extinction,” Hindawi Publishing Corporation, http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijeb/2013/571939/, Date Accessed: 4-14-16}

Infectious disease, especially virulent infectious disease, is commonly regarded as a cause of fluctuation or decline in biological populations. However, it is not generally considered as a primary factor in causing the actual endangerment or extinction of species. We review here the known historical examples in which disease has, or has

been assumed to have had, a major deleterious impact on animal species, including extinction, and highlight some recent cases in which disease is the chief suspect in causing the outright endangerment of

particular species. We conclude that the role of disease in historical extinction s at the population or species level may have been underestimated. Recent methodological breakthroughs may lead to a better understanding of the past and present roles of infectious disease in influencing population fitness and other parameters.

1. Background

Although lethal epi- or panzootics are obvious risk factors that can lead to population fluctuation or decline in particular circumstances, infectious diseases are seldom considered as potential drivers of extirpation or extinction—that is, of the complete loss of all populations or subunits comprising a given biological species. For example, in conservation biology, infectious disease is usually regarded as having only a marginal or contributory influence on extinction, except perhaps in unusual circumstances (e.g., [1–4]). In their examination of 223 instances of critically endangered species listed by the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) as allegedly threatened by infectious disease, Smith et al. [4] found that in the overwhelming majority of cases there was no conclusive evidence to support infectious disease as a contributing threat. Although this record should improve with increasing awareness of the effects of infectious diseases on wildlife, as this paper illustrates progress has so far been slow.

Both of the authors of this paper are primarily concerned with mammals, which is the group that will receive the bulk of attention here. However, at the pragmatic, data-gathering level, the issues concerned with properly accounting for and evaluating the effects of infectious diseases on natural populations differ little from one phylogenetic grouping to another.

First, narrowing down extinction events or even catastrophic population declines to single causes is almost always problematic. In most real cases, extinction is multicausational, even if one cause can be identified as being predominantly responsible [5]. Habitat fragmentation and climate change are currently regarded as the leading prime movers behind most instances of extreme endangerment, to which other stressors such as pollution, invasive competitors, and so forth, might be of greater or lesser importance in particular circumstances. Disease, however, is rarely mentioned as a possible contributing factor in such contexts (but see [6]).

Another difficulty is lack of knowledge about pathogen diversity and susceptibility in wildlife. In the absence of sufficient means of detection and characterization, it is difficult to assess or to give quantitative expression to the degree to which pathogens might influence population decline or extinction. Thus it has been estimated that only a small fraction of bacterial diversity has been identified at even the most basic systematic level. This problem is exacerbated in the case of viruses, which often evolve rapidly and defy, in any case, classical methodologies for identifying “species” [7]. For example, bat viruses have only recently begun to be described systematically, even though many chiropterans are known vectors of numerous zoonotic diseases and corporately represent the second largest grouping (by species richness) of mammals after rodents [8, 9]. A similar lack of knowledge affects our understanding of parasites and fungi that affect wildlife.

The foregoing difficulties are compounded when one considers that, unless a species is studied extensively during and up to the actual extinction event affecting it, all extinction studies are retrospective. Retrospective investigation of losses in which disease is possibly implicated is often severely hindered by limitations in the number and quality of samples available for study, as well as the inability to satisfy Koch’s postulates —especially if both host and pathogen became extinct simultaneously

[10]. Performing isolation, reisolation, and reinfection experiments to directly establish that a particular pathogen was indeed the causative agent behind a given infection is either very difficult or impossible to do retrospectively. Isolation and recreation of the 1918 H1N1 influenza A virus [11], for example, were performed by sequencing from extractions derived from individuals thought to have died of the disease in WWI, not by directly isolating the infectious virus from tissues (as would be required to formally comply with Koch’s postulates). Although most studies will have to be correlative rather than dispositive, one can nevertheless test hypotheses concerning plausible causal agents and examine samples for presence/absence of specific pathogens [12].

Forensically, decay, degradation, and chemical changes in DNA post mortem produce severe methodological challenges to retrieving and accurately determining sequences [13]. In addition, in any retrospective investigation involving “ancient DNA,” pathogen nucleic acids will be less abundant than those of the host, and this dilution effect will make sequence retrieval even more complex [10]. For example, relatively abundant mitochondrial DNA is generally easier to retrieve from fossils or historical samples than lower copy per cell nuclear DNA. Pathogen nucleic acids are generally even lower copy than host DNA sequences in a given extraction. These and other factors reviewed here may help to explain the paucity of conclusive studies of disease-mediated extinction, except in the very few instances in which sampling and methodological roadblocks could be overcome. Nonetheless, in favorable circumstances it should be possible to genetically analyze ancient pathogens with sufficient accuracy to make the endeavor worthwhile, especially because next-generation sequencing methods are beginning to make such endeavors ever more feasible [14–18].

Why should the possible role of infectious disease in endangerment and extinction be regarded as a critical issue in modern conservation? Whether or not disease was ever a major cause of extinction in the fossil record [19], in our times it plays an acknowledged but perhaps underestimated role. Pathogen-driven population declines have been identified in a wide array of invertebrate and vertebrate taxa (cf. [20]), suggesting that the phenomenon is probably universal. Yet without the kinds of monitoring methods now available, some and perhaps most of these declines would have gone undetected, or attributed to other causes. Further, the processes forcing such declines are as diverse as the pathogens themselves and are far from being clearly understood. The apparent increase in zoonotic diseases during the last few decades [21] may be objectively real or merely due to better monitoring, but it seems highly likely that loss or reduction of pristine habitats and the overall impact of invasive species should promote the introduction of opportunistic pathogens into wildlife with increasing frequency.

Thus, understanding the dynamics of disease-mediated species declines may be critical to conservation missions concerned with a wide variety of species and habitats. Recent advances in molecular biology and microbiology have permitted the detection and identification of hosts of novel microorganisms, many of which are pathogenic, and the technology needed to assess threat levels is becoming increasingly available.

2. Disease as an Agent of Extinction: Some Considerations

Although the fossil record clearly establishes that the fate of all species is to eventually die out, it is obvious from the same record that the rate of disappearance of individual species varies significantly [22]. As already noted, inferences about how (as opposed to when) an individual species disappeared must be developed inductively and retrospectively. An important guideline is that apparent causes of extinction that are diachronic (repeatedly affect species across time) are inherently more plausible than ones that are claimed to have occurred only once, or apply to only one taxon. Although this means that explanations about individual extinctions are not strictly testable, they can nevertheless be evaluated in terms of likelihood, which is the approach currently taken by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and several other conservation organizations interested in compiling extinction statistics [23, 24].

It is an accepted tenet in conservation biology that any severe, continuing threat to a species might eventually contribute to its extinction [25]. From this perspective, it is also accepted that diseases presenting with very high levels of mortality—as in the case of a highly transmissible infection that is newly emergent in a population—can cause outright endangerment. But are there conditions under which a disease, probably in combination with other threats, might so imperil a species to cause its complete disappearance? MacPhee and Marx [19] considered this issue from the standpoint of model pathogenic features that a disease-provoking organism might exhibit in forcing the extinction of a given species. These features include:

(1) a reservoir species presenting a stable carrier state for the pathogen,

(2) a high potential for causing infections in susceptible species, affecting critical age groups,

(3) a capacity for hyperlethality, defined here as mortality rates in the range of 50–75%.

Only under the most extreme conditions is it conceivable that a species would suffer extinction in a single epizootic event. Much more likely would be repeated outbreaks over a period of years gradually reducing the fitness level of the species, with final disappearance potentially caused by stochastic events (such as causally unassociated climate change). One way in which this condition might be achieved would be through a stable carrier (i.e., a species other than the target, living in similar circumstances in the same environment, and in which the infection is inapparent or at least sublethal). A well-studied example is the transfer of simian acquired immunodeficiency virus from one species of macaque to another [26]. Although this instance occurred under captive conditions, repeated outbreaks of distemper in lions and African wild dogs have long been thought to be due to transfer from domestic dogs (although the mechanism is debated; see [27]). Obviously, for a disease to have a very severe impact, it would be necessary for the pathogen to occur in highly lethal, aggressive strains that strongly impact the target species before attenuated strains arise and become common.

High potential for causing infections in a susceptible species is usually associated with the ability to successfully enter the organism through a major portal, such as the respiratory tract, where it can be lodged and transmitted easily (e.g., via aerosol). To achieve hyperlethality and produce serious mortality, all age groups within a species would probably have to be susceptible, not just the very young or very old (or the

immunocompromised), with death the usual outcome. In large-bodied mammals, a fundamental consideration is that any process that deleteriously affects young individuals will have a pronounced effect on survivorship because of the lengthy intervals in birth spacing [19].

Lethality in the range of 50–75% is obviously extremely high and thus extremely unusual, although historically seen in Ebola infections in humans and in experimental transmission studies from pigs to macaques [28]. High percentages may have also been

achieved in rinderpest outbreaks among East African bovids in the early 20th century [29], although quantitative data on this are largely lacking. An important issue here, however , is whether pathogens causing this level of lethality could maintain themselves in nature long enough to seriously imperil a species. Speculatively, a possible outcome with hyperlethal infections producing a rapid, fatal outcome is that affected populations would be reduced to small numbers of widely dispersed and/or relatively or completely immune individuals. Under these

circumstances, the epizootic would necessarily abate as it ran out of new hosts, leading to the conclusion that exceptionally lethal diseases cannot be indefinitely maintained in a population or species under normal circumstances.

However, if reservoirs exist from which the pathogen could repeatedly emerge , in principle epizootics might resurge year after year until population sizes were reduced below viable levels

(~50–500 individuals). At this point stochastic effects might intervene and lead to complete loss of the species. Among possible examples of this “perfect storm” of circumstances and consequences is the loss of Christmas Island rats, detailed elsewhere in this paper. Among birds, the severe impact of avian

malaria on Hawaiian honeycreepers is also pertinent and discussed later in this paper. Although a number of honeycreeper species survive at high elevations, above the limit at which introduced Culex mosquitos can survive, there are multiple adventitious threats, such as deforestation and competition from invasive species, which add to their endangerment picture [30].

Resistance isn’t self-limiting – best studiesEconomist 11 [The Economist, 3-31-2011 http://www.economist.com/node/18483671]

There are basic biological reasons, too, for thinking that resistance may be self-limiting. For a bug, being resistant is costly. It has to adjust its physiology, and resistance often works by making enzymes that degrade the drug, or by producing extra copies of proteins that pump the drug out of the bacterial cell, both of which require a lot of energy. Some creatures cannot seem to manage the trick at all—at least for certain drugs. One species of Streptococcus, called S. pyogenese, has never been seen to throw up a penicillin-resistant strain, whereas another, S. pneumoniae, is frequently not susceptible to that drug (see chart 1). In these circumstances, the theory goes, a resistant organism is less a superbug and more a cosseted creature that can beat the competition only in the unfair arena of a hospital or a clinic. Another reason, then, for accepting the status quo.

Unfortunately, this comforting argument may not be wholly true. In the Lancet in 2007 Herman Goossens, a microbiologist at the University of Antwerp, laid out the results of a trial designed to investigate the idea . His team divided healthy volunteers into three groups. To one group they gave an antibiotic called azithromycin. To another they gave a second, clarithromycin. To the third they gave a placebo. They then followed the progress of the Streptococci in each volunteer's throat. As expected, those who were taking the placebo showed no signs of drug-resistant strains of Streptococcus at any time during the study. Also as expected, the Streptococci in those taking the antibiotics showed sharply elevated levels of resistance within days. What was surprising—and worrying for those who think that

resistant bacteria will do better than the non-resistant wild type only while the selective pressure remains on—was that those populations of

Streptococci which acquired resistance retained it for over a year. The evolutionary logic behind the

argument that resistant organisms are inferior is seductive. But in case it is wrong , and because resistance clearly is a problem anyway—even if a vastly smaller one than not having antibiotics at all—the second response is to try to rein in overuse.

Resistance can jump bacteria – make them even more dangerousMcKenna 13 [Maryn McKenna is an independent journalist Senior Fellow of the Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism at Brandeis University and a research affiliate at MIT 7-24-2013 http://www.nature.com/news/antibiotic-resistance-the-last-resort-1.13426]

As a rule, high-ranking public-health officials try to avoid apocalyptic descriptors. So it was worrying to hear Thomas Frieden and

Sally Davies warn of a coming health “nightmare” and a “catastrophic threat” within a few days of each other in March. The agency heads were talking about the soaring increase in a little-known class of antibiotic-resistant bacteria: carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae

(CREs). Davies, the United Kingdom's chief medical officer, described CREs as a risk as serious as terrorism (see Nature 495, 141; 2013). “We have a very serious problem, and we need to sound an alarm,” said

Frieden, director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia. Their dire phrasing was warranted. CREs cause bladder, lung and blood

infections that can spiral into life-threatening septic shock. They evade the action of almost all antibiotics — including the carbapenems, which are considered drugs of last resort — and they kill up to half of all patients who contract them. In the United States, these bacteria have been found in 4% of all hospitals and 18% of those that offer long-term critical care. And an analysis carried out in the United Kingdom predicts that if antibiotics become ineffective, everyday operations such as hip replacements could end in death for as many as one in six1. The language used by Davies and Frieden was intended to break through the indifference with which the public usually greets news about antibiotic resistance. To close observers, however, it also had a tinge of exasperation. CREs were first identified almost 15 years ago, but did not become a public-health priority until recently, and medics may not have appreciated the threat that they posed. Looking back, say observers, there are lessons for researchers and health-care workers in how to protect patients, as well as those hospitals where CREs have not yet emerged. “It is not too late to intervene and prevent these from becoming more common,” says Alexander Kallen, a medical epidemiologist at the CDC. At the same time, he acknowledges that in many places, CREs are here for good. More on antibiotics: Farming up trouble Hindsight is key to the story of CREs, because it was hindsight that identified them

in the first place. In 2000, researchers at the CDC were grinding through analyses for a surveillance programme known as Intensive Care

Antimicrobial Resistance Epidemiology (ICARE), which had been running for six years to monitor intensive-care units for unusual resistance factors. In the programme's backlog of biological samples, scientists identified one from the Enterobacteriaceae family, a group of gut-dwelling bacteria. This particular sample — of Klebsiella pneumoniae, a common cause of infection in intensive-care units — had been taken from a patient at a hospital in North Carolina in 1996 (ref. 2). It was weakly resistant to carbapenems, powerful broad-spectrum antibiotics developed in the 1980s. Antibiotics have been falling to resistance for almost as long as people have been using them; Alexander Fleming, who discovered penicillin, warned about the possibility when he accepted his Nobel prize in 1945. Knowing this, doctors have used the most effective drugs sparingly: careful rationing of the powerful antibiotic vancomycin, for example, meant that bacteria took three decades to develop resistance to it. Prudent use, researchers thought, would keep the remaining last-resort drugs such as the carbapenems effective for decades. The North Carolinan strain of Klebsiella turned that idea on its head. It produced an enzyme, dubbed KPC (for Klebsiella pneumoniae

carbapenemase), that broke down carbapenems. What's more, the gene that encoded the enzyme sat on a plasmid, a piece of DNA that can move easily from one bacterium to another . Carbapenem resistance had arrived. At first, however,

microbiologists considered this CRE to be a lone case. Jean Patel, a microbiologist who is now deputy director of the CDC's office of antimicrobial resistance, says

that CDC staff were reassured by the fact that the sample had been collected four years earlier and that testing of the remaining archives revealed no further instances of resistance. “It wasn't that there was a lack

in interest in looking for these,” Patel says. Instead, the attitude at the time was, “We have a system for identifying these and it's working, and if more occur we'll hear about it”. But the CDC's surveillance programme was limited: it tracked only 41 hospitals out of some 6,000 and its analyses lagged far behind sample collection. So when carbapenem resistance emerged again, years passed before anyone noticed.

burn-out’s wrongTorrey and Yolken 5 E. Fuller and Robert H, Directors Stanley Medical Research Institute, 2005, Beasts of the Earth: Animals, Humans and Disease, pp. 5-6

The outcome of this marriage, however, is not as clearly defined as it was once thought to be. For many years, it was believed that microbes and human slowly learn to live with each other as microbes evolve toward a benign coexistence wit their hosts. Thus, the

bacterium that causes syphilis was thought to be extremely virulent when it initially spread among humans in the sixteenth century, then to have slowly become less virulent over the following three centuries. This reassuring view of microbial history has recently

been challenged by Paul Ewald and others, who have questioned whether microbes do necessarily evolve toward long-term accommodation with their hosts. Under certain circumstances, Ewald argues, “Natural selection may…favor the evolution of extreme harmfulness if the exploitation that damages the host [i.e. disease] enhances the ability of the harmful variant to compete with a more

benign pathogen.” The outcome of such a “marriage” may thus be the murder of one spouse by the other . In

eschatological terms, this view argues that a microbe such as HIV or SARS virus may be truly capable of eradicating the human race.

Impact---BioPharma---Disease – A2: No Pandemics

its likely, spreads globally in months, and makes every impact inevitableClapper 13 – Director of National Intelligence (James R., “Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community Senate Select Committee on Intelligence”, 3/12/13; <www.intelligence.senate.gov/130312/clapper.pdf>)//Beddow

Scientists continue to discover previously unknown pathogens in humans that made the “jump” from animals—zoonotic diseases. Examples are: a prion disease in cattle that jumped in the 1980s to cause variant Creutzeldt-Jacob disease; a bat henipavirus that in 1999 became known as the human Nipah Virus; a bat corona virus that jumped to humans in 2002 to cause Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS); and another SARS-like corona virus recently identified in

individuals who have been in Saudi Arabia, which might also have bat origins. Human and livestock population growth and encroachment into jungles increase human exposure to crossovers. No one can predict which pathogen will be the next to spread to humans, or when or where such a development will occur, but humans will continue to be vulnerable to pandemics, most of which will probably originate in animals. An easily transmissible, novel respiratory pathogen that kills or incapacitates more than one percent of its victims is among the most disruptive events possible . Such an outbreak would result in a global pandemic that causes suffering and death in every corner of the world, probably in fewer than six months. This is not a hypothetical threat . History is replete with examples of pathogens sweeping populations that lack immunity, causing political and economic upheaval, and influencing the outcomes of wars —for example, the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic affected military operations during World War I and caused global economic disruptions. The World Health Organization has described one influenza pandemic as “the epidemiological equivalent of a flash flood.” However, slow-spreading pathogens, such as HIV/AIDS, have been just as deadly, if not

more so. Such a pathogen with pandemic potential may have already jumped to humans somewhere; HIV/AIDS entered the human population more than 50 years before it was recognized and identified. In addition, targeted therapeutics and vaccines might be inadequate to keep up with the size and speed of the threat, and drug-resistant forms of diseases , such as tuberculosis, gonorrhea, and Staphylococcus aureus, have already emerged.

inevitable rapidly mutating pandemics – medical innovation key to solveJeffery Sachs 14—Professor of Sustainable Development, Health Policy and Management @ Columbia University [Jeffrey D. Sachs (Director of the Earth Institute @ Columbia University and Special adviser to the United Nations Secretary-General on the Millennium Development Goals) “Important lessons from Ebola outbreak,” Business World Online, August 17, 2014, http://tinyurl.com/kjgvyro]

Ebola is the latest of many recent epidemics, also including AIDS, SARS, H1N1 flu, H7N9 flu , and others.

AIDS is the deadliest of these killers, claiming nearly 36 million lives since 1981. Of course, even larger and more sudden epidemics are possible, such as the 1918 influenza during World War I, which claimed 50- 100 million lives (far more than the war itself). And, though the 2003 SARS outbreak was contained, causing fewer than 1,000 deaths, the disease was on the

verge of deeply disrupting several East Asian economies including China’s. There are four crucial facts to understand about Ebola and the other epidemics. First, most emerging infectious diseases are zoonoses, meaning that they start in animal populations, sometimes with a genetic mutation that enables the jump to humans. Ebola may have been transmitted from bats; HIV/AIDS emerged from chimpanzees; SARS most likely came from civets traded in animal markets in southern China;

and influenza strains such as H1N1 and H7N9 arose from genetic re-combinations of viruses among wild and farm animals. New zoonotic diseases are inevitable as humanity pushes into new ecosystems (such as formerly remote forest regions); the food industry creates more conditions for genetic recombination ; and climate change scrambles natural habitats and species interactions . Second, once a new infectious disease appears, its spread through airlines, ships, megacities, and trade in animal products is likely to be extremely rapid . These epidemic diseases are new markers of globalization, revealing through their chain of death how vulnerable the world has become from the pervasive movement of people and goods. Third, the poor are the first to suffer and the worst affected. The rural poor live closest to the infected animals that first transmit the disease. They often

hunt and eat bushmeat, leaving them vulnerable to infection. Poor, often illiterate, individuals are generally unaware of how infectious diseases -- especially unfamiliar diseases -- are transmitted, making them much more likely to become infected and to

infect others. Moreover, given poor nutrition and lack of access to basic health services, their weakened immune systems are easily overcome by infections that better nourished and treated individuals can survive. And “de-medicalized” conditions -- with few if any professional health workers to ensure an appropriate public-health response to an

epidemic (such as isolation of infected individuals, tracing of contacts, surveillance, and so forth) -- make initial outbreaks more severe. Finally, the required medical responses, including diagnostic tools and effective medications and vaccines, inevitably lag behind the emerging diseases. In

any event, such tools must be continually replenished . This requires cutting-edge biotech nology, immunology, and ultimately bioengineering to create large-scale industrial responses (such as millions of doses of vaccines or medicines in the case of large epidemics). The AIDS crisis, for example, called forth tens of billions of dollars for research and development -- and similarly substantial commitments by the pharmaceutical industry -- to produce lifesaving antiretroviral drugs at global scale. Yet

each breakthrough inevitably leads to the pathogen’s mutation , rendering previous treatments less effective.

There is no ultimate victory, only a constant arms race between humanity and disease-causing agents.

Impact---BioPharma---Disease---A2: Surveillance Solves

Surveillance doesn’t solve resistance – can’t detect patterns soon enough, limited programMcKenna 13 [Maryn McKenna is an independent journalist Senior Fellow of the Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism at Brandeis University and a research affiliate at MIT 7-24-2013 http://www.nature.com/news/antibiotic-resistance-the-last-resort-1.13426]

As a rule, high-ranking public-health officials try to avoid apocalyptic descriptors. So it was worrying to hear Thomas Frieden and

Sally Davies warn of a coming health “nightmare” and a “catastrophic threat” within a few days of each other in March. The agency heads were talking abou t the soaring increase in a little-known class of antibiotic-resistant bacteria: carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae

(CREs). Davies, the United Kingdom's chief medical officer, described CREs as a risk as serious as terrorism (see Nature 495, 141; 2013). “We have a very serious problem, and we need to sound an alarm,” said

Frieden, director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia. Their dire phrasing was warranted. CREs cause bladder, lung and blood

infections that can spiral into life-threatening septic shock. They evade the action of almost all antibiotics — including the carbapenems, which are considered drugs of last resort — and they kill up to half of all patients who contract them. In the United States, these bacteria have been found in 4% of all hospitals and 18% of those that offer long-term critical care. And an analysis carried out in the United Kingdom predicts that if antibiotics become ineffective, everyday operations such as hip replacements could end in death for as many as one in six1. The language used by Davies and Frieden was intended to break through the indifference with which the public usually greets news about antibiotic resistance. To close observers, however, it also had a tinge of exasperation. CREs were first identified almost 15 years ago, but did not become a public-health priority until recently, and medics may not have appreciated the threat that they posed. Looking back, say observers, there are lessons for researchers and health-care workers in how to protect patients, as well as those hospitals where CREs have not yet emerged. “It is not too late to intervene and prevent these from becoming more common,” says Alexander Kallen, a medical epidemiologist at the CDC. At the same time, he acknowledges that in many places, CREs are here for good. More on antibiotics: Farming up trouble Hindsight is key to the story of CREs, because it was hindsight that identified them

in the first place. In 2000, researchers at the CDC were grinding through analyses for a surveillance programme known as Intensive Care

Antimicrobial Resistance Epidemiology (ICARE), which had been running for six years to monitor intensive-care units for unusual resistance factors. In the programme's backlog of biological samples, scientists identified one from the Enterobacteriaceae family, a group of gut-dwelling bacteria. This particular sample — of Klebsiella pneumoniae, a common cause of infection in intensive-care units — had been taken from a patient at a hospital in North Carolina in 1996 (ref. 2). It was weakly resistant to carbapenems, powerful broad-spectrum antibiotics developed in the 1980s. Antibiotics have been falling to resistance for almost as long as people have been using them; Alexander Fleming, who discovered penicillin, warned about the possibility when he accepted his Nobel prize in 1945. Knowing this, doctors have used the most effective drugs sparingly: careful rationing of the powerful antibiotic vancomycin, for example, meant that bacteria took three decades to develop resistance to it. Prudent use, researchers thought, would keep the remaining last-resort drugs such as the carbapenems effective for decades. The North Carolinan strain of Klebsiella turned that idea on its head. It produced an enzyme, dubbed KPC (for Klebsiella pneumoniae

carbapenemase), that broke down carbapenems. What's more, the gene that encoded the enzyme sat on a plasmid, a piece of DNA that can move easily from one bacterium to another . Carbapenem resistance had arrived. At first, however,

microbiologists considered this CRE to be a lone case. Jean Patel, a microbiologist who is now deputy director of the CDC's office of antimicrobial resistance, says

that CDC staff were reassured by the fact that the sample had been collected four years earlier and that testing of the remaining archives revealed no further instances of resistance. “It wasn't that there was a lack

in interest in looking for these,” Patel says. Instead, the attitude at the time was, “We have a system for identifying these and it's working, and if more occur we'll hear about it”. But the CDC's surveillance programme was limited: it tracked only 41 hospitals out of some 6,000 and its analyses lagged far behind sample collection. So when carbapenem resistance emerged again, years passed before anyone noticed.

Impact - Competitiveness

Impact---Competitiveness---2NC

Tax reform to US competitiveness Trotter 16 – Gayle Trotter, Senior Fellow at Independent Women's Forum, Political Analyst and Tax Attorney, “Trump's Corporate Tax Plan Will Make America Competitive Again”, Washington Examiner, 12-21, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trumps-corporate-tax-plan-will-make-america-competitive-again/article/2610172

The corporate tax reforms proposed by President-elect Trump promise to make America competitive again in the global economy, and Congress should work to implement the changes quickly.

Lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent will help , not only to keep businesses here, but also bring jobs and innovation back home by reducing wacky incentives for U nited States companies to migrate offshore in tax-driven "inversion" deals. In response to a fairer, more efficient tax system you can expect to hear anguished caterwauling from Trump's opponents. These critics object that the top 1 percent will get 47

percent of the total benefits in the Trump tax plan while the bottom 60 percent will get just 10 percent. The critique misunderstands our existing tax system,

which works against the American people and favors special interests and out-of-touch politicos who fund their own pet projects by spending taxpayer dollars with abandon .

Everybody does whatever they can to pay the least amount of tax possible, including Warren Buffett and the rest of the super-wealthy.

Buffett embarrassed the Obama administration by orchestrating a corporate tax inversion of Burger King while the administration changed tax rules to limit the availability of corporate inversions, rather than taking the easy, obvious, and more effective step of simply lowering the corporate tax rate. The Trump tax plan takes that easy step.

You can also expect to hear more of the same redistributionist, spread-the-wealth-around arguments about how socking it to the upper brackets will enhance the lot of middle-income earners. It's another example of attractive rhetoric making bad policy.

Our current average corporate tax rate of 39.1 percent , with state and local taxes included, is the highest among members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development , a forum of 35 democratic countries with market economies.

One way or another, all corporations are ultimately owned by flesh-and-blood humans. Rhetoric aside, it is not the corporation that suffers from high taxes. Shareholders bear the tax burden leveled against corporations, as noted by the public policy group Just Facts.

Main Street suffers too. The American worker bears as much as 25 percent of the cost of corporate tax, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate. Worse still,

when taxes are too high, workers become former workers . Rising minimum wage laws incentivized

Corporations vote with their feet , moving their tax domicile from the U.S. to countries with lower corporate tax rates, in the same way that retired New Yorkers shelter retirement income by abandoning their high-tax state for a state without an income tax, such as Florida.

Thanks to Washington's perversely backward tax policies, most Americans have seen their income stagnate as China and India become world economic powerhouses .

Consumers suffer as well. Too-high corporate taxes guarantee higher costs for consumers everywhere, from the gas pump and the grocery store to the car showroom and the appliance dealer.

Beyond helping workers and consumers, the Trump tax plan would actually help increase overall federal revenues . In

June, the Tax Foundation reported that a House Republican tax reform draft would raise at least $100 billion more per year for the federal government by broadening the tax base. This would put a solid dent in our annual deficits, which are expected to rise above $1 trillion dollars per year in the near future.

For too many years, both the executive and legislative branches have allowed a broken tax regime to persist. Rather than repairing a flawed system, they worked to extend tax breaks for special interests while ignoring the American worker and Main Street businesses.

With the promise of meaningful tax reform within the Trump administration 's first 100 days , the U.S. will take its first steps toward a globally competitive tax policy . What's not great about that result?

Competiveness prevents great power warColby and Lettow 14 (Elbridge and Paul, Robert M. Gates fellow @ Center for a New American Security + senior director for strategic planning on the U.S. National Security Council staff from 2007 to 2009, 7/3, “Have We Hit Peak America?,” http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/03/have_we_hit_peak_america)

In other words, a greater number of Americans are worried about diminishing U.S. influence today than in the face of feared Soviet technological superiority in the late 1950s, the Vietnam quagmire of the late 1960s, the 1973 oil embargo, the apparent resurgence of Soviet power around the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan, and the economic concerns that plagued the late 1980s—the five waves of so-called declinist anxiety that political scientist Samuel Huntington famously identified. Many analysts have attributed Americans’ current anxiety to the aftershock of

waging two long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the polls actually reflect something deeper and more potent—a legitimate, increasingly tactile uncertainty in the minds of the American people created by changes in the world and in America’s competitive position, which they feel far more immediately than do the participants in Washington policy debates. Average Americans do not experience the world through the lens of great-power rivalry or U.S. leadership abroad, but rather through that of an increasingly competitive globalized labor market, stagnating income growth among the middle class, and deep and unresolved worries about their children’s future. A recent cnn poll, for instance, found that Americans think by a 2-to-1 margin that their children’s lives will be worse than their own. They are questioning the promise of growth and expanding opportunity—the very substance of the American dream. This anxiety is real and justified, and it lies behind much of

the public’s support for withdrawing from the world, for retrenchment. Yet American leadership and engagement remain essential. The United States cannot hide from the world. Rather, it must compete. And if it competes well , it can restore not only its economic health , but also its strength for the long haul . That resilience will preserve Americans’ ability to determine their fate and the nation’s ability to lead in the way its interests require. Unfortunately, absent from current discussions

about U.S. foreign policy has been a hardheaded assessment of what it will actually take to rejuvenate and compete. Policymakers and experts have not yet taken a clear-eyed look at the data and objectively analyzed the fundamental shifts

under way globally and what they mean for America’s competitive position. Nor have they debated the steps necessary to sustain U.S. power over the long term. THE WORLD’S ECONOMIC CENTER OF GRAVITY The larger a country’s GDP, the greater its pull on the world’s economic center of gravity. So when the Industrial Revolution spurred massive growth in the United States, the center moved west, eventually out over the Atlantic Ocean. Today, it is moving back toward Asia. Many foreign-policy experts seem to believe that retaining American primacy is largely a matter of will—of how America chooses to exert its power abroad. Even President Obama, more often accused of being a prophet of decline than a booster of America’s future, recently asserted that the United States “has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world.” The question, he continued, is

“not whether America will lead, but how we will lead.” But will is unavailing without strength. If the United States wants the international system to continue to reflect its interests and values —a system, for example, in which the global commons are protected, trade is broad-based and extensive, and armed conflicts among great nations are curtailed—it needs to sustain not just resolve, but relative power. That, in turn, will require acknowledging the uncomfortable truth that global power and wealth are shifting at an unprecedented pace, with profound implications. Moreover, many of the challenges America faces are exacerbated by vulnerabilities that are largely self-created, chief among them fiscal policy. Much more quickly and comprehensively than is

understood, those vulnerabilities are reducing America’s freedom of action and its ability to influence others. Preserving America’s international position will require it to restore its economic vitality and make policy choices now that pay dividends for decades to come. America has to prioritize and to act. Fortunately, the United States still enjoys greater freedom to determine its future than any other major power, in part because many of its problems

are within its ability to address. But this process of renewal must begin with analyzing America’s competitive position and understanding the gravity of the situation Americans face. FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 200 YEARS, MOST GROWTH IS OCCURRING IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD, and the speed with which that shift—a function of globalization—has occurred is hard to fathom. Whereas in

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/03/have_we_hit_peak_america

1990 just 14 percent of cross-border flows of goods, services, and finances originated in emerging economies, today nearly 40 percent do. As recently as 2000, the gdp of China was one-tenth that of the United States; just 14 years later, the two economies are equal (at least in terms of purchasing power parity). This shift reorders what was, in some sense, a historical anomaly: the transatlantic dominance of the past 150 years. As illustrated by the map below, it wasn’t until the Industrial Revolution took hold in the 19th century that the world’s “economic center of gravity” decisively moved

toward Europe and the United States, which have since been the primary engines of growth. Today, however, the economic center of gravity is headed back toward Asia, and it is doing so with unique historical speed. This trend will persist even though emerging economies are hitting roadblocks to growth, such as pervasive corruption in India and demographic challenges and serious distortions in the banking system in China. For instance, according to the asset-management firm BlackRock and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (oecd), consumption in emerging markets has already eclipsed that in the United States, and spending by the middle

classes in Asia-Pacific nations is on track to exceed middle-class spending in North America by a factor of nearly six by 2030. U.S. wealth is not shrinking in absolute terms—and it continues to benefit from economic globalization—but the United States and its allies are losing might compared with potential rivals. Although Europe and Japan have been responsible for much of the developed world’s lost relative economic power, the U.S. economy has also slowed from its traditional rates of expansion over the past several

decades. Worsening productivity growth has played a particularly large role in the U.S. slowdown, dropping to around 0.5 percent annually, which the Financial Times has referred to as a “productivity crisis.” A range of factors are responsible, including a decline in the skill level of the American workforce and a drop in resources allocated to research and development. U.S. REVENUE VS. SPENDING By 2043, federal spending on entitlements and net interest payments will exceed federal revenues, meaning funds for any discretionary programs will be borrowed. Overall, the U.S. economy has become less competitive. The McKinsey Global Institute, for instance, has measured the relative attractiveness of the United States across a range of metrics, such as national spending on research and development and foreign direct investment as

a percentage of gdp. It found that U.S. business attractiveness relative to that of competitors fell across 14 of 20 key metrics from 2000 to 2010—and improved in none. And according to the Harvard Business Review, U.S. exports’ global market share dropped across

the board from 1999 to 2009 and suffered particularly sharp falls in cutting-edge fields such as aerospace. This shift in economic growth toward the developing world is going to have strategic consequences . Military power ultimately derives from wealth. It is often noted that the United States spends more on defense than the next 10 countries combined.

But growth in military spending correlates with gdp growth, so as other economies grow, those countries will likely spend more on defense, reducing the relative military power of the United States . Already, trends in global defense spending show a rapid and marked shift from the United States and its allies toward emerging economies, especially China. In 2011, the United States and its partners accounted for approximately 80 percent of the military spending by the 15 countries with the largest defense budgets. But, according to a McKinsey study, that share could fall significantly over the next eight years—perhaps to as low as 55 percent. The resulting deterioration in American military superiority has already begun, as the countries benefiting most rapidly from globalization are using their newfound wealth to build military capacity, especially in high-tech weaponry. As Robert Work and Shawn Brimley of the Center for a New American Security wrote this year: “[T]he dominance enjoyed by the United States in the late 1990s/early 2000s in the areas of high-end sensors, guided weaponry, battle networking, space and cyberspace systems, and stealth technology has started to erode. Moreover, this erosion is now occurring at an accelerated rate.” (Work has since been confirmed as deputy secretary of defense.)

Impact---Competitiveness---Tax Cuts Key

Competitiveness is in a long term decline now because our corporate tax rates – reform keyEngler, ’13 --- John, Governor of Michigan, et al, Business Roundtable, “Corporate Tax Reform—The Time Is Now,” Submission to the House Committee on Ways and Means, Tax Reform Working Groups, 4—15—13, p. 11-15.

Global trade and investment is increasingly important to world economies The growing global interconnections of the world’s economies are evident in our daily life. Global trade has increased from 19 percent of world output in 1980 to 29 percent in 2011. Global cross-border investment has increased even more rapidly, rising from 5 percent of world output in 1980 to 31 percent in 2011 (Exhibit 5). The United States also has increased participation in global markets over this period, expanding both trade and foreign direct investment relative to U.S. GDP (Exhibit 6): Exports of goods and services have increased to an average of 13.3 percent of GDP in 2010–12, up from an average of 8.4 percent of GDP in the 1980s.20 The share of total corporate earnings from abroad has increased to an average of 34.3 percent in 2010–12, up from an average of 16.7 percent in the 1980s.21 Foreign direct investment by American companies has increased to an average of 31.3 percent of GDP in 2010–11 (the two most recent years for which data are available), up from an average of 9.9 percent of GDP in the 1980s.22 U.S. share of world

exports and foreign investment is in decline Despite the increased importance of foreign markets to the U.S. economy, American companies have not kept pace with expanding global markets . In 2011, exports from the United States accounted for about 9.4 percent of world exports, down from 17 percent in 1960. U.S. outward investment as a share of worldwide crossborder investment has declined even more significantly. In 2011, outward foreign direct investment from the United States accounted for about 21 percent of global cross-

border investment, down from 39 percent in 1980 (Exhibit 7). With American companies responsible for a smaller share of world exports and cross-border investment , the U.S. economy is losing its share of the global marketplace to foreign competitors . American companies account for a declining share of

the Global Fortune 500. The declining relative importance of American companies in the world economy also is reflected in the rankings of the largest companies in the world. In 1960, American companies comprised 17 of the top 20 global companies ranked by sales. In 2012, the latest data show just five American companies in the top 20.23 Among the companies listed in the Global Fortune 500, the number of U.S.-headquartered companies declined 26 percent between 2000 and 2012, from 179 to 132. The countries with the largest number of additions to the top 500 global companies over this period were the socalled BRICs: China added 63, India added seven, and Brazil and Russia each added five (Exhibit 8). In 2012, China was second to the United States in the number of companies in the top 500, up from 14th in 1995. Growth of the emerging market economies will continue to offer new markets for Americanproduced goods and services — 95 percent of the world’s population growth is forecast to be in emerging markets, with increasing spending by their middle-class populations relative to developed countries. 24 Goldman Sachs estimates that within the next 10 years emerging market economies in aggregate will be as large as industrialized economies.25 American companies compete in these emerging markets with both locally headquartered companies as well as multinational companies headquartered in other developed countries. Within the OECD, 93 percent of the non-U.S. companies in the Global Fortune 500 in 2012 are headquartered in countries that use more favorable territorial tax systems, and all have a lower home-country corporate tax rate. 26 Reflecting the increasing use of territorial systems around the world, in 1995 only 27 percent of the non-U.S. OECD companies in the Global Fortune

500 were headquartered in territorial countries. This heightened world competition makes U.S. corporate tax policy more important than ever . American companies require an internationally competitive tax system to compete on a level

playing field with their most advanced competitors from around the world in markets at home and abroad. Wherever American companies compete abroad, they are virtually certain to be competing against foreign companies with more favorable tax rules . Corporate tax rules that hinder the competitiveness of American companies disadvantage American workers and impede the strength of the U.S. economy.

High corporate taxes ensure slow growth and hinders competitiveness in the long term

Tori Whiting 16, Research Assistant in the Center for Trade and Economics at The Heritage Foundation, August 4th, “Soaring Business Taxes Hurt America’s Ability to Compete,” The Daily Signal, http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/04/soaring-business-taxes-hurt-americas-ability-to-compete/, Date Accessed: 8-29-16

As a result, the U.S. now has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, exceeding the Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development average by nearly 15 percentage points. By maintaining such a high corporate tax rate, the U nited S tates hinders its competitiveness in the global economy . In 1993, the U.S. corporate tax rate was increased from 34

to 35 percent, where it has remained since. Corporations in the U.S. also are subject to state and local taxes, resulting in a combined average corporate tax rate of 39 percent. In contrast, Estonia, for example, has decreased its corporate tax rate by 6 percentage points since 2005. Hong Kong has a simple and efficient tax system, and a top corporate tax rate of only 16.5 percent. According to Curtis S. Dubay and David R. Burton, research fellow and senior

fellow at The Heritage Foundation, respectively, the current business tax system is “ slowing investment , which depresses economic growth , slows job creation , and suppresses wages .” These problems are reflected in

Heritage’s 2016 Index of Economic Freedom, where the U.S. is ranked 154th out of 178 countries in fiscal freedom . In June, House Republicans released a blueprint for tax reform, which included proposals to change the way the government taxes corporations and

other businesses. Reforms clearly are needed . In the end, reforming the corporate tax rate is about making America a place where domestic and foreign businesses can invest , grow , and prosper while supporting jobs right here at home .

Corporate rate reduction solves—globalization magnifies the impactRobert Carroll 11, National Director at the Quantitative Economics and Statistics at Ernst & Young LLP, September, “The Economic Benefits of Reducing the US Corporate Income Tax Rate,” Ernst and Young LLP, http://ratecoalition.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ey-report-economic-benefits-of-a-lower-corporate-tax-rate-2011-09-17.pdf, Date Accessed: 8-30-16

Increased competitiveness of the United States in the global economy Most other developed nation s have lowered their corporate tax rates over the past decade while the U.S. corporate tax rate has remained unchanged . At the same time, increasing globalization amplifies the importance of differences in corporate tax rates across

countries. In a global economy capital flows more freely across borders. Increased capital mobility makes it more sensitive to differential in its tax treatment . In addition, other advantages the U nited S tates once held such as a highly educated work force, large open markets, and infrastructure are less significant as former ly developing countries mature in the global economy. Rates have fallen in other nations, while the US corporate tax rate has remained unchanged As shown in Figure 2, the US statutory corporate income tax rate has remained largely unchanged for over two decades. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 lowered the top federal corporate income tax rate from 46% to 34%, which was followed by a 1% increase in 1993, bringing the rate to its current level of 35%. At the beginning of the 1980s, the US statutory corporate income tax rate was slightly above the OECD average, but since the late 1980s most other developed nations have reduced their statutory corporate income tax rates to levels often significantly below those of the United States. Today, the United States has a 39.2% combined federal-state statutory corporate income tax rate, which is significantly above the average 25.5% rate within the OECD (or 29.9% when weighted by GDP). Countries continue to lower their corporate tax rates. Of the 34 OECD nations, 30 have lowered their statutory corporate income tax rates since 2000. The United Kingdom is scheduled to lower its corporate tax rate to 23% by 2015. Canada has lowered its federal corporate tax rate to 16.5% in 2011, with a reduction to 15% in 2013. 8 The Japanese government earlier proposed lowering their corporate tax rate by five percentage point, but has been deferred due to the

tsunami. Some policy analysts argue the US statutory corporate income tax rate is not the right

measure for comparing the United States to other nations because it does not reflect differences in the tax base . The same trends , however, are reflected in other metrics for comparing effective corporate income tax rates . In several recent studies the effective marginal tax rates on new investment were found to be higher in the U nited S tates than the average for member nations of the OECD . 9 In another study on effective tax rates based on financial statement data, the United States had an effective tax rate that was the second highest among the 15 countries analyzed, exceeded only by Japan.10 Furthermore, statutory tax rates do matter, and have

significant economic effects as described below. Globalization amplifies the economic effects from differences in corporate tax rates Changes in the corporate income tax rate are much more important in the current global economy than in the past. Capital flows more freely across borders, and other countries‟ economies have grown rapidly as they have adopted more market-economy policies. Nearly one-third of the US economy is now integrated with the rest of the world through international trade. US imports and exports increased dramatically over the past half century, growing 311% between 1962 and 2007, and now representing 29% of US gross domestic product (GDP). The total stock of foreign direct investment by US companies grew to 30.3% of GDP in 2009, up

from just 7.7% in 1980.11 For many US companies, foreign operations account for more than half of all sales. Foreign investments by US companies are expected to accelerate , as the International Monetary Fund

projects 69% of the world‟s growth through 2014 will occur in developing countries. Table 1 shows the rapidly changing global economy from the perspective of the locations of headquarters of the Fortune Global 500 companies. The number of Fortune Global 500 headquarters in the United

States and Japan, the two major economies with the highest corporate income tax rates, has fallen 30 percent in just the past eleven years. The United States is the only country in the top ten that has not reduced its corporate tax rate in the past eleven years. The US corporate rate is eight percent age points above the average for the other

top ten countries and almost ten percentage points above all of the other major global companies. This globalization makes it easier for businesses and investors to reallocate or move their capital across borders in response to differences in countries ‟ tax policies , which amplifies the detrimental effects of a high US corporate income tax rate. Research has found that the corporate income tax can have a large impact on where multinational companies choose to place their production facilities and on the

size of these investments.12 A lower US corporate tax rate The Economic Benefits of Reducing the US Corporate Income Tax Rate would reduce the tax on repatriated earnings of US-headquartered multinational corporations, and reduce the competitive disadvantage US multinationals currently have in bidding against foreign competitors for acquisition targets. Additional US investment is important because it can spur additional local employment , increases in productivity that spill over to other segments of the local economy , and other benefits commonly associated with foreign direct investment. Research generally finds that foreign direct investment is highly sensitive to cross-country differences in after-tax returns. One study summarizing research in this area found that a 1 percentage point reduction in a host country’s tax rate increased foreign direct investment by 2.9% and also found that the responsiveness of foreign direct investment has risen over time.13 Foreign direct investment in the US supported 5 million US jobs in 201014; additional foreign investment would result in additional US employment.

CTR is crucial to competivenessMichele Davis, Partner, Brunswick Group, “Why Corporate Tax Reform Is A Must,” INSIGHT, American Action Forum, 3—3—11, https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/why-corporate-tax-reform-is-a-must/, accessed 9-9-16.

President Obama embarked on a nationwide tour to declare his intent to “win the future” for American workers. He should embrace corporate tax reform as the lynchpin of that agenda – and devote the unwavering leadership and attention necessary to see it through –

so that American companies attract the capital they need to “win the future” in a global economy. Ninety-five percent of the world’s population lives outsides the United States. As the world gets smaller and our

markets get more interlinked, the ability of US companies to compete globally will become an ever more important factor in US job creation and living standards. US companies – and their employees – must be able to thrive on that global stage, or risk withering away here at home. Across sectors ranging from technology, to energy to professional services, US companies have risen to that challenge, and are leading their competition in markets around the globe. They succeed because

https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/why-corporate-tax-reform-is-a-must/

https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/why-corporate-tax-reform-is-a-must/

they have world-beating innovation, productive employees, and the most efficient processes for bringing these new innovative products and services to

market. And that global leadership creates jobs back home in the United States. But the ability to compete is threatened by our outdated US corporate tax system . Written 25 years ago, the corporate tax code

simply doesn’t work in today’s integrated global economy where it’s easier than ever before to run a successful global business from anywhere . More and more, our corporate tax code is an obstacle to the competitiveness of US companies and their ability to create American jobs.

Impact---Competitiveness---A2: No Impact

Decline causes WMD lashout—no checksHarold James 14, Professor of history at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School who specializes in European economic history, 7/2/14, “Debate: Is 2014, like 1914, a prelude to world war?,” http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/read-and-vote-is-2014-like-1914-a-prelude-to-world-war/article19325504/

As we get closer to the centenary of Gavrilo Princip’s act of terrorism in Sarajevo, there is an ever more vivid fear: it could happen again.

The approach of the hundredth anniversary of 1914 has put a spotlight on the fragility of the world’s

political and economic security systems. At the beginning of 2013, Luxembourg’s Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker was widely

ridiculed for evoking the shades of 1913. By now he is looking like a prophet. By 2014, as the security situation in the South China Sea deteriorated, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe cast China as the equivalent to Kaiser Wilhelm’s Germany; and the

fighting in Ukraine and in Iraq is a sharp reminder of the dangers of escalation . Lessons of 1914 are about

more than simply the dangers of national and sectarian animosities. The main story of today as then is the precariousness of financial globalization , and the consequences that political leaders draw from it. In the influential view of

Norman Angell in his 1910 book The Great Illusion, the interdependency of the increasingly complex global economy made war impossible. But a quite opposite conclusion was possible and equally plausibl e – and proved to be the case . Given the extent of fragility, a clever twist to the control levers might make war easily winnable by the economic hegemon . In the wake of an epochal financial crisis that almost brought a complete global collapse , in 1907 , several countries started to think of finance as primarily an instrument of raw power , one that could and should be turned to national advantage. The 1907 panic emanated from the United States but affected the rest of the world and demonstrated the fragility of the whole international financial order. The aftermath of the 1907 crash drove the then hegemonic power – Great Britain - to reflect on how it could use its financial power. Between 1905 and 1908, the British Admiralty evolved the broad outlines of a plan for financial and economic warfare that would wreck the financial system of its major European rival, Germany, and destroy its fighting capacity. Britain used its extensive networks to gather information about opponents. London banks financed most of the world’s trade. Lloyds provided insurance for the shipping not just of Britain, but of the world. Financial networks provided the information that allowed the British government to find the sensitive strategic vulnerabilities of the opposing alliance. What pre-1914 Britain did anticipated the private-public partnership that today links technology giants such as Google, Apple or Verizon to U.S. intelligence gathering. Since last year, the Edward Snowden leaks about the NSA have shed a light on the way that global networks are used as a source of intelligence and power. For Britain’s rivals, the financial panic of 1907 showed the necessity of mobilizing financial powers themselves. The United States realized that it needed a central bank analogous to the Bank of England. American financiers thought that New York

needed to develop its own commercial trading system that could handle bills of exchange in the same way as the London market. Some of the dynamics of the pre-1914 financial world are now re-emerging. Then an economically declining power , Britain, wanted to use finance as a weapon against its larger and faster growing competitors, Germany and the

United States. Now America is in turn obsessed by being overtaken by Ch ina – according to some calculations, set to

become the world’s largest economy in 2014. In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, financial institutions appear both as dangerous weapons of mass destruction , but also as potential instruments for the application of national power. In managing the 2008 crisis, the dependence of foreign banks on U.S. dollar funding constituted a major weakness, and required the provision of large swap lines by the Federal Reserve. The United States provided that support to some countries, but not others, on the basis of an explicitly political logic, as Eswar Prasad demonstrates in his new book on the “Dollar Trap.” Geo-politics is intruding into banking practice elsewhere. Before the Ukraine crisis, Russian banks were trying to acquire assets in Central and Eastern Europe. European and U.S. banks are playing a much reduced role in Asian trade finance. Chinese banks are being pushed to expand their role in global commerce. After the financial crisis, China started to build up the renminbi as a major international currency. Russia and China have just proposed to create a new credit rating agency to avoid what they regard as the political bias of the existing (American-based) agencies. The next stage in this logic is to think about how financial power can be directed to national advantage in the case of a diplomatic tussle. Sanctions are a routine (and not terribly successful) part of the pressure applied to rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. But financial pressure can be much more powerfully applied to countries that are deeply embedded in the world economy. The test is in the Western imposition of sanctions after the Russian annexation of Crimea. President Vladimir Putin’s calculation in response is that the European Union and the United States cannot possibly be serious about the financial war. It would turn into a boomerang: Russia would be less

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/read-and-vote-is-2014-like-1914-a-prelude-to-world-war/article19325504/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/read-and-vote-is-2014-like-1914-a-prelude-to-world-war/article19325504/

affected than the more developed and complex financial markets of Europe and America. The threat of systemic disruption

generates a new sort of uncertainty , one that mirrors the decisive feature of the crisis of the summer of 1914. At that time, no one could really know whether clashes would escalate or not .

That feature contrasts remarkably with almost the entirety of the Cold War, especially since the 1960s, when the strategic doctrine of M utually A ssured D estruction le ft no doubt that any superpower conflict would inevitably escalate. The idea of network disruption relies on the ability to achieve advantage by surprise, and to win at no or low cost. But it is inevitably a

gamble, and raises prospect that others might, but also might not be able to, mount the same sort of operation. Just as in 1914, there is an enhanced temptation to roll the dice, even though the game may be fatal.

makes the US uncooperative and desperate – leads to hegemonic warsGoldstein 7 - Professor of Global Politics and International Relations @ University of Pennsylvania, Avery Goldstein, “Power transitions, institutions, and China's rise in East Asia: Theoretical expectations and evidence,” Journal of Strategic Studies, Volume30, Issue 4 & 5 August 2007, pages 639 – 682

Two closely related, though distinct, theoretical arguments focus explicitly on the consequences for international politics of a shift in power between a dominant state and a rising power. In War and Change in World Politics, Robert Gilpin suggested that peace prevails when a dominant state’s capabilities enable it to ‘govern’ an international order that it has shaped. Over time, however, as economic and technological diffusion proceeds during eras of peace and development, other states are empowered. Moreover, the burdens of international governance drain and distract the reigning hegemon, and challengers eventually emerge who seek to rewrite the rules of governance. As the power advantage of the erstwhile hegemon ebbs, it may become desperate enough to resort to theultima ratio of international politics, force, to forestall the increasingly urgent demands of a rising challenger . Or as the power of the challenger rises, it may be tempted to press its case with threats to use force. It is the rise and fall of the great powers that create s the circumstances under which major wars, what Gilpin labels ‘ hegemonic wars’ , break out.13 Gilpin’s argument logically encourages pessimism about the implications of a rising China. It leads to the expectation that international trade, investment, and technology transfer will result in a steady diffusion of American economic power, benefiting the rapidly developing states of the world, including China. As the US simultaneously scurries to put out the many brushfires that threaten its far-flung global interests (i.e., the classic problem of overextension),

it will be unable to devote sufficient resources to maintain or restore its former advantage over emerging competitors like China. While the erosion of the once clear American advantage plays itself out, the US will find it ever more difficult to preserve the order in Asia that it created during its era of preponderance. The expectation is an increase in the likelihood for the use of force – either by a Chinese challenger able to field a stronger military in support of its demands for greater influence over international arrangements in Asia, or by a besieged American hegemon desperate to head off further decline. Among the trends that alarm those who would look at Asia through the lens of Gilpin’s theory are China’s expanding share of world trade and wealth (much of it resulting from the gains made possible by the international economic order a dominant US established); its acquisition of technology in key sectors that have both civilian and military applications (e.g., information, communications, and electronics linked with to forestall, and the

challenger becomes increasingly determined to realize the transition to a new international order whose contours it will define. the ‘revolution in military affairs’); and an expanding military burden for the US (as it copes with the challenges of its global war on terrorism and especially its struggle in Iraq) that limits the resources it can devote to preserving its interests in East Asia.14 Although similar to Gilpin’s work insofar as it emphasizes the importance of shifts in the capabilities of a dominant state and a rising challenger, the power-transition theory A. F. K. Organski and Jacek Kugler present in The War Ledger focuses more closely on the allegedly dangerous phenomenon of ‘crossover’– the point at which a dissatisfied challenger is about to overtake the established leading state.15 In such cases, when the power gap narrows, the dominant state becomes increasingly desperate. Though suggesting why a rising China may ultimately present grave dangers for international peace when its capabilities make it a peer competitor of America, Organski and Kugler’s power-transition theory is less clear about the dangers while a potential challenger still lags far behind and faces a difficult struggle to catch up. This clarification is important in thinking about the theory’s relevance to interpreting China’s rise because a broad consensus prevails among analysts that Chinese military capabilities are at a minimum two decades from putting it in a league with the US in Asia.16 Their theory, then, points with alarm to trends in China ’s growing wealth and power relative to the United States , but especially looks ahead to what it sees as the period of maximum danger – that time when a dissatisfied China could be in a position to overtake the US on dimensions believed crucial for assessing power. Reports beginning in the mid-1990s that offered extrapolations suggesting China’s growth would give it the world’s largest gross domestic product (GDP aggregate, not per capita) sometime in the first few decades of the twentieth century fed these sorts of concerns about a potentially dangerous challenge to American leadership in Asia.17 The huge gap between Chinese and American military capabilities (especially in terms of technological sophistication) has so far discouraged prediction of comparably disquieting trends on this dimension, but inklings of similar concerns may be reflected in occasionally alarmist reports about purchases of advanced Russian air and naval equipment, as well as concern that Chinese espionage may have undermined the American advantage in nuclear and missile technology, and speculation about the potential military purposes of China’s manned space program.18 Moreover, because a dominant state may react to the prospect of a crossover and believe that it is wiser to embrace the logic of preventive war and act early to delay a transition while the task is more manageable, Organski and Kugler’s power-transition theory also provides grounds for concern about the period prior to the possible crossover.19 pg. 647-650

Impact---Wag the Dog

Trump Diversionary Wars---1NC/2NC

Trump must not alienate his base - it Causes Diversionary war that goes nuclearTim Street 16, Fellow of the Sustainable Security Programme at the Oxford Research Group, previously researcher with the British American Security Information Council, Ph.D. from Warwick University, 11/30/16, “President Trump: Successor to the Nuclear Throne,” http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers_and_reports/president_trump_successor_nuclear_throne

Donald Trump’s arrival in the White House as US President has deeply unnerved people from across the political spectrum, both inside the US and around the world . The fact that many regard Trump as an indecent individual and his government as potentially the number one threat to their dignity, liberty and life means that the civil strife already raging in the US is unlikely to fade

away soon. The wide-ranging implications of Trump ’s election to the most powerful office on Earth—for the peace and stability of both that nation and the world—cannot be emphasised enough. In this regard, of the many uncertainties and

worries brought on by a Trump presidency, the two existential questions of climate change and nuclear war stand out. With the former, Trump’s recent comment that he now has an ‘open mind’ about the importance of the Paris climate agreement—having previously said climate change is a ‘hoax’—is unlikely to assuage fears that he will seek to dramatically expand the US’s extraction and reliance on fossil fuels. With the latter, strong doubts have been raised over whether the new President is capable of responsibly handling the incredible

power that will be at his fingertips. Moreover, several commentators are already raising concerns that a Trump administration will pursue policies that will aggravate and disappoint his supporters , a situation that could increase the possibility of the US engaging in a ‘ diversionary’ war . In order to consider what we can expect from a Trump presidency, as well as noting whom Trump empowers as members of his cabinet and those whom he draws on for advice, it is vital to study the track record of recent administrations and appreciate the powers Trump will inherit. In doing so this briefing focuses on the question of what a Trump presidency might mean for international relations with a focus on nuclear arms, including doctrine and disarmament. This means reviewing policies relevant to the US’s nuclear arsenal and pressing international challenges such as non-proliferation, including in East Asia and the Middle East, as well as the US’s relationship with Russia and its role in NATO. The

power and responsibilities of the nuclear monarch The US President is solely responsible for the decision to use the near-

unimaginably destructive power of the nation’s nuclear arsenal . Thus, as Bruce Blair—a former intercontinental ballistic

missile launch control officer—makes clear, ‘Trump will have the sole authority to launch nuc lear weapon s whenever he chooses with a single phone call.’ The wider political meaning of the bomb for the world is aptly summarised by Daniel Deudney, who describes nuclear weapons as ‘intrinsically despotic’ so that they have created ‘nuclear monarchies’ in all nuclear-armed states. Deudney identifies three related reasons for this development: ‘the speed of nuclear use decisions; the concentration of nuclear use decision into the hands of one individual; and the lack of accountability stemming from the inability of affected groups to have their interests represented at the moment of nuclear use’. Similarly, Elaine Scarry has explained in stark terms in her 2014 book Thermonuclear Monarchy: Choosing between Democracy and Doom, how the possession of nuclear weapons has converted the US government into ‘a monarchic form of rule that places all defense in the executive branch of government’ leaving the population ‘incapacitated’. In response to this situation, Scarry argues that the American people must use the Constitution as a tool to dismantle the US nuclear weapons system, thereby revitalising democratic participation and control over decision-making. Scarry also outlines

the incredible might the president wields, with each of the US’s fourteen nuclear-armed sub marine s alone carrying ‘ enough power to destroy the people of an entire continent’ , equivalent to ‘eight times the full-blast power expended by Allied and Axis countries in World War II’. Nuclear specialist Hans Kristensen has described how the US’s strategic nuclear war plan ‘if unleashed in its full capacity’ could ‘kill hundreds of millions of people, devastate entire nations, and cause climatic effects on a global scale’. This war plan consists of a ‘family of plans’ that is aimed at ‘six potential adversaries’ whose identities are kept secret. Kristensen understands that they include ‘potentially hostile countries with nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons (WMD)’, meaning China, North Korea, Iran, Russia and Syria as well as a terrorist group backed by a state that has conducted a catastrophic WMD attack. The ‘dominant mission’ for US nuclear weapons within these plans is termed counterforce, meaning strikes on ‘military, mostly nuclear, targets and the enemy’s leadership’. Despite these plans, the US’s nuclear arsenal is often described by mainstream commentators as being solely intended to ensure mutual assured destruction (MAD), i.e. as part of the ‘balance of terror’ with Russia, in order to prevent armed conflict between the two nations and to ensure a response in kind to a surprise nuclear attack. However, as Joseph Gerson and John Feffer explain, rather than deterrence just being about enough nuclear forces surviving a surprise first strike attack to ensure MAD, US military planners have also understood it to mean ‘preventing other nations from taking “courses of action” that are inimical to US interests’. David McDonough thus describes the ‘long-standing goal of American nuclear war-planners’ as being the achievement of the ability to launch a disarming first-strike against an opponent- otherwise known as nuclear superiority. This has been magnified in recent years as the US seeks to ‘prevent’ or ‘rollback’ the ability of weaker states—both nuclear and non-nuclear powers—to establish or maintain a deterrence relationship. Taking all this into account, the new commander-in-chief’s apparently volatile temperament thus raises deep concerns since his finger will be on the nuclear trigger as soon as he assumes office on 20th January 2017. Given his past experience, Bruce Blair’s statement that he is ‘scared to death’ by the idea of a Trump presidency is but one further reason why urgent discussion and action, both in the US and globally, on lessening nuclear dangers—and reviving disarmament—is vital. A recent report by the Ploughshares Fund on how the US can reduce its nuclear spending, reform its nuclear posture and restrain its nuclear war plans should thus be required reading in Washington. However, as the Economist has rightly noted, ‘It is not Mr Trump’s fault that the system, in which the vulnerable land-based missile force is kept on hair-trigger alert, is widely held to be

inherently dangerous’ since, as they point out, ‘no former president, including Barack Obama, has done anything to change it.’ Over sixty years after the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclearism thus remains very much embedded in the nation’s strategic thinking. Yet the election of Obama, and the rhetoric of his 2009 Prague speech, in which he stated ‘America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons’ led many to think that a real change was on the cards. Obama’s visit to Hiroshima earlier this year to commemorate the bombings was thus a painful reminder of how wide the gap is between the rearmament programmes that the US and other nuclear weapon states are engaged in and the disarmament action that they are legally obliged to pursue under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT). Obama himself said in Japan that, ‘technological progress without an equivalent progress in human institutions can doom us. The scientific revolution that led to the splitting of an atom requires a moral revolution as well.’ For this statement to be meaningful it is necessary to identify who is responsible for the existing, highly dangerous state of affairs. In short, the US government’s recent record supports Scarry’s suggestion that a democratic revolution is what, in reality, is most needed if the US is to make substantial progress on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. Short-term reforms towards the democratic control and ultimate dismantlement of the US’s nuclear arsenal have been outlined by Kennette Benedict, who writes that the next administration should: place our nuclear weapons on a much lower level of launch readiness, release to the public more information about the nuclear weapons in our own arsenals, include legislators and outside experts in its nuclear posture review and recognize Congress’ authority to declare war as a prerequisite to any use of nuclear weapons. Assessing Obama’s nuclear legacy In order to properly appreciate what a Trump presidency may bring, we need to revisit the range and types of powers bequeathed to the commander-in-chief by previous administrations. Despite the military advances made by China and Russia in recent years, it is important to recognise that the US remains far and away the biggest global spender on conventional and nuclear weapons and plans to consolidate this position by maintaining significant technological superiority over its adversaries, which will, as is well appreciated, push Beijing, Moscow—and thus other regional powers—to respond. Yet spending on nuclear weapons alone is set to pose significant budgeting difficulties for future US governments. According to a 2014 report by the James Martin Center, the Departments of Defense and Energy plan to spend approximately $1 trillion over the next 30 years ‘to maintain its current nuclear arsenal and procure a new generation of nuclear-armed or nuclear capable bombers and submarines’ as well as new submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). Arms Control Today has found that total Defense Department nuclear spending ‘is projected to average more than $40 billion in constant fiscal year 2016 dollars between 2025 and 2035, when modernization costs are expected to peak’. Including costs for the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration’s projected weapons-related spending during this period ‘would push average spending during this period to more than $50 billion per year’. If anywhere near these sums are spent, then the modest reductions to the US’s nuclear stockpile achieved during the Obama presidency will be entirely overshadowed. Moreover, as analyst Andrew Lichterman notes, the US’s continued modernisation of its nuclear forces is ‘inherently incompatible’ with the ‘unequivocal undertaking’ given at the 2000 NPT Review Conference to eliminate its nuclear arsenal and apply the ‘principle of irreversibility’ to this and related actions. For Lichterman, the huge outlays committed to the nuclear weapons complex were part of a political ‘bargain’ made by the Obama administration with Republicans. This ensured that the New START nuclear arms control treaty would pass in the Senate whilst also not disturbing the development of missile defense and other advanced conventional weapons programmes. New START is a bilateral agreement between Russia and the US, which Steven Pifer describes as ‘one of the few bright spots’ that exists in these nations’ relationship. Under the treaty Moscow and Washington must, by 2018, reduce their stockpile of operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550. Furthermore, both must keep to a limit of 700 deployed strategic launchers (missiles) and heavy bombers, and to a combined limit of 800 deployed and non-deployed strategic launchers and heavy bombers. Despite New START ‘proceeding smoothly’ according to Pifer, Hans Kristensen recently produced a report comparing Obama’s record with that of the previous presidents holding office during the nuclear age, which found that, hitherto, Obama has cut fewer warheads—in terms of numbers rather than percentages—than ‘any administration ever’ and that ‘the biggest nuclear disarmers’ in recent decades have been Republicans, not Democrats. Kristensen thus drily observes of this situation that, a conservative Congress does not complain when Republican presidents reduce the stockpile, only when Democratic president try to do so. As a result of the opposition, the United States is now stuck with a larger and more expensive nuclear arsenal than had Congress agreed to significant reductions. As his presidency draws to a close, presumably as a means of securing some sort of meaningful legacy in this area, it has been reported that Obama considered adopting a no first use (NFU) policy for nuclear weapons, something which, whilst reversible, could act as a restraint on future presidents. Yet this was apparently abandoned, according to the New York Times, after ‘top national security advisers argued that it could undermine allies and embolden Russia and China’. Furthermore, according to Josh Rogin of the Washington Post, the governments of Japan, South Korea, France and Britain all privately communicated their concerns about Washington adopting NFU. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter is also said to have argued that such a move would be unwise because ‘if North Korea used biological weapons against the South the United States might need the option of threatening a nuclear response’. However, as Daryll Kimball explains, the US’s ‘overwhelming’ conventional military advantage means that ‘there is no plausible circumstance that could justify—legally, morally, or militarily—the use of nuclear weapons to deal with a non-nuclear threat’. Such resistance to NFU is thus deeply disappointing given that, as Kimball goes on to note, this move would go some way to reassuring China and Russia about the US’s strategic intentions. It would also be an important confidence-building measure for the wider community of non-nuclear weapon states, showing that the US is willing to act in 'good faith' towards its disarmament obligations under the NPT. Thinking about the causes of proliferation more widely requires us to understand what drives weaker states to seek deterrents, if their reliance on them is to be reduced. For example, as Dr Alan J. Kuperman observes, NATO’s bombing and overthrow of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 ‘greatly complicated the task of persuading other states such as Iran and North Korea ‘to halt or reverse their nuclear programs’. The lesson Tehran and Pyongyang took is thus that because Gaddafi had voluntarily ended his nuclear and chemical weapons programmes, the West now felt free to pursue regime change. When assessing the importance of the Iran nuclear deal, which is often hailed as one of Obama’s landmark achievements, and which the next President must not be allowed to derail, it is thus important also to consider carefully what behaviour by the most powerful states will enable existing or potential nuclear possessors to embrace disarmament and reduce their interest in seeking non-conventional deterrents. The inability of Washington to make substantial progress towards reducing the salience of nuclear weapons at home and abroad is all the more noteworthy when one considers the state of US and Russian public opinion on nuclear arms control and disarmament. As John Steinbrunner and Nancy Gallagher observe, ‘responses to detailed questions reveal a striking disparity between what U.S. and Russian leaders are doing and what their publics desire’. For example, their polling found that: At the most fundamental level, the vast majority of Americans and Russians think that nuclear weapons have a very limited role in current security circumstances and believe that their only legitimate purpose is to deter nuclear attack. It is highly consistent, then, that the publics in both countries would favor eliminating all nuclear weapons if this action could be taken under effective international verification. Another important measure which the US has failed to hitherto ratify is the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). This is despite President Obama stating in 2009 that he intended to pursue Senate ratification of the treaty ‘immediately and aggressively’. Once more, there is notably strong public support–82% according to a 2010 poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs—for the US joining the CTBT but, again, the Republican-controlled Senate has blocked the treaty at every opportunity. Overall, the gap between the public’s will and the government’s inaction on nuclear issues is alarming and redolent of the wider democratic deficit in the US. On a more positive note, the fact that the citizenry supports such measures suggests that groups advocating arms control and disarmament initiatives should continue to engage with and understand the public’s positions in order to effectively harness their support. Stepping back from the brink In terms of priorities for the incoming administration in the US, stepping back from military confrontation with Russia and pushing the threat of nuclear war to the margins must be at the top of the list. Whilst much has been made of a potential rapprochement between Trump and Putin, the two have, reportedly, only just spoken for the first time on the phone and still need to actually meet in person to discuss strategic issues and deal with inevitable international events and crises, including in relation to Ukraine and Syria. As of now, whilst the mood music from both sides might suggest a warming of relations, as has been seen with previous administrations, unless cooperation is rooted in a real willingness to resolve problems (which for Russia includes US ballistic missile defense

deployments in Eastern Europe and NATO expansion) then tensions can quickly re-emerge. Another related question concerns how Trump will conduct himself during any potential crisis or conflict with Russia or another major power , given the stakes and risks involved, as highlighted above. Whilst we must wait to find out precisely what the new administration’s approach to international affairs will be, in the past week, NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told the BBC that he had been personally informed by Donald Trump, following the election, that the US remains ‘strongly committed to NATO, and that the security guarantees to Europe stand’. Trump had previously shaken sections of the defence and foreign policy establishment by suggesting that NATO was ‘obsolete’ and that countries such as Japan (and by extension others such as South Korea and Saudi Arabia) ‘have to pay us or we have to let them protect themselves’, which could include them acquiring the bomb. One reason why some in Washington have, in the past, not wanted their regional allies to develop their own nuclear weapons is because the US might then become dragged into an escalating conflict. Moreover, if an ally in one region seeks the bomb, this may cause others elsewhere to pursue their own capabilities- an act of strategic independence that might make these states harder to influence and control. The US’s key relationships in East Asia and the Middle East illustrate why, if a future US President wishes to take meaningful moves towards a world free of nuclear weapons, then developing alternative regional political agreements, including strategic cooperation with China and Russia, will be necessary. As Nancy Gallagher rightly notes, the ‘weaknesses of existing international organizations’ thus requires ‘more inclusive, cooperative security institutions’ to be constructed regionally ‘to complement and someday, perhaps, to replace exclusive military alliances’, alongside progressive demilitarisation. Such confidence-building measures would also support efforts to halt missile and nuclear tests by states such as North Korea, which may soon be capable of striking the US mainland. Imagining the next enemy As well as mapping out the US’s current nuclear weapons policies and its

regional relationships, it is important to reflect upon how domestic political dynamics under a Trump presidency might

drive Washington’s behaviour internationally , particularly given the nuclear shadow that always hangs over conflicts involving the US . For example, in the near-term, Trump’s economic plan and the great expectations amongst the American working class that have been generated, may have particularly dangerous consequences if, as seems likely, the primary beneficiaries are the very wealthy.

Reviewing Trump’s economic plans, Martin Wolf of the Financial Times concludes that ‘the longer-term consequences are likely to be grim, not least for his angry, but fooled, supporters . Next time, they might be even angrier . Where that might lead is terrifying ’ . Gillian Tett has also highlighted the ‘real risks’ that Trump’s policies could ‘spark US social unrest or geopolitical uncertainty’. Elsewhere, George Monbiot in the Guardian, makes the stark assertion that the inability of the US and other

governments to respond effectively to public anger means he now believes that ‘we will see war between the major powers within my lifetime’. If these warnings weren’t troubling enough, no less a figure than Henry Kissinger argued on BBC’s Newsnight that ‘the more likely reaction’ to a Trump presidency from terror groups ‘will be to do something that evokes a reaction’ from Washington in order to ‘widen the split’ between it and Europe and damage the US’s image around the world. Given that Trump has already vowed to ‘bomb the shit out of ISIS’ and refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons against the group, it goes without saying that such a scenario could have the gravest consequences and must be avoided so that the US does not play into the terrorists’ hands. Looking more widely, President-elect Trump’s existing and potential cabinet appointments, which Glenn Greenwald has summarised as ‘empowering…by and large…the traditional, hard, hawkish right-wing members of the Republican Party’ also point to the US engaging in future overseas conflicts, rather than the isolationism which many in the foreign policy establishment criticised Trump for proposing during the presidential campaign. William Hartung and Todd Harrison have drawn attention to the fact that defence spending under Trump could be almost $1trillion (spread over ten years) more than Obama’s most recent budget request. Such projections, alongside Trump’s election rhetoric, suggest that the new nuclear monarch will try to push wide open the door to more spending on nuclear weapons and missile defense, a situation made possible, as we have seen, by Obama’s inability to implement progressive change in this area at a time of persistent Republican obstruction. Conclusion The problem now, for the US and the world, is that if

Trump does make good on his campaign promises then this will have several damaging consequences for international peace and security and that if Trump does not sufficiently satisfy his supporters then this will l ikely pour fuel on the flames at home , which may then quickly spread abroad. The people of the US and the world thus now have a huge responsibility to act as a restraining influence and ensure that the US retains an accountable, transparent and democratic government. This responsibility will only grow if crises or shocks take place in or outside the US

which ambitious and extremist figures take advantage of, framing them as threats to national security in order to protect their interests and power. If such scenarios emerge the next administration and its untried and untested President will find themselves with a range of extremely powerful tools and institutional experience at their disposal, including nuclear weapons , which may prove too tempting to resist when figuring out how to respond to widespread anger, confusion and unrest, both at home and abroad.

Causes nuclear war with China – Checks don’t apply Menon 2/14 (Rajan, staff @ Toms Dispatch via AlterNet, “Is President Trump Headed for a War With China?”, http://www.alternet.org/world/president-trump-headed-war-china)

Facing off against China, President Trump could find himself in a similar predicament, having so emphasized his toughness, his determination to regain America’s lost respect and make the country great again. The bigger problem, however, will undoubtedly be his own narcissism and his obsession with winning,

not to mention his inability to resist sending incendiary messages via Twitter. Just try to imagine for a moment how a president who blows his stack during a getting-to-know-you phone call with the prime minister of Australia, a close ally, is likely to conduct himself in a confrontation with a country he’s labeled a prime adversary. In the event of a military crisis

between China and the United States, neither side may want an escalation, to say nothing of a nuclear war. Yet Trump’s threats to impose 45% tariffs on Chinese exports to the U.S. and his repeated condemnation of China as a “currency manipulator” and stealer of American jobs have already produced a poisonous atmosphere between the world’s two most powerful countries. And it was made worse by his December phone conversation with Taiwan’s president, Tsai Ing-wen, which created doubts about his commitment to the One China policy the United States has adhered to since 1972. The Chinese authorities apparently made it clear to the White House that there couldn't even be a first-time phone call to Xi unless the new president agreed to stick with that policy. During a conversation with the Chinese president on February 9th, Trump reportedly provided that essential assurance. Given the

new American president’s volatility, however, Beijing will be playing close attention to his words and actions, even his symbolic ones, related to Taiwan. Sooner or later, if Trump doesn’t also dial down the rest of his rhetoric on China, its leaders will surely ratchet up theirs , thereby aggravating the situation further. So far, they’ve restrained themselves in order to figure Trump out—not an easy task even for Americans—and in hopes

that his present way of dealing with the world might be replaced with something more conventional and recognizable. Hope, as they say, springs eternal, but as of now, in repeatedly insisting that China must do as he says, Trump and his surrogates have inserted themselves and the country into a complicated territorial dispute far from America’s shores. The hubris of Washington acting as the keeper of world order, but regularly breaking the rules as it wishes, whether by invading Iraq in 2003 or making open use of torture and a global network of secret prisons, is an aspect of American behavior long obvious to foreign powers. It looks to be the essence

of Trumpism, too, even if its roots are old indeed. Don’t dismiss the importance of heated exchanges between Washington and Beijing in the wake of Trump ’s election. The political atmosphere between rival

powers, especially those with massive arsenals, can matter a great deal when they face off in a crisis. Pernicious stereotypes and mutual mistrust only increase the odds that crucial information will be misinterpreted in the heat of the moment because of entrenched beliefs that are immune to contrary evidence, misperceptions, worst-case calculations, and up-the-

ante reactions. In academic jargon, these constitute the ingredients for a classic conflict spiral . In such a situation, events take control of leaders, producing outcomes that none of them sought. Not for nothing during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 did President John Kennedy look to Barbara Tuchman’s book, Guns of August—a gripping account of how Europe slipped and slid into a disastrous world war in 1914. There has been lots of anxiety about the malign effects that Donald Trump’s temperament

and beliefs could have domestically, and for good reason. But in domestic politics, institutions and laws, civic organizations, the press, and public protests can serve, however imperfectly, as countervailing forces. In international politics, crises can erupt suddenly and unfold rapidly —and the checks on rash behavior by American presidents are much weaker . They have considerable leeway to use

military force (having repeatedly circumvented the War Powers Act). They can manipulate public opinion from the Bully Pulpit and shape the flow of information. (Think back to the Iraq

war.) Congress typically rallies reflexively around the flag during international crises. In such moments, citizens' criticism or mass protest invites charges of disloyalty. This is why the brewing conflict in the South China Sea and rising animosities on both sides could produce something resembling a Cuban-Missile-Crisis-style situation—with the United States lacking the

geographical advantage this time around. If you think that a war between China and the United States couldn’t possibly happen, you might have a point in ordinary times, which these distinctly aren’t.

Uniqueness---Yes Base Support

Base support for Trump is up in spite of Comey hearingsEasley 6/14 (Cameron, staff @ Morning Consult, “Base Rallies Around Trump in Wake of Comey Controversy”, https://morningconsult.com/2017/06/14/poll-morning-consult-politico-comey/)

It’s been a rough few weeks for President Donald Trump, but a new Morning Consult/POLITICO survey shows his base is rallying around him as the fallout over the firing of former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey continues. The president’s job approval remained underwater for the seventh consecutive week, with 45 percent of registered voters approving of his job performance and half disapproving. However, 48 percent of Americans who voted for Trump said they strongly approved of him, up 3 points from the prior survey and up 6 points from mid-May, when his base support bottomed out amid coverage of the reasons behind Comey’s ouster and a reported classified intelligence leak to Russian officials.

Base support is stableShepard 6/14 (Steven, staff @ Politico, “Poll: Voters trust Comey over Trump”, http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/14/trump-comey-trust-voters-239510)

The POLITICO/Morning Consult poll shows that 45 percent of registered voters approve of the job Trump is doing as president — virtually unchanged from 44 percent last week. Exactly half of voters disapprove of Trump’s job performance. Trump’s base is sticking with him: Eighty-one percent of GOP voters approve of his job performance. His approval rating is far lower among Democrats (16 percent) and independents (39 percent). That is consistent with other polls that show opinions of Trump are little changed over the past week since Comey’s testimony.

That stabilizes his key supportStahl 6/12 (Jeremy, staff @ Slate, “Today’s Impeach-O-Meter: Americans Trust Comey Over Trump”, http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/06/12/today_s_impeach_o_meter_americans_trust_comey_over_trump.html)

Again, though, this might be one of those “good news-bad news” situations for the president. The bad news are all those top-line numbers about a majority of the country believing he’s a liar and strong pluralities believing he committed a felony and deserves to be impeached. The good news is that his party’s base—a good 40 percent chunk of the country—is stalwart in its support for him despite the sworn testimony of Comey and mountain of evidence that appears to be available that would bolster his word over the president’s. House Republicans, who would ultimately have to make the determining call on the issue of impeachment no matter where Mueller comes down, are in a complete thrall to this base. Meanwhile, even Trump-skeptical Republicans have not yet abandoned him. If push comes to shove and Mueller’s investigation finds that Trump obstructed justice, will they? That question is still open and so the Impeach-O-Meter stays at 45 percent.

No massive slide in approval yet; he’s been stable since taking officeKurtzleben 6/3 (Danielle, staff @ NPR, “Trump's Approval Rating Decline Isn't That Big Compared With Predecessors' Drops”, http://www.npr.org/2017/06/03/531088285/trump-s-approval-rate-decline-is-nothing-compared-to-other-presidents)

While his approval rating has fallen and the gap between approval and disapproval has widened considerably, it has not shifted in any extraordinary sense . This is, in part, because of how those charts are scaled, as well as the fact that they show the widening gap between approval and disapproval (and that he started lower than past presidents — there is only so low you can go). To be clear, this isn't to say that those are misleading. But it is to say that with more historical context, Trump's sliding approval rating really hasn't slid that much . By RealClearPolitics' average, Trump's approval rating has fallen off by about 4 points since the first day of his term. FiveThirtyEight has it a bit bigger, at around 6 points. We wanted to know how big this type of decline compared with that of other presidents. Gallup has been tracking presidential approval ratings since the Truman administration, so we used its data to figure this out. According to Gallup, Trump's approval rating is 5 points lower than it was when he took office. Compared with that, other presidents' approval ratings in their first four months have fallen by more — often, much more — than those once they took office. (Gallup measured approval ratings less often in the past, so we tried to find approximate time periods for other presidents.) Trump's disapproval rating has also climbed, by 9 points in Gallup's poll. Once again, this is far smaller than the increase that most other presidents have sustained in their first four months. As a side note here, you might notice that Trump's disapproval increase is larger than the decline in his approval rating, which may seem odd, but that is a common trend among presidents.

Internal---Base Key

Base key but support not resilient –most robust theory proves the link trueWalsh, 17 --- PhD candidate in political science at Rutgers University, and a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps (David Hunter Walsh, “Yes, Trump will face a backlash if he doesn’t deliver on his promises,” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/01/20/yes-trump-will-face-a-backlash-if-he-doesnt-deliver-on-his-promises/?utm_term=.250bb333ed24, accessed on 1/21/17)




Losses outweigh gains in the human mind . What does that mean for politics?

That conclusion rests on one of the most robust theories of modern psychology , prospect theory. Prospect theory argues that in our minds, perceived losses outweigh perceived gains in ways that profoundly affect our decision-making .

In a political context, this means that when the president surprises you by doing something you like, you’re happy about it. But that happiness is not nearly as powerful as the disappointment — or even sadness or anger — that you experience when the pres ident does something you hate. One implication is that the backlash a president faces for breaking a promise to his supporters may be much stronger than whatever positive reactions come from voters who are pleasantly surprised by his decision not to pursue that campaign pledge.


Trump is only concerned with retaining the support of his Republican base --- if it starts to abandon him his approval rating will plummet furtherLauter, 2/13/17 (David, “Trump has gotten even less popular while in office,” http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-polls-20170213-story.html, accessed on 2/14/17, JMP)






Without question, Trump , who won the presidency with a minority of the votes cast, has retained a strong hold on his core supporters , whose loyalty remains ardent. Republicans are more approving of his personal qualities than they were in the fall , according to several ratings. And Trump has plenty of time to turn around the current negative trend in his overall ratings .








For now, what matters most to Trump is holding the support of his core voters . That’s key to his strength in Congress, especially in the House, because his popularity remains high in most Republican-held congressional districts .

But if his decline persists, it could weaken Trump’s sway in the Senate , where members need to run statewide.

Whether Trump’s approval rating will drop further depends largely on independents and Republicans — he has almost no support to lose among Democrats. If those voters do sour on

him, that could pose a threat to Republicans in the midterm election in 2018. The incumbent president’s approval rating historically serves as a good predictor of how many seats his party will lose at midterm.


Trump’s base is keyO’Reilly 6/8 (William F.B., staff @ Newsday, “Will Comey testimony begin to crack Trump’s base?”, http://www.newsday.com/opinion/columnists/william-f-b-o-reilly/will-comey-testimony-begin-to-crack-trump-s-base-1.13715337)

It shouldn’t matter how the president is perceived by his political base. But it means everything in reality: As long as Trump retains significant grass-roots Republican support, just 20 or 25 percent, members of Congress won’t break with him en masse. Doing so would spell political suicide for them in 2018 , through primary challenges and/or Republicans bass fishing instead of voting during the midterm elections (the same may happen if this Congress can’t pass tax reforms). Republican support for Trump hovers at around 80 percent right now, with somewhere between a quarter and half of that hard core support.

They’re the last line of defense against his total collapse – but could flipCatanese 6/2 (David, staff @ US News, “Trump's Last Line of Defense”, https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2017-06-02/donald-trumps-supporters-are-his-last-line-of-defense)

Inside Washington, Donald Trump's 4-month-old presidency appears to spin in a perpetual state of crisis and chaos, achieving few tangible successes and beset by weekly distractions. But in far and wide pockets of the country, where legions of loyal Trump supporters remain, a very different picture is being discerned. They see a media corps obsessed with a Russia investigation despite no evidence of a crime, all too easily swallowing an excuse for Hillary Clinton's loss. They see a Democratic Party lurching further to the left and practicing pure obstructionism to appease its inflamed base. They see a coterie of prosperous, smug elites stationed in power centers and unable to comprehend the everyday hardships spoken to by this president. And they see all of them hellbent on taking down Trump, whatever the cost to the country. U.S. News conducted email interviews with more than a dozen readers who defended Trump in their reactions to previous stories. These folks are angry, distrustful and sometimes intemperate, reflecting similar characteristics of the commander in chief. Some are true believers who salute all of Trump's actions, no matter how contentious or disputed. Others are clear-eyed about the president's flaws, but are more disturbed by the drumbeat of a contemptuous opposition. Not all of them consider themselves conservatives; some even voted for former President Barack Obama – twice. Given the current polls showing Trump's subpar popularity, members of this group are clearly the minority, but they also constitute the president's last line of defense as he toils in a capital that becomes more hostile by the day.

Only the conservative base matter & it outweighs every turn – Size, media, & money generate intensity & focus that opposition can’t matchHacker & Pierson 15 (Jacob, Stanley Resor Professor of Political Science at Yale University, & Paul, John Gross Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley, “No Cost for Extremism”, http://prospect.org/article/no-cost-extremism)

Conventional images of the two parties see them as symmetrical reflections of each other. But when it comes to the activist core of

the parties, there is no comparison. The Republican base is larger, more intense, better organized, and fueled by distinctive partisan media outlets that make those on the other side look like pale imitations. Strong liberals are often motivated primarily by one issue—the environment, say, or abortion, or minority rights.

Strong conservatives tend to describe themselves as part of a broad effort to protect a way of life. Even during the George W. Bush presidency, liberals wanted Democratic Party leaders to take moderate positions and

expressed a strong desire for compromise. Conservatives consistently indicate they want Republicans to take more conservative positions and never, ever compromise with opponents . Not surprisingly, self-described conservatives also show up when it counts. Whatever the form of participation—voting, working for

candidates, contributing to campaigns—the GOP base does more of it than any other group. At the same time, the ideological distance between the party’s most active voters and the rest of the party’s electorate is greater on the GOP side than the Democratic side. Democratic activists are moderate as well as liberal (and occasionally even conservative). Republican activists are much more consistently conservative, even compared with other elements of the GOP electoral coalition. Nonetheless, the imbalance in prevalence and intensity between self-identified liberals and self-identified conservatives hasn’t changed much in 35 years—even as the role of the Republican base in American politics has changed dramatically. Something has happened that has given that base a greater weight and a greater focus on “Washington” as the central

threat to American society. Here, we need to turn our attention from the GOP’s most committed voters to the organized forces that have jet-propelled the GOP’s rightward trip . Even the most informed and active voters take their cues from organizations and elite figures they trust. (Indeed, there’s strong evidence that such voters are most likely to process information through an ideological lens.) The far right has built precisely the kind of organizations needed to turn diffuse and generalized support into focused activity on behalf of increasingly extreme candidates. Those organized forces have two key elements: polarizing right-wing media and efforts by business and the very wealthy to backstop and bankroll GOP politics. Pundits like to point to surface similarities between partisan journalists on the left and right, but the differences in scale and

organization are profound. The conservative side is massive; describing its counterpart on the left as modest would be an act of true generosity.

Internal---A2: Base Support = Resilient

Base support not resilient – Trump’s only maintaining their support BECAUSE he’s refusing to alienate them with liberal concessions on conservative policy issuesStanley 2/21 (Timothy, staff @ CNN, “Why Trump's supporters still love him”, http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/19/opinions/why-trump-supporters-love-him-not-the-media-stanley/)

Aside from hatred of the press, the other thing I've found that binds Trumpites together is a fear of decline. It's often noted that Trump supporters are wealthier than the working-class they claim to speak for, but that's beside the point.

These are concerned citizens who have a patriotic dislike of unemployment or Islamist terrorism. They voted for Trump because he promised to restore the nation's greatness, by building

a wall and locking jobs inside. From this point-of-view, conservatives are keeping faith with Trump because Trump is keeping faith with them . His list of executive orders is a wish list for the right : reverse Obamacare's spiraling costs, start planning for a border wall, reduce regulations, etc. His Supreme Court pick is a younger Antonin

Scalia. The whiteness, maleness and conservatism of his Cabinet proves he's not making any concessions to political correctness.

They’re watching the White House closely for signs of liberal accommodationEasley 4/25 (Jonathan, staff @ The Hill, “Infighting cools down in Trumpland”, http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/330341-infighting-cools-down-in-trumpland)

Conservatives say they’re watching closely for signs that the “liberal” wing is winning . They haven’t seen it yet . Trump’s message in recent weeks has focused heavily on manufacturing and creating American jobs, and he hasn’t wavered on trade, immigration, building the border wall or defeating the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, said Tea Party leader Mark Meckler. “We are watching closely what the White House is actually doing,” Meckler said. “All the rest of this is just noise.”

Conservative supporters need constant reassurance – The plan breaks their faithIsenstadt 4/13 (Alex, staff @ Politico, “Trump’s base turns on him”, http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/trump-base-supporters-turn-on-him-237200)

This week, some Trump die-hards passed around a column by conservative commentator Kurt Schlichter headlined: “Trump Can’t Let His Real or His Fake Friends Turn Him into Schwarzenegger Part 2.” Schlichter, in an interview, said conservatives are fundamentally distrustful of Republican politicians who had often misled them. He urged the president to take some immediate actions, however small, to put his supporters at ease. “You’ve got to understand the base. It’s like dating a girl whose father cheated on her mother. She’s always going to be suspicious,” he said. “He’s got to constantly provide wins because he’s got an emotionally damaged base that’s been abused.”

The base is key to Trump – He can’t split their support, threshold is lowMorrisey 4/12 (Ed, writes for HotAir.com, columns have appeared in the Washington Post, the New York Post, The New York Sun, the Washington Times, “Syria is a dead end for President Trump”, http://theweek.com/articles/691660/syria-dead-end-president-trump)

Politically, such a move would present a sharp reversal from the promises Trump made in the campaign to the anti-establishment

voters who carried him to victory last November. More than most presidents, Trump has to rely on his base for political capital. Unlike Barack Obama, whose personal popularity saw him through political setbacks, or even George

W. Bush, whose own promises of a more "humble" foreign policy fell by the wayside after 9/11, Trump has no personal-popularity margin for error.

Trump base starting to have doubts – maintain support but its fragile– they could flipKehoe 3/24 (John, staff @ Financial Review, “Trump's 'Art of the Deal' health setback for markets”, http://www.afr.com/markets/trumps-art-of-the-deal-health-test-for-markets-20170323-gv52qw)

Trump's personal popularity may also affect which way members and senators decide to vote on the delicate healthcare issue. His personal approval rating has slumped to just 37 per cent according to a Quinnipiac University poll, following Trump erroneously claiming Obama wire tapped Trump Tower during the election and a cloud of controversy over his campaign team's potential links to Russia. "Most alarming for Trump, the demographic underpinnings

of his support, Republicans, white voters, especially men and those without a college degree, are starting to have doubts," says pollster Tim Malloy.

Internal---Flip Flops/Campaign promises

Plan sparks a massive public backlash by having Trump flip flop on a key election promise --- outweighs any turnWalsh, 17 --- PhD candidate in political science at Rutgers University, and a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps (David Hunter Walsh, “Yes, Trump will face a backlash if he doesn’t deliver on his promises,” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/01/20/yes-trump-will-face-a-backlash-if-he-doesnt-deliver-on-his-promises/?utm_term=.250bb333ed24, accessed on 1/21/17)

President-elect Donald Trump built his campaign on promises to put a wall on the Mexican border, “utterly destroy” the Islamic State, and accelerate economic growth to heights never before seen outside of wartime. Days before he won the presidency, Trump told his supporters he would give them “every dream you ever dreamed for your country.”




Losses outweigh gains in the human mind. What does that mean for politics?

That conclusion rests on one of the most robust theories of modern psychology, prospect theory. Prospect theory argues that in our minds, perceived losses outweigh perceived gains in ways that profoundly affect our decision-making.

In a political context, this means that when the president surprises you by doing something you like, you’re happy about it. But that happiness is not nearly as powerful as the disappointment — or even sadness or anger — that you experience when the president does something you hate. One implication is that the backlash a president faces for breaking a promise to his supporters may be much stronger than whatever positive reactions come from voters who are pleasantly surprised by his decision not to pursue that campaign pledge .




Impact---Declining Approval = Diversionary War

Trump only cares about his ratings and would be willing to start a war to maintain his political survivalJaeger 1/31—analyst @ police and law enforcement (Jumare, 1/31/17, “How likely do you think Trump will start a war as a means to counter his inevitable falling approval ratings?,” https://www.quora.com/How-likely-do-you-think-Trump-will-start-a-war-as-a-means-to-counter-his-inevitable-falling-approval-ratings, Accessed 2/7/17, HWilson)

Trump is an an amateur reality show actor. For 14 years during his run on The Apprentice all he cared about was his ratings. Surely he knows nothing else.

He now perceives of himself in his latest reality show called The American Presidency. Everything he does he does to improve his ratings.

Trump’s policies are astonishingly superficial — generally bumper sticker type stuff . Trump appears to be

completely unconcerned about what is in the best interest of America. Trump is clearly out of his depth in the White House. The Presidency confuses him.

Trump keeps making pronunciamentos and his staff keeps responding “You can't do that.” ( declare martial law in South Chicago and send in the National Guard for example). To which Donald Trump keeps asking “Why can't I?”

No incumbent American president has ever lost a reelection campaign — not once- while and when American troops were involved in a shooting war. (This is why George W Bush started the war in Iraq.)

So yeah, Donald Trump could conceivably start a war for no other purpose than to ensure his reelection in 2020.

If Trump’s popularity declines, he’ll lash out & start a warVyse 2/10 (Graham, staff @ New Republic, “Trump Has a Plan for the Next 9/11. Democrats Need One”, https://newrepublic.com/article/140556/trump-plan-next-911-democrats-need-one)

At least one elected Democrat is already pushing this message. At last Saturday’s Congressional Progressive Caucus retreat in Baltimore, Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington state raised the issue in a room full of liberal lawmakers planning their

political strategy. “There’s another thing that’s going to throw us off message, and that’s if we have any kind of an attack or a war,” she said. “I just want us to be thinking about that because there are lots of things that are happening right now that you could argue are setting us up for an attack. I believe that’s true of the executive orders, and we know what happened after 9/11, and we have to be thinking about what is our jiu-jitsu move to actually prepare the stage so that if something does happen it’s clear who created that and who created the environment

for that to happen.” After the attacks on the the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001, congressional Democrats almost uniformly rallied around President George W. Bush, authorizing the Republican’s use of military force in Afghanistan. Representative Barbara Lee, whom Jayapal calls “a great hero of mine,” was the

lone “no” vote in Congress. It was a period of intense nationalism and jingoism, and it’s easy to imagine Trump trying to exploit a similar sentiment in the service of his authoritarian agenda—or simply to improve his dismal poll numbers. “I mean, I’m not a conspiracy theorist,” Jayapal told her colleagues, “but I really do believe that war is a great way to get your poll numbers up. We just need to be thinking about what happens when that comes forward and how

https://www.quora.com/How-likely-do-you-think-Trump-will-start-a-war-as-a-means-to-counter-his-inevitable-falling-approval-ratings

https://www.quora.com/How-likely-do-you-think-Trump-will-start-a-war-as-a-means-to-counter-his-inevitable-falling-approval-ratings

we prepare the stage right now with our message so that the blame goes exactly where the blame should be and we don’t all have to rally around in patriotism.”

Syria establishes the brink – It smooths the way for Trump to escalate future conflicts - tying popularity to military actionFridersdorf 4/7 (Conor, staff @ The Atlantic, “Trump's Syria Strike Was Unconstitutional and Unwise”, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/president-trumps-syria-strike-was-unconstitutional-and-unwise/522228/)

Congress erred by doing nothing when Obama waged war illegally in Libya. It will compound that error if there are no consequences now for Trump. Every legislator who has expressed the belief that it would be illegal to strike Syria without their permission should start acting like they meant what they said. Given what recent presidents have been permitted, impeachment over this matter alone would understandably lack popular legitimacy. But I wouldn’t mind if anti-war legislators created a draft document titled “Articles of Impeachment,” wrote a paragraph about this strike at the top, and put Trump on notice that if he behaves this way again, a coalition

will aggressively lobby their colleagues to oust him from office. The alternative is proceeding with an unbowed president who is out of his depth in international affairs, feels entitled to wage war in ways even he

once called illegitimate, and thinks of waging war as a way presidents can improve their popularity.

Or as Trump himself once put it: Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.

Today, Trump is desperate. He is flailing from failure to failure in domestic policy, with dismal approval ratings and no clear way to increase them—except by trying to exploit the American public’s historic tendency to rally around a president at war. There has never been a stronger case for preemptively reining in a president’s ability to unilaterally launch military strikes on foreign countries that are not attacking us.

Impact---Declining Approval = Diversionary War – China/Iran

Further declining approval risks diversionary war with China and IranReynolds 2/7—writer and foreign policy analyst based in New York (Ben, 2/7/17, “Tillerson, Trump, and U.S.-China Policy,” http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/tillerson-trump-and-us-china-policy, Accessed 2/7/17, HWilson)

Donald Trump ignited controversy last year by nominating Rex Tillerson, then-CEO of Exxon-Mobil, for Secretary of State. Now that Tillerson has been confirmed, observers are waiting to see how the new Secretary accommodates himself to the role. Tillerson is a career businessman, but this does not imply that we have no clues as to how he might behave in the international arena. Indeed, his tenure at Exxon-Mobil included some curious ventures into disputed international waters.

As the Wall Street Journal has noted, Tillerson was previously involved in disputes between China and its neighbors in the South China Sea. Exxon-Mobil signed an oil exploration and production agreement with Vietnam in 2009 while Tillerson was the company’s CEO. Some of the blocks allocated to Exxon lay in waters claimed by both China and Vietnam. In 2014, some of those blocks were the subject of a serious confrontation between China and Vietnam when a Chinese rig began drilling in the disputed area. The decision to operate in such conditions suggests that Tillerson is willing to tolerate an elevated level of risk, as a more cautious CEO might have steered the corporation away from drilling under such potentially risky conditions.

At the same time, Tillerson’s comments during his confirmation hearing suggest an amateurish understanding of the finer points of U.S.-China relations. Tillerson infamously suggested the U.S. prevent China from accessing the disputed South China Sea islands, an action that would undoubtedly be seen as an act of war. The White House and State Department quietly walked those comments back, giving the impression that Tillerson’s statements were not a reflection of new U.S. policy, but rather the dangerous ramblings of an inexperienced nominee.

Suffice it to say that the combination of high-risk tolerance and an extremely shallow understanding of Asian geopolitics do not bode well for U.S.-China relations.

Nevertheless, Tillerson will not be the primary figure responsible for U.S. policy towards China . The general trend in recent years has been the increasing centralization of decision-making in the executive branch. The Obama administration was renowned for allowing most cabinet secretaries little room to operate on their own. The Trump administration may very well continue this trend. Tillerson was reportedly not even informed about the extremely controversial immigration ban, although handling its inevitable fallout certainly fell under the purview of the State Department. It is hard to foresee how the internal dynamics and palace politics of the Trump White House will influence China policy at this stage.

It is more important to consider the administration’s interests and general U.S. interests if we want to predict how the U.S. will manage its relationship with China over the next four years. Unfortunately, it seems

that the administration will have incentives to provoke a foreign crisis to distract from its domestic failures unless it miraculously improves its approval ratings. (Absent a major terrorist attack, it will not.) China and Iran are the two obvious targets of such a diversionary strategy. This means that, regardless of the U.S.’s long-term strategic interests , domestic politics may cause the administration to behave aggressively towards China.

One could argue that there are important ways in which U.S. interests might diverge from the interests of the Trump administration. If one believes that the U.S. is interested in preventing the hindrance of trade and ensuring peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific, then Trump’s incentives to deal belligerently with China would contradict those interests. The administration’s lack of polish and refusal to abide by basic diplomatic protocol will likely undermine U.S. ideological hegemony in the region. These facts are no doubt deeply troubling to liberal foreign policy professionals at the Brookings Institution.

http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/tillerson-trump-and-us-china-policy

http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/tillerson-trump-and-us-china-policy

That said, the atmosphere in Washington has been gradually tilting in favor of confrontation with China for years now. A declining power like the United States has every incentive to confront its rising challenger sooner rather than later,

assuming it is unwilling to allow a transfer of power. China’s military capabilities and international influence grow with each passing year. U.S. military planners understand this fact well, and there are few (if any) members of the U.S. foreign policy elite who are willing to give up U.S. hegemony in Asia without a fight.

Trump’s belligerence towards China is not a radical departure from the preceding administration; it is a change in tone, not a change in underlying attitude. The Obama administration did not take such an aggressive position on Taiwan, but it was Obama’s White House that reignited security competition with China after the relatively placid Bush years. We would do well to remember that Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton, was one of the preeminent architects of “assertive” U.S. policy in the Asia-Pacific. The ascension of a right-wing buffoon to the presidency did not seem to radically alter the established trend of deteriorating U.S.-China relations.

However, two important things have changed. The first of these factors is perceived legitimacy. Donald Trump’s aggressive, toddler-like demeanor has the potential to aggravate and alienate U.S. allies. There are massive material incentives for many allies to continue cooperating with the United States, but the perception of being bullied and humiliated by Trump will generate domestic pressure to push back against certain U.S. interests. Trump’s recent childish behavior on a diplomatic call with Malcolm Turnbull, Australia’s Prime Minister, seems to have ruffled feathers. Outside the region, European Council President Donald Tusk made headlines by describing Trump’s America as a threat to Europe. These reflect a potential shift in the diplomatic atmosphere that may make it harder for certain leaders to publicly support U.S. policy.

The second factor is the likelihood of a thaw in U.S.-Russian relations. Rex Tillerson, reportedly has a good personal relationship with Vladimir Putin, and he may have an important role in managing U.S.-Russian relations. The U.S. has already eased some sanctions on Russia. Trump has made no secret of his admiration for Putin and willingness to work with Russia in Syria. There will be significant internal pushback on these issues, including from powerful agencies like the CIA. Nevertheless, a U.S.-Russia thaw poses serious risks for China. Simultaneous U.S. belligerence toward Russia and China under the Obama administration pushed both countries closer together, but a U.S.-Russian détente could undermine those ties. Tripolarity is notoriously unstable, and there are obvious incentives for two powers to ally themselves against the third.

The Trump presidency thus presents both risks and opportunities for China. The risks may be quite severe. Trump ’s administration may attempt to provoke a diversionary crisis that could do irreparable harm to both the United States and China. Ten years from now, a military confrontation could end U.S. hegemony in Asia. Now,

however, China would be drawn into a draining , protracted conflict with little hope of real victory for either side. On the other hand, there are real opportunities for China as well. The Chinese government has the opportunity to play the “adult in the room,” presenting itself as the only stable guardian of regional security. Trump’s demeanor, domestic instability in the U.S., and unnecessary U.S. escalation will all play into this perception. If China can avoid a direct clash with the United States, it may find that the reassessment of its regional role will come sooner than anyone might have imagined.

Impact---Declining Approval = Diversionary War – NoKo

Specifically Causes lashout and war with North KoreaTorpey 4/26 (John, Presidential Professor of Sociology and History and Director of the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, “Defining Trumpism: Making sense of the first 100 days”, http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/330686-defining-trumpism-making-sense-of-the-trumps-first-100)

Given all the obstacles to achievement on the domestic front and the need for charismatic leaders to “win” big and visibly, President Trump may look to score what he thinks are easy victories on the international scene. We now know that Xi Jinping seems to have persuaded him in Florida that things with North Korea are more complicated than he had thought. Yet the man’s ignorance is frightening, and we know that he has a tendency to listen to the last person who advised him. If he talks to the wrong person, therefore, he may go looking for trouble that is bad for us and for the

world. We must therefore worry that the president will go off in search of dragons to slay simply in order to maintain his heroic stature among his base . This may all go in a very bad direction;

behind the attacks on Syria may lurk a larger objective, namely Iran. Notwithstanding Xi’s counsel, putting the North Korean threat to rest may look to Trump like an appealing prize .

Impact---A2: No Diversion Wars - Studies

general diversion war defense doesn’t apply - uniquely true and statistically significant when targeting rising powers like China or manifest different identities like Iran Jung, 13 --- Sung Chul Jung, Myongji University, Seoul, Foreign Policy, International Relations, PhD, International Studies Quarterly, 6/24, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/isqu.12087/full

When does domestic unrest lead to interstate conflict? I present the diversionary target theory that

argues that domestically troubled states are more likely to use military force against some, but not all, states because political leaders prefer targets that can evoke their domestic audience's fear or greed in order to enjoy “ rally-round-the-flag ” effects . I suggest that the fear-producing targets are foreign states that exhibit rapidly rising power or manifest different identities . The greed-producing targets are foreign states occupying disputed territory or exercising regional/local hegemony despite declining power. In addition, I expect that political leaders prefer fear- or greed-producing targets that possess similar powers, because domestic audiences may see initiation of military conflicts against too-powerful states or too-weak states as excessively risky and unnecessary, respectively.

From statistical analyses on directed dyad-years from 1920 to 2001 , I find that the presence of a rising power , a territory target, or a hegemony target contributes to the correlation between domestic unrest and the initiation of interstate conflict in a statistically significant way.

Strong empirical support – only our studies account for interactions of domestic unrest and appropriate foreign targets – causes great power transition warsJung, 13 --- Sung Chul Jung, Myongji University, Seoul, Foreign Policy, International Relations, PhD, International Studies Quarterly, 6/24, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/isqu.12087/full

Conclusion and Implications In sum, domestically troubled states have two faces : They are aggressive against some, but not against others. When faced with domestic unrest, political leaders should succeed in selling their military aggression to domestic audience by choosing appropriate targets . In other words, political leaders are motivated by domestic conditions, but also constrained by foreign conditions. This is why this study focusing on the in teraction between domestic unrest and foreign conditions finds stronger empirical support than previous large-N studies on diversionary conflict. In fact, as noted from the emergence of neoclassical realism and its popularity at least

since the 1990s,19 many IR scholars have begun to call for renewed attention to the interaction of factors across levels (Elman 1997:viiii; Levy and Thompson 2010:212). This study shows how this approach leads to a logically more complete explanation of onsets of power transition and territorial conflicts . On the one hand, students of international security have asked when a declining power adopts a preventive action against a rising power

and when a state initiates a military action in order to stop an unfavorable change in balance of power. By testing the rising power target hypothesis, I found that domestic unrest significantly influences a relatively declining power's initiation of military conflict. Only when suffering from domestic unrest is a declining power more likely to start a military conflict against a rising power target than against a non-attractive target. When a state sees a relative decline but has no internal troubles, its targeting of a rising power is as likely as is the targeting of a non-attractive state. This tendency is strongest when a potential target is “slightly stronger” than a potential initiator. In addition, this study shows that declining hegemonic powers are preferred as military targets by

domestically troubled states. From the result of testing the hegemony target hypothesis, I find that domestically troubled states are more likely to initiate interstate conflict with declining hegemons than with non-attractive targets. This implies that a regional or local hegemon's decline often invites military aggression by other states. Second, this study also provides an answer to an old

question in security studies, namely “When and why do territorial conflicts (re)occur?” By testing the territorial target hypothesis, this study shows that a challenger in a territorial claim is more likely to initiate a military conflict against its territorial claim opponent when it suffers from domestic troubles than when it is experiencing no internal trouble. What is interesting is that this tendency is most apparent when a potential target is “weaker” than a potential initiator. By targeting a weaker territorial target rather than a stronger one, political leaders may sell their

military action as risk-free and beneficial to their domestic audience and then demand public support for their leadership. In sum, this result implies that political leaders are often incentivized to favor diversionary behavior when their states are seeking to (re)occupy disputed territory.

Only our studies accounts for combo of internal factors AND external target – its quantitatively significant – indicts don’t apply Jung, 13 --- Sung Chul Jung, Myongji University, Seoul, Foreign Policy, International Relations, PhD, International Studies Quarterly, 6/24, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/isqu.12087/full

States fight wars. Why? Domestic unrest has been regarded as one of the causes of interstate war .1

Many journalists as well as scholars often shed light on domestic troubles in their attempts to explain why political leaders choose military aggression. According to their view, leaders with domestic vulnerability tend to initiate interstate conflicts in order to divert public attention to foreign affairs and to call for domestic support for their leadership. This diversionary war theory has gained support from inductive ( case studies) and deductive studies ( formal modeling ). On the one hand, some

international relations (IR) scholars have shown, by analyzing individual historical cases such as the Falklands/Malvinas War

and World War I, that political leaders' decisions for using military force against other states are driven by personal rather than national interests.2 When faced with domestic challenges to their political leadership, struggling leaders have initiated international conflict, demanded domestic strong support for “national” survival and interests, and stigmatized their political opponents as anti-patriotic. On the other, some scholars have developed an agent-principal analytic framework in which an unpopular leader is expected to initiate a foreign conflict in order to demonstrate his/her competence to a domestic audience and increase the probability of staying in power. (Richards, Morgan,

Wilson, Schwebach, and Young 1993; Tarar 2006).3 Diversionary action is a rational decision made by domestically vulnerable leaders whose primary concern is for personal political survival. However, this diversionary war theory has faced a challenge from statistical analyses for a large number of cases (Rummel 1963; Tanter 1966; Ostrom and Job 1986; Meernik 2004).4 Although IR scholars could prove and show how diversionary incentives contributed to the onset of interstate conflicts in formal modeling and descriptive case studies,

the quantitative evidence for the correlation between domestic unrest and interstate conflict was not strong enough to support the diversionary war theory . This gap between theory and evidence, and between anecdotal studies and large-N studies, has led some scholars to seek some condition—

such as regime type—under which domestic unrest causes interstate conflict. One good example is the absence

of democratic diversion. Some have argued that democracies are more likely than nondemocracies to initiate diversionary conflict, because democratic leaders cannot rely on the repression authoritarian leaders often use and because they are more vulnerable to overt domestic dissatisfaction (Gelpi 1997; Kisangani and Pickering 2009). By contrast, others insist that democratic leaders are not able to initiate a diversionary conflict even if they are willing to do so. Democratic leaders, they say, cannot hide their hostile intention due to transparency of decision making; furthermore, their potential targets may make strategic moves in order to avoid being a target in international conflict

(Smith 1996; Leeds and Davis 1997; Clark 2003). This study focuses on types of potential targets in order to explore whether and when domestic unrest leads to interstate conflict. The driving question here is: “What kinds of states attract diversionary actions by domestically troubled states? Given that struggling leaders seek a foreign state with which a conflict can produce domestic support,

and not a domestic backfire, it is worthwhile to take into consideration the combination of internal conditions (for example, domestic unrest) and external conditions (for example, potential target) in order to have a better understanding of foreign aggression . Why did General Leopoldo Galtieri, for example, choose to occupy the Falkland Islands, but not initiate a non-territorial conflict or a conflict with other states?5 Based on the

assumption that political leaders' decisions for diversionary action include prudent choices of targets ,

this study examines whether and how domestic unrest and some types of foreign target result in interstate conflict. Only limited attention has been paid to diversionary targets .6 Some scholars have pointed to dyadic condition (that is, rivalry and “contentious issues”) in order to explore whether dyad types affect diversionary

military action (Mitchell and Prins 2004; Mitchell and Thyne 2010). All territorial and hegemonic rivals , however, are not equal in producing domestic support . By differentiating territorial rivals in terms of challengers and

defenders, and hegemonic competitors in terms of declining and non-declining, this study expects and shows that some rivals are more popular diversionary targets than others. This article proceeds as follows. First, I propose a diversionary target theory that expects domestically vulnerable leaders to prefer fear- producing targets (states with rising power and different identities ), greed-producing targets (states occupying disputed territory and possessing regional or local hegemon) , and similar power targets. Second, I explain my quantitative research design, discussing case selection and measurement. Third, I

show how my analysis results in support for my hypotheses on the rising power, territory, and hegemony target and refutes my hypothesis for the identity target. Lastly, I discuss the contribution that this study makes to understanding of territorial conflicts and power transition conflicts.

Impact---A2: No Diversion Wars – Trump

Specifically true for Trump - risk of miscalculation is highTorpey 4/26 (John, Presidential Professor of Sociology and History and Director of the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, “Defining Trumpism: Making sense of the first 100 days”, http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/330686-defining-trumpism-making-sense-of-the-trumps-first-100)

The shock and awe with which the Trump administration initially took office has given way to an apparent lull, a period of seeming disorientation and grasping for direction. There are reports of a palace coup against Stephen Bannon and of an assertion of control by steadier hands. But make no mistake: this is a dangerous moment with a White House occupied by a president whose only qualification for election was a charismatic connection with a strategically located base swayed by nostalgic images of a once-and-future “great” America. It is dangerous because the president’s only real political capital is his charisma, and charismatic leaders must deliver heroic feats. With the morass on the domestic side, Trump has turned his limited attention span to international affairs, where the risks of miscalculation and violent death are much greater.

Insecurity drives Trump – Risks escalation of multiple hotspotsBouie 4/24 (Jamelle, staff @ Slate, “Trump’s Defining Trait”, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/04/ how_trump_could_save_his_flailing_presidency_with_smart_tax_reform.html)

Donald Trump has just three months in office, but even now, we can see what he brings to the White House. Not the strength or mastery he works to project with every public appearance, but its opposite: insecurity. As president, Trump is profoundly insecure: insecure about his electoral victory, insecure about his public standing, and insecure about his progress as chief executive. President Trump’s smothering insecurity is evident in his recent interview with the Associated Press. Throughout the long and meandering exchange, Trump repeatedly turns from questions of policy and program to the obsessions and insecurities that seem to consume his attention. When asked, for example, if he’ll reject a bill to fund the government if it doesn’t include funding for a border wall, Trump pivots from the issue at hand to a discussion of the Electoral College. “You know, it’s funny. The Democrats, they have a big advantage in the Electoral College,” said Trump, later adding that “the Electoral College is very difficult for a Republican to win.” This focus on the Electoral College—and how difficult it’s supposed to be for Republican presidential candidates—is a regular tic for Trump. “You know, look, the Democrats had a tremendous opportunity because the Electoral College, as I said, is so skewed to them,” said Trump in response to questions about his White House team. “The Electoral College is so skewed in favor of a Democrat that it’s very, very hard.” It’s difficult to discern the exact reason for these digressions. But the best explanation is that Trump remains self-conscious about his failure to win the national popular vote or is possibly already worried that he might lose re-election. Harping on difficulty of an Electoral College victory is a way of saying that he accomplished the hard part of an

election and of creating an excuse for any potential future failure. Which is tied to another aspect of Trump’s insecurity: his childlike need for constant affirmation. “I have learned one thing, because I get treated very unfairly, that’s what I call it, the fake media,” said Trump, in a long non sequitur that came after the AP asked about his work building relationships with Democrats. “I get treated so badly,” he said, at one point characterizing CNN, MSNBC, and CBS as nemeses and suggesting they were “fake media.” Indeed, this happens throughout. President Trump does not get very far without referring to what he feels is unfair treatment from the press, regularly saying that the media isn’t covering any of his accomplishments or giving him sufficient praise for his dealmaking. “Nobody wrote that story,” he said in reference to what he describes as major cost savings for military aircraft

but what—in reality—is more modest and less tied to Trump’s negotiating skills. With any given issue and on any given

concern, Trump turns immediately to how he’s perceived. Similarly, with the 100-days marker, Trump dismisses it as an “artificial barrier” and says voters shouldn’t judge him on it, while simultaneously arguing that he has accomplished most of the items on his list for the period. It’s as if Trump knows he is far behind on his agenda—that, a Supreme Court justice aside, he has done relatively little as president—but that he also has to affirm his self-image as a historic, consequential leader. It’s why, when the topic turned to his February address to Congress, Trump turned immediately to extreme hyperbole. “[S]ome people said it was the single best speech ever made in that chamber,” he said. Later, he repeated his false—or at least distorted—story about Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings. “He said, ‘You will be,’ in front of five, six people, he said, ‘You will be the greatest president in the history of this country,’ ” Trump claimed. When the AP disputed that characterization, he repeated himself. (The difficulty for Trump here seems to be an unacknowledged and very big if in Cummings’ remarks.) With any given issue and on any given concern, Trump turns

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/04/

immediately to how he’s perceived; whether the press is unfair, whether he is getting his due. And while he denounces outlets like

MSNBC and CNN, he is clearly preoccupied with the cable news and hyperattentive to what’s said about him. “By the way, I’m 10–0 for that. I’ve called every one of them,” said Trump about his early statement describing the recent attack in France as “terrorism” before all the details were known. Once again, here, he’s complaining about press criticism, eventually ending his digression by affirming his position as president. “Whatever. In the meantime, I’m here, and they’re not.” Donald Trump is fond of statements like that, fond of reminding his interlocutors that he resides in the White House. One imagines he sees it as a statement of confidence. In reality, it’s the boast of someone who protests a bit too much, who feels less secure in his

station than he might project. One last point: Presidential insecurity isn’t harmless, especially for a commander in chief who is obsessed with winning and who seems to see life as a dominance game, where someone or something has to be a loser. What happens when the insecure president can’t move his agenda through Congress? What happens when his plans fail? What does he do to ensure that, above all, he isn’t a

loser? If our recent national adventures with Afghanistan, Syria, and North Korea are any indication, we have a good, and worrying, answer for that question.

That lashout will be violentChelala 2/14 (Dr. Cesar, international public health consultant and the winner of several journalism awards, “Shrinks take a stab at what makes Trump tick”, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2017/02/14/commentary/world-commentary/shrinks-take-stab-makes-trump-tick/#.WKPPcjsrJhE)

In that regard, one could say that Trump’s psychological characteristics are consistent with a person with

Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD), which is characterized by a pattern of disregard for, or violation of, the rights of others. Also apparent in this disorder is a history of legal problems and of impulsive and aggressive behavior. Individuals with this disorder generally have no compunction in exploiting others in harmful ways for their own gain and pleasure. They frequently manipulate and deceive other people through a facade of wit and superficial charm, or even through intimidation and violence. What makes this disorder particularly dangerous is that among its other characteristics those who have it are often reckless and impulsive, and fail to consider the consequences of

their actions. In addition, they are often aggressive and manifest a lopsided temper, lashing out with violence to what they perceive is a provocation. Robert Caro, President Lyndon Johnson’s great biographer, said, “Although the cliche says that power always corrupts, what is seldom said … is that power always reveals.” Anyone who has observed Trump’s actions since assuming the presidency cannot fail but notice his increasingly impulsive decisions, his notable frustration at not receiving the response that he expected and a failure to admit that he has been wrong or apologizing when harming others. What we have is a situation where the most powerful person in the world is tainted by personality

characteristics that could pose serious harm to global peace. The extent to which these harmful characteristics can be controlled may well decide the future of the world.

Impact---A2: Checks on Trump

Defense is wrong – no checksBruce Blair 16, Nuclear security expert, Research scholar at the Program on Science and Global Security at Princeton University', 6/11/2016, What Exactly Would It Mean to Have Trump’s Finger on the Nuclear Button?, Politico, http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-missiles-nukes-button-launch-foreign-policy-213955

To a degree we haven’t seen, perhaps, since the candidacy of Senator Barry Goldwater in 1964, the question of Donald Trump’s temperament and judgment on matters of war and peace is stirring attention—and trepidation, particularly when the subject of nuclear weapons comes up. Some people believe that Trump himself is the maniac, the madman with nukes that appears in Trump’s own worst nightmare. And it’s not just Trump’s general-election opponent, Hillary Clinton, who’s hinting at this; his former GOP rival, Marco Rubio, repeated his earlier concerns about Trump only this week, saying America can't give "the nuclear codes of the United States to an erratic individual." Others would side with Trump’s view that the weapons themselves—which pack a destructive force amounting to “Hiroshima times a thousand,” as he

put it—are the evil. But these points are not mutually exclusive.¶ What would it mean to have Trump’s fingers on the nuclear button? We don't really know, but we do know this: In the atomic age, when decisions must be made very quickly, the presidency has evolved into something akin to a nuclear monarchy . With a single phone call, the commander in chief has virtually unlimited power to rain down nuclear weapons on any adversarial regime and country at any time. You might imagine this awesome executive power would be hamstrung with checks and balances , but by law, custom and congressional

deference there may be no responsibility where the president has more absolute control . There

is no advice and consent by the Senate. There is no second-guessing by the Supreme Court . Even ordering the use of torture—which Trump infamously once said he would do, insisting the military “won’t refuse. They’re not gonna refuse me”—

imposes more legal constraints on a president than ordering a nuclear attack.¶ If he were president, Donald Trump— who likes to say he doesn't spend a lot of time conferring with others ("My primary consultant is myself,"

he declared in March)— would be free to launch a civilization-ending nuclear war on his own any time he chose.¶ The “nuclear button” is a metaphor for a complex apparatus that has the president’s brain at its apex. The image of a commander in chief simply pressing a button captures none of the machinery, people and procedures designed to inform the president and translate his or her decisions into coherent action. Although it remains shrouded in secrecy, we actually know a great deal about it, beginning with the president’s first task of opening the “nuclear suitcase” in an emergency to review his nuclear

attack options. If we shine our light at the tactical and timing considerations of how a first- or second-strike attack would unfold, and at the inner workings of the nuclear decision process from the standpoint of the White House, we gain a much better idea of a presidential candidate’s fitness for this responsibility. And here it is essential to consider a candidate’s temperament and character—especially in situations of extreme stress. Decisiveness is important, but so is prudence. ¶ Let us say the president is awakened in the middle of the night (the proverbial 3 a.m. phone call) by his or her top nuclear adviser and told of an incoming nuclear strike. Since the flight time of missiles fired from launch stations in Russia or China to the White House is 30 minutes, and 12 minutes or less for missiles fired from submarines lurking in the

Western Atlantic Ocean (Russian subs historically favor a patrol area to the west of Bermuda), the steadiness and brainpower of the commander in chief in such circumstances are serious questions indeed. The voting public must ask whether a given candidate would remain calm—or panic, become discombobulated and driven to order an immediate nuclear response on the basis of false information.¶ This call has never happened, but if it ever does, the situation would be as stressful and dangerous as things ever get inside the Oval Office. The closest we came to such a call occurred in 1979, when the consoles at our early warning hub in Colorado lit up with indications of a large-scale Soviet missile attack. President Jimmy Carter’s

national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, received back-to-back calls in the middle of the night informing him of the imminent nuclear destruction of the United States. The second call reported an all-out attack. Brzezinski was seconds away from waking Carter to pass on the dreadful news and convince him of the need to order retaliation without delay (within a six-minute deadline). Brzezinski was sure the end was near.¶ Just before he picked up the phone to call Carter, Brzezinski received a third call, this time canceling the alarm. It was a mistake caused by human and technical error. A training tape simulating an all-out Soviet attack had inadvertently slipped into the actual real-time attack early warning network. The impending nuclear holocaust was a mirage that confused the duty crew. (They were fired for taking eight minutes instead of the required three minutes to declare their degree of

confidence that an attack against North America was underway.)¶ How would a President Trump behave under such duress, informed of the attack and the imminent destruction of the nation’s capital and himself? He would have only a few minutes to consider the reliability of the attack report and decide whether and how to retaliate. If the attack is real, and he hesitates, a president will likely be killed and the chain of command decapitated, perhaps permanently. During the short countdown to impact, he also will be advised by the head of the Strategic Command in Omaha

(or the officer on duty that night if the four-star head of Strategic Command cannot get onto the conference call on time) that the incoming attack will destroy the bulk of the U.S. land-based strategic missile force unless the president makes a timely decision ordering their egress from their underground silos before incoming warheads arrive. Furthermore, he will hear that the loss of this land-based force will mean that the goals of the U.S. war plan will not be realizable. (These goals require the ability to destroy the vast bulk of the Russia target base consisting of

just under 1,000 aim points and of the China target base of just under 500 aim points.)¶ Yet if the president yields to this pressure and orders immediate retaliation, then he risks launching on false warning. ¶ Voters should want to consider whether Trump or any other candidate possesses the steely nerves and competence to deliberate intelligently and calmly at the moment of truth. How does the candidate process ambiguity? Does he or she interpret ambiguous or contradictory data in black-and-white terms or in ways that reinforce his or her bias? Does the candidate rush to conclusions? Does he or she appear to place too much stock and faith in the performance of technical systems, such as the sensor systems in early warning networks, and underestimate the fallibility of people and machines?¶ It is of course not unreasonable to believe that the nuclear responsibilities of any president are above the pay grade of every living human being—that no one is really up to the task. The only real protection against nuclear disaster is total elimination of nuclear weapons.¶ And yet until that far-off day we expect our president at least not to act rashly under pressure, and to ensure with near-absolute certainty that the United States never launches a nuclear strike on the basis of spurious indications of an incoming attack. It is possibly asking too much, however, because even the most level-headed commander in chief simply cannot process all that he or she needs to absorb under the short deadlines imposed by warheads flying inbound at the speed of 4 miles per second. The risks of mistaken launch based on false warning, human error in control systems, and panic in the face of imminent death are very real and probably inherent in the hair-trigger nuclear postures of the United States and Russia.¶ Most presidents during the Cold War lived in dread of this moment knowing all too well the attendant risks. Ronald Reagan expressed incredulity that he would be allowed only six minutes to decide whether to trigger Armageddon based on blips on a radar screen. There is no guarantee that the next president will exercise due caution when the balloon appears to have gone up.¶ Although no president during the atomic age appears to have ever lost his grip on reality to such an extent that an insane nuclear act might have resulted, top advisers to President Richard Nixon tried to constrain his launch authority during the Watergate scandal that ultimately forced his resignation. His secretary of Defense, James Schlesinger, quietly instructed the Pentagon war room to double check with him if Nixon contacted it to order up a nuclear strike. Nixon’s mental stability, and his heavy drinking, caused concern within his inner circle that he might behave erratically out of despair and depression. Alcoholism in a

future nuclear monarch is of course quite beyond the pale.¶ Trump’s teetotaling lays that concern to rest, but his quick temper, defensiveness bordering on paranoia and disdain for anyone who criticizes him do not inspire deep confidence in his prudence. Can we trust a President Trump to remain grounded and sensible under extraordinary pressure in a crisis that appears to be crossing the nuclear Rubicon?¶ Yet a harried decision to launch on warning in the belief that the United States is under nuclear attack is not even the most plausible scenario a President Trump might face today. That is more likely to be a crisis that escalates by design or inadvertence to the nuclear brink and then spins out of control. To be sure, the U.S. and Russian launch on warning postures have certainly put them at the mercy of false alarms. (Russia adopted the practice during the Cold War and maintains it today despite having a decrepit early warning network that has shortened President Vladimir Putin’s decision time to two to four minutes.) Computer glitches and human error have generated serious false alarms in the past, and every day events happen that trigger the sensors and require a closer look—peaceful space launches (satellites and astronauts), missile test launches, conventional combat missile launches, fighter jets taking off on after-burners, and even wildfires. But close calls have been fairly rare—about three serious false alarms in the United States and three in the Soviet Union/Russia that could have led to a very bad call by their leaders have

occurred.¶ By comparison, there have been dozens of intense confrontations between the nuclear

adversaries in the past, almost all of which tested the mettle, composure and restraint of their leaders . The next president will become embroiled in ongoing low-boil nuclear standoffs with Russia, China and North Korea that could morph quickly into a full-blown nuclear crisis . In such

situations, actions thought to be defensive and reassuring to allies are often viewed as offensive by the opponent, whose reaction starts another cycle of action-reaction.¶ The United States and Russia today are entwining themselves in this trap over Ukraine, U.S. missile defenses in Europe and other disputes. Military buildups with nuclear dimensions are underway, and nuclear threats have been made explicitly by Russian officials including Putin and implicitly by each side’s nuclear force operations—for instance, flying strategic bombers close to each side’s territory. Both Putin and President Barack Obama are reminding each other, to a degree we haven’t seen since the Cold War, that they have nuclear buttons at hand.¶ ***¶ Trump would actually have not one but several fingers on the nuclear button. One finger would be an active digit ready to point up or down for an attack to his nuclear commanders. Other fingers would shape the size and composition of U.S. nuclear forces and the strategy for their use. Additional fingers would determine nuclear actions taken in his absence or demise by presidential successors from his vice president, the Cabinet that he appoints or by generals to whom he may pre-delegate his launch authority.¶

As with his predecessors, Trump’s power over the life and death of entire nations would be practically unbounded . Today, the nuclear deluge he could command would consist of thousands of weapons, each 10 or 20 times more

deadly than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Nearly 2,000 U.S. strategic nuclear weapons aimed primarily at Russia and China (at a ratio of roughly 2 to 1), with additional dozens aimed at each of several other nations—North Korea, Iran and Syria—would be at a President Trump’s disposal from his first minutes in office. The city of Moscow alone lies in the bore sights of more than 100 U.S. nuclear warheads.¶ There are no restraints that can prevent a willful president from unleashing this hell.¶ If he gave the command, his executing commanders would have no legal or procedural grounds to defy it no matter how inappropriate it might seem. As long as the president can establish his or her true identity by his or her personal presence in the Pentagon’s nuclear war room or its alternates (places like Site R at Fort Richie near Camp David), or by phone or other means of communications linking him or her to these war rooms using a special identification card (colloquially known as “the biscuit” containing “the nuclear codes”) in his or her possession (or, alternatively, kept inside the “nuclear briefcase” carried by his or her military aide who shadows the president everywhere he or she works, travels and plays), a presidential nuclear decision is lawful (putting international humanitarian law aside). It must be obeyed as long as it is constitutional—i.e., the president as commander in chief believes he or she is acting to protect and defend the nation against an actual or imminent attack.¶ But within these broad constraints there is no wiggle room for evasion or defiance of the president’s orders. That’s true even if the national security adviser, the secretary of defense (who along with the president makes up the “national command authority”) and other top appointees and advisers disagree with the president’s decision. It does not matter whether the United States has already come under attack by nuclear or non-nuclear weapons. It does not even matter if the commander in chief simply orders the use of nuclear weapons on an ordinary day for reasons unknown to all but him or her.

Under the president’s open-ended mandate to decide when the national interest is threatened, ordering up a nuclear strike is his or her prerogative, and obeying the order is incumbent upon the military servants of civilian authority.

Impact---China War

Nuclear war---Impact Defense doesn’t apply to TrumpKlare 17 – Michael Klare, Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College, “Escalation Watch: Four Global Hotspots for Trump”, Asia Times, 1-20, http://www.atimes.com/article/escalation-watch-four-global-hotspots-trump/

Within months of taking office, President Donald Trump is likely to face one or more major international crises , possibly

entailing a risk of nuclear escalation . Not since the end of the Cold War has a new chief executive been confronted with

as many potential flashpoints involv ing such a potential for explosive conflict .

This proliferation of crises has been brewing for some time, but the situation appears especially ominous now given Trump ’s pledge to bring American military force swiftly to bear on any threats of foreign transgression. With so much at risk, it’s none too soon to go on a permanent escalation watch, monitoring the major global hotspots for any sign of imminent flare-ups, hoping that early warnings (and the outcry that goes with them) might help avert catastrophe.

Looking at the world today, four areas appear to pose a n especially high risk of sudden crisis and conflict : North Korea, the S outh C hina S ea , the Baltic Sea region, and the Middle East. Each of them has been the past site of recurring clashes, and all are primed to explode early in the Trump presidency.

Why are we seeing so many potential crises now? Is this period really different from earlier presidential transitions?

It’s true that the changeover from one presidential administration to another can be a time of global uncertainty, given America’s pivotal importance in world affairs and the natural inclination of rival powers to test the mettle of the country’s new leader. There are, however, other factors that make this moment particularly worrisome, including the changing nature of the world order, the personalities of its key leaders, and an ominous shift in military doctrine.

Trump may lift gold as new leaders carry risk

Just as the United States is going through a major political transition, so is the planet at large. The sole-superpower system of the post-Cold War era is finally giving way to a multipolar, if not increasingly fragmented , world in which the U nited States must share the limelight with other major actors, including

China, Russia, India, and Iran. Political scientists remind us that transitional periods can often prove disruptive, as “status quo” powers (in this case, the United States) resist challenges to their dominance from “revisionist” states seeking to alter the global power equation. Typically, this can entail proxy wars and other kinds of sparring over contested areas, as has recently been the case in Syria, the Baltic, and

the S outh C hina S ea .

This is where the personalities of key leaders enter the equation. Though President Obama oversaw constant warfare, he was temperamentally disinclined to respond with force to every overseas crisis and provocation, fearing involvement in yet more foreign wars like Iraq and Afghanistan. His critics, including Donald Trump, complained bitterly that this stance only encouraged foreign adversaries to up their game, convinced that the US had lost its will to resist provocation. In a Trump administration, as The Donald indicated on the campaign trail last year, America’s adversaries should expect far tougher responses. Asked in September, for instance, about an incident in the Persian Gulf in which Iranian gunboats approached American warships in a threatening manner, he typically told reporters, “When they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats and make gestures that … they shouldn’t be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water.”

Although with Russia, unlike Iran, Trump has promised to improve relations, there’s no escaping the fact that Vladimir Putin’s urge to restore some of his country’s long-lost superpower glory could lead to confrontations with Nato powers that would put the new

American president in a distinctly awkward position. Regarding Asia, Trump has often spoken of his intent to punish China for what he considers its predatory trade practices, a stance guaranteed to clash with President Xi Jinping’s goal of

restoring his country’s greatness. This should , in turn, generate additional possibilities for confrontation , especially in the contested South China Sea. Both Putin and Xi, moreover, are facing economic difficulties at home and view foreign adventurism as a way of distracting public attention from disappointing domestic performances.

Impact---China War---Time Frame

Escalates quicklyBrown 1/20 (James, UNITED STATES STUDIES CENTRE, Australia, “Australia in firing line if US and China go to war, experts say”, http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2017/s4607360.htm)

JAMES BROWN: Well, how do wars start? Generally there are multitudes of way. Miscalculations, deliberate

provocations, over-confident players, militaries that jostle each other too aggressively or some sort of wildcard factor. STAN

GRANT: Imagine this: A US fighter jet enters territory claimed by China and is shot down. History shows

this scenario is not only possible but one that could quickly escalate. JAMES BROWN: US military assets and Chinese military assets operate in close proximity all the time, every day. Any time a US ship goes into the South China Sea, there is a Chinese ship shadowing it. In the air, Chinese and US planes have passed within tens of metres with each other. Now there are

protocols to govern those interactions but there are pilots and ship captains who are known to be rogue operators. The US and China talk about this and there are always accidents that happen and miscalculations so it could escalate very quickly.

Impact---China War---A2: No War

Checks don’t apply – Trump will antagonize China ensuring conflictRachman 3/7 (Gideon, chief foreign affairs columnist for the Financial Times, “Trump in the China Shop”, http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/03/07/trump-in-the-china-shop/)

The arrival of Donald Trump in the White House threatens a significant acceleration in the rivalry between the US and China. The deliberate but careful attempts of the Obama administration to push back against Chinese

ambitions in the Asia-Pacific region are likely to be replaced by a new Trump approach that is much more openly confrontational, and more impulsive in style. Even before taking office, the new US president demonstrated his willingness to antagonize Beijing—by speaking directly to the president of Taiwan, something that all

US presidents have refused to do since the normalization of relations between the United States and China in the 1970s. If a direct military conflict between China and the United States does break out during the Trump years, the likeliest arena for a clash is the South China Sea. In his confirmation hearings before the US Senate, Rex Tillerson, Trump’s new secretary of state, signaled a significant hardening in the American attitude to the artificial islands that China has been building in the S outh C hina S ea . Tillerson likened the island building to Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and said that the Trump administration intended to let Beijing know that “your access to those islands is not going to be allowed.” Taken at face value, that sounded like a threat to blockade the islands, on which China has

been constructing military installations. China would almost certainly attempt to break such a blockade by sea or air. The stage would be set for a modern version of the Cuba missile crisis. The Chinese government’s official reaction to the Tillerson statement was restrained. But China’s state-controlled media was ferocious. The Global Times, a nationalist paper, warned of the possibility of a “large-scale war” between the United States and China, while the China Daily spoke of a “devastating confrontation between China and the U.S.” Independent observers had come to similar conclusions. Speaking to me in Davos a couple of days after Tillerson’s statement, Vivian Balakrishnan, the foreign minister of Singapore, warned

that any effort at a US blockade in the S outh C hina S ea would lead to a war between the U nited S tates and China . The Singaporeans, who maintain close ties to both Washington and Beijing and whose natural style is cautious and technocratic, are not given to hysteria. In an effort to calm the rising anxieties in Asia, expressed by the likes of Balakrishnan, James Mattis,

Trump’s new defense secretary, used his first trip to the region in early February to reassure allies that the US is not planning any “dramatic military moves” in the South China Sea. But there are other influential voices in the new administration who clearly believe that a war with China is both inevitable and necessary. Stephen K. Bannon,

chief strategist in the Trump White House, told a radio show in early 2016, “We’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to ten years. There is no doubt about that.” A decision by President Trump to confront China over its territorial claims would represent a new development in the president’s thinking , for Trump’s most longstanding and profound concerns about Asia are economic. Conventional economic theory has long held that the growing wealth of Asian nations is a good thing for the United States, since it creates larger markets for American companies and cheaper goods for American consumers. But Trump and his advisers emphatically reject this idea. They blame the stagnation of

the living standards of American workers on “globalism”—otherwise known as international trade and investment. Bannon argues that “the globalists gutted the American working-class and created a middle-class in Asia.” In his view, the increasing wealth of Asia, far from being a mutually advantageous process, has impoverished the United States.

US & China are on the brinkHolloway 2/4 (Henry, staff @ Daily Star (UK news), “World War 3 on the brink in the Pacific – nukes and warships ready for devastating WAR”, http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/584828/US-China-War-South-China-Sea-World-War-3-Donald-Trump-Trade-Shipping-Reality-Tillerson)

Washington and Beijing have both been flexing their military muscles as Chinese military bosses

declared “war between the US and China is now reality”. Warships, missiles, and nuclear-capable

bombers are flooding the region as both superpowers prepare for a potentially nuclear conflict. The cradle of this war zone is the South China Sea which Beijing claim belongs to the Chinese by right while the US weighs in support of the Asian power’s Pacific neighbours. Experts

have warned just one wrong move could cause the region to explode into war between the US and China. David L. Goldwyn, a former special envoy for the US State Department, warned of conflict with China in a report to the Atlantic Council seen

by Daily Star Online. He said: "China is prone to testing new US presidents and Mr. Trump seems intent on testing, if not provoking, China. "A miscalculation on either side creates a non-negligible risk of military conflict.”

War goes nuclear – It’s probableYoung 16 (Stephen, fellow @ Union of Concerned Scientists, USA, “The Risk of Nuclear War with China”, http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/us-china-relations/risk-nuclear-war-china#.WNR8UjvythE)

Could simmering tensions lead to a full-blown nuclear war? More specifically: could a minor skirmish or conventional war

escalate into a full-blown nuclear conflict? Numerous factors suggest that it could—and that the likelihood of nuclear use between the United States and China may be increasing. The two countries have a very contentious history. Despite sincere and occasionally successful efforts to cooperate on shared concerns such as climate change and nuclear terrorism, lack of mutual trust sustains an entrenched and deepening antagonism . Both governments are preparing for war. Their preparations include improvements to their nuclear arsenals, including a trillion dollar investment in the United States. Both governments also believe that a demonstrable readiness to use military force—including nuclear weapons—is needed to ensure the other will yield in a military

confrontation. Discussions of contentious issues are exceedingly inadequate. Their militaries have produced shared understandings of the conduct of naval vessels and aircraft, but strategic dialogues on nuclear forces,

missile defenses, and anti-satellite weapons are limited at best. United States and Chinese officials see the risk of nuclear use differently. US officials believe that if a military conflict starts, nuclear weapons may be needed to stop it—but Chinese officials assume no nation would ever invite nuclear retaliation by using nuclear weapons first. Their only concern is maintaining a credible threat of retaliation. These and other factors are

exacerbated by recent developments between the two countries, including China’s apparent move toward hair-trigger alert—a

policy that increases the risk of accidental nuclear war, especially in the early days of its development.

Impact---China War---A2: No War - DeterrenceNo deterrence – Causes extinctionWittner 11 (Dr. Lawrence, Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany, “Is a Nuclear War With China Possible?”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-wittner/nuclear-war-china_b_1116556.html)

At the least, though, don’t nuclear weapons deter a nuclear attack? Do they? Obviously, NATO leaders didn’t feel deterred, for, throughout the Cold War, NATO’s strategy was to respond to a Soviet conventional military attack on Western Europe by launching a

Western nuclear attack on the nuclear-armed Soviet Union. Furthermore, if U.S. government officials really believed that nuclear deterrence worked, they would not have resorted to championing “Star Wars” and its

modern variant, national missile defense. Why are these vastly expensive — and probably unworkable — military defense systems needed if other nuclear powers are deterred from attacking by U.S. nuclear might? Of course, the bottom line for those Americans convinced that nuclear weapons safeguard them from a Chinese nuclear attack might be that the U.S. nuclear arsenal is far greater than its Chinese counterpart. Today, it is estimated that the U.S. government possesses over 5,000 nuclear warheads, while the Chinese government has a total inventory of roughly 300. Moreover, only about 40 of these Chinese nuclear weapons can

reach the United States. Surely the United States would “win” any nuclear war with China. But what would that “victory” entail? An attack with these Chinese nuclear weapons would immediately slaughter at least 10 million Americans in a great storm of blast and fire, while leaving many more dying horribly of sickness and radiation poisoning. The Chinese death toll in a nuclear war would be far higher. Both nations would be reduced to smoldering, radioactive wastelands. Also, radioactive debris sent

aloft by the nuclear explosions would blot out the sun and bring on a “nuclear winter” around the globe —

destroying agriculture, creating worldwide famine, and generating chaos and destruction.

Impact---China War---A2: No Escalation

Escalation to nuclear use is likely – NFU & “peaceful intent” wont solveKulacki 16 (Gregory, China Project Manager for the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, “The Risk of Nuclear War with China”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gregory-kulacki/the-risk-of-nuclear-war-w_b_1903336.html)

Last week two separate studies warned that China and the United States are pursuing military strategies and implementing defense policies that could lead to a nuclear war . John Lewis and Xue Litai of Stanford

University concluded a detailed exposition of China’s nuclear war plans with a very sober warning. “Both sides, clinging to

incongruous assessments, run the risk of provoking unanticipated escalation to nuclear war by seeking a quick victory or tactical advantages in a conventional conflict. This dilemma is not only real, but perilous.” Thomas Christensen of Princeton expressed concern about the same problem; the possibility that a conventional military conflict between

the United States and China could end in a nuclear exchange. “For example, if strikes by the United States on China’s conventional coercive capabilities or their critical command and control nodes and supporting infrastructure were to

appear in Beijing as a conventional attack on its nuclear retaliatory capability or as a precursor to a nuclear first

strike, even a China that generally adheres to a No-First-Use posture might escalate to the nuclear level.” Neither study suggests that the military or political leadership of China or the United States intends to resort to nuclear weapons in the event of a military conflict. China’s commitment not to be the first to use nuclear weapons “at any time under any circumstances“ is drilled into the officers and soldiers of China’s strategic missile forces. A classified text used to train those forces, The Science of Second Artillery Operations, unambiguously instructs, “In accord with our national principle not to be the first to use nuclear weapons under any circumstances, the Second Artillery’s strategic nuclear forces can carry out a retaliatory nuclear attack against the enemy, following the command of the ‘high leadership,’ only after the enemy has first attacked us with nuclear weapons.” Although the United States is unwilling to make a similar commitment, U.S. superiority in conventional weapons and overall military capabilities makes it unlikely the United States would consider using nuclear weapons for any purpose other than preventing a Chinese nuclear attack on the United States. The most recent U.S. Nuclear Posture Review, in an effort to deemphasize the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. defense policy, declared that the “fundamental role of U.S. nuclear weapons...is to deter a

nuclear attack on the United States, our allies and partners.“ The risk of a nuclear war with China lies in the potential for misunderstanding or miscommunication during a conventional conflict. China’s current strategy for employing its conventional and nuclear missile forces during a future conflict with the United States is self-consciously designed to create uncertainty, with the expectation that uncertainty will restrain U.S. military action. Unfortunately, China’s

strategy could also precipitate a large-scale U.S. attack on China’s missile forces. There are several Chinese military policies that might confuse U.S. decision-makers in a time of war. Some Chinese conventional missiles are located on the same missile bases as Chinese nuclear missiles. Some Chinese missiles, particularly the DF-21, can be armed with either a conventional or a nuclear warhead. Chinese conventional war plans call for long-range “strategic” conventional missile strikes at key enemy targets, including U.S. military bases on allied soil and the continental United States. If this were not confusing

enough already, The Science of Second Artillery Operations contains a section on “lowering the nuclear threshold” that details procedures for alerting China’s nuclear forces in a crisis for the express purpose of forcing a halt to an enemy’s conventional attacks on a select group of targets, such as Chinese nuclear power plants, large dams and civilian population centers. Although the Science of Second Artillery Operations unambiguously states that if alerting China’s nuclear missile forces fails to halt conventional

enemy attacks China will hold firm to its “no first use” commitment, U.S. decision-makers might not believe it. Indeed, U.S. interlocutors have repeatedly told their Chinese counterparts that they do not find China’s “no first use” pledge credible. The combination of these factors makes a nuclear exchange between the United

States and China not only plausible, but also probable if the two countries were to become embroiled in a military conflict. As Lewis and Xue explain, “If, in a time of high tension, the Chinese command authorized a conventional missile attack as an act of preemptive self-defense, the enemy and its allies could not know if the incoming missiles were conventional or nuclear. In a worst-case scenario, a Chinese first-strike conventional attack could spark retaliation that destroys Chinese nuclear assets, creating a

situation in which escalation to full-scale nuclear war would not just be possible, but even likely.”

Impact---Iran War

Iran escalates to nuclear warBeres 2/10 (Louis Rene, emeritus professor of political science and international law at Purdue University, “The Fast Track to Armageddon”, https://www.usnews.com/opinion/world-report/articles/2017-02-10/donald-trump-iran-and-the-fast-track-to-nuclear-war-in-the-middle-east)

All such bewildering calculations, of course, must assume perfect rationality on all sides. If, for example, the new American president should cast all caution to the winds with his own first strike (a strike that would be defended by

Washington, in law, as an allegedly legitimate expression of international law-enforcement, or "anticipatory self-defense"), the Iranian response, whether rational or irrational, could expectedly be "proportionate" – that is, comparably

massive. In that prospectively escalatory case, any contemplated introduction of nuclear weapons into the ensuing

conflagration might not necessarily be dismissed out of hand. At that point, moreover, any such introduction would have to originate from the American and/or Israeli side. This indisputable inference is "true by definition," "simply" because Iran would not

yet have become an operationally nuclear power. In such circumstances, Trump, especially in view of his favored argumentum ad

baculum stance in virtually all matters, might decide upon a so-called "mad dog" strategy vis-a-vis Iran. Here, the American president would display a last-resort dependence upon a strategy of pretended irrationality, or what I have called in my own latest books and monographs, the "rationality of pretended irrationality." Significantly, any such residual reliance, while

intuitively sensible and apparently compelling, could still backfire, thereby opening up an "Armageddon path" to a now unstoppable escalation.

Impact---Iran War---A2: Trump Won’t Do It

Aggression fuels war with IranSchneider 12/4 (Dave, staff @ Fight Back News, “Trump picks corporate war criminal 'Mad Dog' Mattis for Secretary of Defense”, http://www.fightbacknews.org/2016/12/4/trump-picks-corporate-war-criminal-mad-dog-mattis-secretary-defense)

Picking Mattis signals Trump's intent to escalate military aggression towards Iran. During his tenure as

head of Central Command from 2010 to 2013, Mattis pushed for the U.S. to take a more belligerent stance towards Iran. He proposed greater covert operations against the Iranian government and vocally opposed diplomatic efforts. When the Obama administration began negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program in 2013, they removed Mattis, an outspoken critic of the negotiations, from Central Command. During his presidential campaign,

Trump repeatedly called for overturning the Obama administration's nuclear deal with Iran , which received approval from all five members of the UN Security Council in 2015. While the billionaire real estate mogul occasionally

spoke against U.S. military involvement in the Middle East, Trump's selection of Mattis for Defense Secretary shows where his actual priorities lie: moves toward war with Iran and more U.S. involvement in the region.

Trump will aggressively attack IranSepahour-Ulrich 2/6 (Soraya, Master of Public Diplomacy from the University of Southern California and is an independent researcher, “Trump: Trumpeting For a War on Iran?”, https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2017/02/06/trump-trumpeting-for-a-war-on-iran/)

The Trump Administration’s rhetoric and actions have alarmed the world. The protests in response to his visa ban have overshadowed and distracted from a darker threat: war with Iran. Is the fear of the threat greater than the threat itself? The answer is not clear. Certainly Americans and non-Americans who took comfort in the fact that we would have a more peaceful world

believing that Trump would not start a nuclear war with Russia must now have reason to pause. The sad and stark reality is that US foreign policy is continuous. An important part of this continuity is a war that has been waged against Iran for the past 38 years–unabated. The character of this war has changed over time. From a failed coup which attempted to destroy the Islamic Republic in its early days (the Nojeh Coup), to aiding Saddam Hussein with intelligence and weapons of mass destruction to kill Iranians during the 8-year Iran-Iraq war, helping and promoting the terrorist MEK group, the training and recruiting of the Jundallah terrorist group to launch attacks in Iran, putting Special Forces on the ground in Iran, the imposition of sanctioned terrorism, the lethal Stuxnet cyberattack, and the list goes on and on, as does the continuity of

it. While President Jimmy Carter initiated the Rapid Deployment Force and put boots on the Ground in the Persian Gulf, virtually every U.S. president since has threatened Iran with military action. It is hard to remember when the option was not on the table. However, thus far, every U.S. administration has wisely avoided a head on military confrontation with Iran. To his credit, although George W. Bush was egged on to engage militarily with Iran, , the 2002 Millennium Challenge, exercises which simulated war, demonstrated America’s inability to win a war with Iran. The challenge was too daunting. It is not just Iran‘s formidable defense forces that have to be reckoned with; but the fact that one of Iran’s strengths and deterrents has been its ability to retaliate to any attack by closing down the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow passageway off the coast of Iran. Given that 17 million barrels of oil a day, or 35% of the world’s seaborne oil exports go through the

Strait of Hormuz, incidents in the Strait would be fatal for the world economy. Faced with this reality, over the years, the United States has taken a multi-prong approach to prepare for an eventual/potential military confrontation with Iran. These plans have included promoting the false narrative of an imaginary threat from a non-existent nuclear weapon and the falsehood of Iran being engaged in terrorism (when in fact Iran has been subjected to terrorism for decades

as illustrated above). These ‘alternate facts’ have enabled the United States to rally friend and foe against Iran,

and to buy itself time to seek alternative routes to the Strait of Hormuz .

Impact---Ext---Iran War = Extinction

Iran war tanks the global economy and causes extinctionAvery, 13 --- Associate Professor, University of Copenhagen (11/6/2013, John Scales Avery, “An Attack On Iran Could Escalate Into Global Nuclear War,” http://www.countercurrents.org/avery061113.htm)

Despite the willingness of Iran's new President, Hassan Rouhani to make all reasonable concessions to US demands, Israeli pressure

groups in Washington continue to demand an attack on Iran . But such an attack might escalate into a global nuclear war, with catastrophic consequences. As we approach the 100th anniversary World War I, we should remember

that this colossal disaster escalated uncontrollably from what was intended to be a minor conflict . There is a danger that an attack on Iran would escalate into a large-scale war in the Middle East , entirely destabilizing a region that is already deep in problems. The unstable government of Pakistan might be overthrown, and the revolutionary Pakistani government might enter the war on the side of Iran, thus introducing nuclear weapons into the conflict . Russia and China , firm allies of Iran, might also be drawn in to a general war in the Middle East. Since much of the world's oil comes from the region, such a war would certainly cause the price of oil to reach unheard-of heights, with catastrophic effects on the global economy . In the dangerous situation that could potentially

result from an attack on Iran, there is a risk that nuclear weapons would be used , either intentionally , or by accident or miscalculation . Recent research has shown that besides making large areas of the world uninhabitable through long-lasting radioactive contamination, a nuclear war would damage global ag riculture to such a extent that a global famine of previously unknown proportions would result . Thus, nuclear war is the ultimate ecological catastrophe. It could destroy human civilization and much of the biosphere. To risk such a war would be an unforgivable offense against the lives and future of all the peoples of the world , US citizens included.

Extinction Avery, 13 --- Associate Professor, University of Copenhagen (11/6/2013, John Scales Avery, “An Attack On Iran Could Escalate Into Global Nuclear War,” http://www.countercurrents.org/avery061113.htm)

Despite the willingness of Iran's new President, Hassan Rouhani to make all reasonable concessions to US demands, Israeli pressure

groups in Washington continue to demand an attack on Iran . But such an attack might escalate into a global nuclear war, with catastrophic consequences. As we approach the 100th anniversary World War I, we should remember

that this colossal disaster escalated uncontrollably from what was intended to be a minor conflict . There is a danger that an attack on Iran would escalate into a large-scale war in the Middle East , entirely destabilizing a region that is already deep in problems. The unstable government of Pakistan might be overthrown, and the revolutionary Pakistani government might enter the war on the side of Iran, thus introduc ing nuclear weapons into the conflict . Russia and China , firm allies of Iran, might also be drawn in to a general war in the Middle East. Since much of the world's oil comes from the region, such a war would certainly cause the price of oil to reach unheard-of heights,

http://www.countercurrents.org/avery061113.htm

http://www.countercurrents.org/avery061113.htm

Impact---North Korea War

North Korea causes a full-blown nuclear war – Trump’s strategy backfiresCohen 4/17 (Ben, Founder and Editor of The Daily Banter, frmr Huffington Post, “The Planet is Legitimately Freaking Out About World War III”, http://thedailybanter.com/2017/04/the-planet-is-legitimately-freaking-out-about-world-war-iii/)

This is all to say that there is no Trumpian view of the world -- it is just a cynical mishmash of paranoid delusion, miscalculated aggression and unguided bravado. 'America First' means whatever Trump feels at any particular moment, and the rest of us will be

left picking up the pieces. In Trump's ego based world view, there are no consequences for American force -- he can just kick some ass, take the glory and leave without worry about what the CIA refer to as "blowback". The 'America First' philosophy is based on an infantile assumption that America can take what it wants and is not responsible for its

actions. In the reality, other countries will respond to Trump's aggression and hostility in kind, making the survival of our species all the less likely. Because in the age of awesomely destructive nuclear weapons, we can incinerate ourselves in the blink of an eye. Should Trump keep pushing North Korea without regard for the consequences, a conflict could spiral out of control incredibly quickly. As the New York Times reported today: What is playing out, said Robert Litwak of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, who tracks this potentially deadly interplay, is “the Cuban missile crisis in slow motion.” But the slow-motion part appears to be speeding

up, as President Trump and his aides have made it clear that the United States will no longer tolerate the incremental advances that have moved Mr. Kim so close to his goals.... While all historical analogies are necessarily imprecise — for starters, President John F. Kennedy dealt with the Soviets and Fidel Castro in a perilous 13 days in 1962, while the roots of the Korean crisis go back a quarter-century — one parallel shines through. When national ambitions, personal ego and deadly weapons are all in the mix, the opportunities for miscalculation are many. Despite Trump's insistence that American dick swinging will make North Korea give up its nukes, history shows us that the exact opposite is true. When Bush invaded Iraq (a country with no nuclear weapons) and threatened North Korea, it prompted Kim Jong Il to ramp up its nuclear efforts. Faced with more threats today, the hermit kingdom will almost certainly double down on its efforts to develop more powerful nuclear weapons again, making the likelihood of a horrendous accident infinitely more likely, and the consequences of a war even more deadly.

Trump is making the world a more dangerous place by the day, and if cooler heads do not prevail we may well be on the cusp of an almighty global conflict that Trump's people have wanted all along.

Impact---Ext---North Korea War = Extinction

Causes North Korean preemptive nuclear strikes – The timeframe is short, but solveableTalmadge 4/14 (Eric, staff @ Chicago Tribune, “North Korean official: Ready for war if Trump wants it”, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-trump-north-korea-20170413-story.html)

President Donald Trump's tweets are adding fuel to a "vicious cycle" of tensions on the Korean Peninsula, North Korea's vice foreign minister told The Associated Press in an exclusive interview Friday. The official added that if the U.S. shows any sign of "reckless" military aggression, Pyongyang is ready to launch a pre-emptive strike of its own. Vice Minister Han Song Ryol said Pyongyang has determined the Trump administration is "more

vicious and more aggressive" than that of Barack Obama. He added that North Korea will keep building up its nuclear arsenal in "quality and quantity" and said Pyongyang is ready to go to war if that's what Trump wants. Tensions between Pyongyang and Washington go back to President Harry Truman and the 1950-53 Korean War, which ended in an armistice, not a peace treaty. But the heat has been rising rapidly since Trump took office in January. This year's joint war games between the U.S. and South Korean militaries are the biggest so far — the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier has been diverted back to the waters off Korea after heading for Australia, and U.S. satellite imagery suggests the North could conduct another underground

nuclear test at any time. Pyongyang recently tested a ballistic missile and claims it is close to perfecting an intercontinental ballistic missile and nuclear warhead that could attack the U.S. mainland . You wouldn't let a little thing like not having a corkscrew stop you from enjoying that bottle of wine you just bought, right? Watch these videos to see what lengths people will go to to open a bottle of wine in a pinch. Many experts believe that at its current pace of

testing, North Korea could reach that potentially game-changing milestone within a few years —

under Trump's watch as president. Despite reports that Washington is considering military action if the North goes ahead with another nuclear test, Han did not rule out the possibility of a test in the near future.

Aggression causes North Korea to respond with preemptive nuclear strikes; they’ve explicitly said soFox News 4/13 (“From Afghanistan to Syria: Trump's major military operations in his first 100 days”, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/13/from-afghanistan-to-syria-trumps-major-military-operations-in-his-first-100-days.html)

Trump has not indicated further military action, though he did issue a warning to North Korea on Thursday, calling it a "problem" country that "will be taken care of." Trump made the comments after he was asked about the U.S. military's decision to drop the largest non-nuclear weapon. When asked whether dropping the bomb sends a message to North Korea as it continues to pursue nuclear and other weapons, Trump said it makes no difference. "North Korea is a problem, the problem will be taken care of," Trump said. North Korea's Vice Foreign Minister Han Song-

ryol said Friday Pyongyang is ready to launch a preemptive strike if the U.S. shows any sign of "reckless" military aggression. The foreign minister added that North Korea will keep building up its nuclear arsenal in "quality and quantity," and said the country is ready to go to war if that is what Trump wants.

Draws in Russia & China – Kills millions immediately & collapses relations with ChinaCohen 4/14 (Ben, Founder and Editor of The Daily Banter, frmr Huffington Post, “Er, is Trump About to Kick Off World War III?”, http://thedailybanter.com/2017/04/er-is-trump-about-to-kick-off-world-war-iii/)

Just for fun, let's do a quick list as to why attacking North Korea is a very, very bad idea: 1. North Korea will respond, and

it will almost certainly attack South Korea. While it is unclear who would win should conflict arise, North Korea's enormous army and possession of nuclear weapons means both sides would incur extreme losses if violence escalated. As the New York Times notes: In the event of war, North Korean plans are

thought to call for nuclear attacks against major ports and air bases in South Korea and Japan, halting any American invasion before it could fully begin. In the meantime, nuclear and chemical strikes against major population centers would be intended to shock the world into capitulating. Missile defense would be of limited use against short-range rockets and of no use against North Korea’s hundreds of artillery pieces, many of which target Seoul, the South Korean

capital. Not good. 2. Hitting North Korea would irreversibly damage relations with China. President Xi has already informed Trump that destabilizing the region with an attack would be a huge problem for China due to the number of

refugees it would create, and they would seek retribution against American in one form or another. 3. An attack would almost certainly spur Russia to side with China and orchestrate a co-ordinated response that would play itself out elsewhere. It is not in the interests of the United States to fight a Cold (or real) war with Russia and China given both are geopolitical power houses with rapidly growing economies and militaries to match. It is clear that Trump's aggressive posture towards North Korea is a giant distraction from his rapid succession of domestic failures and plummeting poll numbers. He has bombed Afghanistan with the biggest non-nuclear weapon in America's arsenal and now sent war ships to threaten North Korea -- all of this after only three months in office. Creating conflict abroad is a classic technique used by strongmen (and

women) throughout history, but rarely has it been as stupidly executed and poorly disguised. Trump is blundering full steam ahead into a quagmire he is not capable of comprehending let alone extricate the US from. He apparently only learned from the Chinese president that the situation in North Korea was "not so easy", and yet has gone ahead

anyway with the proverbial nuclear option. As with everything Donald Trump related, this won't end well so let's hope cooler heads prevail and the international community comes together to put a stop to what could well be the beginnings of a global conflict we likely won't recover from.

Aggression causes all-out nuclear war – Timeframe is shortDeutsche Welle 4/15 (“North Korea vows to respond to US aggression with 'nuclear attack'”, http://www.dw.com/en/north-korea-vows-to-respond-to-us-aggression-with-nuclear-attack/a-38435453)

With the US Navy deployed near the Korean Peninsula, and experts speculating that Pyongyang was preparing

another nuclear test, the tensions have been rising in recent days. The huge military parade on Saturday showed off what appeared to be the country's increasingly sophisticated military hardware, including ballistic missiles, to the accompaniment of

marching music and a large audience. "We will respond to an all-out war with an all-out war and a nuclear war with our style of nuclear attack," Choe Ryong Hae, a top North Korean officer, said. Choe is considered by outside

analysts to be the country's most powerful official after the leader Kim Jong Un. US President Donald Trump's recent bombings in Syria and Afghanistan have stoked fears about a possible US attack on North Korea .

The communist country has been regularly conducting nuclear and missile tests defying United

Nations' resolutions and sanctions. Previously, the North Korean military threatened to unleash a "merciless" response against American targets, including the naval task force the US recently deployed . "The closer such big targets as nuclear powered aircraft carriers come, the greater would be the effect of merciless strikes," according to the statement carried by the KCNA news agency. At the same time, the army urged Washington to "come to its senses" and find a "proper" solution to the current stand-off. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said Friday "everybody will end up as a loser" if a war breaks out on the Korean Peninsula. All sides need to show restraint, he added, or

risk the situation getting out of hand. "One has the feeling that a conflict could break out at any moment," Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said after meeting his French counterpart Jean-Marc Ayrault.

Attacks ensure use-it-or-lose-it pressure for preemptive strikesStafford 1-4 (Tim, Research Fellow with Pacific Forum-Centre for Strategic and International Studies, “Donald Trump’s Misguided Nuclear Proposals”, https://rusi.org/commentary/donald-trumps-misguided-nuclear-proposals)

The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction rested upon the inevitability of a retaliatory response to

any first strike nuclear attack, something enhanced by the heightened survivability afforded by large arsenals. Indeed, one of the dangers that plagues many of today’s deterrence relationships is the absence of such a dynamic . Defence planners in Moscow fear that Russia’s second-strike capacity could be neutralised by the increasing effectiveness of US

missile defences. Likewise, the small nature of the North Korea’s nuclear arsenal means that any major military contingency on the peninsula could confront the Kim regime with a ‘use it or lose it’ dilemma that would incentivise first-use.

China gets drawn in, causes global nuclear warDyer 4/13 (Gwynne, London-based independent journalist, “‘Solving’ North Korea”, https://www.theindependent.co.zw/2017/04/13/solving-north-korea/)

This does not necessarily mean that the US would launch a large nuclear attack against North Korea. If you are really serious about carrying out a “disarming strike” that destroys all of North Korea’s nukes, you probably should do exactly that (You never get a

second chance to go first). But maybe the US Air Force would promise that “precision” non-nuclear weapons could accomplish that goal and maybe some gullible people would believe it. It would still turn into a nuclear war in the end, unless American “surgical strikes” miraculously eliminated every last one of North Korea’s nukes at the

same time. Kim Jong-un’s regime would find itself in the position known in nuclear strategy as “use them or lose them” and it is hard to believe that it would not launch whatever it had left. The targets would be in South Korea, of course, but probably also American bases in Japan. Maybe even Japanese cities, if North Korea had enough weapons left.

The regime would know it was going under – the US would not take this huge risk and then leave it in power – so it would take as many of its enemies as possible down with it. North America would probably not be hit, because Western intelligence services do not believe that Pyongyang has ballistic missiles that can reach that far yet. (But “intelligence” is not the same as knowing for sure, and they could be wrong.) At worst, the victims would be one or two cities in the Pacific north-west of the US. This would be a very bad outcome for people living in Seattle or Portland, but it would not actually be a “nuclear holocaust”. The kind of war that the superpowers would have fought at the height of the Cold War, with thousands of nuclear weapons used by each side, would have killed hundreds of millions and might even have triggered a “nuclear winter”. A nuclear war over Korea would be a much smaller catastrophe, perhaps involving a few million deaths – unless China got drawn in. Unfortunately, that is not

inconceivable, because China, much as it dislikes and mistrusts the North Korean regime, is determined not to see it destroyed. Many people are uncomfortable with this kind of analysis, especially when it draws comparisons between “bad” and “less bad” nuclear wars. Herman Kahn, the dean of nuclear strategists in the 1960s and 70s, was frequently the target of this kind of criticism: how could he talk about potential mass death in such a cold-blooded way? His response was always the same: “Would you prefer a nice, warm mistake?” “Thinking About the Unthinkable”, as he put it in one of his books, is absolutely

necessary if the Unthinkable is not happen. In this case, that means taking the possibility that China might be drawn into the conflict seriously. The destruction of the North Korean regime would bring American military power right to China’s own border. You might reasonably ask: So what? This is the 21st Century and what matters strategically is the big, lethal long-range weapons (like nukes), not the whereabouts of a few American infantry battalions. Quite right in theory. Not necessarily right in practice. During the Korean War, when American troops were operating very close to the Chinese frontier in late 1950, the Chinese regime sent troops in to save the North Korean regime — and succeeded. The scenario this time, with nuclear weapons already being used on both sides of the North Korea-South Korea frontier,

would be different, but it could be even more dangerous. China has lots of nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles too.

Draws in ChinaAllison 17 (Graham, May/June, director of the Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center, “How the US & China Will Go To War”, http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1770556-how-the-us-china-will-go-to-war)

THE SPARK to a Sino-American clash need not initially involve American or Chinese military forces. Instead, it might result from a confrontation with or between third-party allies. Such a scenario nearly became reality in 2010, when North Korea sank the South Korean warship Cheonan, killing forty-six South Korean sailors. China supported North Korea’s denial of involvement. Seoul, meanwhile, insisted that Pyongyang be held accountable. Ultimately, the two Koreas and their allies stepped back from the brink. But with a new set of background conditions and accelerants today, it is not clear that it would be so easy to avoid war, especially if the third parties involved were less inured to the sort of slow, grinding tensions that the Korean Peninsula has endured for decades.

Escalates to nuclear warLeverett 3/19 (Flynt, Professor of International Affairs and Asian Studies, Pennsylvania State University, “TRUMP'S DIPLOMACY-FREE ASIA STRATEGY RISKS WORLD WAR”, http://www.newsweek.com/trump-diplomacy-free-asia-strategy-risks-world-war-569718)

Barring major changes in Trump’s Asia strategy, North Korea will likely keep developing its strategic deterrent. This will continue raising risks that conventional conflict on the Korean peninsula escalates rapidly to nuclear war.

China is reacting deliberately to what it sees as provocative U.S. policies. President Xi wants a summit with Trump before July’s G20 summit. Chinese officials and analysts also say Xi wants to keep Sino-U.S. relations on a relatively even

keel through this fall’s 19th Party Congress. The Congress will approve Xi’s second term as China’s top leader. Xi wants to be seen as

a steady steward of Chinese interests in a global order still significantly influenced by Washington. Meanwhile, China may not mind if Trump renegotiates America’s economic relationships in Asia—especially to the extent this

happens at the expense of U.S. allies. But if Trump keeps building what China sees as a more robust and ultimately offensive regional military posture, Beijing will respond. China will leverage its own economic and political ties to U.S. allies in Asia to constrain and undermine Trump’s strategy . Recently impeached South Korean President Park Geun-hye will probably be replaced by a progressive figure espousing engagement with Pyongyang and more multilateral regional security approaches. This could position Beijing to contain and ultimately reverse

U.S. THAAD deployments. Overall, Trump’s Asia strategy is unlikely to boost Sino-U.S. cooperation on regional security. Instead, it will almost certainly intensify Sino-U.S. security competition.

Impact---Turns Case

Groupthink means the impact turns the case – He can grind the government to a halt while precipitating foreign policy disastersBernstein 2/24 (Jonathan, staff @ Bloomberg View, “The dangers of having a weak president”, http://www.chicagotribune.com/g00/news/opinion/commentary/ct-donald-trump-weak-president-dangerous-20170224-story.html?i10c.referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F)

Since Trump tends to lash out when losing, he remains a danger to democracy even if he is weakened, Ezra

Klein argues. He could do plenty of lashing out in ways that tend to de-legitimize important democratic institutions such as the courts, Congress, the media and political parties . On the other hand: As Politico's Tara Palmeri reports, while Trump needs to be carefully managed in order to keep him from saying and doing inappropriate things, it's not especially difficult to manipulate him. Former campaign staff explain that Trump merely needed to be fed a constant diet of positive news clips, easily generated from friendly news outlets, in order to keep him from his worst instincts. What's striking is how

easy the process sounds: Trump needs good reviews, but is satisfied even if they appear in the Republican-aligned media which virtually every normal politician would discount as validation. And since, beyond the cable news networks he obsessively

monitors, he doesn't search out information on his own, his staff can control what he reads . Does this

mean Trump isn't really a danger? Well, no. And not only because we know he can, as Klein points out, poison the public sphere with illiberal comments. For one thing, presidential weakness is bad for the nation. Without a strong president to push hard on executive branch departments and agencies, they're liable to atrophy. It's not that individual bureaucrats aren't capable and well-meaning; many of them are. But bureaucratic incentives can lead agencies to ignore pressing problems, especially new ones, if they're not prodded. And those who can be tempted by laziness or flat-out corruption will be more likely to give in to that temptation when the agency isn't being challenged to fulfill presidential requests (or if it feels safe to ignore them). President Trump criticized the news media and denounced the use of anonymous sources during his speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Feb. 24, 2017 (C-SPAN) For another, presidents who get frustrated because they can't get Congress, the courts or even the executive branch to do what they want may turn to those within the presidential branch (that is, the White House staff and other agencies within the Executive Office of the President) to do their bidding. That's the story of Watergate, in which a president attempted to use those who would follow his orders to do things that normally take persuasion. It's not clear how big a threat that may be with President Bluff and Bluster, who rarely seems interested in following up on any of his threats. But it's possible. More likely, however, is the possibility that one or another faction within the administration will be able to manipulate the president into doing something destructive, or carry out big policy initiatives without his knowledge. The former is the story of the George W. Bush administration's Iraq policy; the latter, Iran-Contra. That's particularly a problem given the seemingly random way in which Trump hires people, meaning that there are plenty of odd agendas floating around the presidential branch (fewer now, to be sure, with Michael Flynn gone) and among his executive

branch appointees. With an influential president, odd agendas aren't a huge problem, and can even be a plus in that they can work against groupthink and complacency. With a weak president, however,

ambitious or reckless people with crackpot ideas may run wild, with potentially catastrophic outcomes. All of these are threats to the nation. All have subsets which are potential threats to democratic government. One more point: The dangers of an oppressive government do not require an unusually powerful president. It's possible for a weak president to be in office when the power of the federal government grows larger, as was the case during George W. Bush's first term as a result of the September 11 attacks.

A2: Tax Reform Bad for Growth

Impact---Growth—A2: turns (comparative

Tax reform massive net positive – key to econ – this prices in all aff turnsEdwards 4/26 - Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at Cato and editor of www.DownsizingGovernment.org. He is a top expert on federal and state tax and budget issues. Before joining Cato, Edwards was a senior economist on the congressional Joint Economic Committee, 4/26/17("Trump's Tax Reform Proposals," published by CATO Institute, Available online at https://www.cato.org/blog/trumps-tax-reform-proposals, Accessed 7/6/2017, AJ)

The Trump administration has released proposals to guide the Republican push for major tax reform.

The proposals are mainly supply side in nature, meaning cuts to marginal tax rates and other changes designed to

increase economic growth. Major tax reforms are needed desperately, so kudos to Trump for taking charge and thinking boldly, particularly on business tax reforms. There are, however, a few misguided parts in his new plan.

Here are thoughts on the proposed business tax reforms:

Cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent would have a huge positive effect on the U.S. economy over time. It would encourage more capital investment and hiring , and it would

reduce the incentive for corporations to avoid and evade taxes . Such a rate cut would cause the income tax base to expand automatically and substantially over time.

Cutting the tax rate on “pass-through” businesses to 15 percent, however, is a mistake. Policymakers should aim to equalize the overall rates on income earned by each type of business. So if the corporate rate is 15 percent, corporate income would face a combined tax rate of 15 percent plus the individual dividend rate of, say, 15 percent under tax reform, for a total of about 28 percent (0.15+0.85*0.15). Thus, the top rate on pass-through income should be cut to the same 28 percent.

Switching from a worldwide to a territorial system for corporations would encourage multinationals to move their headquarters to the U nited S tates. It would reverse the trend toward reincorporating abroad.

Ditching the misguided “ border adjustment ” provision the House proposed is a good move . Paul Ryan and Kevin Brady need to drop it so that tax reform can move ahead.

Here are thoughts on the proposed individual reforms:

Reducing the number of tax brackets from 7 to 3 (10, 25, and 35 percent) is a good reform. Cutting marginal rates reduces distortions, increases incentives to engage in productive activities , and reduces avoidance and evasion.

Repealing the special 3.8% investment tax is a good reform.

Eliminating itemized deductions —such as the state/local tax deduction— is a good reform . But we should also eliminate, or at least cap, the mortgage interest deduction.

Expanding child care benefits is a mistake. It would add complexity and is a good reform distortion to what should be a private area of activity in the economy.

Ending the alternative minimum tax and the estate tax are both long overdue reforms.

What about the effects of tax reform on the deficit ? Policymakers should put that concern aside for the corporate rate cut portion of Trump’s plan because the automatic expansion of the corporate tax base would mean that the government would lose little if any revenue over the long term. Exhibit A: Canada and Exhibit B: Britain.

However, policymakers should be concerned about the deficit effects of individual tax changes . Optimally, the budget impact of reduced individual tax rates should be offset by eliminating deductions and credits, spending cuts, and dynamic growth effects.

All in all, the Trump proposals push tax reform in a good direction . Trump, his advisors, and House leaders seem to understand the urgency of passing major tax reforms. But we need Republican

senators to step up to the plate and think boldly as well. Republicans have an opportunity this year to pass reforms that would generate large and lasting benefits in terms income and opportunity for every American family

Impact---Growth---A2: Tax Cuts Bad – Deficits

Tax cuts lower the deficit through massive growth---short term revenue neutrality is irrelevantGiovanetti 17 – Tom Giovanetti, President of the Institute for Policy Innovation, “Big Credible Tax Reform”, 1-26, http://www.texasinsider.org/big-credible-tax-reform/

Tax reform is at the top of the Trump administration’s agenda, and Republicans in Congress have long awaited an opportunity to present growth-oriented tax reform to a president willing to sign it. Throughout the campaign, Donald Trump claimed that his tax reform bill would get the economy growing at a faster rate, which would create jobs and improve Americans’ economic situations.

Trump is right that economic growth should be the goal of tax reform, and that’s the lens through which we should evaluate the current controversy over whether tax reform should be revenue-neutral, or whether we should accept a tax reform plan that actually cuts taxes overall and thus loses federal revenue.

The budgetary and fiscal rules of the last couple of decades put an emphasis on revenue neutrality. In other words, tax reform can rearrange the pieces of the tax code so long as the overall reform is scored as providing the same amount of revenue as the pre-reform tax code. These rules have been driven by entirely reasonable concerns about budget deficits and perpetually adding to the national debt.

Here’s the problem: If economic growth is our standard of success, revenue neutral tax reforms don’t have a history of stimulat ing much economic growth . The last major US tax reform, the tax reform of 1986, frankly didn’t do much in terms of stimulating additional economic growth. Neither did the two Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.

On the other hand, significant tax cuts have a history of stimulating significant economic growth . Neither the 1962 Kennedy tax cuts nor the 1981 Reagan tax cuts were revenue neutral . And yet the Kennedy tax cuts succeeded in stimulating eight years of 5 percent average economic growth.

The 1981 Reagan tax cuts more than paid for themselves over seven years . They did so by creating 92 months of economic growth without a recession , with a sustained period averaging 4.4 percent economic growth from 1983 to 1989. By contrast, the Obama years never cracked 3 percent economic growth.

Recent notable tax reform efforts in the UK and Sweden have also not been hobbled by a requirement to be revenue neutral. Instead, reformers fully intended to reduce the tax burden on the economy, with the understanding that increased economic growth would, over time, more than compensate for lost revenue.

So if economic growth is the goal, tax reform need not be revenue neutral—in fact, if it is, it probably won’t stimulate much economic growth.

Republicans should not trap themselves within the strait jacket of revenue neutrality, and when the criticisms come, they should clearly explain that the goal is economic growth, not revenue neutrality. But, in order for such large tax cuts to be credible to the American people and consistent with Trump’s campaign rhetoric and Republican fiscal discipline, they must be paired with serious, structural spending restraints designed to ensure that we take full advantage of increased economic growth to reduce budget deficits and at least stop adding to the national debt.

Super high deficit nowIBD, 8/24 --- (Investors Business Daily, 8/24/16, http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/federal-deficits-explode-is-anyone-paying-attention/

Federal Deficits Explode — Is Anyone Paying Attention ? With annual federal deficits on track to more than double o ver the next decade , Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are both promising to increase federal borrowing if elected president. Red Ink: The Congressional Budget Office says the federal deficit will be 33% higher than last year 's. Over the long term , the deficit picture is just as bleak . But on

campaign trail, this looming threat gets zero attention from either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. The CBO's updated budget projections show that federal government's fiscal outlook has worsened considerably over the past year. Red ink in fiscal year 2016 , which ends on Sept. 30, will hit $590 billion . That's much worse than the CBO had expected just a few months ago. It's also a big jump from last year's deficit, which was an already outrageously high $439 billion. Revenues climbed 1% this year, but spending jumped 5%. What's more, the CBO projects that in 10 years the annual deficit is on track to more than double, topping $1.3 trillion by 2026. That's equal to 4.9% of the nation's economy, a scale that has been reached only seven times since World War II (and four of those years were under President Obama). Compared with last year's forecast, all these numbers are all worse. The CBO now says that from 2015 to 2025, deficits will total $8.4 trillion . Last year, it projected deficits over

these same years would total $7.4 trillion. The CBO now expects the national debt to equal 84% of GDP by 2025 . Last year, it said the debt-to-GDP ratio would be 77% by 2025. And this depends on interest rates remaining low. As the CBO notes, "federal spending on interest payments would increase substantially as a result of increases in interest rates."

Will be deficit NeutralRussell, 1/17 --- David, Bryan Cave LLP, Lexology, http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c4ab05e0-fd50-4aab-ab25-18f17c9efc99

Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have vowed to pass a tax package that is revenue-neutral, meaning the legislation will not add to the budget deficit. To accomplish this goal, every reduction in the corporate or individual rates must be offset by reducing or eliminating a deduction elsewhere, meaning negotiators will have to pick winners and losers.

Best Comparative Studies disprove the link – broadens tax base, increases growth, reduces avoidance and evasionEdwards, 15 --- Chris, Director of Tax Policy, Cato Institute, White Paper, https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/policy-priorities-white-paper-114th-congress-update.pdf#page=49

The good news is that the corporate tax base will broaden automatically as the rate is cut. Because the corporate tax base is so responsive in the modern economy, r eductions in the rate will generate substantially higher investment and larger reported profits over time. Statistical studies have found that the government would raise as much at a 25 percent corporate rate as it currently raises at 35 percent. Cutting the tax rate would r educe tax avoidance and evasion , while generating greater corporate investment and economic growth. The added growth would boost all forms of federal tax receipts . Evidence on these dynamic effects of corporate tax cuts come from Canada . Canada cut its federal corporate tax rate from 28 percent in the 1990s to just 15 percent today. Remarkably, there has been no obvious loss in corporate tax revenues as a share of gross domestic

product. The government raised 1.7 percent of GDP, on average, from the corporate tax during the 1990s, and it raises 1.9 percent today. Businesses apparently responded to the lower rate by shifting more reported profits into Canada and boosting domestic investment. The U.S. federal

government collected 1.8 percent of GDP in corporate taxes in 2014. Thus Canada generates the same amount of revenue with a 15 percent rate as we do with a rate more than twice as high at 35 percent. Clearly, our high tax rate is scaring away investment and reported profits. If we cut the rate, businesses, the economy, and the government would all gain. The Canadian experience is not unique. In a Cato Institute study, Chris Edwards looked at a sample of 19 high-income industrial countries. He f ound that corporate tax revenues rose from about 2.5 percent of GDP in the 1980s to about 3.0 percent today for these countries, even though the average corporate rate fell from more than 40 percent to just 25 percent during that period. This is evidence that a lower tax rate in the United States would generate higher tax revenues.

Impact---Growth---A2: Tax Cuts Bad – Inflation/Overheat

Recession coming now—this time is different – only tax cuts solve – inflationary effects actually create resilience from shocksHorowitz 12/1 (Evan, staff economist for the Boston Globe, “A recession is coming, and we’re not prepared to deal with it” https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/12/01/recession-coming-and-not-prepared-deal-with/JYzEFc24DFBAunwMdTctRJ/story.html )

The United States is due for a recession. But if it arrives too soon, we may not have the tools to fight back.¶ Not once in the full sweep of history has the United States gone more than 10 years without a recession. We’re seven years into our slow but steady recovery, which means one of these two things must be true: Either we’re on track to break the record for the longest period of sustained economic growth, or there will be a recession under President Donald

Trump.¶ Even if you lean toward optimism, it’s still best to steady yourself for the unexpected . And right now, the U nited S tates is unusually unprepared — bereft of the resources governments traditionally use to limit the crippling effects recessions can have on workers, businesses, and struggling families.¶ In general, there are two time-tested strategies for beating back a recession: cut interest rates or give people more money. Right now, both approaches are compromised .¶ Start with the

rate cuts, which would be overseen by the Federal Reserve.¶ For two generations, the Fed has taken the lead in the fight against recessions, acting more quickly than Congress and aided by a tool as powerful as it is reliable: the federal funds rate. By lowering that one target, the Federal Reserve can spur investment, encourage spending, and turn the economy around.¶ But to have a big impact, you need big rate reductions. Ideally , when a recession hits, the Fed eral Reserve would be able to cut the federal funds rate by 4 to 5 percentage points. That’s what it did during the slowdown in 2001 and again in 2007-2008.¶ Bu t cuts of that size are impossible today, because the federal funds rate is already close to zero , at around half a percent. And while there’s still time for that to change — including at the

Fed’s December meeting, where it’s expected to raise rates a quarter point (the first increase since last December) —there isn’t a single member of the Federal Reserve board who expects the rate to breach 4

percent in coming years.¶ When the next recession hits, the Fed is likely to be stuck — unable to cut rates as much as it would need to combat

the economic contraction.¶ Now, it’s true that there are alternatives, other approaches the Fed could take to help mitigate the impact of a recession. For instance, it could try a larger version of the bond-purchase program that was used after the Great Recession, or perhaps experiment with negative

interest rates — charging banks a small fee whenever they want to store money.¶ Trouble is, the further you move from the established playbook, the greater the uncertainty. When the Fed reaches for exotic instruments, their precise impact will be harder to predict and potentially more difficult to control. ¶ This is where , theoretically,

Congress could ride to the rescue with its own plan to stoke a recession-plagued economy by giving people money to spend. Maybe in the form of tax cuts , maybe via a jobs program, maybe by mailing out checks.¶ It’s not unprecedented.

Congress played a vital role in the fight to end the Great Recession, with a roughly $800 billion package of tax cuts and spending initiatives bundled together as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.¶ Next time around, however, it may be harder to mobilize congressional support. Partly that’s because Republicans now control both branches of Congress, and they tend to be more skeptical of the virtues of deficit spending .

Even now, many Republicans deny that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act produced any benefits, despite a fairly broad consensus among economists that it helped.¶ What’s more, Trump seems ready to use up his recession-fighting ammunition before the enemy even comes into view.¶ Among the top priorities of the incoming Trump administration are large tax cuts and a burst of

infrastructure spending, both of them costly endeavors that are likely to increase the federal deficit.¶ Pursuing this kind of deficit spending now, when we’re already near full employment, could push the US economy into overdrive — which isn’t necessarily bad. Among other things, it could help push wages


up, speed the Federal Reserve’s efforts to raise interest rates, and give the economy enough resilience to shake off otherwise dangerous shocks.¶

Impact---Growth---A2: Tax Cuts Bad – Repatriation

Repatriation measures boost short term liquidity and comprehensive reform solves long term – otherwise US liquidity collapse inevitableLane, 16 --- Richard J. Lane Senior Vice President Corporate Finance Group Moody's Investors Service, Inc., Global Credit Research, 12/8, https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-One-time-cash-repatriation-tax-cut-would-have-varied--PR_359237

Moody's: One-time cash repatriation tax cut would have varied, potentially short-term credit impact for US companies

A one-time tax cut proposed by US President-elect Donald Trump on repatriation of non- financial US companies' offshore cash would temporarily improve domestic liquidity. However, the credit implications for companies with significant offshore cash holdings would depend on how they use the windfall, says Moody's Investor Service in a new report.

Of the most likely scenarios, Moody's notes that aggressively boosting shareholder returns through buybacks or dividends would be credit negative, while repaying debt or simply holding the cash on balance sheets would be credit positive. The credit impact for companies that use repatriated cash to pursue acquisitions would vary by each situation.

Four of the top five US cash holders -- Microsoft, Apple, Cisco Systems and Oracle -- have raised significant debt to support dividend payments and share buybacks due to their substantial overseas cash holdings. While one-off tax relief may provide a momentary solution, without a longer term fix, US companies will likely rebuild their o ffshore cash holdings and continue to raise debt to support domestic needs.

"Cash repatriation tax relief would provide a one-time boost to financial flexibility , but more comprehensive tax reform that provides companies improved economic access to their global cash would provide greater flexibility and clarity to make long-term capital allocation decisions ," notes Rick Lane, a Moody's Senior Vice President. " It could also prompt companies to raise less debt capital, which would be credit positive ."

Moody's estimates US non-financial companies' total offshore cash holdings reach about $1.3 trillion, or 74% of total cash , in 2016 .

Repatriation funds immediately reinjected as infrastructure financing – solves liquidity, bonds, and econ – their ev doesn’t assumeLaVorgna, 17---Joseph LaVorgna is the chief U.S. economist for Deutsche Bank Securities. LaVorgna is a regular guest on CNBC, The Hill, 1/5, http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/312920-trump-to-address-dodd-frank-tax-reform-before-aca

Furthermore, individual tax reform can be separated from corporate tax reform , because this will make passage easier and quicker . Then, the latter can be tied into infrastructure spending, but more on this later.

The focus on tax cuts does not mean the administration will not be working on its other initiatives; it certainly will. The dismantling of Dodd-Frank is arguably easier than tackling the Affordable Care Act (ACA) because many of the rules in the former have yet to be codified.

Additionally, there remains significant leeway in terms of how the various regulatory bodies will interpret the current law. After individual taxes have been cut, and the slow, arduous process of watering down Dodd-Frank has begun, the administration will tackle the second half of tax reform — reducing corporate taxes.

At this point, the economy should already have seen a lift from the reduction in household marginal income tax rates, giving the administration added political capital.

C orporate t ax r eform will include an initiative to address the roughly $1 to $2 trillion in profits held overseas by U.S. companies . To be sure, these profits would be repatriated back to the U.S. at a reduced rate.

In turn, these funds , which could total anywhere between $100 to $200 billion, could be used by state and local governments for infrastructure projects. Essentially, the proceeds from repatriation would be used as tax credits/federal subsidies to help finance infrastructure spending, similar to what was done under President Obama with " Build America Bonds ".

Since these would be municipal securities , they would not count against the federal debt .

Essentially, the first half of the year will likely see individual tax r eform and some Dodd-Frank rollback, and the second half of the year will likely see c orporate t ax r eform and infrastructure spending.

The latter will help maintain the economy's glide path in 2018 as the demand-side stimulus of the tax cuts abates.

CTR key to liquidity – high rates cause corporations to shut down investment - Best studies prove unique sensitivity Edwards, 15 --- Chris, Director of Tax Policy, Cato Institute, White Paper, https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/policy-priorities-white-paper-114th-congress-update.pdf#page=49


C orporate t ax r eform is important because corporate investment is a major driver of investment and innovation in the U.S. economy . High corporate tax rates reduce the incentive to build new factories and buy new business equipment. If investment is suppressed , economic growth will slow, fewer jobs will be created , and wages will stagnate. Globalization has increased the power of corporate taxes to drive investment . As industries have become more mobile, international competition to attract investment has increased . Unfortunately, America has been sitting on its hands while other nations have slashed their tax rates. America has the highest general corporate tax rate in the world at 40 percent, which includes the federal rate plus the average state rate. The

average global rate is now just 24 percent, according to KPMG. A large body of academic research confirms that corporate investments and reported profits are sensitive to differences in international tax rates. And frequent news stories highlight the movement of investment and profits to lower-tax countries such as Ireland. By retaining a high tax rate, America is shooting itself in the foot . U.S. businesses and workers lose , but so does the government, because the corporate tax base is being eroded by our high rate.

Corporate tax reform key to solve inversions – that’s vital to foreign markets – key to econEdwards, 15 --- Chris, Director of Tax Policy, Cato Institute, White Paper, https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/policy-priorities-white-paper-114th-congress-update.pdf#page=49


tax rate and a territorial system, so the U .S. company will be at a disadvantage and may lose sales . That is important for the U.S. economy because domestic jobs depend on U.S. corporations succeeding in foreign markets . As U.S. firms expand abroad, they tend to boost exports from their

U.S. operations, and they tend to employ more high-paid people in headquarters-related activities , such as management, marketing, and research. By adopting a territorial tax system and a lower tax rate, policymakers would make the United States a better place for corporations to locate their headquarters, to build factories, and to hire high-skilled workers. All this points to the need for Congress to slash the corporate tax rate. The first step should be a simple rate cut from 35 to 25 percent. That step would probably not lose the federal government any revenue over the long run, as discussed below. The second step should be to cut the rate further to 15 percent. This second step should be matched with reductions to unjustified tax breaks and with spending cuts.

Impact---Growth---A2: Tax Cuts Bad---BAT - General

Won’t pass with the border taxCaporal 1-26 [Jack Caporal, Inside U.S. Trade 1-26-2017 “Battle lines take shape, fight heats up over border adjustable tax proposal”]

National Retail Federation vice president of supply chain and customs policy, Jon Gold, told Inside U.S. Trade after the event that his group has already

begun making the case against the tax to the Ways & Means Committee. He noted that the tax reform package 's political fate is not sealed in the House or the Senate. Some sources have questioned whether enough support exists for the package to clear the Senate if it includes the b order a djustable t ax provision .

Corporate tax cuts will pass but tariffs and border taxes won’tSilvia, 17 --- John, Chief Economist @ Wells Fargo Securities, 1/3, http://image.mail1.wf.com/lib/fe8d13727664027a7c/m/1/115th-Congress-20160103.pdf?utm_source=SFMC&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=&utm_content=&utm_term=7230679&sid=44116


spending, immigration reform, trade policy reconfiguration and regulatory changes. This laundry list of potential policy changes raises two overarching questions: how politically feasible are each of these ideas , and what potential impacts could they have

on different sectors of the economy? In this report, we will explore each of these key issues and provide a general overview of what we think is most likely to become law over the next couple of years. In general, our view is that there is a path by which Congress can quickly enact some of these policies , while others will take time to work through budgetary and procedural processes.

The most likely policy changes to occur relatively quickly are a federal budget for the rest of federal fiscal year

2017 and the upcoming 2018 fiscal year, a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, some form of corporate and individual tax reform and

changes to trade policy. Other policy areas, such as infrastructure spending, immigration reform and regulatory changes, are likely to play out over time and may take longer than markets and some commentators currently anticipate. Our baseline economic forecast includes a slight boost to defense spending for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 but does not include any other policy changes at this time. It is clear that there are a wide range of possible fiscal policy outcomes, which has made forecasting such economic outcomes challenging. We will make changes to our baseline forecast when the policy debates unfold to a point where we

can evaluate the aggregate economic impact of specific, concrete pieces of legislation. Cont… Corporate Tax Reform: A Potomac Two Step? The U nited S tates’ top statutory corporate income tax rate is the highest among its OECD peers (Figure 5), which has led corporate tax reform to be a popular topic for several years, in some cases with bipartisan support . C orporate income ta xes comprise a much smaller share of federal revenues than the individual side of the tax system, which makes the fiscal realities of a tax cut a bit easier on the corporate side (Figure 6). As a result , we believe that at least some form of a corporate tax cut is likely to get done during the next 12 months. Other key changes may take more time. There are some differences between President-elect Trump’s tax plan and the plan developed in the House of

Representatives led by Speaker Paul Ryan known as “A Better Way.” While it is difficult to pin down exactly what the final corporate tax reform package will look like, we expect the tax rates and policy changes to look more like the “A Better Way” plan. So what are the key

corporate tax provisions of the House GOP plan? First, the plan would reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent and cap taxes on pass-through businesses, or firms taxed under the individual tax code, at a maximum rate of 25 percent.

In addition, the plan would institute a repatriation rate of deferred foreign income of 8.75 percent on cash

and cashequivalent profits and 3.5 percent on other profits. The other reforms proposed include allowing for full expensing of capital investments in equipment,

structures and inventories and eliminating the tax deduction for interest on new borrowing. 3 The plan would also setup a border adjustability tax that would allow businesses to exclude receipts from exports but disallow any deductions for imports. Another key provision would shift the corporate tax code to a destination-based tax system where U.S. multinational corporations would be exempt from tax on both domestic and foreign income generated overseas but still taxed on any production

for U.S. consumption. Of all these tax policy proposals, we see the lower tax rates on corporate and pass- through entities as well as the lower repatriation rate as the most likely to be enacted quickly . The

other elements of the plan are likely to face uphill battles given the number of firms that rely on interest deductibility and those firms that rely heavily on imports , such as retailers. In addition, the proposal to move to a border adjustment tax may face some challenges by the World Trade Organization. 4 Just as the budget reconciliation process could be employed for an ACA repeal, it could also be used to push through corporate and/or individual tax cuts/reforms. It is expected that at least some of these reforms/cuts will be passed in 2017 in one of the two reconciliation processes. There is, however, one other option to ram through tax policy (or other policy) changes: invoking what is known on Capitol Hill as the “nuclear option.” Essentially the rules of the Senate could be modified to remove the 60-vote threshold for legislation thus allowing for the passage of tax cuts/reforms or even health care reform. This would clearly be a last resort and would be a dramatic departure from Senate tradition but could happen if the Senate Parliamentarian interpreting the

rules of the chamber does not allow many of the proposed policy changes through the budget reconciliation process. In short, we see corporate tax cuts as the most likely immediate policy change and, in fact, early indications from the Trump transition team suggest that corporate tax policy changes are likely to occur in two steps .5 The remaining tax policy proposals will likely take

more time and face tougher political battles .

Tax cuts will pass but political constraints mean tariff components will get triaged – boosts growth but avoids downsides – PC Key and spills overStanion, 1/25 --- Percival Stanion is head of multi-asset at Pictet Asset Management, Pensions Expert, http://www.pensions-expert.com/Comment-Analysis/Investing-in-a-Trump-era-Calm-with-risk-of-storm?ct=true

Investing in a Trump era: Calm with risk of storm We are still in the early days, but so far markets have taken a fairly optimistic stance toward the broad outlines of Donald Trump’s policies . Investors have focused on plans for generous tax cuts and infrastructure spending, conveniently overlooking the

potentially negative slogans from the presidential campaign – tariff barriers, immigration control and a more isolationist

foreign policy. For the time being – until we see more evidence of the Trump regime in action – we are content to support the benign market view . This is partly because we recognise the immense barriers to any radical policy shifts arising from the division of power within the US constitution . Given the limited budget of p olitical c apital available to the Trump administration, there are probably only so many things it can achieve . The switch towards more fiscal stimulus seems most likely , accompanied and counterbalanced by tighter monetary policy. The main tenets of the Trump economic platform

should add momentum to an already strong economy, lifting both the real growth rate and inflationary pressures. Indeed, the possibility of a US economic boom , which would have been easily dismissed just a few months ago, is now a non-trivial prospect . Markets are also now even more certain that the Fed will continue to raise interest

rates next year. But we should remember that an awful lot can go wrong . Controversial or unpopular

candidates for the cabinet, Supreme Court, or even vacant Federal Reserve Board positions could become bogged down in Congressional trench warfare and undermine cohesion on the few areas where it exists.

Impact---Growth---A2: Tax Cuts Bad---BAT – Businesses

Its not a tax increase – just a shift from origin to destination based system – good for manufacturing, investment, jobs, and re-shoring – experts agreeCole, 17 --- Alan Cole is an economist at the Tax Foundation, a non-partisan tax-policy research group in Washington, D.C. His analysis has been used by members of Congress and 2016 presidential candidates to design their tax plans, National Review, 1/25, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444240/donald-trump-trade-border-adjustment-level-playing-field

House Republicans’ proposed ‘border adjustment’ is the best way to address President Trump’s concerns about trade.

A central theme of President Trump’s 2016 campaign was that international-trade and tax policies can discourage companies from creating jobs in the U.S . Trump feels so strongly about this that he has contemplated implementing a “border tax” in the early days of his administration. While skepticism of trade in general is unwarranted, there’s an element of truth to the idea that American manufacturers can’t compete on an un-level playing field . The tax proposal spearheaded by Ways and Means chairman Kevin Brady and championed by his fellow House Republicans would be a great way to correct the problem , and may be just the international business-tax policy that President Trump is looking for.

The current U.S. c orporate- i ncome t ax is “origin-based,” which means it taxes companies based on the location of their production. It is the highest such tax in the developed world , as Tax Foundation research shows. In a political environment that has focused so much on bringing jobs back to the United States, this origin-based system is due for a change. It makes little sense to make our corporate-tax system origin-based if we want to encourage new investments in our country. This is why Chairman Brady has taken to calling the current corporate-income tax the “Made in America” tax. It is also why other countries have slashed their origin-based taxes and left the U.S. behind.

Experts have long agreed that our business-tax system makes little sense , and they have developed a few alternative proposals under which businesses would still pay a share of taxes but wouldn’t be penalized for investing in new U.S. jobs . The most commonly proposed alternatives are a “destination-based” system in which businesses pay based on where their revenues are earned, and a “shareholder” system in which business owners pay based on where they live. Both of these approaches are largely superior to the current system.

Chairman Brady’s proposal would make the U.S. c orporate- i ncome t ax destination-based rather than origin-based, using a tool known as a “border adjustment .” This is a good trade . It would prevent companies from avoiding U.S. tax liability by locating their production abroad . In his own talk of “border taxes,” Trump has intuited the problem Brady means to address. “A company that wants to fire all of its people in the United States and build some factory someplace else and then thinks that that product is going to just flow across the border, that’s not going to happen,” he recently told a group of top American CEOs.

Their ev falsely assesses BAT in isolation and assumes it’s a new tax – offsetting rate cuts more than compensate – and checks trump tariffs which are worseCole, 17 --- Alan Cole is an economist at the Tax Foundation, a non-partisan tax-policy research group in Washington, D.C. His analysis has been used by members of Congress and 2016 presidential candidates to design their tax plans, National Review, 1/25, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444240/donald-trump-trade-border-adjustment-level-playing-field

A destination-based tax perfectly fits Trump’s aims. It would also be a comprehensive solution , and therefore far better than using individual penalties on individual companies or putting up a pure tariff, which would damage the tradable sector of our economy unnecessarily by discriminating against it. (Layering a tariff on top of the current system would essentially tax the tradable sector twice and everyone else only once.)

This is not to say that a destination-based proposal has no drawbacks; for one thing, if it were the only component of the plan , it would be a tax increase. But House Republicans plan on using it to help make other tax cuts even larger than they were before .

In a piece last week for National Review, John McLaughlin and Jim McLaughlin critici zed the border-adjustment approach and cited their own polling data to suggest that it is unpopular with the public. But neither their words nor their poll questions really captured the current policy situation and the tradeoffs being made here. They seem, for example, to be under the misapprehension that President Trump does not want any border taxes, when he has said repeatedly that he favors them. Furthermore, their polling is based on the premise that a border adjustment would be a “new” tax, rather than a modification of an existing tax that already penalizes Americans. Despite this characterization, an astounding 41 percent of those polled still approved of the idea. One wonders how high that number would be if respondents were given additional information about the tax cuts the proposal would help pay for.

It seems as though a large number of Americans really do think businesses that locate production abroad and sell in the U.S. should pay tax on that activity. In this, they appear to agree with President Trump. And a proper, vetted, destination-based system combined with offsetting tax cuts is the best way for them to realize their vision . Chairman Brady’s border-adjustment proposal may, in fact, be just the thing Trump is looking for.

CTR Key to exports and foreign market access – that outweighs turns – vital to econEdwards, 15 --- Chris, Director of Tax Policy, Cato Institute, White Paper, https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/policy-priorities-white-paper-114th-congress-update.pdf#page=49

These issues are highlighted by the trend toward inversions, which occur when U.S. companies merge into foreign parent companies . Inversions are designed not only to reduce the harm of our high corporate tax rate , but also to avoid the punitive U.S. treatment of corporate foreign

earnings. While we tax the global profits of U.S. companies, most countries have territorial tax systems that tax their firms’ domestic profits but do not tax foreign active business income . Suppose that a U.S. company is competing in the Chinese market against a firm based in Britain. Britain has a 21 percent corporate


Formal plan will be designed to mitigate potential BAT flaws, and broader reforms solve downsidesBaker, 2/5 --- Mary Burke Baker, K&L Gates, Government Affairs Advisor Mary Burke Baker is a government affairs advisor in the Washington, D.C. office. Mary focuses on federal tax matters affecting businesses—including domestic and multi-national corporations and all types of pass-through entities—and individuals. Her practice covers tax policy, tax reform, regulatory and other guidance, tax administration and technical tax issues, 2/5, http://www.natlawreview.com/article/border-adjustment-tax-sleeper-issue-house-republican-tax-reform-blueprint-waking

Trade experts warn that the BAT could be viewed as a discriminatory tax or a prohibited export subsidy not compatible with the United States’ World Trade Organization (“WTO”) commitments. A successful challenge at the WTO by U.S. trading partners likely would take several years to resolve, but could result in punitive tariffs on U.S. exports and leave U.S. businesses in limbo, calibrating risks while awaiting clarity. Although House Republicans acknowledge this possibility, they consider

the BAT an indirect tax , like the European VAT , which would not run afoul of WTO rules. Economists are split on the impact of the BAT. For example, some say that the value of the dollar will increase as a result, reducing the effective cost of imports over the longer term . Others are more concerned about the

effective short-term increase in the cost of imports. House Republican Response House Republicans are frustrated that hard

lines are being drawn even before they release a formal plan. They are aware of the concerns about the BAT and are working to design a response that would mitigate those concerns, including possible transition rules for raw materials and certain commodities , while keeping the overarching policy in place. They want stakeholders to run the numbers in the context of the overall Blueprint , including lower rates , full expensing, a territorial international system, and repatriation, to see how they come out in the big picture . Then they want to hear from stakeholders so they can understand their business flows and practices.

Impact---Growth---A2: Tax Cuts Bad---BAT – TradeWill pass without BAT – that boosts econGraham, 3/24 --- Jed, writes about economic policy @ Investors Business Daily, http://www.investors.com/politics/policy-analysis/trump-to-ryan-youre-fired-from-tax-reform/






Yet after striking out with his first big legislative push, Trump is only too eager to shift to tax cuts and infrastructure spending. The real impact of failure on ObamaCare repeal will be to increase the urgency of tax cuts to save the GOP from a 2018 election debacle. Acting quickly could allow the GOP to make some tax cuts retroactive to 2017, meaning the payoff for voters would come before Election Day in 2018.


So how would the GOP replace the $1 trillion raised by the border tax to pay for a cut in corporate tax rates? They likely wouldn't, opting instead to go with tax cuts instead of tax

reform . With their backs to the wall , there's a strong chance that Republicans would relax their sense of fiscal responsibility to deliver a big, deficit-increasing tax cut .


Doesn’t undermine trade – their ev misunderstands how tax policy works – its based on false equivalence with punitive tariffsFernholz, 2/1 --- Tim, Quartz LLC, covers state, business and society for Quartz, https://qz.com/888091/this-is-the-republican-plot-to-kill-the-us-corporate-income-tax-as-we-know-it/

But Spicer’s freelancing generated confusion about a serious proposal, developed over years, to restructure the US corporate tax system from one that taxes profits to one that taxes domestic consumption . It includes a 20% assessment on imports, but it is not targeted at Mexico, and its purpose is not to penalize trade .

The concept, called “border adjustment,” is a needed counterbalance to other business tax cuts in the plan, which has key backers like House speaker Paul Ryan, House Ways and Means Committee chair Kevin Brady, and Republican tax guru Grover Norquist. But its name and disagreements over how it might affect currency markets has led many to confuse it with the punitive tariffs called for by Trump, who seemed to dismiss this feature of the tax-overhaul plan just prior to taking office.

“Anytime I hear border adjustment, I don’t love it,” Trump told the Wall Street Journal in January, just days before his inauguration. “Because usually it means we’re going to get adjusted into a bad deal.”

The plan also has drawn criticism from some stalwart backers of tax cuts like Koch Industries, the influential petroleum conglomerate, and Wal-Mart, the mega-retailer, which rely on imports.

Yet border adjustment —and the consumption tax behind it— deserves consideration because it is what Trump might propose if he were interested in crafting policy not with the aim of offending trade partners , liberals, and the Republican establishment, but rather with the goal of bringing investment back to the US while still conceding the reality of a globalized economy . It also would fit with the world view of his trade advisor Peter Navarro, who is eager to tear down

the global supply chains that undergird the success of US multinationals today. And, together with the other big changes under consideration in Congress, it might actually shift more investment toward the US without the negative consequences of punitive tariffs or the ad hoc cronyism of Trump’s twitter bullying.

Future administration compliesCaporal 2-2 [Jack Caporal, Inside US Trade, 2-2-2017, WTO could authorize unprecedented trade retaliation in border adjustable tax dispute]

He also argued that a dispute of this size would likely take over four years, a point on which Hufbauer agreed, and

there is no guarantee that President Trump or the Republican champions of the border adjustable tax would be in office at that point. This means that even if the U.S. lost, its government in four years may be more willing to change its tax policy to avoid retaliation at the WTO and settle the dispute, if it loses. This line of thinking makes a dispute more appealing, Bown argued.

It will be compliant – they’ll carefully tailor itLeonard 1-26-2017 [Jenny Leonard Inside US Trade “Ways & Means Chair Brady defends border adjustability as WTO-compliant]

House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-TX) defended the House GOP's tax blueprint -- particularly its border adjustability provision -- by saying he is "very confident" the bill would withstand World Trade Organization challenges if it became law, though he expects other countries to criticize the move nonetheless.

"I'm convinced that this is WTO-consistent," Brady on Jan. 24 told a crowd of business leaders at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, citing "three key tests that the WTO uses in making these determinations."

He did not elaborate on those tests. But a Ways & Means aide provided an explanation: "The WTO has not examined a destination-based cash flow system. In general, in analyzing a provision, the WTO will examine whether it constitutes a subsidy, whether it is otherwise a prohibited export subsidy, and whether it is consistent with the WTO national treatment principle."

"So looking at the three key tests I'm very confident that we meet all three ," Brady said in his Chamber speech. "In our proposal we are moving away from that income tax based on where the products are produced or where profits are booked to a very simple cash flow system based on where it's consumed. It is economically equivalent and trade equivalent to the value-added tax."

More than 100 countries have a value-added tax system , Brady noted, and Republican leaders in the House argue that

reforming the U.S. tax system according to the GOP blueprint would eliminate the competitive disadvantage that U.S. businesses face and disincentivize moving operations abroad.

Brady acknowledged that "there will be a thousand different opinions on whether it will be WTO-compliant,"

but said "we have the advantage of designing this tax system to be so."

"I do expect China and Europe and Mexico and Canada to yell about this," he said. "They have tax advantages built in. That unbalanced approach will not continue; we're dead serious about leveling the playing field."

Brady's panel, which has jurisdiction over tax and trade policy, is working on a "fairly short timetable" in developing its tax bill, Brady said, adding that Donald Trump's victory made it possible for his caucus to follow through on a "bold" agenda in 2017.

Brady has remained committed to the border adjustability provision despite criticism from some industries as well as Democratic staff on the Senate Finance Committee.

President Trump initially dubbed the GOP tax plan and the border-adjustment provision "too complicated" but shortly after softened his stance , signaling that the provision is under consideration.

Corporate tax reform key to solve inversions – that’s vital to foreign markets Edwards, 15 --- Chris, Director of Tax Policy, Cato Institute, White Paper, https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/policy-priorities-white-paper-114th-congress-update.pdf#page=49



Weak US Growth causes protectionist anti-trade backlash and china bashingJIMENEZ ‘12 - Master's student at Georgetown University; degree in political science and international relations from CIDE, Mexico City. (“Protectionism Makes Comeback As Recovery Stalls”, http://atlanticsentinel.com/2012/01/protectionism-makes-comeback-as-recovery-stalls/)

As a result, protectionism could gain weight in the upcoming months and while it may be vilified by conventional wisdom which rightfully points out the benefits of free trade, there is a “human face” which legitimizes it.

Supporters of protectionism tend to justify their demands through what they regard as the direct negative effects of trade with other countries. Some of these effects are caused by the “unfair” practices of governments as China’s. Others are due to the abundance of cheap labor in countries as Mexico.

Whatever the reason, according to protectionists unchecked trade liberalization causes unemployment and income inequality. America’s disturbing trade deficit with China is one of the favorite arguments of trade critics in the U nited States. These opinions have a considerable impact in various segments of the population . The 2008 financial crisis only helped enforce the notion that Americans industry ought to be protected from unfair competition overseas .

According to theory, trade liberalization benefits an economy by expanding its production capabilities and diversifying the goods it can consume. Trade dynamics promoted by international competition lead to a decrease in prices, benefiting consumers and producers alike.

It also expands the labor pool, thereby reducing costs. Trade leads to specialization. Every country has a comparative advantage in producing certain type of goods due to its factor endowment. An economy will specialize in the production of goods which uses intensively its relative abundant factor. Thus, Germany, which is relatively abundant in high skill labor, specializes in the production of high end goods (computers, pharmaceuticals, etc.), while Vietnam, which is relatively abundant in low skill labor, specializes in the production of basic goods (agricultural products, clothes).

Through specialization, countries are able to increase their respective national income because they produce what they are more efficient in producing and trade it to the world. But then, what happens to those industries in which a nation is inefficient? Herein lays the main dilemma of trade which can fuel protectionism—specialization leads to the disappearance of inefficient industries. Theoretically, this should not be a problem, since workers in these industries will gravitate to other industries which are succeeding. Reality is more complex.

Skill biased technological change has made it very difficult for job displacement to occur. All types of jobs have modified their requirements in line with technological chance. A laid off worker will struggle to find another job because he doesn’t have the required set of skills. Retraining could take years. The protectionists argue that this is exactly why the state must design and implement policies to offset those effects of liberalization.

It’s easy for Americans to blame the Chinese for their trade deficit, to propose to punish China by turning its currency manipulation into an illegal subsidy and disregard recommendations to change domestic consumption patterns which, in fact, makes American society the main actor responsible for their current situation.

A more effective way to enable economic growth than either raise or reduce trade tariffs may be the implementation of an industrial policy. This refers to measures introduced by governments to channel resources into sectors which they view as critical to future economic growth. It implies benefiting some by hurting others (the financial resources have to come from somewhere else). Consequently, industrial policy should only be deployed to counter market failures and externalities which prevent the industries in which a country has comparative advantage from naturally becoming as efficient as they should be.

The successful examples of Japan, South Korea and the Southeast Asian “tiger” economies encourage governments around the world to intervene in their industries through subsidies, tariffs, taxes, etc. so as to increase their profitability. The idea is to benefit those sectors that the state believes have a comparative advantage over those of other countries and create national champions

There are problems with this analysis. Japan and South Korea both had the overt support of the United States which, due to Cold War dynamics, prevented their experiments from failing. For their part, the tigers, except Hong Kong, had authoritarian governments that facilitated the implementation of policies and they, too, enjoyed American support.

There are examples that demonstrate both successes and failures but, to be fair, the outcomes were contingent upon other variables which require closer analysis. China’s is the most recent case of an industrial policy, and, so far, it seems it has been successful.

This has caused alarm in the U nited States where China’s success is increasingly perceived as coming at the expense of American workers . The politicization of industrial policy that aims to “correct” market imbalances unfortunately often leads democratic governments to privilege certain interest groups, whether they’re corporations or unions, at the expense of their economy’s competitiveness as a whole. Perhaps, in this sense, China’s comparative advantage is its

very authoritarianism?

No impact – won’t bring suitCaporal 2-2 [Jack Caporal, Inside US Trade, 2-2-2017, WTO could authorize unprecedented trade retaliation in border adjustable tax dispute]

Analysts are asserting that the World Trade Organization could authorize over $100 billion in trade retaliation if the United States implements a border adjustable tax -- as envisioned in the House Republican tax reform blueprint -- and subsequently loses a dispute at the WTO.

But for that reason alone the U.S. may be able to persuade other WTO members not to bring a case, Gary Hufbauer, a fellow at the Peterson Institute of International Economics said at a Feb. 1 conference the organization held on the tax issue.

“There is precedent for this ,” Hufbauer said. “The Helms-Burton law was about to be challenged by the

European Union, it was not challenged for the reason that at the time because the Clinton administration basically told the Europeans, 'if you challenge this and you prevail, that'll blow up the WTO . '” The Helms Burton Act, signed by President Clinton in 1996, strengthens the U.S. embargo on Cuba by extending the application of the embargo to foreign countries that trade with Cuba, among other measures.

“There are many cases that are not brought which could arguably be brought because they're kind of too big

for the system,” Hufbauer continued, citing the example of a WTO case both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations

considered bringing over currency manipulation

A2: Israeli Econ Turn

Impact---A2: Israeli Economy

Turn – US key to global econ – obviously includes Israel – it’s the controlling factor, outweighs their linkIrwin 16 – Neil Irwin, Senior Economic Correspondent at The New York Times, Formerly a Washington Post Columnist and the Economics Editor of Wonkblog, “Foreign Crises Test America's Resilience”, International New York Times, 1-6, Lexis




will prove to be.


















If something does go wrong , the usual buffers in the global economy look to be weakened or nonexistent right now. Government deficits are high in much of the world, and even where they aren't, political leaders have shown no desire to open the spending floodgates in an effort to bolster economies.

Deep Israeli decline Inevitable and US tax reform not key – our ev predictive, accounts for best longitudinal studies and structural factorsRT 3/29 - RT, News Source, 3/29/17("Israel’s economy heading for disaster, experts warn ," published by RT, Available online at https://www.rt.com/business/390047-israel-economy-threat-research/, Accessed 7/13/2017, AJ)

A report released by the Taub Center for Social Policy Studies in Israel shows the country has the highest poverty rates among OECD countries and faces “worrisome trends” that could have disastrous effects on its growing population.

According to the Picture of the Nation 2017 report, with Israel’s aging population and rising costs across the board , its “ current sources of economic growth are not sustainable .”

The country ranks 22nd out of 34 of the OECD (The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development)

regarding GDP and takes the 24th spot within the market income poverty rate . Among developed countries, Israel has the highest percentage of its population living below the poverty line.

“The past year has seen a decline in unemployment and a large rise in GDP,” but “unfortunately, it appears that this positive trend will not continue and new sources of growth must be found,” said the report.

The Taub Center also described Israel’s four percent GDP growth as an “outlier and not a trend.”

A separate report which was released earlier this month by the Shoresh Institution for Socioeconomic Research looked at economic trends over the entire 69-year history of the country. It concluded the economy shows deep-seated and long-term shortcomings that threaten to weaken the army and constitute an “ existential threat” to the country’s future.

In terms of GDP, Israel has been falling further and further behind the G7 average since the mid- 1970s , with a more than threefold increase having developed in the gap between them. This, according to the report,

Professor Dan Ben-David, founder and chair of the Shoresh Institution and co-author of the report, has warned if Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “continues to ignore the future” the country could be facing a catastrophe of massive proportions.

No Israel diversionary war.Jeffrey Goldberg 14, national correspondent for The Atlantic and a recipient of the National Magazine Award for Reporting, “The Crisis in U.S.-Israel Relations Is Officially Here”, 10/28/14,

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/10/the-crisis-in-us-israel-relations-is-officially-here/382031/

“The good thing about Netanyahu is that he’s scared to launch wars,” the official said, expanding the definition of what a chickenshit Israeli prime minister looks like. “The bad thing about him is that he won’t do anything to reach an

accommodation with the Palestinians or with the Sunni Arab states. The only thing he’s interested in is protecting himself from political defeat. He’s not [Yitzhak] Rabin, he’s not [Ariel] Sharon, he’s certainly no [Menachem] Begin. He’s got no guts.”¶ I

ran this notion by another senior official who deals with the Israel file regularly. This official agreed that Netanyahu is a “ chickenshit ” on matters related to the comatose peace process, but added that he’s also a “coward” on the issue of Iran’s nuclear threat. The official said the Obama administration no longer believes that Netanyahu would launch a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to keep the regime in Tehran from building an atomic arsenal.

“It’s too late for him to do anything . Two, three years ago, this was a possibility. But ultimately he couldn’t bring himself to pull the trigger. It was a combination of our pressure and his own unwillingness to do anything dramatic. Now it’s too late.”¶ ¶ This assessment represents a momentous shift in the way the Obama administration sees

Netanyahu. In 2010, and again in 2012, administration officials were convinced that Netanyahu and his then-defense minister, the cowboyish ex-commando Ehud Barak, were readying a strike on Iran. To be sure, the Obama administration used the threat of an Israeli strike in a calculated way to convince its allies (and some of its adversaries) to line up behind what turned out to be an effective sanctions regime. But the fear inside the White House of a preemptive attack (or preventative attack, to put it more accurately) was real and palpable—as was the fear of dissenters inside Netanyahu’s Cabinet, and at Israel Defense Forces headquarters. At U.S. Central Command headquarters in Tampa, analysts kept careful track of weather patterns and of the waxing and waning moon over Iran, trying to predict the exact night

of the coming Israeli attack.¶ Today, there are few such fears. “ The feeling now is that Bibi’s bluffing ,” this second official said. “He’s not Begin at Osirak,” the official added, referring to the successful 1981 Israeli Air Force raid ordered by the ex-prime minister on

Iraq’s nuclear reactor.¶ The belief that Netanyahu’s threat to strike is now an empty one has given U.S. officials room to breathe in their ongoing negotiations with Iran. You might think that this new understanding of Netanyahu as a hyper-cautious leader would make the administration somewhat grateful. Sober-minded Middle East leaders are not so easy to come by these days, after all. But on a number of other issues, Netanyahu does not seem sufficiently sober-minded.

New Israeli tax reforms are a sufficient incentive for companies to stay.Linzen and Katz 1/4 - Meir Linzen, Attorney at Herzog Fox and Neeman, Guy Katz, Attorney at Herzog Fox and Neeman, 1/4/17("Client Update | A New Tax Reform in Israel ," published by Lexology, Available online at http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3bf84f5a-91c1-4acb-a54f-8b52abaf7fd3, Accessed 7/13/2017, AJ)

We would like to inform you that on December 22, 2016, the Israeli Parliament (the Knesset) approved a significant tax reform (the "New Law"). The New Law was formally published on December 29, 2016 and will become effective as of January 1, 2017. This New Law includes very significant changes which are expected to influence multinationals, other companies and individuals operating in Israel, as well as trustees of trusts having Israeli connections . The main provisions of the New Law are as follows:

Reduction of the Corporate Tax Rate . The Israeli corporate tax rate will be reduced in two stages, from 25% to 24% in 2017, and to 23% in 2018.

Increase of Surtax (Mas Yessef). The surtax levied on high income of individuals and trusts will increase as of 2017 from 2% to 3%. In addition, the surtax will be levied on a total annual income and gains that exceed NIS 640,000 instead of the current limitation of NIS 803,520 in 2016.

A Temporary Order for Distributing Dividends at a Reduced Rate. As a temporary order, a reduced 25% tax rate, instead of 30% or 33%, if surtax is applicable, will be levied on dividends derived from income which was generated until the end of 2016, that will be distributed by September 30, 2017, to an individual "substantive shareholder" (in general, this is a shareholder who holds 10% or

more of the shares of the company). This is a highly significant provision and it is recommended that every taxpayer should examine whether to take advantage of this beneficial temporary order.

Introduction of a New IP Regime in Israel. The New Law determines a new IP regime in Israel which provides for a preferential tax rate of a 12% (and even 7.5% in certain preferential areas) to Technology and Hi-tech Companies which develop their intellectual property in Israel . In certain cases concerning multinationals (in general, where the turnover of the group is higher than NIS 10 billion), the applicable tax rate can be reduced to only 6%. In addition, dividends paid to foreign companies will be subject to a reduced withholding rate of 4% and in the case where the dividends are paid to other shareholders the applicable rate of withholding will only be 20%. In order to be entitled to these benefits, the New Law sets out certain convoluted conditions the purpose of which is to ensure that the benefits will be provided only when the IP is actually developed in Israel.

These tax benefits are part of a significant reform in the Law for the Encouragement of Capital Investments , in light of the recommendations of the OECD BEPS Project.

A Reduction of the Applicable Tax Rate Under the Law for Encouragement of Capital Investments in Israel. The New Law reduces the applicable tax rate of preferred enterprises which are located in Zone A (a preferential zone in Israel) from 9% to 7.5%. There is no change in the applicable tax rate for other preferred enterprises which remains at 16%.

Taxation of Withdrawals by Shareholders. Amounts that were withdrawn from a company by a "substantive shareholder" (in general, a shareholder who holds at least 10% of the company's shares) or by his relative will be taxed as if the amounts were distributed as a dividend (in the case where the company has no retained earnings, then these amounts will be taxed as a salary or other income). This provision will not apply where the money withdrawn is repaid to the company by the end of the tax year following the tax year in which the withdrawal was made. This provision is very broad in its scope and includes any withdrawal that exceeds NIS 100,000, including shareholders' loans and certain cases in which the company guarantee a loan of a shareholder. In addition, this rule also applies to loans between companies, unless the loan is between non-transparent companies based on a real economic purpose.

According to the transitional provisions, the new rule regarding withdrawals by a shareholder will not apply with respect to withdrawals which were made by December 31, 2016, provided that they will be repaid by December 31, 2017.

This rule also applies to foreign companies which withdraw monies from their Israeli subsidiaries without declaring a dividend.

In light of the above, it is very important for each taxpayer to examine whether this new provision applies with respect to any withdrawals that occurred by the end of 2016 and which fall within the scope of this new provision. It is required that such withdrawals be settled before the end of 2017.

Shareholders Use of the Company's Assets. A "Substantive Shareholder" who uses the company's assets will be taxed as if the shareholder had received these assets as a dividend (or in certain cases as a salary or other income). The relevant assets which are subject to this new legislation include apartments that are mainly used by the shareholder for personal purposes, art works, jewelry, aircraft and yachts which are mainly used for personal purposes.

In this regard, the transitional provisions enable an exemption from capital gains tax on real estate, for shareholders who decide to transfer the ownership of the asset by December 31, 2018.

Wallet Companies . This provision is aimed at taxing individuals who are in essence employees but provide their services through privately held companies (commonly known as "wallet companies") in order to enjoy the reduced rate of corporate tax . The New Law determines that such income, derived by the individual through a company, will be considered as the shareholder's income and will be subject to the individual's tax rates ("Marginal Tax") instead of the reduced corporate tax rate. The New Law sets out certain convoluted conditions for the application of this rule. Generally, these conditions will mainly apply to individuals who are in essence employees or directors.

Impact---A2: Israeli Economy---Ext---Turn – US Key Global Econ

Stall out goes globalLarsen 15 – Peter Thal Larsen, Asia Editor for Reuters, Degree from the London School of Economics, “No Chance for India to Rescue the World Economy Next Year”, The Nation (Thailand), 12-25, Lexis

India will not rescue the global economy in 2016 . The subcontinent's expanding GDP is one of next year's few economic

bright spots. But Indian output is still too small . Any negative shocks from the sluggish U nited S tates

and decelerating China will reverberate more widely .

India is finally emerging from China's shadow in the global growth stakes. Helped by a controversial overhaul of its GDP statistics, the Indian economy probably expanded by 7.5 per cent in 2015 and is set to swell by a further 7.8 per cent in 2016. Contrast that with the People's Republic, which is struggling to maintain the near-7 per cent pace promised by its leaders.

The prospect of sustained rapid growth has drawn the attention of prominent central bankers. India's economy has "enormous potential" to recharge Asia's growth engine, Stanley Fischer, the US Federal Reserve's vice chairman, declared in a recent speech.

For now, however, the country's economic progress has relatively little impact on the rest of the world â€“ although it is enormously important to India's 1.3 billion citizens. The economy accounts for little more than 3 percent of global output , according to Reuters calculations based on World Bank forecasts. China is almost four times as large, while

the U nited S tates is still responsible for more than a fifth of all economic activity .

On current projections, India will produce about 7 per cent of global growth in 2016 while the United States and China will together be responsible for about 45 per cent of GDP expansion. Put another way, India's growth rate would need to rise by about 3 percentage points in order to add 0.1 percentage point to next year's expected global growth rate of 3.3 per cent. China could have the same impact with a 1-point increase in the pace of expansion. For the United States, an extra half point would suffice.

With Europe stuck in the doldrums and Japan struggling to recover, the world economy still depends heavily on its two largest growth engines , both of which are sputtering. A severe slowdown in China or a stalled recovery in the U nited S tates would be felt around the world . By comparison, India's economic performance, no matter how impressive, will barely register .

Impact---A2: Israeli Economy---Ext---Decline InevitableIsrael’s economy is in long term decline.Wootliff 5/28 - Raoul Wootliff, Journalist for the Times of Israel, 5/28/17("Derelict economy could sink ‘Titanic’ Israel, experts warn," published by Times of Israel, Available online at http://www.timesofisrael.com/derelict-economy-could-sink-israel-experts-warn/, Accessed 7/13/2017, AJ)

Naturally, academic assessments of Israel’s economic prospects agree with the prime minister that a strong economy is a

prerequisite for a strong military. But two new reports looking at both the immediate and long-term strength of Israel’s economy suggest that , while recent years have seen several positive economic signs in a number of areas, Israel faces “worrisome trends” that could ultimately have disastrous effects on its growing population.

According to the “Picture of the Nation 2017” report released Sunday by the Taub Center for Social Policy

Studies in Israel, Israel has the highest lack of disposable income of all OECD countries and, with an aging population and rising costs across the board, its “current sources of economic growth are not sustainable.”

A separate report, released earlier this month by the Shoresh Institution for Socioeconomic Research, which looks at economic trends over the entire 69-year history of the country, says that far from guaranteeing Israel as a military and therefore a

world power, the economy shows deep-seated and long-term shortcomings that threaten to weaken the army and constitute an “existential threat” to the country’s future.

“The writing is on the wall. One nation-shaking crisis – emanating from the security and/or economic spheres –

could spark a process from which there will be no turning back,” the Shoresh Institution report warns apocalyptically. “Israel has reached a critical juncture. Decisions that it makes today will literally determine the existence of the country in a few decades.”

According to Prof. Dan Ben-David, founder and chair of the Shoresh Institution and co-author of the report, if Netanyahu “continues to ignore the future” the country could be facing a catastrophe of massive proportions.

“The past year has seen a decline in unemployment and a large rise in GDP,” reports the annual Picture of the Nation, but “unfortunately, it appears that this positive trend will not continue and new sources of growth must be found.”

While Gross Domestic Product, often seen as a bellwether of economic strength, has grown in the last year by four percent, the Taub Center describes the figure as an “outlier and not a trend.”

Suggesting that the cause for growth came only from a single massive investment by Intel into its Kiryat Gat plant, and a rise in car imports due to an expected change in taxation, “ taking a long-term view, growth in the Israeli economy has been disappointing ,” the report says. In fact, the previous year saw a further downward trend in labor productivity, following five years of slowing rates.

In addition, whereas Israel ranks near the middle of the OECD pack in terms of GDP (22nd out of 34) and market income poverty rate (24th), it is in last place for disposable income poverty — the amount of money each individual has after paying taxes and regular living costs.

Impact---A2: Israeli Economy---Ext---No War

No Israeli aggression or overreaction---they will show restraint.Korski 11—senior fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. Former Stat Dept. official (Daniel, The government should acknowledge Israeli restraint, 27 March 2011, http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6818828/the-government-should-acknowledge-israeli-restraint.thtml)

With NATO planes circling above Libya, Saudi troops quashing protests in Bahrain, and troops killing civilians in Syria and Yemen, there has been little attention paid to Israel. But Israel has recently been the victim of a series of violent attacks . More than 30 people were injured in a bombing in Jerusalem, and Islamic Jihad's military wing, the Al-Quds Brigade, has fired mortars and rockets into Israel for days on end. The attacks suggest that Hamas is, once again, struggling to rein in other terrorist groups like Islamic Jihad. Some IDF commanders fear a descent into chaos in Gaza.

In the face of the onslaught, however, the Israeli government has shown amazing restraint . Though Israeli aircraft have attacked targets in Gaza, and Benjamin Netanyahu has talked tough, the response has in fact been far less severe than in the past . And far less than many Israeli voters demand.

The Israeli government is clearly keen to avoid derailing the events in the rest of the Middle East. Defence Minister Ehud Barak has even said as much . For governments that are always quick to criticise Israeli actions — which now, sadly, includes the Cameron administration — this is an occasion to express sympathy with, and understanding of, Israel's situation and its show of restraint. Not necessarily publicly, but in private messages.

AFF

Link

A2: GOP Base Link

Base support is resilientRadel 3-23 – Trey Radel, Former GOP House Representative, “Political Scandals Aren’t What They Used To Be. Just Ask Trey Radel.”, Washington Post Interview, 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/political-scandals-arent-what-they-used-to-be-just-ask-trey-radel/2017/03/23/136793d8-0f3f-11e7-ab07-07d9f521f6b5_story.html?utm_term=.6217c81ac1d9

The book goes inside the fundraisers, the glad-handing, and the sausage-making of Congress, all of which he found paired well with a couple Ketel One vodka-and-limes — plus, what it’s like when it all comes crashing down. The Post interviewed Radel, now 40, for his thoughts on sexts, drugs and Donald Trump. It appears below, condensed and edited for clarity.

Washington Post: If Donald Trump got busted buying cocaine, would the scandal end his presidency?

Trey Radel: Donald Trump is Teflon Don! I do know this — Donald Trump’s most hardcore, ardent supporters aren’t bothered by a damn thing , and that goes to show both the disdain for Washington, D.C. , and passion for anyone who goes against it . I know I sure didn’t help with the approval ratings of Congress. If we [had the popularity of] a root canal, I probably brought them down to [the level of] a colonoscopy myself.

WP: Okay, well, then, on the flipside — if you had been arrested in the Trump era instead of 2013, would it have still been a huge deal? Could you have ridden it out instead of resigning?

TR: I don’t know. Could I have pulled a Donald Trump, like a middle finger in the air? Possibly. I think that if we look at what happened in the national level with the ridiculousness of people upset with Donald Trump saying a bad word on a bus with Billy Bush — those national news stories , they came and went very quickly . I don’t think that necessarily happens on the local level as much. I broke a lot of hearts at home and it’s hard to get past that. I should have resigned right away, there’s no question about that. But in retrospect, me hanging on desperately was just. . . It was pathetic.

Winners Win

Stalled agenda ruins Trump PC and popularity with base; reversing LEGISLATIVE “do nothing” perception shifts momentum and outweighs backlash to specificsMarshall 4/3 (Josh, staff @ Talking Points Memo, “Trump's Base Support Begins To Erode”, http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trumps-base-support-begins-to-erode)

These numbers are notable and entertaining. But the most interesting data in the latest batch of polls comes from the McClatchy/Marist poll. In this

poll, released on the 31st, Trump has an approval number at 38% , down from 41% in February, broadly in line with other polls.

Lee Miringoff, who runs the Marist poll, discusses the various details of the poll here. Really every number is dismal. But this, I think, is the

most significant. From the Marist write-up … There has been a profound shift in public opinion about whether or not President Trump is fulfilling campaign promises . 57% of Americans either strongly agree , 18%,

or agree, 39%, that Trump is making good on the promises he made on the campaign trail. This is down from 71% in February. Regardless of party, fewer voters think he is keeping his word. Of note, 83% of Trump’s Republican base, down from 96% previously, believe Trump is fulfilling campaign promises. “President Trump needs a major legislative win to get on track,” says Dr. Lee M. Miringoff, Director of The Marist College Institute for Public Opinion. “No doubt the GOP in Congress will be closely watching the president’s standing among Republican voters.” Those are steep drops and this is the big danger for Trump – likely a much greater danger, in the short term at least, than the scandal investigations most

politicos are focusing on. Trump’s inability to repeal Obamacare is, I suspect, most of what is showing up in this drop. He simply failed to do something that, at least in numerical congressional majority terms, should have been simple. That made him look weak and ineffectual – frankly, silly. That and not corruption or ties with Russia is what will eventually sink Trump with his base. It’s worth noting that many Trump voters actually would have been hurt by the repeal of Obamacare. But

political perceptions are never that linear or straightforward . Especially for the kind of politics Trump appeals to, strength and the ability to compel action is central to support, even when the object of support is trying to do things individual supporters might not entirely agree with. Beyond the Obamacare repeal debacle, I suspect the reality is starting to sink in that Trump doesn’t have any clue what he’s doing as President and his top staffers and advisors show an almost unprecedented level of infighting and disorganization.

Trump simply hasn’t been able to get much of anything done . He continues to treat executive orders as a kind of proxy for legislation, even though the great majority of his EOs have pretty minimal effect. A new president whose party controls Congress should pass a mass of legislation in his first months in office. That’s been true of Trump’s last three predecessors – each of whom had total or near total control of Congress. Trump is well into his first

hundred days, has passed no substantial legislation and looks unlikely to do so any time soon.

Winners win – perception of getting legislation passed uniquely key to PC for TrumpCollinson, 17---Stephen, political columnist@CNN, 1/4, http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/03/politics/donald-trump-republicans-congress/










showed that while Trump may be a Washington newbie, he knows how to score an easy political win. Trump hotel lawsuit at impasse, headed to trial For much of his transition, Trump has been hounded by ethics questions of his own, centering on potential huge conflicts of interests posed by his global business interests. His wealthy cabinet picks -- such as Rex Tillerson for secretary of state and Steve Mnuchin for Treasury -- are being accused by Democrats of failing to provide sufficient financial data and other information ahead of their confirmation hearings. But Trump can now present himself as a champion of ethical standards on Capitol Hill and argue that he has already taken a step to honor his vow of draining Washington's political swamp. The exchange also appeared to hint at the Republican hierarchy in Washington after the inauguration and the incoming president's relationship with Speaker Paul Ryan. Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, initially opposed the change to ethics rules. But once he was defied by his troops, he fell into line, issuing a statement defending the move -- only for GOP lawmakers to reverse



Perception of strength key --- outweighs political backlash to plan’s substanceSilver, 16 --- Nate, and Cohen, Micah, Five Thirty Eight, 12/14, http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/will-trump-take-a-honey-badger-approach-to-congress/

micah: So that seems like one of the central takeaways with Tillerson: His nomination suggests that Trump might not GAF/ won’t defer much to political winds or Congress ional considerations . clare.malone: You can’t tell from one move with Trump. micah: Normally, if a trial balloon is bombarded with crap, it isn’t then cleaned off and re-released officially. clare.malone: Ew. micah: OK … how about: Normally, if a trial balloon is popped, it isn’t then patched up and re-released officially. clare.malone: But yes, Trump must just like the cut of Tillerson’s jib an awful lot, to go against the blowback. natesilver:

Well, there are three or four interpretations. Interpretation No. 1: The honey badger don’t give a shit. Trump’s gonna

Trump, even if it’s sort of a risky move where the downsides outweigh the upsides. micah: But maybe this is partly why voters like Trump : He clearly thinks Tillerson will do a good job and doesn’t give a damn about what John

McCain or Rubio thinks. Or any other D.C. naysayers. natesilver: There’s also interpretation No. 2: Trump thinks it’s

good power politics to make everyone subservient to his whims instead of compromising . They’ll confirm this guy, who got some freakin’ medal from freakin Putin — at the very moment that Putin’s suspected of meddling

with/hacking the American election? Why, yes, they maybe/probably will! And that proves how far Trump can go and how much power he has. Cont…. natesilver: Trump gets a lot of mileage out of assuming that his opponents are weak-willed , in part because he’s usually proven right . We’ll see how much Rubio is willing to stand up for himself. He has a lot of leverage over Trump on Tillerson, and we’ll see if he’s willing to use it.

Trump needs legislative wins to reverse flagging popularity – Key to leadership perceptionWillias 4/17 (Oliver, Former research fellow at Media Matters for America, “Devastating new poll: Majority of Americans now say Trump can’t keep promises”, http://shareblue.com/devastating-new-poll-majority-of-americans-now-say-trump-cant-keep-promise/)

As Gallup noted, “Trump has lost significant ground with a public that only two months ago credited him with having one of the key characteristics of a successful president.” The same poll also shows Trump losing support on other measures as well, including “is a strong and decisive leader,” “can bring about changes,” “is honest and trustworthy,” “cares about the needs of people like you,” and “can manage the government effectively.” Trump has hopelessly failed within his first 100 days to notch any major legislative achievements, and was soundly rebuked in his attempt to repeal health care reform, showing he cannot even get his fellow Republicans on board. The public was already historically opposed to his presidency before it ever began. The latest numbers showing just how much voters have soured on him gives him even less political capital and makes his fellow Republicans even less likely to be willing to risk their careers to work with him.

Trump needs a win to boost his popularityFerguson 2/13 (Niall, sr fellow @ Hoover Inst @ Stanford, “Trump needs to pick fights he can win”, https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/02/13/trump-needs-pick-fights-can-win/xjCOXXJp76BDTy5LpcGOiJ/story.html)

Trump’s biggest mistake so far has been to pick a fight with the law. Even Neil Gorsuch, whom Trump has just nominated for elevation to the Supreme Court, couldn’t bite his lip, injudiciously telling Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal

that Trump’s judge-bashing tweets were “disheartening” and “demoralizing.” The lesson is that a would-be transformative leader — who is bound to face shrill opposition — needs to pick fights he can win. By merely changing President Obama’s foreign policy, Donald Trump will quite likely achieve success. How should he go about this change? Think back the first year of Margaret Thatcher’s government. She, too, did not start off as a popular prime minister and her anti-inflationary policies for a time made matters worse. Many thought she would not survive to fight another election. But she was vindicated on inflation, which proved to be a beatable foe; she broke the siege of the Iranian embassy, sending the SAS in against the Iranian Arab group that had occupied the building; she resisted the blackmail of the IRA hunger strikers, refusing their demand to have the status of political prisoners; and, of course, she kicked the Argentinians out of the Falklands. Four wins. Four beatable

adversaries. Trump’s presidency could go into freefall if he does not secure some comparable victories in the coming year. Populist voters are fickle. Conversely, however, if he does get some points on the scoreboard, his popularity could soar as Thatcher’s did in time to win the 1983 election.

Lack of control over Congress is a systemic drag on Trump’s popularity – Plan reverses thatSalant 4/18 (Jonathan, staff @ New Jersey.com, “Americans have soured on Trump. Here's why”, http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/04/americans_are_souring_on_trump_heres_why.html)

Americans now doubt Trump can work effectively with Congress. After Republicans won control of the White House and both houses of Congress, 61 percent of Americans told the Pew Research Center in December that they were very or somewhat confident that Trump could work with the House and Senate. Just 38 percent expressed little or no faith in the new president. Then House Republican defections killed the Trump-backed health care replacement that could leave 24 million more Americans without health insurance and would make sharp cuts to Medicare while using the savings to cut taxes for corporations and wealthy Americans. In the recent Pew survey, a majority, 52 percent, expressed doubts about Trump's ability to work effectively with Congress, while the percentage of those who were confident in his ability dipped to 46 percent.

Winners win – Centrist political success increases credibilityBlack 3/28 (Conrad, staff @ Nat’l Review, “Could Donald Trump Seize The U.S. Political Center? Stranger Things Happened”, http://www.nysun.com/national/could-trump-seize-the-political-center-stranger/89937/)

It is not my place to write the script, but if the administration can get a record going of steady legislative successes, all in pursuit of fulfillment of its campaign promises, and with as little pyrotechnics and schoolyard

posturing as possible, it will quickly acquire the prestige and aura of success of distinguished administrations of the now-distant past. Reagan had it for the middle half of his time; Eisenhower for most of his tenure, but with a relatively unambitious legislative agenda; Johnson and Nixon briefly; and FDR for practically all of his twelve years.

This will require Mr. Trump to perform a role for which he has not yet been known: the patient conciliator speaking in measured terms from the center of controversies and carefully putting shared

interests together. Stranger things have happened, including his nomination and election. The present shrieks of joy by Mme. Pelosi and Mr. Schumer, that Mr. Trump is already a lame duck, are amusing and will assist the president in regrouping. But

the Republican leadership evacuated the field on Friday and, as Mr. Churchill remarked (after Dunkirk), “Wars are not won by evacuations.” This is war.

Without a win, Trump’s popularity will crater – Folks with moderate approval are hinging their assessments on his ability to actBlumenthal 2/10 (Mark, Head of Election Polling @ Survey Monkey, “The Underpinnings Of Donald Trump’s Approval Rating”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-underpinnings-of-donald-trumps-approval-rating_us_589e4206e4b080bf74f03c20)

On a more direct question, Americans divide almost evenly on the question about the competence and effectiveness of the Trump administration. Just over half (51 percent) rate the Trump administration as very or somewhat competent so far “in its role of managing the federal government,” while 48 percent say it is not too or not at all competent. Again, not surprisingly, most of those who only “somewhat approve” of Trump as President are also tend to say his administration is only somewhat rather than very competent (68 vs. 23 percent). Taken together, these results mirror the aspects of Trump’s character highlighted during the campaign and emphasized in the first few weeks of his presidency. One of the

themes of new administration, as the NBC News Politics team recently noted, is how “Trump picks fights with, well, almost anyone.” Those stories help reinforce the perception of his toughness and outspokenness. The downside of these “sprays of attack,”

as CNN’s Jake Tapper called them, are the “sprays of falsehoods coming from the White House” that accompany

them. These controversies help further reinforce negative perceptions about Trump’s honesty forged

during the campaign. A second theme has been the flurry of initial executive actions that helped drive the sense, especially among Republicans, that Trump can get things done. But note that relative softness in

perceptions of effectiveness among Trump’s least committed supporters. As the NBC Politics team points out, executive actions aside, the Trump team has made little progress so far on his “big ticket agenda items (Obamacare repeal and replace, tax relief, paying for that border wall).” Again, it is very early in the Trump presidency and the long term trends in his approval rating will be influenced by the direction of economy and by war, peace and scandal, or the lack thereof.

However, if the initial flurry of executive action gives way to gridlock and legislative stagnation, perceptions of Trump’s ability to “get things done” may atrophy, and with it, his overall approval rating.

Winners Win---Moderates

Ability to get things done drives Trump’s moderate approval – He needs a win to sustain that perceptionBlumenthal 2/10 (Mark, Head of Election Polling @ Survey Monkey, “The Underpinnings Of Donald Trump’s Approval Rating”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-underpinnings-of-donald-trumps-approval-rating_us_589e4206e4b080bf74f03c20)

Among Trump’s soft supporters, the gap is especially pronounced between an appreciation for his outspoken toughness and desire to get things done, on the one hand, and a lack of honesty, empathy and the ability to inspire on the other. Better than two thirds (68 percent) of those who only somewhat approve of the President say he stands up for his beliefs, and almost as many say he is tough enough for the job (60 percent) and can get things done (59 percent).

The soft approvers are far less confident, however, about his ability to keep promises (38 percent) or perform as an effective manager (34 percent), and even fewer (near 20 percent) associate qualities like empathy, shared values or inspiration with the new president. Just 11 percent of the Trump’s soft approvers say “honest and trustworthy” applies to him.

Winning over moderates Key to Trump PCMackowiak 3/29 (Matt, president of Austin-based Potomac Strategy Group, “Despite setbacks, there’s a path for a successful year for Trump”, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/29/despite-setbacks-theres-a-path-for-a-successful-ye/)

President Trump’s political capital will be limited if his approval numbers remain below 40 percent. He must win over independent voters who may have found his outsider credibility and campaign message appealing but remain concerned about his ability to govern. Politically weak presidents cannot persuade members of the opposing party to come in their direction.

Moderate approvals are key – They’re the only thing keeping Trump’s polls from crateringBlumenthal 2/10 (Mark, Head of Election Polling @ Survey Monkey, “The Underpinnings Of Donald Trump’s Approval Rating”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-underpinnings-of-donald-trumps-approval-rating_us_589e4206e4b080bf74f03c20)

However, political science forecasters and other observers are already pondering the inevitable question, “how low can Donald Trump’s approval ratings go?” The answer is ultimately unknowable, of course, since it is still very early in Trump’s term and major, persistent movement in presidential approval tends to follow the direction of the economy, U.S.

involvement in wars and foreign policy crises and, sometimes, high-profile presidential scandals. That said, additional findings

from the latest SurveyMonkey national poll help provide greater insight on the initial impressions that keep it from

falling further. One striking characteristic of Trump’s initial job rating is the relative intensity of disapproval. In our most recent full

week of tracking, for example, far more Americans strongly disapprove of the way Trump is handling his job (41 percent) than strongly approve (29 percent). That gap means that Trump’s overall 46 percent approval rating includes 17 percent who only “somewhat approve” of his performance.

Thumpers

GOP divisionsWon’t pass – massive GOP disunity and infighting Associated Press 6/29 - Associated Press, News Source, 6/29/17("GOP health-care struggles could put tax reform at risk," published by CNBC, Available online at http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/29/gop-health-care-struggles-could-put-tax-reform-at-risk.html, Accessed 7/7/2017, AJ)

Thirty-one years after the last tax overhaul, there is widespread agreement that the current system is too complicated and picks winners and losers. There is, however, widespread disagreement over how to fix it.

Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said the administration is involved in "listening sessions" with lawmakers, CEOs, think tanks and others to formulate a final tax plan for later this year. Mnuchin said the eventual tax overhaul will be "responsible" and "paid for," but the administration has yet to provide much detail outside of a one-page outline released in April.

"There will be complete transparency when we come out with the plan," Mnuchin said at the Thursday White House briefing.

Republican leaders in Congress want to simplify the tax code and make it more efficient in a way that does not add to the federal government's mounting debt. That means some would pay more and some would pay less, a heavy political lift among politicians who have deep political and practical disagreements.

"I think what it says is that it's harder than it looks," Kumar said, adding: "I think part of what you're seeing here is the steep learning curve of what it takes to govern and the trade-offs that have to be made and the compromises that have to be made even with members of your own party," Kumar added.

Some rank-and-file Republicans want to cut taxes even if it adds to the debt.

"The debate will be whether it's a tax cut or a revenue-neutral tax-shifting bill ," said Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. "I'm sort of on the tax cut si de of that."

For individuals, Republicans leaders want to lower overall tax rates and make up the lost revenue by eliminating some popular tax breaks, including the federal deduction for state and local taxes, a proposal opposed by Democrats and some Republicans in states like New York, New Jersey and California.

For businesses, House Republicans want to lower the top corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent. They

would make up the lost revenue by increasing taxes on imports and eliminating the deduction for interest on debt, two proposals that face widespread opposition, even from other Republicans .

Trump wants to reduce the corporate tax rate to 15 percent but has been less specific on how it would be financed.

The Trump administration has said the president hopes to release a comprehensive plan in September. But Congress will be dealing with several other big issues, including funding for the government and extending the government's ability to borrow.

"I was much more optimistic earlier in the year," said Jon Traub, a former Republican staff director for the House Ways and Means Committee who is now with Deloitte Tax.

"I've become more pessimistic as the days have ticked by, closer and closer to the crunch time of when a bunch of big things have to be done with a limited number of days left on the calendar," Traub said.

wont pass even if republicans dump healthcare---momentum, bipartisanship, and disagreements within the party Reinhardt Krause 6/22, Senior Technology Reporter at Investor's Business Daily, quoting reports by Morgan Stanley strategist Michael Zezas, 6/22/17, “Tech Letdown? Trump Tax Reform Not Coming In 2017: Morgan Stanley,” http://www.investors.com/news/technology/tech-let-down-trump-tax-reform-not-coming-in-2017-morgan-stanley/

A Trump tax reform package will not be pass ed by Congress this year, forecasts Morgan Stanley, a political development that would be bad news for technology companies such as Apple (AAPL) and Cisco Systems (CSCO) hoping for relief on foreign profits brought into the U.S. Proposed changes on "repatriated" overseas cash are part of a bigger Trump tax reform package. The companies currently with the most overseas cash are Apple, Microsoft (MSFT), Cisco, Alphabet's (GOOGL) Google and Oracle (ORCL). Many Wall Street analysts have speculated that cash brought back into the U.S. could be used for stock buybacks or acquisitions. "We still think there's a better than not chance that tax reform will happen before 2019," said Morgan Stanley strategist Michael Zezas in a report that outlines reasons why it will be delayed. Midterm 2018 elections could get in the way, Zezas said. He says momentum for tax reform is unclear even if Senate Republicans dump ObamaCare . "It is unclear whether the (health care) plan being developed by leader Mitch McConnell will pass the Senate, and if it does, if it will be acceptable to House Republicans," said Zezas. "If the bill passes, the journey is not over yet — either the House will have to accept the Senate bill as is or they will need to work out differences in conference committee." House Speaker Paul Ryan aims to get tax reform passed in 2017, but Zezas says there are big obstacles. "The main culprits? Lack of bipartisanship, the restrictions of the budget reconciliation process , and disagreements on key tax issues within the Republican party," he added.

lack of bipartisan support kills any hopeLance Tarrance 6/27, political strategist who has conducted public opinion studies for national corporations, foundations, elected leaders of the U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives and state governments, BA from Washington and Lee University, 6/27/17, “Taxes May Be Certain, but Tax Reform Is Not,” http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/213239/taxes-may-certain-tax-reform-not.aspx

As the U.S. Congress is about to start its summer recess , tax reform remains ill defined by the administration, and negotiations over sub-issues like the border adjustment tax have stalled any pivot to immediate tax legislation. More importantly, there seems to be no bipartisan support this time, while there was under Reagan in 1986. Granted, this may seem like less of an issue now, as Republicans today control both the legislative and executive branches of the federal government. But real tax reform always makes for winners and losers, and it is problematic for

only one party to pass new reforms . One need only look at the electoral consequences that Democrats have repeatedly suffered since 2010 , the year they passed major healthcare reform legislation on party-line votes, to understand the danger Republicans could face if they pursue tax reform alone .

budgetary concerns and republican skepticism stall passage Bloomberg News 7/10, delivers business and markets news, data, analysis, and video to the world, featuring stories from Businessweek and Bloomberg News, “Tax reform uncertainty grows as congressional calendar shrinks,” http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20170710/FREE/170719999/tax-reform-uncertainty-grows-as-congressional-calendar-shrinks

Meanwhile, House Republicans have been delaying consideration of a fiscal 2018 bud get resolution, the vehicle they plan to use for tax legislation . Factions within the party disagree on whether tax rate cuts for individuals and businesses should be offset with new revenue or spending cuts, or just be allowed to add to the deficit. Debate among conservative and moderate Republicans has focused on how deeply they should cut "mandatory" safety-net spending.

"There's a train wreck coming," said G. William Hoagland, a senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington and a former Republican staff director for the Senate Budget Committee. "I don't see a tax bill in 2017 at all. Not at all," Hoagland said. "Not comprehensive tax reform. No way."

The Republican divisions are "too stark, too great " to pass a budget resolution before the new fiscal year starts in October, he said. Hoagland predicted lawmakers will have to settle for stopgap measures to keep the government open. "From my perspective and from past experience, we're very late on everything right now."

His pessimism stands in contrast to House Speaker Paul Ryan, whose office sent emails to reporters last week proclaiming that "Tax reform is happening. Not next year or next Congress. It is happening now, in 2017." The legislation will be "transformational," Ryan's email said, not "some rinky-dink, watered-down version of reform."

LACK OF CLARITY

Republican lawmaker s and aides have privately vented that the lack of clarity from Trump on tax specifics has added chaos to the debate. The only public guidance the White House has released is a vague one-page blueprint in April that steered clear of tough questions like whether a tax cut should be paid for and how.

Thumper – Laundry List – 2ACRussia and healthcare thump – at best, they get a severely watered down tax cut.Domm 5/19 - Patti Domm, CNBC Markets Editor, responsible for news coverage of the markets and economy, 5/19/17("Goldman sees slimmed-down Trump tax plan with smaller cuts, less bang for economy in 2018," published by CNBC, Available online at http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/19/goldman-sees-slimmed-down-trump-tax-plan-with-smaller-cuts-less-bang-for-economy-in-2018.html, Accessed 7/6/2017, AJ)

The investigation into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia further clouds the prospect for policy changes — already slowed by the fact Congress is dealing first with health-care legislation , they

said. Based on that, they expect agreement on a smaller tax cut, amounting to $1 trillion over 10 years, instead of the $1.75 trillion plan they had previously assumed.

Goldman now projects a "modest" personal tax cut and a corporate tax rate of 28 percent , instead of the 20 percent proposed by the House, the economists said. The current corporate rate is 35

percent. The House proposal is "revenue neutral," but it also contains the controversial border adjustment tax, opposed by a number of senators and Democrats.

Russia, healthcare, infrastructure and Twitter thumpWestwood 6-10 [Sarah Westwood is a White House reporter for the Washington Examiner 6-10-2017 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/james-comey-cloud-hindering-trumps-agenda/article/2625553]

President Trump worked this week to revive his legislative agenda and kick off his administration's pursuit of an infrastructure

overhaul, but the attention devoted to former FBI Director James Comey's congressional testimony demonstrated how

difficult it will be to get back on track.

Trump's efforts to expedite legislative priorities that had stalled amid controversy included a meeting with House and Senate leaders on Tuesday, which was followed by a private dinner with a handful of national-security-focused Republican lawmakers that evening.

One GOP congressional aide noted this was "not the first overture" the White House had made toward Republicans on Capitol Hill. But another told the

Washington Examiner that Trump's team has been " very hands-off " when it comes to big-ticket items like Obamacare

repeal and tax reform.

A third Republican aide said Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney had recently met with members about tax reform.

"But I expect to see a bigger push in coming weeks," that aide said.

Several Republican staffers pointed to Vice President Mike Pence as the most visible face of the Trump administration's congressional outreach over the past month. However, one staffer acknowledged that Trump has impressed some members with his personal touch and his ability to recall details about individual lawmakers.

In the nearly five weeks since Trump removed his FBI director, the Russian election-meddling probe that was once under Comey 's purview has

threatened to overtake the White House and grind its agenda to a standstill. West Wing aides faced a daily barrage of questions about the investigation and Comey's involvement with it until, in late May, they began referring all Russia-related inquiries to Trump's outside counsel.

Mark Serrano, a Republican strategist, said the move to direct those questions toward Marc Kasowitz, Trump's attorney, could help the administration tremendously in its efforts to advance beyond the controversies.

"That was a very necessary and prudent measure for the sake of the country, for the sake of the operations for the White House," Serrano said.

After a week of hearings and revelations that saw multiple current and former administration officials deny encountering interference in the Russia probe, the White House should take advantage of the momentum it now has, Serrano argued.

"I think the administration should first value and appreciate the point they've reached," he said. "It's demonstrated that the there's no shred of evidence of Russian collusion. There's not a shred of evidence that there was any obstruction of justice."

But Trump's agenda won't progress without the assistance of Republicans on Capitol Hill, Serrano cautioned, and

uniting those lawmakers around Trump's agenda remains a challenge.

"I think congressional Republicans are as conflicted today as they were a year ago about Donald Trump," Serrano said. "He's an outsider, he's a disrupter, and not all of them — but many of them — are part of the problem. They are part of the, you know, the establishment elites, and they are reluctant to embrace him."

Ford O'Connell, a Republican strategist, said the GOP could be running out of time to notch any legislative accomplishments before the midterm elections sweep some Republican House members out of office.

"Congressional Republicans have to grow a backbone. They have to realize that, in terms of numbers, it's not going to get any better than it is right now," O'Connell said of the House majority. "You've got to produce some deliverables, basically."

Trump's top two legislative priorities — an Obamacare overhaul and tax reform — have hit roadblocks in the House and Senate

thanks to dissent within Republican ranks about the direction of those policies. And this week , administration officials piled on a third policy initiative by announcing its renewed push for an infrastructure package before the end of the year.

"When we talk about Obamacare and we talk about tax reform or tax cuts, these are not just Trump items that are just separate from the GOP agenda like, say, the wall might be," O'Connell noted. "These are items that [Republicans] promised no matter who the president is."

Beyond the friction Trump has encountered on Capitol Hill, the president may find his own habits a hindrance to his return to governing.

Trump's unpredictable use of Twitter , a staple of his political career since it launched in 2015, has become an obstacle to his efforts at building goodwill in Congress. Confronted with a steady stream of controversial or inaccurate tweets from the president, many Republican member s have chosen to distance themselves from Trump rather than wade into the quicksand of defending Trump from himself.

Russia – 1AR

Russia thumps – Comey causes GOP distancing, diverts time – Westwood

GOP divisions, empirics, hurts him long term – costs PCBennett 6-12 [John T. Bennett White House Correspondent for CQ Roll 6-12-2017 “Legislative Agenda Gets Tougher for Trump” http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/comey-speaks-domestic-agenda-gets-tougher-trump]

President Donald Trump is declaring victory despite scathing testimony against him by former FBI Director James

B. Comey. But that likely will further complicate his domestic agenda and transform the 2018 midterms into a referendum on his actions related to the bureau’s investigation into Russian meddling in U.S. elections.

Comey did not land a knockout blow on the president during hours of dramatic testimony Thursday. But some experts say he presented a strong case that the president obstructed justice when Trump leaned on him to drop a probe of his first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and then allegedly fired Comey for refusing to do so.

Senate Intelligence Committee Republicans largely provided the president cover during the widely watched hearing, and Republican members are continuing work on the health care and tax overhaul packages Trump wants to sign into law as soon as possible.

GOP leaders such as Speaker Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin are defending Trump’s actions as the behavior of a political neophyte who was simply unaware of the protocol for a chief executive when dealing with a FBI director.

Even before Trump fired Comey, triggering the appointment of a special counsel for the Russia probe, deep divisions among Republicans threatened the agenda . But Trump’s legal troubles will further burden an already embattled legislative process as the president sheds political capital , experts say.

“Both opponents and supporters of the president feel they gathered more ammunition from yesterday’s hearing, so this fight isn’t going away anytime soon,” said Michael Steel, a onetime senior aide to former House Speaker John A. Boehner and 2016 GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush.

“That will continue to make it difficult for congressional Republicans to get the press and the public to focus on tax reform, health care and other priorities,” Steel added.

A continuing muddle

Carl Bon Tempo, a history professor at the University at Albany, SUNY, said the legal troubles

experienced by Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton “show it makes it hard for the sitting president to do the job he was elected to do.”

“These kinds of situations suck up so much time and energy — from a president and from his White House staff,” Bon Tempo said. “Most likely, the legislative agenda — which was going to be very difficult before all of this — is going to continue to be a muddle for the foreseeable future.”

Distracts attention, provides GOP cover to not move Trump agendaMerica 6-6 [Dan Merica, CNN Politics Producer,6-6-23017 http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/06/politics/trump-agenda-russia-congress/index.html]

Donald Trump's legislative agenda is stalled on Capitol Hill, collateral damage to a mix of swirling controversies

-- including the firing of FBI Director James Comey and Russia investigation -- and the President's off-the-cuff style

that has Republican lawmakers constantly responding to the crisis du jour .

After Trump's unexpected 2016 win, Republicans were bullish at the start his presidency about winning wholesale changes to health care, remaking the tax system and rebuilding America's infrastructure.

Nearly five months in, though, little of that has happened. And Trump's top aides are now acknowledging the problem.

"There's no doubt that keeping members focused on investigations detracts from our legislative agenda and detracts from what we're trying to deliver to the American people," Marc Short, Trump's White House director of legislative affairs, told reporters on Monday.

Stunted progress

Short's blunt comments echo what Republicans in the White House and on Capitol Hill have said in private about the continual drip, drip, drip of controversies coming from the White House. With only so many hours to work each week, the

controversies have forced Republicans to spend time responding to Trump stories and protecting the party, leav ing them largely unable to move legislation through a contentious Congress.

Trump's flagging approval rating -- 37% in the most recent Gallup poll -- is at or near historic lows for this early in his

presidency, a fact that has not helped the issue. Public disapproval has hardened Trump's opposition, giving

Democrats hope for the future and has provided some Republicans the cover to stand up to the President when needed.

Won’t pass – McCain

Tax Reform won’t pass – McCain’s absence proves.Bobic 7-20

Igor Bobic is an associate editor who helps oversee The Huffington Post's coverage of politics and policy in Washington, D.C. - “What Could Happen If John McCain Doesn’t Return To Congress” – Huffington Post – July 20 th, 2017 – #CutWithKirby - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-mccain-congress_us_5970ce73e4b0110cb3ccd17d

If McCain opts to stay in the Senate, but his health forces him to remain absent from the body, the implications could loom large for Trump and pose problems for the Republican legislative agenda in Washington.

The Arizona senator’s absence has already had an impact on the legislative calendar. Senate Majority Leader

Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was forced to delay a critical vote on the Senate health care bill after McCain announced he had undergone a surgery to remove a blood clot from above his left eye last week.

Without McCain, who indicated he would at least vote to proceed to debate the legislation, McConnell’s task of securing the

support of holdouts becomes much tougher. Republicans would functionally hold just a one seat majority in Senate, not two as they do now, with Vice President Mike Pence able to cast tie-breaking votes.

In the face of uniform Democratic opposition, McConnell can already only afford to lose two Republican votes on a Senate health

care bill. If McCain were unavailable to vote on that and other key legislation, however, McConnell would face additional difficulties uniting his caucus and may even be forced to seek Democratic votes.

One fewer solidly Republican vote could also seriously imperil legislation concerning tax reform and infrastructure, two items on Trump’s agenda that McConnell has said he wants to move to next. Tax reform, in particular, looks like a potentially even more difficult task than the endangered health care bill.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-mccain-congress_us_5970ce73e4b0110cb3ccd17d


Health Care – 1AR

Tax reform won’t pass – health care failure kills tax agenda.Whitley 7-19

Jason Whitely of the News Station WFAA - Internally quoting Matt Mackowiak, Potomac Strategy Group and chair of the Travis County Republican Party. “If Trump loses on Obamacare, tax reform gets harder” – WFAA – July 19 th, 2017 – #CutWithKirby - http://www.wfaa.com/news/politics/if-trump-loses-on-obamacare-tax-reform-gets-harder/458042795

If President Trump cannot get Congress to repeal and replace Obamacare, then other major components of Trump's legislative agenda could be in jeopardy.

"The sequencing here was intentional. They wanted to start with healthcare because if they removed the taxes from the Obamacare plan, it was going to free up an additional $1 trillion they could apply to tax reform. Now they won't have that likely,” said Matt Mackowiak, Potomac Strategy Group and chairman of the Travis County Republican Party.

Repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act was a staple of President Trump’s campaign. Congressional Republicans have run on that same promise for seven years.

"Look, the agenda is imperiled right now. We've never seen a president without major legislative accomplishments this late into their new term. We just haven't seen that," Mackowiak added.

Won’t pass – health care failure makes tax reform harder. Egger 7-18

Internally quoting US Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) - Andrew Egger is a white house reporter for The Weekly Standard - “How Trump's Battle for Tax Reform Will Be Fought” - Weekly Standard – July 18, 2017 – #CutWithKirby - http://www.weeklystandard.com/how-trumps-battle-for-tax-reform-will-be-fought/article/2008900

But passing tax reform is unlikely to be much easier than passing health-care legislation. In the Senate, Republicans will likely be working with the same narrow margins that have bedeviled them in health care, as no Democrats are expected to support the legislation. And the failure of health-care itself is a problem. Asked how the death of the health-care repeal will impact the timeline for tax reform, Sen. Hatch replied, “It makes it more difficult, let's put it that way."

Senate rules requires healthcare before tax. Associated Press 6/29 - Associated Press, News Source, 6/29/17("GOP health-care struggles could put tax reform at risk," published by CNBC, Available online at http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/29/gop-health-care-struggles-could-put-tax-reform-at-risk.html, Accessed 7/7/2017, AJ)

It is important for Congress to resolve the health bill before moving on to a tax overhaul.

Here's why: The health bill provides nearly $1 trillion in tax cuts that won't add to the nation's mounting debt.

Republicans are counting on those tax cuts to help them write a new tax code that raises less money.

Also, Republicans are using a complicated rule that enables the Senate to pass both a health bill and a tax package with a simple majority, preventing Senate Democrats from blocking the legislation. Under the rule, Congress has to resolve health care -- by either passing a bill or killing it -- before lawmakers can pass a tax package.

"They need to resolve health care one way or another before they do tax reform," said Rohit Kumar, a former tax counsel for McConnell who is now with PwC.

Healthcare comes first – without it, tax reform is doomed.Primack 3/24 - Dan Primack, Journalist for Axios, 3/24/17("4 reasons healthcare reform failure threatens tax reform," published by Axios, Available online at https://www.axios.com/4-reasons-healthcare-reform-failure-threatens-tax-reform-2328416506.html, Accessed 7/7/2017, AJ)

Stocks rebounded in late trading on Friday, after news that President Trump's healthcare bill wouldn't even get a House vote. Traders apparently believe this will accelerate tax reform, since D.C. won't be bogged down by a Senate fight over healthcare that would send it back to the House, rinse and repeat. But here are five reasons why the healthcare failure could spell trouble for tax reform:

We now know that Congressional Republicans are willing to buck Trump and leadership on big-ticket legislative items.

Republicans will need to keep working on healthcare reform, even though Trump says that he's done with it. They've campaigned for years on killing Obamacare , and can't head into the midterms without giving it another go. Particularly when they keep insisting that the current scheme is collapsing?

CBO said that the Republican healthcare bill would shrink long-term budget deficits by hundreds of billions of dollars . Without it, filling the tax revenue hole becomes harder .

Sean Spicer today said repeatedly that Trump had talked to "everyone " and listened to "all" ideas, which reflects zero consideration of Congressional Democrats . If such sentiment persists ― it just

raises the degree of difficulty for tax reform , particularly if the White House doesn't change its position on keeping corporate tax reform tied to personal tax reform.

Passing health care first is necessary for projects of tax reform.Lea 3/22 - Brittany Lea, Journalist for Fox Business, 3/22/17("Health Care Domino: Why Trump's Tax Cuts Depend on the ObamaCare Repeal," published by Fox Business, Available online at http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/03/22/health-care-domino-why-trumps-tax-cuts-depend-on-obamacare-repeal.html, Accessed 7/7/2017, AJ)

Reconciliation requires a bill to reduce the deficit over the long-term. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the American Health Care Act would reduce federal deficits by $337 billion over the next ten years.

Tax reform , on the other hand, won’t be as straightforward.

“[Repealing the ACA first] would give them extra money to play around with for tax reform . Tax reform wouldn’t have to be revenue neutral. It would end up being revenue neutral on a dynamic level but the CBO doesn’t always measure all the dynamic effects,” Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former Trump transition team member and former chief economist for the U.S. Department of Labor, told FOX Business.

Speaker Ryan’s health care bill is designed to reduce taxes and spending, which will help improve deficit projections . The idea is health care will improve the baseline and pave the way for the tax overhaul, Paul Howard, senior fellow director in health policy at the Manhattan Institute, told FOX Business.

Healthcare thumps---congress will only work on tax after healthcare is passedBoris Epshteyn 7/03, served in the White House as Special Assistant to The President and Assistant Communications Director for Surrogate Operations, 7/03/17, “Opinion: Tax reform is next on the agenda,” http://wjla.com/news/bottom-line/opinion-tax-reform-is-next-on-the-agenda

WASHINGTON (Sinclair Broadcast Group) - Washington, D.C., the beltway, has been locked in on healthcare reform. And It’s easy to get swept up in the coverage of that one hot topic. The fact is, Americans care deeply about multiple fronts that impact their day-to-day lives. Tax reform was a vital part of the campaign and remains a key concern for Americans. So, let’s break it down. Where do we stand on taxes and what is the expected timeline? In April of this year, the White House released a one-page memo highlighting some of their goals for tax reform. One of the biggest changes to the current tax code in the memo is to take the seven current tax brackets and reduce it to three brackets: 10 percent, 25 percent and 35 percent. The White House also wants to double the so-called standard deduction, so that a married couple won’t pay any taxes on the first $24,000 of their income, and lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%. The White House and Republicans in Congress are on board with getting tax reform bills passed by the end of 2017.However, a delay in getting a healthcare bill passed will delay tax reform as well. The GOP moved on healthcare first partly due to Senate rules and partly because repealing and replacing "Obamacare" would help reduce federal deficits and allow more room so that tax reform wouldn’t have to be revenue neutral. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said that they are working with the administration now to come up a “transformational tax reform plan.” So, why is tax reform so important? "But if we are going to truly fix our tax code, we have to fix all of it—both for individuals and businesses. Why? Because this will create jobs," Ryan said in a speech last week. There is criticism from Democrats who contend that the proposed changes would primarily provide a tax cut for the wealthy and unnecessarily expand the deficit. Having said that, there are those in the administration who see the potential for some bipartisan, yes bipartisan, support for tax overhaul. The administration, together with the House and Senate, are continuing to forge ahead on making real change to the tax code. It is clear that there is a commitment to tax reform. However, it does appear that the repeal and replace of "Obamacare" has to get done first, with tax reform following right behind. That’s the Bottom Line.

Healthcare thumps---McConnell’s hunt for 50 votes extends past the recess and drains PCMJ Lee 7/6, national political reporter for CNN Politics, 7/6/17, “Senate health care plan: Recess isn't helping McConnell's hunt for 50 votes,” http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/06/politics/senate-health-care-plan-recess/index.html

There was a reason Mitch McConnell badly wanted a vote on the Senate health care bill before July 4.

Senate Republicans are back in their home states for a weeklong break, and already, some of them have gotten an earful on the controversial GOP legislation to dismantle Obamacare. The message from their home-state constituents : Don't you dare vote for that bill .

That's not great news for Senate Majority Leader McConnell, who was forced to postpone a vote last week and is hoping to reschedule it for soon after lawmakers return to Washington next week.

Republican Sen. Susan Collins told reporters at a July 4 parade in Eastport that many Maine residents that she has spoken with while in her home state support her decision to oppose the legislation.

"What I've been hearing the entire recess is people telling me to be strong, that they have a lot of concerns about the health care bill in the Senate, they want me to keep working on it, but they don't want me to support it in its current form," said Collins, a moderate.

Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota said at a roundtable in Grand Forks this week that he "doesn't support the bill as it stands," according to the Bismarck Tribune, becoming the tenth Republican senator to come out against the proposal in its current form.

Similar to when House Republicans were considering their own Obamacare repeal bill earlier this year, protesters across the country are again eager to confront their senators .

Demonstrators gathered outside of Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey's office Tuesday, lying on the sidewalk holding signs in the shape of tombstones (Toomey is leaning toward supporting the bill). Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a conservative Republican who is currently a "no" on the health care bill because he doesn't believe it goes far enough in gutting Obamacare, faced protesters at a parade in McAllen.

"There is a small group of people on the left who, right now, are very angry," Cruz told CNN affiliate KVEO. "We can engage in cordial and civil debate -- that's how democracy works and that's how it's meant to work."

McConnell was keenly aware of the political pressure that his colleagues would face on the health care bill when they went home. It was one of the key reasons he had worked furiously to try to have a vote before members left town.

But a flurry of meetings and closed -door negotiations still left the majority leader far short of the minimum 50 "yes" votes he needs to get the bill through the upper chamber. And within hours

of his announcement to postpone the vote last week, three more members came out as "no" votes, bringing up the tally of Republicans publicly against the legislation to nine.

With 52 Republicans in the Senate, that's not a small number of senators McConnell has to move from the "no" column to the "yes" column. But the public opposition this week could make it that much more difficult for senators who are already against the bill -- and others who are on the fence -- to get to a "yes."

Over the July 4 recess, Senate leadership is continuing to engage rank-and-file members on potential changes to the health care bill , according to a GOP leadership aide. Leadership has also been in discussions with the Congressional Budget Office, so that the agency can swiftly release a new score of the revised Senate bill.

Healthcare thumps – GOP divisions – Westwood

The vote is soon – causing fightsFerrechio 6-12 [Susan Ferrechio is the chief congressional correspondent for the Washington Examiner 6-12-2017 “Republicans getting restless for legislative victories” http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/republicans-getting-restless-for-legislative-victories/article/2625401]

Even without the distraction of Trump tweets and hearings over the firing of FBI Director James Comey, the GOP has internal differences that have stopped it from advancing healthcare and tax reform.

Senate Republicans are struggling to agree on the scope of a bill to repeal and replace the healthcare law , and if they do pass a bill, it will be tough to get House Republicans to endorse it as the party fights over how much of Obamacare to keep in place.

The House last week passed legislation to repeal much of the Obama-era financial reform law, which Republicans said would boost the economy by lifting burdensome regulations.

But the bill faces a Democratic filibuster in the Senate, so it's not likely to ever become law.

"The parties seem so far apart," Flake said.

Democrats have begun taunting the GOP for failing to pass major agenda items.

"Republicans have virtually no legislative agenda to advance and no accomplishments to tout," said one memo from the Democratic leadership emailed to reporters.

House Republican leaders last week promoted their legislative accomplishments, pointing out that they have passed 158 bills this year, far more than the average of 91 and more than the 131 bills Democrats passed during the same time period while former President Barack Obama was in the White House.

"So you rate it in modern history, pretty good movement of going forward," said Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, D-Calif.

Some Republicans said they believe the pace is picking up.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell last week fast-tracked a legislative vehicle for the Senate healthcare bill, suggesting the chamber would take up a measure soon.

Healthcare failure blocks tax reform – costs PCBolton 6-6 [Alex Bolton, The Hill staff writer, “Trump, GOP plot path for agenda” 6-6-2017 http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/336664-trump-gop-plot-path-for-agenda]

President Trump and Republican leaders presented a unified front at the White House Tuesday amid growing doubt over the president’s ability to pass his agenda on Capitol Hill.

Trump called the meeting to find a way to restart his stalled agenda, which has backed up behind an impasse in the Senate over healthcare reform.

Trump’s bold plans to rewrite the tax code and spur billions of dollars in infrastructure investment are stuck in limbo w hile lawmakers squabble over healthcare subsidies for low-income Americans and the future of Medicaid.

Senators had hoped to put together a draft of healthcare reform legislation over the Memorial Day recess but instead were only given a broad PowerPoint presentation outlining basic concepts to review over lunch Tuesday.

Even so, Trump struck an optimistic tone as he sat down with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), touting House passage of healthcare legislation and predicting the Senate “will follow suit and get a bill across the finish line this summer.”

The president tried to reset the tone of the healthcare debate by praising the House bill as a good “concept,” contradicting the sharp criticisms that various Senate Republicans have aimed at the bill.

Once the doors were closed to the public, Trump asked McConnell and his deputy, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas), for an update on the healthcare debate, according to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who also attended the meeting.

Senate Republicans are continuing to work on their own version of healthcare reform, and while they have pledged their commitment to passing a bill, there’s growing doubt that they will be able to bring together at least 50 members of their 52-person conference.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told reporters earlier in the day: “We’re stuck. We can’t get there from here,” and suggested his colleagues hold an up-or-down vote on healthcare in the next few weeks and then move on to tax reform.

Asked by reporters after the meeting whether the Senate could pass a healthcare bill by the July 4 recess, McCarthy replied, “Not to my knowledge do we have a date set.”

Trump and his congressional allies discussed the news that Anthem, a major health insurer, is pulling out of the ObamaCare marketplace in Ohio, leaving about 20 counties without an insurer willing to sell health plans on the government-sponsored exchange next year.

Trump also pushed his proposal to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, something Congress declined to fund in April when it passed its spending bill for the rest of fiscal 2017.

The president added a new twist to it by floating the idea of building solar panels into the wall to provide a renewable energy source, according to House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), who was also at the meeting.

Returning to the Capitol, McConnell, who has cautioned Trump in recent weeks about veering off script and spending too much time on Twitter, praised the meeting.

“We had a very good discussion about all the issues we’re dealing with these days,” he said, declining to answer questions about healthcare or former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony scheduled for Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Comey’s appearance in the Senate later this week is highly anticipated and will be carried live by several television networks.

It threatens to add to what Marc Short, Trump’s director of legislative affairs, has called a distraction that “detracts from our legislative agenda.”

McCarthy, however, told reporters that Comey did not come up for discussion with Trump.

While Trump struck a positive tone ahead of Tuesday’s meeting, GOP leaders know he has grown increasingly frustrated with their lack of action on big-ticket items.

Last week he urged lawmakers to scrap the Senate filibuster to speed action on healthcare and tax reform.

“We need to get some legislative accomplishments,” Cornyn acknowledged to reporters before heading to the White House.

Republican senators who attended a lengthy healthcare discussion over lunch earlier in the day said it’s clear the party remains starkly divided over questions such as how to subsidize the healthcare coverage of low-income families and cut the cost of Medicaid.

“We are all cautiously optimistic; that’s the best I can do for you. We want to get this done. It’s a heavy lift,” said Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) after the meeting.

Republicans can’t move on tax reform until they finish the healthcare debate because the budget reconciliation vehicle they want to use to rewrite the tax code with 51 votes can’t move until they

either pass or scrap the healthcare reform bill.

Aff---Tax Reform---DelayedReconciliation would push back tax reform to June 2018 at the earliestLea 3/22 - Brittany Lea, Journalist for Fox Business, 3/22/17("Health Care Domino: Why Trump's Tax Cuts Depend on the ObamaCare Repeal," published by Fox Business, Available online at http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/03/22/health-care-domino-why-trumps-tax-cuts-depend-on-obamacare-repeal.html, Accessed 7/7/2017, AJ)

Reconciliation allows Congress to consider just three items per fiscal year, whether they pertain to one bill or multiple. Those items are spending, revenue and debt limit.

Since the GOP also wants to pass its tax reform agenda using reconciliation, it cannot statutorily do that under this budget blueprint because the two policy measures overlap. Therefore, the administration plans to use the 2018 budget to pass tax reform through reconciliation, according to White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer. It plans to adopt the 2018 budget in May or June , which would mark the first time in the 43-year history of the Congressional budget process that Congress passed two budgets within the same year, according to Forbes.

“The limit they face is they cannot start tax reform reconciliation through the legislative process until the next budget resolution has been through both Houses , ” Brian Riedl, former chief economist to Senator Bob Portman (R-OH), told FOX Business. “Tax reform reconciliation is on hold until they finish health care.”

Pushing back the timeline would put pressure on these windows. Not to mention, midterm elections are at the end of 2018, so there is no guarantee Republicans will maintain a majority in Congress through the following year.

Bill won’t even be written before 2018Feige 5/19 - Gerald Feige, counsel in the Tax Group of the Washington, DC office, 5/19/17("Update on US Federal Tax Reform Proposals and Their Effect on the Renewable Energy Industry," published by Shearman and Sterling, Available online at http://www.shearman.com/en/newsinsights/publications/2017/05/update-on-us-federal-tax-reform-proposals, Accessed 7/6/2017, AJ)

Given the slim Republican majority in the Senate, any bill may require passage by simple majority through the reconciliation process. Reconciliation allows the bill to pass with only a majority rather than 60

votes, but is only permitted for bills that do not add to the deficit beyond a 10-year window after passage. Accordingly, the tax rate reductions, if enacted, may be temporary unless accompanied by substantial revenue offsets.

The administration has expressed confidence that tax reform can be completed by the end of 2017. Nevertheless, given the differences between the administration and Congress, as well as within Congress , there is expected to be significant opposition to any comprehensive tax reform proposal. Further, the current tax code is incredibly complex , and a comprehensive reworking of it

will require a substantial amount of time, with significant input from affected parties and industries. For these reasons, even if tax reform is ultimately passed, the process could continue well beyond this year. In addition, as with any significant change in law, the effective date of such changes is expected to be prospective and , as was the case with the Bush tax cuts, could be

phased in over time. Accordingly, comprehensive tax reform , if passed, may not have its full effect for several years.

Internal Link

PC Not Key – 2AC

PC fails---Trump rhetoric and party divisions guarantee gridlockLightman, 16 – David Lightman, national political correspondent for McClatchy Newspaper, 11-10-2016, “Trump gets a mandate — and a Congress”, Times Colonist, http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/columnists/david-lightman-trump-gets-a-mandate-and-a-congress-1.2589756

WASHINGTON - Donald Trump will use his stunning victory to insist voters gave him a mandate to shake up Washington.

He’s right. But Washington won’t play along.

Trump’s rise from political outsider to president of the United States is unlikely to move a Congress that he reviled for months . It’s a Congress that promises to continue being stuck , poisoned by venomous, relentless partisanship that Tuesday’s election won’t stop.

He’s also dogged by his mouth and his own party . Top R epublican s distanced themselves from Trump weeks and sometimes months ago. And Trump has shown a consistent ability to alienate blocs of constituents with his insults .

“Trump has a significant mandate,” said Jonathan Felts, former White House political director for president George W. Bush. “His challenge will be being disciplined enough so that he can spend his p olitical c apital proactively moving legislation rather than wasting it having to clean up self-inflicted wounds .”

Trump will begin his presidency as one of the most distrusted, disliked men ever to occupy the White House. Nearly two of three people in network exit polls said he was not honest or trustworthy, and 60 per cent viewed him unfavourably. Just 13 per cent said they were excited about a Trump presidency.

He won after a campaign largely devoid of serious debate over issues.

And while he marshalled an impressive brigade of voters frustrated by a stodgy, unresponsive political system, he also benefited by running against an opponent with negatives almost as high as his. What dominated the dialogue between Hillary Clinton and him were accusations about who is more irresponsible, hateful and corrupt.

“There’s no big mandate for change of a policy nature ,” said Lee Miringoff, the director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion.

Trump will try to bring people together, to be sure.

“The distrust will put pressure on both parties to work together ,” said Michael Feldman, a Democratic consultant who was a senior adviser to vice-president Al Gore.

“That doesn’t mean they’ll be success ful . There are huge , huge obstacles .”

Foremost is a Congress where Dem ocrat s and R epublican s have been warring for years , with no end in sight. Even within the parties, struggles persist .

Conservatives and centre-right lawmakers are at odds over whether to stand on principle or seek compromise. Democratic liberals are at odds with pragmatists .

Congress won’t let Trump dictate its agenda . House Speaker Paul Ryan separated himself from Trump last month , telling House members he would no longer defend the party’s nominee.

What could save Trump’s agenda is that it’s often Ryan’s agenda, and the House of Representatives will retain a solid GOP majority next year.

Congressional Republicans have been eager for years to repeal and replace Obamacare. Trump agrees. Democrats are determined to keep the law and offer improvements.

Immigration appears headed for another stalemate. Democrats tend to favor a comprehensive approach, combining a path to citizenship for many immigrants who are already in the U.S. illegally with a crackdown on border enforcement.

Ryan prefers what he calls “stages and pieces, not some big massive bill,” starting with tighter border security.

One presidential plank no mandate will save is Trump’s calls for a wall between the U.S. and Mexico. Objections from Democrats, who will have enough Senate strength to block any such proposal, will doom this idea. And if not, Trump’s plan to have Mexico pay for it is likely to go nowhere.

“No mandate will be big enough to get Mexico to pay for the wall,” said Felts.

First, though, Trump has to get his team in place, and that will prove difficult.

Historically, a new president had his team in place by Jan. 20 and pointed to voter support to push a top priority: Ronald Reagan’s 1981 tax cut, Bill Clinton’s 1993 deficit-reduction plan, George W. Bush’s 2001 tax cut and Barack Obama’s overhaul of the health-care system.

That momentum eased the path for ideas that would have been far more difficult to push in later years. That’s hardly a sure thing this time.

“The next president is going to have a really hard time ,” said Quentin Kidd, the director of the Wason Center for Public Policy at Christopher Newport University in Virginia. “The level of dysfunction that frustrates people is not going to go away .”

PC not realEdwards, 16 – George C. Edwards III, Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Jordan Chair in Presidential Studies at Texas A&M, 2016, “The Potential of Presidential Leadership”, Study Done for the White House Transition Project

The best evidence is that presidential persuasion is effective only at the margins of congressional decision making. Presidential legislative leadership operates in an environment largely beyond the president’s control and must compete with other, more stable factors that affect voting in Congress in addition to party . These include ideology, personal views and commitments on specific policies, and the interests of constituencies. By the time a pres ident tries to exercise influence on a vote, most members of Congress have made up their minds on the basis of these other factors.

PC---Not Real---1ARPC not real---other factors like ideology and constituencies outweigh and mean no vote switching---PC is too little too late---that’s Edwards

PC theory is assertions with zero support---reject their evDefault to poli sci consensus

Edwards, 16 – George C. Edwards III, Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Jordan Chair in Presidential Studies at Texas A&M, 2016, “The Potential of Presidential Leadership”, Study Done for the White House Transition Project

The American political system is not a fertile field for the exercise of presidential leadership . Most political actors, from the average citizen to members of Congress, are free to choose whether to follow the chief executive’s lead; the president cannot force them to act. At the same time, the sharing of powers established by the Constitution’s checks and balances not only prevents the president from acting unilaterally on most important matters but also gives other power holders different perspectives on issues and policy proposals.

Nevertheless, the tenacity with which many commentators embrace the persuasive potential of political leadership is striking. They often fall prey to an exaggerated concept of the potential for using the “ bully pulpit ” to go public or pressuring members of Congress to fall into line with the White House. They routinely explain historic shifts in public policy, such as those in the 1930s, 1960s, and 1980s, in terms of the extraordinary persuasiveness of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and Ronald Reagan. Equally striking is the lack of evidence of the persuasive power of the presidency. Observers in both the press and the academy base their claims about the impact of such leadership on little or no systematic evidence . There is not a single systematic study that demonstrates that presidents can reliably move others to support them .

In sum, we should not infer from success in winning elections that the White House can persuade members of the public and Congress to change their minds and support policies they would otherwise oppose. Indeed, such assumptions are likely to lead to self-inflicted wounds .

PC---Not Real---PublicDoesn’t change public opinion---the only causal link is backwardsEdwards, 16 – George C. Edwards III, Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Jordan Chair in Presidential Studies at Texas A&M, 2016, “The Potential of Presidential Leadership”, Study Done for the White House Transition Project

Leading the Public

Despite the expectations of new presidents that they will be able to persuade the public to support their initiatives, it is a mistake for them to assume they can change public opinion. There is nothing in the historical record to support such a belief , and there are long-term forces that work against presidential leadership of the public . Adopting strategies for governing that are prone to failure waste rather than create opportunities,1 so it is critically important for presidents to assess accurately the potential for obtaining public support.

Presidents invest heavily in leading the public in the hope of leveraging public support to win backing in Congress. Nevertheless, there is overwhelming evidence that presidents rarely move the public in their direction. Most observers view Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton as excellent communicators. Nevertheless, the evidence is clear that pluralities and often majorities of the public opposed them on most of their policy initiatives. Moreover, after they made efforts to lead the public, opinion typically moved away from rather than toward the positions they favored.2

*Too many barriersEdwards, 16 – George C. Edwards III, Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Jordan Chair in Presidential Studies at Texas A&M, 2016, “The Potential of Presidential Leadership”, Study Done for the White House Transition Project

Typically, then, presidential leadership of public opinion fails . Indeed, research has found that public opinion usually moves contrary to the president’s position . A moderate public usually receives too much liberalism from Democrats and too much conservatism from Republicans.9

There are many impediments to leading the public,10 includ ing the

the difficulty of obtaining and maintaining the public’s attention

the dependence on the media to reach the public

the need to overcome the public’s policy and partisan predispositions

the public’s misinformation and resistance to correction

the distrust of the White House created by partisan media

the public’s aversion to loss and thus wariness of policy change

Presidents find it difficult to focus the public’s attention on a policy because the White House must deal with so many issues and faces competition in agenda setting from Congress and the media. In addition, the White House finds it increasingly difficult to obtain an audience for its views—or even airtime on television to express them. Moreover, many people who do pay attention miss the president’s points. Because the president rarely speaks directly to the American people as a whole, the White House is dependent on the press to transmit its messages, but the media are unlikely to adopt consistently either the White House ’s priorities or its framing of issues. Moreover, committed , well-organized, and well-funded opponents offer competing frames. As a result, presidents usually fail to move the public to support themselves and their policies.

EmpiricsEdwards, 16 – George C. Edwards III, Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Jordan Chair in Presidential Studies at Texas A&M, 2016, “The Potential of Presidential Leadership”, Study Done for the White House Transition Project

Despite the favorable context of the national trauma resulting from the September 11 terrorist attacks, the long-term disdain of the public for Saddam Hussein, and the lack of organized opposition, George W. Bush made little headway in moving the public to support the war in Iraq, and once the initial phase of the war was over, the rally resulting from the quick U.S. victory quickly dissipated. Bush also sought far-reaching changes in public policy across a broad range of domestic issues. To achieve his goals, he went public as much as any of his predecessors, but from tax cuts and immigration to S ocial S ecurity, he was not able to move the public in his direction.5

Barack Obama and his aides anticipated transforming American politics on the back of his legendary communication skills. Despite his eloquence, the president could not obtain the public ’s support for his initiatives that were not already popular when he announced them . Most notably, the Affordable Care Act lacked majority support even six years after it passed. Whether it was the fiscal stimulus designed to restart the economy or closing the prison at Guantánamo Bay and transferring prisoners from there to the United States, the president took his case to the public and came away without changing its views .6

Even Franklin D. Roosevelt, the president often viewed as the greatest politician of the twentieth century , faced constant frustration in his efforts to move the public to prepare for entry into World War II . His failure to persuade the public regarding his plan to pack the Supreme Court effectively marked the end of the New Deal.7 George Washington, who was better positioned than any of his successors to dominate American politics, because of the widespread view of his possessing exceptional personal qualities, did not find the public particularly deferential.8

PC---BadPC backfires---causes hardening and polarization that sabotage legislationEdwards, 16 – George C. Edwards III, Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Jordan Chair in Presidential Studies at Texas A&M, 2016, “The Potential of Presidential Leadership”, Study Done for the White House Transition Project

A reliance on persuasive leadership may not only threaten the disposition to compromise but also undermine the context necessary for negotiation . Presidents’ persistence in emphasizing persuasion may increase both elite and public polarization and thus decrease their chances of success in governing . When political leaders take their cases directly to the public, they have to accommodate the limited attention spans of the public and the availability of space on television. As a result, the pres ident and his opponents often reduce choices to stark black and white terms . When leaders frame issues in such terms, they typically frustrate rather than facilitate building coalitions . Such positions are difficult to compromise , which hardens negotiating positions.

Too often persuasive discourse revolves around destroying enemies rather than producing legislative products broadly acceptable to the electorate. Frightening people about the evils of the opposition is often the most effective means of obtaining attention and inhibit ing support for change. Such scare tactics encourage ideological ly charged and harsh attacks on opponents while discouraging the comity necessary for building coalitions. When people are sorted into enclaves in which their views are constantly and stridently reaffirmed, as they often are today, neither the public nor members of Congress is likely to display a compromising attitude. How can you compromise with those holding views diametrically opposed to yours and whom your party leaders and other political activists relentlessly vilify?

Tax Reform

Not TOD

Tax Reform isn’t on the top of the docketGreen 7-20

Nigel Green is founder and CEO of deVere Group. Today, deVere is one of the world's largest independent financial advisory organizations, doing business in 100 countries. “The Time Is Now for Trump's Promised Tax Reform Agenda” – Newsmax – July 20, 2017 – #CutWithKirby - http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/NigelGreen/trump-tax-reform-growth/2017/07/20/id/802839/

President Donald Trump was ushered into power partly on the promises of tax cuts and reforms. The pledges that were made in this regard were crowd pleasers and vote winners.

But the highly anticipated tax program appears to have been pushed down the administration’s to-do list. Indeed, there have been reports that it may not come until late in the fall.

GOP divisionsYes, the GOP wants tax change – but they can’t agree on specifics. Their “consensus” warrants aren’t good enough Schoen 7-20

John W. Schoen is an award-winning online journalist, who has reported and written about economics, business and financial news for more than 30 years. He is economics reporter for CNBC.com - “Tax reform battle could be worse than health-care brawl” – Reuter’s – July 20th- #CutWithKirby - http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/20/tax-reform-battle-could-be-worse-than-health-care-brawl.html

The recent congressional wrangling over Obamacare may turn out to be tame compared with the looming fight over your taxes.

Despite widespread, bipartisan agreement that U.S. tax rules need to be rewritten, there's little consensus on how to go about it. That's one reason it's been three decades since the last major overhaul, when President Ronald Reagan fulfilled a campaign promise that helped him win a landslide victory in 49 states.

"He sent [his tax reform bill] to the Hill and said, 'This is what the American people sent me here to do,'" recalled Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a Republican economist in the George H.W. Bush administration. "And it still died twice on the way to getting passed. So, that

proves you need a lot of political tail winds to get it done, and I don't think anything suggests we're in that kind of environment."

With the GOP health reform effort on life support, many Republicans are eager to move on to

another major campaign pledge to cut taxes on corporations and individuals to help spur profit growth and raise wages. But the wide support for those goals has done little to close the political fault lines opened up by the fractious health-care debate.

Even without a heightened partisan backdrop, there's a long list of critical, often conflicting issues confronting proponents of tax reform. The ultimate goal, most agree, is to provide balanced tax relief across upper-, middle- and lower-income households and lower the tax rates on corporations to spur hiring and investment, all while making changes that are "revenue neutral" and don't add to the government's budget deficit.

But any change will produce winners and losers, most of whom will apply political pressure to any line in the law that hurts.

Tax Reform won’t pass – GOP can’t agree on the specificsCook 7-19

et al; Nancy Cook is a White House reporter for POLITICO. Prior to joining the White House team, she covered the Trump presidential transition and health care for POLITICO Pro. She’s also worked as a reporter and editor for Newsweek, National Journal, and Fast Company, focused on economic policy, taxes, and business reporting. She also worked as an elections producer at NPR during the 2008 presidential campaign. Originally from Connecticut, she graduated from Carleton College in Minnesota as well as the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism – “Tax reform becomes a must-win issue for the White House” - Politico – 07/19/2017 - #CutWithKirby - http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/19/tax-reform-becomes-must-win-for-trump-240691

“If Republicans fail to repeal or at least substantially roll back Obamacare, it raises the stakes dramatically to pass into law a big, bold tax-reform plan,” said Tim Phillips, who leads Americans for Prosperity, the political group backed by the Koch brothers.

“On the political side, the biggest problem that Republicans could face in 2018 is not a partisan battle. It's a sense of incompetence and inability to govern that will be most painful,” said Josh Holmes, a longtime McConnell adviser and former chief of staff.

“Unless they can figure out how to reverse this quickly, you can see where this cascades into more issues past health care,” Holmes added.

But consensus on the political value of achieving tax reform ahead of the 2018 midterm elections does not equal agreement on the policy details — and that could bedevil Trump's next big policy push,

just as the health care effort was undermined by insurmountable differences between moderates and conservatives in the Republican Caucus.

Won’t pass – McCain

Tax Reform won’t pass – McCain’s absence proves.Bobic 7-20

Igor Bobic is an associate editor who helps oversee The Huffington Post's coverage of politics and policy in Washington, D.C. - “What Could Happen If John McCain Doesn’t Return To Congress” – Huffington Post – July 20 th, 2017 – #CutWithKirby - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-mccain-congress_us_5970ce73e4b0110cb3ccd17d

If McCain opts to stay in the Senate, but his health forces him to remain absent from the body, the implications could loom large for Trump and pose problems for the Republican legislative agenda in Washington.

The Arizona senator’s absence has already had an impact on the legislative calendar. Senate Majority Leader

Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was forced to delay a critical vote on the Senate health care bill after McCain announced he had undergone a surgery to remove a blood clot from above his left eye last week.

Without McCain, who indicated he would at least vote to proceed to debate the legislation, McConnell’s task of securing the

support of holdouts becomes much tougher. Republicans would functionally hold just a one seat majority in Senate, not two as they do now, with Vice President Mike Pence able to cast tie-breaking votes.

In the face of uniform Democratic opposition, McConnell can already only afford to lose two Republican votes on a Senate health

care bill. If McCain were unavailable to vote on that and other key legislation, however, McConnell would face additional difficulties uniting his caucus and may even be forced to seek Democratic votes.

One fewer solidly Republican vote could also seriously imperil legislation concerning tax reform and infrastructure, two items on Trump’s agenda that McConnell has said he wants to move to next. Tax reform, in particular, looks like a potentially even more difficult task than the endangered health care bill.



Won’t Pass—Healthcare**** note: these cards are also under the thumper section because healthcare obviously distracts from tax reform, but they’re included here because they are also reasons why the bill will have difficulty passing.

Tax reform won’t pass – health care failure kills tax agenda.Whitley 7-19

Jason Whitely of the News Station WFAA - Internally quoting Matt Mackowiak, Potomac Strategy Group and chair of the Travis County Republican Party. “If Trump loses on Obamacare, tax reform gets harder” – WFAA – July 19 th, 2017 – #CutWithKirby - http://www.wfaa.com/news/politics/if-trump-loses-on-obamacare-tax-reform-gets-harder/458042795

If President Trump cannot get Congress to repeal and replace Obamacare, then other major components of Trump's legislative agenda could be in jeopardy.

"The sequencing here was intentional. They wanted to start with healthcare because if they removed the taxes from the Obamacare plan, it was going to free up an additional $1 trillion they could apply to tax reform. Now they won't have that likely,” said Matt Mackowiak, Potomac Strategy Group and chairman of the Travis County Republican Party.

Repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act was a staple of President Trump’s campaign. Congressional Republicans have run on that same promise for seven years.

"Look, the agenda is imperiled right now. We've never seen a president without major legislative accomplishments this late into their new term. We just haven't seen that," Mackowiak added.

Won’t pass – health care failure makes tax reform harder. Egger 7-18

Internally quoting US Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) - Andrew Egger is a white house reporter for The Weekly Standard - “How Trump's Battle for Tax Reform Will Be Fought” - Weekly Standard – July 18, 2017 – #CutWithKirby - http://www.weeklystandard.com/how-trumps-battle-for-tax-reform-will-be-fought/article/2008900

But passing tax reform is unlikely to be much easier than passing health-care legislation. In the Senate, Republicans will likely be working with the same narrow margins that have bedeviled them in health care, as no Democrats are expected to support the legislation. And the failure of health-care itself is a problem. Asked how the death of the health-care repeal will impact the timeline for tax reform, Sen. Hatch replied, “It makes it more difficult, let's put it that way."

Senate rules requires healthcare before tax. Associated Press 6/29 - Associated Press, News Source, 6/29/17("GOP health-care struggles could put tax reform at risk," published by CNBC, Available online at

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/29/gop-health-care-struggles-could-put-tax-reform-at-risk.html, Accessed 7/7/2017, AJ)

It is important for Congress to resolve the health bill before moving on to a tax overhaul.

Here's why: The health bill provides nearly $1 trillion in tax cuts that won't add to the nation's mounting debt.

Republicans are counting on those tax cuts to help them write a new tax code that raises less money.

Also, Republicans are using a complicated rule that enables the Senate to pass both a health bill and a tax package with a simple majority, preventing Senate Democrats from blocking the legislation. Under the rule, Congress has to resolve health care -- by either passing a bill or killing it -- before lawmakers can pass a tax package.

"They need to resolve health care one way or another before they do tax reform," said Rohit Kumar, a former tax counsel for McConnell who is now with PwC.

Healthcare comes first – without it, tax reform is doomed.Primack 3/24 - Dan Primack, Journalist for Axios, 3/24/17("4 reasons healthcare reform failure threatens tax reform," published by Axios, Available online at https://www.axios.com/4-reasons-healthcare-reform-failure-threatens-tax-reform-2328416506.html, Accessed 7/7/2017, AJ)

Stocks rebounded in late trading on Friday, after news that President Trump's healthcare bill wouldn't even get a House vote. Traders apparently believe this will accelerate tax reform, since D.C. won't be bogged down by a Senate fight over healthcare that would send it back to the House, rinse and repeat. But here are five reasons why the healthcare failure could spell trouble for tax reform:

We now know that Congressional Republicans are willing to buck Trump and leadership on big-ticket legislative items.

Republicans will need to keep working on healthcare reform, even though Trump says that he's done with it. They've campaigned for years on killing Obamacare , and can't head into the midterms without giving it another go. Particularly when they keep insisting that the current scheme is collapsing?

CBO said that the Republican healthcare bill would shrink long-term budget deficits by hundreds of billions of dollars . Without it, filling the tax revenue hole becomes harder .

Sean Spicer today said repeatedly that Trump had talked to "everyone " and listened to "all" ideas, which reflects zero consideration of Congressional Democrats . If such sentiment persists ― it just

raises the degree of difficulty for tax reform , particularly if the White House doesn't change its position on keeping corporate tax reform tied to personal tax reform.

Passing health care first is necessary for projects of tax reform.Lea 3/22 - Brittany Lea, Journalist for Fox Business, 3/22/17("Health Care Domino: Why Trump's Tax Cuts Depend on the ObamaCare Repeal," published by Fox Business, Available online at http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/03/22/health-care-domino-why-trumps-tax-cuts-depend-on-obamacare-repeal.html, Accessed 7/7/2017, AJ)

Reconciliation requires a bill to reduce the deficit over the long-term. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the American Health Care Act would reduce federal deficits by $337 billion over the next ten years.

Tax reform , on the other hand, won’t be as straightforward.

“[Repealing the ACA first] would give them extra money to play around with for tax reform . Tax reform wouldn’t have to be revenue neutral. It would end up being revenue neutral on a dynamic level but the CBO doesn’t always measure all the dynamic effects,” Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former Trump transition team member and former chief economist for the U.S. Department of Labor, told FOX Business.

Speaker Ryan’s health care bill is designed to reduce taxes and spending, which will help improve deficit projections . The idea is health care will improve the baseline and pave the way for the tax overhaul, Paul Howard, senior fellow director in health policy at the Manhattan Institute, told FOX Business.

Healthcare thumps---congress will only work on tax after healthcare is passedBoris Epshteyn 7/03, served in the White House as Special Assistant to The President and Assistant Communications Director for Surrogate Operations, 7/03/17, “Opinion: Tax reform is next on the agenda,” http://wjla.com/news/bottom-line/opinion-tax-reform-is-next-on-the-agenda

WASHINGTON (Sinclair Broadcast Group) - Washington, D.C., the beltway, has been locked in on healthcare reform. And It’s easy to get swept up in the coverage of that one hot topic. The fact is, Americans care deeply about multiple fronts that impact their day-to-day lives. Tax reform was a vital part of the campaign and remains a key concern for Americans. So, let’s break it down. Where do we stand on taxes and what is the expected timeline? In April of this year, the White House released a one-page memo highlighting some of their goals for tax reform. One of the biggest changes to the current tax code in the memo is to take the seven current tax brackets and reduce it to three brackets: 10 percent, 25 percent and 35 percent. The White House also wants to double the so-called standard deduction, so that a married couple won’t pay any taxes on the first $24,000 of their income, and lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%. The White House and Republicans in Congress are on board with getting tax reform bills passed by the end of 2017.However, a delay in getting a healthcare bill passed will delay tax reform as well. The GOP moved on healthcare first partly due to Senate rules and partly because repealing and replacing "Obamacare" would help reduce federal deficits and allow more room so that tax reform wouldn’t have to be revenue neutral. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said that they are working with the administration now to come up a “transformational tax reform plan.” So, why is tax reform so important? "But if we are going to truly fix our tax code, we have to fix all of it—both for individuals and businesses. Why? Because this will create jobs," Ryan said in a speech last week. There is criticism from Democrats who contend that the proposed changes would primarily provide a tax cut for the wealthy and unnecessarily expand the deficit. Having said that, there are those in the administration who see the potential for some bipartisan, yes bipartisan, support for tax overhaul. The administration, together with the House and Senate, are continuing to forge ahead on making real change to the tax code. It is clear that there is a commitment to tax reform. However, it does appear that the repeal and replace

of "Obamacare" has to get done first, with tax reform following right behind. That’s the Bottom Line.

Won’t Pass— Laundry List – 2ACTax reform won’t pass – no bill, GOP splinters, delayedGoldman 6-2 [David Goldman, CNN MoneyStream senior editor, 6-2-2017 “Trump says his tax bill is 'moving along.' Except it doesn't exist” http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/02/news/economy/donald-trump-tax-bill/index.html]

President Trump says Congress is working hard to pass his tax reform bill.

" Our tax bill is moving along in Congress , and I believe it's doing very well ," he said at a Rose Garden speech on Thursday.

One problem: There is no tax bill.

The only evidence of a White House tax strategy is a bunch of rhetoric from Trump's economic team

and a one-page outline hastily presented to the public in April. Trump called the proposal "one of the biggest tax cuts in American history."

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and White House National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn began pressing Republican members of Congress

in mid-May to get on board with Trump's tax agenda. But no legislation has emerged.

"I think a lot of people will be very pleasantly surprised," Trump said of the phantom tax bill . "The Republicans are working very, very hard. We'd love to have support from the Democrats, but we may have to go it alone. But it's going very well."

Historically, tax reform has been among the most difficult tasks for Washington to accomplish.

Just about every legislator has a pet tax incentive that he or she is unwilling to part with. Even in a GOP-controlled House and Senate, Republican lawmaker s could splinter if they are asked to back a plan that many economists and budget analysts warn will increase deficits .

So far, the White House has insisted that the plan will "pay for itself" through economic growth. But

there is no evidence to suggest tax cuts can pay for themselves . At best, growth may make up for a fraction of the cost.

The Trump administration had initially hoped that tax reform could be accomplished before Congress' August recess. But without an actual bill to debate, even Mnuchin told the F inancial T imes recently that his time frame is "not realistic at this point."

Won’t Pass –Laundry List— 1ARTax reform won’t pass – there’s no actual bill or evidence it’s coming together, no strategy and there’s already GOP splinters – Goldman

No GOP unity, anything that can pass is too moderate, not enough timeSherfinski 6-7 [David Sherfinski covers politics for The Washington Times, “Tax reform promise by GOP may not be kept before recess” 6-7-2017 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/7/tax-reform-promise-by-gop-may-not-be-kept-before-r/]

Tax officials at some of America’s biggest companies are discounting chances that Republicans will be able to

rewrite the tax code by next year, saying Wednesday that they’re going about “business as usual.”

The bearish assessment suggest s little faith in the GOP, which has for years promised a massive tax code overhaul if voters gave the party control of Washington.

Now in control, however, Republicans have struggled to find unity on a plan that can flatten the code while not sending the country spiraling into debt or angering key constituencies.

Meaningful tax reform by next summer is “less likely than not, ” said Jeffrey Maydew, who works in global tax planning at the legal firm Baker McKenzie.

And big changes are unlikely to happen at all if things don’t materialize by early next year, said Christopher J. Wolter, vice president of tax for Boeing, who says he’s “less optimistic than I was” about major action before next summer.

Dave Koenig, vice president for tax at the Retail Industry Leaders Association, a trade group, said it depends on the definition of “meaningful.”

“I think we will have tax legislation,” Mr. Koenig said. “Whether it is comprehensive tax reform or more of a tax cut we’ll see.”

But Judith Lemke, vice president of tax at Corning Incorporated, a glass manufacturing company, said she cautioned her management team earlier this year not to get too excited about the prospect for major changes until the plans actually came out.

“It’s hard to count on tax reform,” said Ms. Lemke, who was also a top adviser to former Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus.

“In the meantime, we continue to plan sort of business as usual with a very close eye on tax reform. I think the calendar is getting quite challenging,” she said.

The business leaders were speaking at an event in Washington, D.C., hosted by Bloomberg BNA as House, Senate and White House officials try to jump-start momentum on the issue before lawmakers head home for their August recess.

“We’re all on board to do it this year,” Gary Cohn, director of the White House National Economic Council, said Wednesday on Fox News.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch said at the BNA event he ’s generally optimistic about the prospects for

some sort of tax package , but said lawmakers should temper desires to “swing for the fences.”

“While I think we should be ambitious, we must also be realistic,” the Utah Republican said. “At the end of the day, any bill or proposal that can’t get 51 votes in the Senate and 218 votes in the House is, not to put too fine a point on it, a waste of time.”

Mr. Hatch said he’s willing to stomach an initial drop in revenue from lower tax rates if it puts the economy on a path for growth. In addition to lowering individual rates, House Republicans have proposed cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent, while the White House wants an even steeper corporate rate cut, to 15 percent.

But Mr. Wolter said there simply aren’t enough viable revenue offsets to bring rates down to the levels the GOP wants.

“The math doesn’t work,” Mr. Wolter said. “It’s $100 billion over 10 years for each point you take off the rate, and there’s not enough things to add up to what you’re going to get down to.”

Ms. Lemke also reminded people that Republicans have plenty on their plate outside of taxes , including health care, the looming debt ceiling fight and the ongoing investigations into Russia n interference in last year’s election.

“I mean, it just starts to be a daunting calendar ,” she said. “If you don’t get something done in the first quarter of next year, then

you’re starting to look at elections, right, and the closer you get to elections, the less people want to talk about tax reform.”

Freedom Caucus blocks budget – imperils tax reformGolshan 6-12 [Tara Golshan, Policy & Politics Reporter for Vox, 6-12-2017 https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/12/15769282/conservatives-threat-budget-trump-tax-reform]

The most conservative faction of House Republicans is posturing to derail President Trump’s tax plans — an issue on which he desperately needs a legislative win — if he and GOP leaders do not agree to sweeping cuts to food stamps and other safety net programs. Their demands would amount to even more pain for the poorest Americans than Trump has already proposed, in order to fund tax cuts that would primarily benefit the very rich.

That faction, the House Freedom Caucus, has been emboldened by extracting key concessions from Trump

in order to pass his health care bill through the House last month. Its members are now effectively threatening to impound a budget resolution that is crucial to any hopes Republicans have of cutting taxes this year, unless the party agrees to $300 billion in social service cuts.

The Freedom Caucus is feeling the strength of its leverage over GOP moderates and the administration — it knows that without it s members’ votes , the budget is doomed , and with it, for the next year at least, any hope of passing tax cuts through the Senate on a strictly party-line vote.

“Right now a budget cannot pass in the House of Representatives — it can’t,” conservative Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)

said at an event Friday with the Heritage Foundation, hinting at divisions among Republicans . “If you don’t get a budget agreement , you can’t get reconciliation. Without reconciliation you can’t do tax reform ,” he added.

Consensus of economic forecastersSchoen 6-5 [John W. Schoen is an award-winning online journalist, who has reported and written about economics, business and financial news for more than 30 years. He is economics reporter for CNBC.com, and was a founder of msnbc.com, CNBC and public radio's Marketplace. 6-5-2017 “Economists don’t expect tax reform, infrastructure boost to happen this year” http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/05/economists-dont-expect-tax-reform-infrastructure-boost-to-happen-this-year.html]

The Trump administration's plans to overhaul the tax system and spend big on infrastructure would give the U.S. economy a

boost — but the measures aren't likely to happen this year, according to a national survey of business economists.

Roughly 4 in 5 members polled by the National Association for Business Economics said they don't expect to see an infrastructure spending package

enacted until next year or later. Nearly 3 in 5 said they don't expect to see a tax reform package before next year.

Overall, the group expects the pace of growth in gross domestic product to pick up later this year, peaking at 3.1 percent in the third quarter, before easing back a bit. But their forecast calls for 2.2 percent growth for all of 2017 and 2.4 percent for all of next year.

That's roughly in line with the latest estimates from the Federal Reserve, but lower than the Trump administration's long-term annual growth target of 3 percent or better.

In its latest budget proposal, the White House has hedged that goal a bit, projecting economic growth of 2.3 percent this year, gradually rising over the next few years before hitting 3 percent in 2020.

Overall, the group doesn't see a recession on the near-term horizon. More than 90 percent pegged the odds of a recession this year at less than 25 percent, and nearly 80 percent giving the same recession odds for next year.

The June NABE Outlook surveyed 52 professional economic forecasters between May 2 and May 16.

Will Pass – Trump StatementsTrump statements are posturing – there’s not even a bill – everyone is working on health careKoeneman 6-2 [Briana Koeneman Digital Content Producer at Newsy, “President Trump Praised A Tax Reform Bill That Doesn't Exist” 6-2-2017 http://www.newsy.com/stories/donald-trump-praised-tax-reform-bill-that-doesn-t-exist/]

On Thursday, President Donald Trump had nothing but good things to say about a certain tax bill.

"Our tax bill is moving along in Congress, and I believe it's doing very well . I think a lot of people will be very

pleasantly surprised," Trump said. "The Republicans are working very, very hard. We'd love to have support from the Democrats, but we may have to go it alone. But it's going very well."

Problem is, that bill doesn't exist yet.

The Trump administration and Republican lawmakers have said they hope to pass a tax reform plan this year.

But no tax bill of any kind has been introduced in the House or the Senate. And the White House has only released a one-page summary of its proposal.

GOP leaders have decided to focus on repealing and replacing former President Barack Obama's signature health care law

before tackling tax reform.

But even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he doesn't know if Senate Republicans will be able to get the votes needed to pass an Obamacare replacement bill.

Impact Defense/Turns

A2: Growth Econ’s resilient – shocks don’t spill overPosen, 16 – Adam S. Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics and external voting member of the Bank of England’s rate-setting Monetary Policy Committee, “Chapter 1: Why We Need a Reality Check”, REALITY CHECK FOR THE GLOBAL ECONOMY, Peterson Institute for International Economics, PIIE Briefing 16-3, March 2016

A combination of public policies and decentralized private-sector responses to the crisis have increased our economic resilience , diminished the systemic spillovers between economies , and even created some room for additional stimulus if needed. Large parts of the global financial system are better capitalized, monitored, and frankly more risk averse than they were a decade ago, with less leverage.

The riskier parts of today’s global economy are less directly linked to the center ’s growth and

financing than when the troubles were within the United States and most of Europe in 2008. Trade imbalances of many key economies are smaller , though growing, and thus accumulations of foreign debt vulnerabilities are also smaller than a

decade ago. Most central banks are now so committed to stabilization that they are attacked for being too loose or supportive of markets, making them at least unlikely to repeat some policy errors from 2007–10 of

delaying loosening or even excessive tightening. Finally, corporate and household balance sheets are far more solid in the US and some other major economies than they were a decade ago (though not universally), and even in China the perceptions of balance sheet weakness exceed the reality in scope and scale.

U.S. not keyMolavi 11 – Afshin Molavi, Senior Fellow and Co-Director of the World Economic Roundtable at the New America Foundation, “US Economic Power is Part of a Healthier Global Order”, The National, 7-4, http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/comment/us-economic-power-is-part-of-a-healthier-global-order#full

Thus, the world faces the prospect of America slipping quietly into a "lost decade" of sluggish growth - of America sneezing and wheezing and coughing, but not

facing a crisis moment. What will this mean for the world? Japan 's growth throughout the 1970s and 1980s bolstered many of

their Asia n trading partners . Japan's demand was a boon. But Japan's lost decade in the 1990s did not stop the Asian tigers from rising. In some cases,

countries such as South Korea and Taiwan even benefited from the Japanese slowdown, stealing away market share in key industries. The same may

happen with an American "lost decade". A World Bank report in late 2009 noted that Latin America n countries - the most exposed to American contagion -

did not feel severe effects from the American crisis. The same goes for other emerging markets. So , perhaps the world will shrug off a steady American economic decline over the next five years. This is partly because the global economic pie is not a fixed size. As "the rest" rise, it grows. Thus, America controlled a quarter of the world's GDP in 1970 - roughly the same as today. But the pie is much bigger. Global GDP has tripled since 1970 and Asia today accounts for a quarter of global GDP . The pie is not only larger , but it is more balanced . Will there even be a "lost decade" after all? American corporations are sitting on large piles of cash. The problems with the economy have as much (perhaps more) to do with business confidence as with fundamentals. That could change. To be sure, the world is better off when America grows and produces and innovates. But if the declinists prove correct, then the cliché of

"when American sneezes" will truly be tested once and for all. Or perhaps the world will be too busy to notice: emerging markets will be growing their middle classes, oil-rich Middle East states will be bolstering ties to Asia, and Chinese investments will flow across Africa and Latin America. And that sneezing $14 trillion (Dh51.4 trillion) economy would still be the envy of most countries around the

world. We can put the cliché to rest: an American sneeze might not breed a global cold after all .

No war – empirics-Specifically says nationalism/democracy/game theory/liberal institutionalist norms won’t lead to war if they occur

-Says no diversionary theory because public w/n demand war

Jervis, 11 (Professor PolSci Columbia, ’11 (Robert, December, “Force in Our Times” Survival, Vol 25 No 4, p 403-425)

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 .

Economy resilient---consumer spending and job growthCrutsinger 16 – MARTIN CRUTSINGER and PAUL WISEMAN, AP reporter, US economy looks resilient as retailers, industry surge, Jul. 15, 2016, http://bigstory.ap.org/article/9e8527b30aed40628afcba6ebfbdffb6/us-economy-looks-resilient-retailers-industry-surge

WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans spent more money at retailers and factories revved up production in June, offering encouraging signs of the U.S. economy's resilience in the face of global headwinds.

Industrial production shot up 0.6 percent, fueled by a big rebound in auto output. It was the best showing since last August. Meanwhile, retail sales also rose 0.6 percent last month, three times the gain in May, with demand strong in a number of areas.

Inflation pressures remained modest, with consumer prices climbing 0.2 percent in June. Prices are up just 1 percent from a year ago, still well below the Federal Reserve's 2 percent target.

The new reports Friday came a week after the government's blockbuster jobs report, which showed the economy created 287,000 jobs in June . It marked a major bounce back after a

dismal gain of just 11,000 jobs the previous month. May's result, coupled with a lackluster showing in April, had raised worries that the U.S. jobs machine was starting to sputter.

Analysts said the strong job growth in June and solid consumer spending should provide good momentum for the economy heading into the second half of the year.

Brexit provesRugaber 16 – CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER, AP Economics Writer,Robust Hiring Gain in June Points to a Resilient US Economy, Jul. 8th, 2016, http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=40431184&sid=74

A burst of hiring in June provided a reassuring sign that the U.S. econo my will likely withstand global weakness that may be magnified by Britain 's decision to leave the E uropean U nion.

Last month's gain — 287,000 jobs, the most since October 2015 — showed that employers shook off a hiring slump in April and May and suggested that the econ omy will continue to grow steadily .

May's scant job gain of 11,000 and April's modest 144,000 increase had raised fears that the job market was weakening after months of solid growth. The United Kingdom's "Brexit" vote late last month to bolt the European Union escalated concerns that the global economy could slip into a recession and that the United States would be affected.

The June hiring figures, released Friday, were calculated before the Brexit vote. But the robust job growth served as a reminder that through much of the U.S. econ omy's seven-year recovery from the Great Recession, it has repeatedly withstood crises and recessions overseas .

"We still rank among the best among the industrial economies," said Patrick Newport, an economist at IHS Global Insight said. "We're about the only ones doing OK right now."

Investors registered their relief Friday by sending stock prices soaring. The Dow Jones industrial average closed up about 251 points, or 1.4 percent.

The economy had expanded at just a 1.1 percent annual pace in the first three months of the year. But rising consumer spending, a recovering housing market and further strong job gains could accelerate growth in the coming months .

Government safety nets solveZakaria 9 (Fareed, Ph.D. in Political Science – Harvard University and Editor – Newsweek International, “The Secrets of Stability”, Newsweek, 12-21, Lexis)

One year ago, the world seemed as if it might be coming apart. The global financial system, which had fueled a great expansion of capitalism and trade across the world, was crumbling. All the certainties of the age of -globalization--about the virtues of free markets, trade, and technology--were being called into question. Faith in the American model had collapsed. The financial industry had crumbled. Once-roaring emerging markets like China, India, and Brazil were sinking. Worldwide trade was shrinking to a degree not seen since the 1930s. Pundits whose bearishness had been vindicated predicted we were doomed to a long, painful bust, with cascading failures in sector after sector, country after country. In a widely cited essay that appeared in The Atlantic this May, Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, wrote: "The conventional wisdom among the elite is still that the current slump 'cannot be as bad as the Great Depression.' This view is wrong. What we face now could, in fact, be worse than the Great Depression." Others predicted that these economic shocks would lead to political instability and violence in the worst-hit countries. At his confirmation hearing in February, the new U.S. director of national intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, cautioned the Senate that "the financial crisis and global recession are likely to produce a wave of economic crises in emerging-market nations over the next year." Hillary Clinton endorsed this grim view. And she was hardly alone. Foreign Policy ran a cover story predicting serious unrest in several emerging markets. Of one thing everyone was sure: nothing would ever be the same again. Not the financial industry, not capitalism, not globalization. One year later, how much has the world really changed? Well, Wall Street is home to two fewer investment banks (three, if you count Merrill Lynch). Some regional banks have gone bust. There was some turmoil in Moldova and (entirely unrelated to the financial crisis) in Iran. Severe problems remain, like high unemployment in the West, and we face new

problems caused by responses to the crisis--soaring debt and fears of inflation. But overall, things look nothing like they did in the 19 30s .

The predictions of economic and political collapse have not materialized at all. A key measure of fear and fragility is the ability of poor and unstable countries to borrow money on the debt markets. So consider this: the sovereign bonds of tottering Pakistan have returned 168 percent so far this year. All

this doesn't add up to a recovery yet, but it does reflect a return to some level of normalcy. And that rebound has been so rapid that even the shrewdest observers remain puzzled. "The question I have at the back of my head is 'Is that it?' " says Charles Kaye, the co-head of Warburg Pincus. "We had this huge crisis, and now we're back to business as usual?" This revival

did not happen because markets managed to stabilize themselves on their own. Rather, governments , having learned the lessons of the Great Depression, were determined not to repeat the same mistakes once this

crisis hit. By massively expanding state support for the economy--through central banks and national treasuries--they buffered the worst of the damage . (Whether they made new mistakes in the process remains to

be seen.) The extensive social safety nets that have been established across the industrialized world also cushioned the pain felt by many. Times are still t ough, but things are nowhere near as bad as in the 19 30s , when

governments played a tiny role in national economies. It's true that the massive state interventions of the past year may be fueling some new bubbles: the cheap cash and government guarantees provided to banks, companies, and consumers have fueled some

irrational exuberance in stock and bond markets. Yet these rallies also demonstrate the return of confidence, and confidence is a very powerful economic force. When John Maynard Keynes described his own prescriptions for economic growth, he believed government action could provide only a temporary fix until the real motor of the economy started cranking again--the animal spirits of investors, consumers, and companies seeking risk and profit. Beyond all this, though, I believe

there's a fundamental reason why we have not faced global collapse in the last year. It is the same reason that we weathered the stock-market crash of 19 87 , the recession of 19 92 , the

Asian crisis of 19 97 , the Russian default of 19 98 , and the tech-bubble collapse of 20 00 . The

current global economic system is inherently more resilient than we think. The world today is characterized by three major forces for stability , each reinforcing the other and each historical in nature.

Can withstand shocksZumbrun 12 – Zumbrun & Varghese 5/9 2012, *Joshua Zumbrun and Romy Varghese are writers for Bloomberg Businessweek, “Fed’s Plosser Says U.S. Economy Proving Resilient to Shocks,” http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-05-09/fed-s-plosser-says-u-dot-s-dot-economy-proving-resilient-to-shocks, AJ

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 .” “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 .”

A2: Pharma

Impact is empirically denied -- tax reform fails for biopharmaStatNews, 2/10 -- “Will pharma use a tax break to create new jobs? That’s not what happened last time,” https://www.statnews.com/2017/02/10/pharma-tax-break-jobs/

Drug makers are promising to create tens of thousands of American jobs if President Donald Trump follows through on his promise to give them a big tax break if they “repatriate” cash they’ve stashed overseas. But that’s not what happened last time pharma got a tax holiday . Instead, drug makers used the tens of billions they brought back to the US to enrich their CEOs and drive up their stock prices. Rather than adding jobs, they laid off thousands of workers. In

the end, the 2004 tax holiday cost the US government $3.3 billion in lost revenue and did nothing to increase employment or investment in research, according to a Senate report. “This is one of the

very few cases where we have a very clear experiment: Congress enacted a policy, and we have data

and analyses showing that it was a failure on the promises that were made ,” said Chye-Ching Huang, deputy director of the progressive

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Still, Trump wants to try it all again. Right now, repatriation taxes can reach up to 35 percent . On the campaign trail,

Trump said he’d institute a one-time rate of 10 percent to encourage companies to bring their cash home and invest domestically. The holiday — in addition to Trump’s promised tax cuts and regulatory reforms —

will help the drug industry add up to 350,000 jobs over the next 10 years, according to Stephen Ubl, CEO of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the industry lobbying group. But here’s

what happened after an even steeper repatriation tax cut in 2004: Pfizer repatriated $35.5 billion — more than any other company — and

then proceeded to cut nearly 12,000 jobs over the next three years. Payouts to its executives increased by $13 billion during that

period. Johnson & Johnson moved $10.7 billion into the US, and then shed more than 4,000 employees while hiking executive pay by $32 billion. Merck repatriated $15.9 billion, laid off 1,000 workers, and boosted

executive pay by more than $20 billion. Only two major drug makers added jobs after repatriating: Schering-Plough and Wyeth, which collectively hired more than

7,500 people within three years of the holiday, according to the Senate report, released in 2011. But those gains were quickly negated. In 2009, Pfizer bought Wyeth

for $68 billion and laid off more than 20,000 workers. The same year, Merck acquired Schering-Plough for $41 billion and cut 15,000 people from its payroll. There’s little reason to assume a second repatriation holiday would fare any differently , economists say.

Pharma growth locked in despite the patent cliff Bioassociate 12 – consulting firm, provides expertise-based consulting and research services to private investors, investment banks, institutional investors and investment entities in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and life science sectors, June 2012, “The significance and apparent repercussions of the 2009-2015 pharmaceutical patent cliff,” http://www.bioassociate.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Bioassociate-The-significance-and-apparent-reprecussions-of-the-2009-2015-pharmaceutical-patent-cliff.pdf

In terms of revenue, current global research-based market leaders include Pfizer, GSK, Novartis and Roche,

which contribute to the industry's total revenues of over US$ 800 billion a year (Table 1). Although for the most part market leaders are considered specialized (mostly focused on prescription medication and animal health), individual business strategies of leading multinationals vary greatly. The market leader Pfizer, for instance, only spends ~US$ 7.9 billion annually on internal R&D and its R&D-to-sales ratio trails at only 15%, in contrast with the industry's average of 19%. Despite this, Pfizer continues to lead the market, owing to its immense strength in mediating reputable M&A deals which contribute to its considerable inorganic growth. In contrast, Lilly - a highly specialized player, boasts a 19.8% R&D-to-sales ratio and is hoping to

cushion its patent cliff fall with 64 molecules currently in clinical trials, nearly half of which are biologies. Despite the patent cliff and tougher price-focused governmental reg ulation s, the ethical pharma industry continues to grow at healthy rates of 5- 8% a year and is predicted to firmly sustain these levels

for the next five years , largely due to entry into "pharmerging markets'' such as Brazil, Russia and China. The global pharma industry is expected to expand to over US$ 1.1 trillion by 2014.

No pharma collapse – patent cliff wrongJonathan Yates 13, founder of EarnedMediaUnlimited, author of thousands of articles for Seeking Alpha, The Washington Post, AOL Daily Finance, Foreign Policy, and The Motley Fool, 3/25/13, “Drug Companies Have Rebounded From The Patent Cliff With Acquisitions Now On The Mind,” http://seekingalpha.com/article/1298241-drug-companies-have-rebounded-from-the-patent-cliff-with-acquisitions-now-on-the-mind

With the " Patent Cliff" proving to be every bit as overblown a threat to drug companies as the "Fiscal Cliff" was to the country, investors have returned back to the pharma ceutical sector in full force.

It was not that long ago that the patent cliff, the period when a slew of lucrative drug patents would expire, such as Lipitor for Pfizer (NYSE: PFE), led to Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) downgrading multinational pharmaceutical companies such as AstraZeneca (NYSE: AZN), Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline (NYSE: GSK), Novartis AG (NYSE: NVS), Novo Nordisk and Roche. In the report, "An Avalanche of

Risk? Downgrading to Cautious," it was warned that "the operating environment for pharma is worsening rapidly."

But Big Pharma has recovered very nicely, despite the concerns of Morgan Stanley . Year to date, Pfizer is up more than 13%. Novatris AG is higher by 15.84% for 2013. Over the same period, GlaxoSmithKline has risen by 7.47% with AstraZeneca increasing 5.66%.

Even though these firms have rebounded, each is still facing strong competition from generic drug companies such as Teva (NYSE:

TEVA). Large pharmaceutical companies continue to be pressured to produce a new pipeline of drugs , either through research & development or acquisitions. Based on activity in the market as it moves beyond the hollow specter of the patent cliff , there is a definite interest in buying up companies with promising efforts.

Firms making progress in the war against cancer such as Dendreon Corp. (NASDAQ: DNDN) and Advaxis (OTCQB: ADXS)

always draw attention. Dendreon has its prostate cancer drug Provenge already approved by the Food and Drug

Administration. Advaxis is developing the next generation of immunotherapies for cancer and infectious diseases.

Both of these companies have the potential that attracts the attention of individual investors and institutions. Sales of Provenge, an autologous cellular immunotherapy for the treatment of certain types of prostate cancer, are projected to increase by some analysts. Advaxis has more than 15 constructs in various stages of development that are not only distinct, but many are in strategic collaborations with such heavyweights as the National Cancer Institute, Cancer Research - UK, the Wistar Institute, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of British Columbia, the Karolinska Institute, and others.

Advaxis' lead construct, ADXS-HPV, was honored as the Best Therapeutic Vaccine (approved or in development) at the 5th Annual Vaccine Industry Excellence (ViE) Awards. Earlier this month, it was announced that Advaxis was nominated for the "Best Early-Stage Vaccine Biotech" Vaccine Industry Excellence (ViE) Award. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics created these awards to recognize the accomplishments and contributions for the previous year in the vaccine industry. The VIE Awards are selected by the medical journal, Expert Reviews of Vaccines.

While honors and awards light up a press release, investors only care about the glow from the bottom line .

For the global market for immunotherapies from companies such as Advaxis and Dendreon, sales are estimated

to be about $40 billion. For cancer vaccines, sales are projected to rise to $8 billion. As detailed in a previous article at Seeking Alpha, there are concerns about the financial stability of Dendreon, as Provenge is very expensive and costs need to be cut for the company to be viable for the future. In the future, Advaxis is protected by 77 issued and pending

patents. For a Big Phama concern moving beyond its brush with the patent cliff, those are very compelling features.

Big pharma insulated from the impact of the patent cliff Bioassociate 12 – consulting firm, provides expertise-based consulting and research services to private investors, investment banks, institutional investors and investment entities in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and life science sectors, June 2012, “The significance and apparent repercussions of the 2009-2015 pharmaceutical patent cliff,” http://www.bioassociate.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Bioassociate-The-significance-and-apparent-reprecussions-of-the-2009-2015-pharmaceutical-patent-cliff.pdf

Despite the apparent doom and gloom , many investors remain faithful to the industry, as most agree that the scepticism itself is likely to considerably undervalue some good players . 56% of investors still believe now is a good time to invest , specifically in pipelines focused on autoimmune disease and oncology24. Moreover, there are pharmaceutical companies which have not been strongly affected by the cliff, such as Abbott (which retains exclusivity of its blockbuster Humira), whose share price has reflexively suffered during the time of gloom more than it perhaps deserved.

From an optimistic point of view, even without robust pipelines, products which are already on the market will still be generating revenue. Moreover, pipelines are being replenished, and, banally speaking, the only way after hitting rock bottom is up. The pharma industry also benefits from relatively strong immunity against general economic fluctuation : the iShares Dow Jones U.S. Pharmaceuticals Index, which measures the performance of the pharma sector on the US equity market, has actually outperformed the Dow Jones industrial Average throughout the economic turmoil by nearly 30%. Interestingly, it's most pronounced growth spurt occurred at the onset of the cliff, and has positively surged in recent months as investors realized that the industry was perhaps better equipped to bear the fall than they expected (Fig. 33).

Pharma’s learned from the past---adaptation guarantees resilience MBA 14, Michael Bailey Associates, consulting firm geared towards IT, Telecommunications, Finance, Pharmaceutical and Oil and Gas, 8/8/14, What do patent expirations mean for the pharma industry?, www.michaelbaileyassociates.com/news/pharmaceutical/what-do-patent-expirations-mean-for-the-pharma-industry

Well, maybe not. Lisa Urquhart of pharma analysts EP Vantage told Casey Research that although the figures regarding patent expiration's and expected sales losses for the next couple of years look depressing, the situation is actually not that bad .

"The efforts the industry has put in to change business models, which have included investing more in niche busters, mean this time round things might not be as bad ," she explained. Indeed, we are seeing some rather interesting trends emerging within big pharma in response to this new environment where generic competition is rife.

How are patent expiration's reshaping the industry?

There are two rather interesting things happening within big pharma as the loss of exclusivity on the production of blockbuster drugs hits the industry's major players. The first is a greater focus on r esearch and d evelopment as drug makers look to replace the old with the new.

It seems the patent cliff is ushering the pharmaceutical industry into a new wave of product innovation, and this time companies have learned the lessons of the past . Instead of ploughing money into a small number of big blockbuster drugs, they are looking to diversify their product portfolios and create smaller volumes of specialist drugs.

It's this focus on niche, specialised areas that is prompting the second major trend in pharmaceuticals at the moment, and that is an increase in merger and acquisition activity . So far this year we've seen a number of takeovers, tie-up and asset swaps as companies look to refocus their activities and concentrate on what they do best.

One example was the deal between Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), which saw Novartis purchase GSK's cancer drugs and GSK acquire Novartis' vaccines business. This allowed both companies to build on their respective expertise in the areas of oncology and immunisation. It also meant they could free up resources by getting rid of assets in areas where they stood little chance of competing on a global scale.

This kind of restructuring could be what saves big pharma firms from suffering the kind of losses they did two years ago, allowing them to weather the next phase of the patent cliff more easily. And of course, patent expirations are also having huge benefits for generic drug makers, who are busy replenishing their portfolios with new products and expanding into new markets and territories.

A2: Disease

Disease won’t cause extinctionFarquhar 17 – Sebastian Farquhar, Leader of the Global Priorities Project (GPP) at the Centre for Effective Altruism, et al., “Existential Risk: Diplomacy and Governance”, https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/Existential-Risks-2017-01-23.pdf

1.1.3 Engineered pandemics

For most of human history, natural pandemics have posed the greatest risk of mass global fatalities.37 However, there are some reasons to believe that natural pandemics are very unlikely to cause human extinction . Analysis of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) red list database has shown that of the 833 recorded plant and animal species extinctions known to have occurred since 1500, less than 4% (31 species) were ascribed to infectious disease .38 None of the mammals and amphibians on this list were globally dispersed, and other factors aside from infectious disease also contributed to their extinction. It therefore seems that our own species , which is very numerous , globally dispersed , and capable of a rational response to problems, is very unlikely to be killed off by a natural pandemic . One underlying explanation for this is that highly lethal pathogens can kill their hosts before they have a chance to spread, so there is a selective pressure for pathogens not to be highly lethal . Therefore, pathogens are likely to co-evolve with their hosts rather than kill all possible hosts .39

A2: Bioterror

No impact to bioterror

Synthetic biology is hard, terrorists won’t do it – empirics, scale up, storage, dissemination, tech, logistical, healthy people, public health

Dvorsky 14 [George Dvorsky contributing editor at io9 and producer of the Sentient Developments blog and podcast. Dvorsky currently serves as Chair of the Board for the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies 9-19-2014 http://io9.com/are-the-threats-from-synthetic-bioweapons-being-exagger-1636829313]

The advent of synthetic biology and DNA synthesis has raised concern that amateurs will use these tech nologies to turn pathogens into weapons of mass destruction . But as experts point out ,

this may be far easier said than done . As argued by Catherine Jefferson, Filippa Lentzos, and Claire Marris — all researchers in the Department

of Social Science, Health, and Medicine at King's College London — there are several dominating narratives currently permeating scientific

and policy discussions on the security threat posted by synthetic biology. They can be summarized like this: Synthetic biology is making it easier for non-experts to manipulate dangerous pathogens and, therefore, making it easier for terrorists to concoct

bioweapons. Synthetic biology has led to the growth of a do-it-yourself biology community that could offer dual-

use knowledge and equipment to bioterrorists seeking to do harm. DNA synthesis has become cheaper and can be out-sourced, making it easier for terrorists to obtain

the basic materials to create biological threat agents. Non-experts could use synthetic biology to design radically new pathogens. Terrorists want to pursue biological weapons for high-consequence, mass- casualty attacks. But these narratives , they say, rely on several misleading assumptions : Synthetic biology is not easy , DIY biology is not particularly sophisticated, building a dangerous virus from scratch is hard — and even experts have a hard time enhancing disease pathogens. Perhaps alarmingly — at least to me

— the authors claim that the bioterror weapons of mass destruction is a myth: The first [dimension of this myth] involves the identities of terrorists and what their

intentions are. The assumption is that terrorists would seek to produce mass-casualty weapons and

pursue capabilities on the scale of 20th century, state-level bioweapons programs. Most leading biological disarmament and non-proliferation experts believe that the risk of a small-scale bioterrorism attack is very real and present. But they consider the risk of sophisticated large-scale bioterrorism

attacks to be quite small . This judgment is backed up by historical evidence . The three confirmed

attempts to use biological agents against humans in terrorist attacks in the past were small-scale , low-casualty

events aimed at causing panic and disruption rather than excessive death tolls. The second dimension involves capabilities and the level of skills and resources

available to terrorists. The implicit assumption is that producing a pathogenic organism equates to producing a weapon of mass destruction. It does not. Considerable knowledge and resources are necessary

for the processes of scaling up , storage , and dissemination . These processes present significant tech nical and logistical barriers . They go on to argue that, even if a bioweapon were to be disseminated

successfully, the outcome of the attack could be affected by other factors, like the " the health of the people who are exposed and the speed and manner with which public health authorities and medical professionals detect and respond to the

resulting outbreak."

Note: Internally quoting Catherine Jefferson, Filippa Lentzos, and Claire Marris — all researchers in the Department of Social Science, Health, and Medicine at King's College London

A2: Competitiveness – 2AC

U.S. competitiveness is high and resilientRodriguez 16 (Michelle Drew, Michelle leads many of Deloitte’s Manufacturing Competitiveness research efforts as part of her role as the Manufacturing Leader for Deloitte’s Center for Industry Insights. She is an accomplished professional with 15 years of strategic and operational experience, having worked directly in the automotive industry as well as currently serving as an advisor to global manufacturing executives. She and her team have worked on a number of efforts that explored the future trends impacting the manufacturing industry, from the boardroom to the shop floor. She has most recently authored multiple research studies on the topic of manufacturing. The foundation of the research Michelle leads is based on dozens of interviews with CEOs, CTOs, governmental leaders, university presidents, national laboratory leaders, and labor union leaders as well as collaboration with organizations such as World Economic Forum, Council on Competitiveness, NAM, and The Manufacturing Institute. She has a MBA from the University of Michigan (Ross School of Business) and also holds a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Wisconsin. “Innovation drives competitiveness. But what drives innovation?” 7/25/16 https://innovation-in-manufacturing.deloitte.com/2016/07/25/innovation-drives-competitiveness-but-what-drives-innovation/)

Research shows advanced manufacturing is more essential than ever to economic

competitiveness and prosperity. But what is involved in driving, sustaining, and applying the innovation that makes a company or country a leader in advanced manufacturing? In this

post, I’ll explore the drivers that make the US a leader in innovation. Research and development (R&D) certainly plays a role, but the real key may be an intangible one: the innovation ecosystem.¶ The US innovation ecosystem has evolved significantly over the last century, transitioning from business monopolies dominating R&D early last century, assertive government sponsorship mid-century, to the current environment, within a globally connected world in which small and big businesses collaborate with universities, venture capitalists, and research institutions to drive the innovation ecosystem. Meanwhile, the technological focus of R&D has followed a similar arc, shifting from the creation of physical to digital products, to the more recent formation of new business models that combine the physical and digital worlds to create and capture new forms of value.¶ With capital, intellectual property, and talent flowing across borders with limited constraints, the United States faces fundamental questions of great importance to the future of its innovation ecosystem: How can it best cultivate the potential of advanced technologies to spur competitiveness? Can the United States continue to lead given the research spend and talent within

other nations? No one entity houses all the brightest people or best ideas – the answer lies with looking outside your traditional walls.¶ Insights from our recent Advanced Technologies Initiative: Manufacturing and Innovation study indicated that, when it comes to tangible factors such as R&D spend, the U nited States is a clear leader . ¶ We spend more on R&D in raw dollars than any other nation . 2¶ We account for about one-third of the globe’s R&D spending. In comparison, the next-largest share is China’s, at less than one-quarter of the global total. The other eight in the top 10 barely surpass the US share when all combined.¶ This strong set of R&D

capabilities reaches across many industries. In a recent global study3 that assessed R&D leadership in 10 top sectors, the United States was ranked number one for seven of those 10 sectors.¶ But we may not stay in the lead for long. Other countries are ramping up their spending. Some with far smaller R&D footprints—like Japan and South Korea—already outpace us in two

measures of R&D intensity: spend as a percentage of GDP and researchers per million inhabitants.¶ As the graphic below shows, from 2000 through 2013, South Korea, China, and Taiwan dramatically expanded

their R&D intensity in both respects, while the United States made little change over the same period.¶ And what about the US’s global lead in raw-dollar R&D spending? Experts predict China is on a pace to

pass us by 2019.4 China already focuses more of its R&D on commercializing new technologies, while the US focuses a significant core on basic and applied research.5¶ The “secret sauce” of innovation¶ R&D

spend alone isn’t a defensible advantage for the US. Other countries can—and do—increase their investments. And someday in the not too distant future they may very well

surpass us. Does that mean we’ll lose our leadership? No. The enduring strength of US innovation , or of any nation’s capacity to invent, is more complicated than the number of dollars spent on R&D alone.¶ What matters is the innovation ecosystem –the complex collaboration between private business, government, academia, finance, independent research,

and other functions to bring new products and services to market . An effective innovation ecosystem

marshals top talent, allows ideas to flow, and lowers barriers to breakthroughs. The US’ entrepreneurial spirit and substantial funding from venture capital firms are huge competitive advantages and key differentiators for the country. It remains the center for “disruptive innovation” thanks to its research infrastructure and low barriers to entrepreneurs and start-ups . ¶ It’s also more resilient with the sum being greater than the individual parts . That’s one of the hidden strengths of what the US brings to the challenge: Key stakeholders within our ecosystem

have evolved over time to become less siloed and more collaborative. With the increasing

pace of digitalization across the manufacturing industry, its innovation ecosystem has become a more closely connected system with stronger linkages between government, small business, big business, universities, venture capitalists, and research

institutions that leverage and benefit from the deeper knowledge and connectivity between each other.¶ What’s next?¶ The US innovation ecosystem must continue to evolve to maintain our competitive

position. To stay ahead, key players in the ecosystem should regularly analyze our relative position within the global innovation environment, identify challenges, and capitalize on our strengths.¶ For example, the US is a pioneer in basic and applied research. That’s long been a strength. But spending in these areas has stagnated over the last decade and the government contribution has shrunk as a percentage of the overall federal budget. This puts research performed at government-sponsored institutions at potential risk. Executives indicated that as basic and early applied research takes more time to deliver results in terms of tangible products and technologies, and how/when/where the learnings will be precisely applied aren’t known, it thereby makes it more difficult for shorter term sector specific businesses to nurture it properly. To keep our competitive edge, the government needs to maintain investment levels in the basic and early applied research to ensure a strong foundation for future success. While many other economies across the globe have increased their government R&D support, how should the innovation ecosystem respond? We need to focus on building efficient and effective collaboration and tech transfer mechanisms

between basic and applied research as well as through to scale-up commercialization.¶ The health, adaptability, and success of a nation’s innovation ecosystem ultimately determines its competitiveness. When the ecosystem works, there is a continuous and self-reinforcing cycle in which breakthroughs bring new technologies and products to market, sales and profits increase, and companies invest more in R&D. Our nation’s success hinges on the ability of industry, government, and research labs to work together and engage in ongoing dialogue about creating an environment in the US that continues to promote competitive R&D work and innovations in advanced manufacturing.

Competitiveness isn’t key to hegWohlforth et al 8 (William, Dartmouth government professor, 2008 World out of Balance, International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy, pg 32-5,ldg) American primacy is also rooted in the county's position as the world's leading technological power. The United States remains dominant globally in overall R&D investments, high-technology production, commercial innovation, and higher education (table 2.3). Despite the weight of this evidence, elite perceptions of U.S. power had shifted toward pessimism by the middle of the first decade of this century. As we noted in chapter 1, this was partly the result of an Iraq-induced doubt about the utility of material predominance, a doubt redolent of the post-Vietnam mood. In retrospect, many assessments of U.S. economic and technological prowess from the

1990s were overly optimistic; by the next decade important potential vulnerabilities were evident. In particular, chronically imbalanced domestic finances and accelerating public debt convinced some analysts that the U nited S tates once again confronted a competitiveness crisis .23 If concerns continue to mount, this will count as the fourth such crisis since 19 45 ; the first three occurred during the 1950s (Sputnik), the 1970s (Vietnam and stagflation), and the 1980s (the Soviet threat and Japan's challenge).

None of these crises, however, shifted the international system's structure: multipolarity did not return in the 1960s, 1970s, or early 1990s, and each scare over competitiveness ended with the American position of primacy retained or strengthened.24 Our review of the evidence of U.S. predominance is not meant to suggest that the United States lacks vulnerabilities or causes for concern. In fact, it confronts a number of significant vulnerabilities; of course, this is also true of the other major powers.25 The point is that

adverse trends for the United States will not cause a polarity shift in the near future. If we take a long view of U.S. competitiveness and the prospects for relative declines in economic and technological dominance, one takeaway stands out: relative power shifts slowly . The United States has accounted for a quarter to a third of global output for over a century. No other economy will match its combination of wealth, size, technological capacity, and productivity in the foreseeable future (tables 2.2 and 2.3). The depth, scale, and projected longevity of the U.S. lead in each critical dimension of power are noteworthy. But what truly distinguishes the current distribution of capabilities is American dominance in all of them simultaneously. The chief lesson of Kennedy's 500-year survey of leading powers is that nothing remotely similar ever occurred in the historical experience that informs modern international relations theory. The implication is both simple and underappreciated: the counterbalancing constraint is inoperative and will remain so until the distribution of capabilities changes fundamentally. The next section explains why.

It’s not zero sumYoung 7 (John, Former Chair and CEO – Hewlett Packard, Founder – Council on Competitiveness, George Fisher, Retired Chair and CEO – Eastman Kodak Company, Paul Allaire, Chair Emeritus – Xerox Corporation "Competitiveness Index: Where America Stands" http://www.compete.org/images/uploads/File/PDF%20Files/ Competitiveness_Index_Where_America_Stands_March_2007.pdf)

http://www.compete.org/images/uploads/File/PDF%20Files/%20Competitiveness_Index_Where_America_Stands_March_2007.pdf

http://www.compete.org/images/uploads/File/PDF%20Files/%20Competitiveness_Index_Where_America_Stands_March_2007.pdf

Competitiveness is not a zero-sum game . The success of other economies is not a failure of U.S. competitiveness – a job created there does not mean a job lost here, a new R&D lab built there does not mean one lost here, a rise in another country's

exports does not necessarily mean a decline in ours . As all nations improve their productivity, wages rise and markets expand, creating the potential for rising prosperity for all. There is no fixed pie of global demand to be divided, but almost unlimited human needs to be met .

A2: Competitiveness – Resilient – 1AR

competitiveness will be inevitably high- that’s rodriguez

1. r&d spending-

2. resilience-

3. innovation ecosystem-

4. Industrial IOT adoptionBatra 16 (Raj, president of the Digital Factory Division for Siemens USA, and is responsible for overseeing all development, marketing, sales, R&D, vertical industry and manufacturing aspects for DF in the United States. In addition to his responsibilities at Siemens, which he joined in 1993, Batra is a member of the Board of Governors of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) and a member of the President’s Council of the Manufacturers Alliance for Productivity and Innovation (MAPI). Prior to Siemens, Batra worked as a sales engineer and product manager developing automation solutions for discrete manufacturing and process industries. “HANNOVER MESSE: US Manufacturing Is Resilient, Innovative, Increasingly Digital” 4/18/16 http://www.industryweek.com/digital-tools/hannover-messe-us-manufacturing-resilient-innovative-increasingly-digital)

Next week, the United States manufacturing sector will have the spotlight at the world’s biggest industrial fair, Hannover Messe.¶ This is the first time since the inaugural German fair in 1947 that the United States was chosen as the partner country — and the timing could not be better. Hannover is a global demonstration of the digitalization of industry that is leading us toward the Industrial Internet of Things and a Fourth Industrial Revolution. And the United States, represented by more than

400 companies, has an opportunity to show that we’re ready to embrace this revolution.¶ America is indeed poised to drive the Industrial Internet of Things forward. With a proven track record in innovation, software development, and university education, we are in a strong position to make rapid progress. ¶ But U.S. manufacturers still have a long road ahead of them. Capital investments have been lagging for some time and our manufacturing infrastructure is becoming obsolete. The technology that we hold in our hands every day bears little resemblance to the 1980s equipment seen in many factories. Even digitally mature manufacturers admit that parts of their operations still rely on PCs with floppy disk drives running DOS. And perhaps no one captured the challenges facing U.S. manufacturers better than Gregg Sherrill, Chair of the Board of the National Association of Manufacturers and Chairman and CEO of Tenneco Inc., at the recent Manufacturing in America event, held in Detroit.¶ “The speed of change,” he said, “is not linear. Companies don’t just want to keep up; they want to be trend-setters.”¶ To be trend-setters, manufacturers must leverage state-of-the-art industrial hardware and increasingly sophisticated industrial software. But the reality is, the U.S. manufacturing sector has a growing gap — as McKinsey & Company recently put it — between industry’s digital “haves,” “have nots” and “have mores.” While some are boldly setting trends, too many are hesitating and taking a wait-and-see approach to

digitalization.¶ Still, I’m optimistic that U.S. manufacturing will achieve IIoT for three reasons. ¶ First, the benefits of digitalization to both our economy and industry cannot be ignored. According to McKinsey, digitalization offers the United States an opportunity to boost GDP by as much as $2.2 trillion by 2025. For industry, the rewards are not only faster product releases, but increased productivity , reduced downtime, better utilization of assets and materials, and much more flex ibility. ¶ Second, modernizing our industrial base means creating better jobs . The world of advanced manufacturing will not run itself. That’s why it’s incumbent upon industrial players to partner with government and academia to promote a mindset of life-long learning and continuous skill development — especially in science, technology, engineering and math fields, the STEM program. Students gain valuable, real-world experience

using the technology that they’ll encounter when they enter the manufacturing workforce. Third, as early adopters demonstrate the benefits of digitalization, more industrial companies , both large and small, will answer the digital call. I’ve seen incredible progress by the early adopters in our customer base. These manufacturers are in a position to harvest big data and shift more of the design, testing, and engineering phases of production to the virtual world — steps that can facilitate mass customization and cut time to market by up to 50%. This is the essence of IIoT. ¶ U.S. manufacturing has already shown that i t’s incredibly resilient . We’ve been battered by headwinds for nearly two years . The rise in the value of the dollar has put incredible pressure on U.S . exports. North America has sustained most of the energy world’s layoffs , capex cuts, and rig

closures. But we’ve also seen incredible success es such as 15-year highs in auto sales last year, trillion dollar backlogs in aerospace, and the construction of brand new factories.¶ Now is the time to build on this momentum — and achieve a real, sustainable manufacturing

renaissance — by embracing digitalization. Everyone is starting this journey in a different place, but all are moving toward the same destination: IIoT, and an era in which U.S. industry is more competitive than ever before.

5. Innovation absorption Beckley 12 (Michael, Harvard International Security Program research fellow “China’s Century? Why America’s Edge Will Endure” 2012 International Security 36.3, lexis, ldg)In theory, globalization should help developing countries obtain and absorb advanced technology. In practice, however, this may not occur because some of the knowledge and infrastructure necessary to absorb certain technologies cannot be specified in a blueprint or contained within a machine. Instead they exist in peoples’ minds and can be obtained only through “hands-on” experience. The World Bank recently calculated that 80 percent of the wealth of the United States is made up of intangible assets, most notably, its system of property rights, its efficient judicial system, and the skills, knowledge, and trust embedded within its society. If this is the case, then a huge chunk of what separates the United States from China is not for sale and cannot be copied. Economies and militaries used to consist primarily of physical goods

(e.g., conveyor belts and tanks), but today they are composed of systems that link physical goods to networks, research clusters, and command centers. 72 Developing countries may be able to purchase or steal certain aspects of these systems from abroad, but many lack the supporting infrastructure, or “absorptive capacity,” necessary to integrate them into functioning wholes. 73 For example, in the 1960s, Cummins Engine Company, a U.S. technological leader, formed joint ventures with a Japanese company and an Indian company to produce the same truck engine. The Japanese plant quickly reached U.S. quality and cost levels while the Indian plant turned out second-rate engines at three to four times the cost. The reason, according to Jack Baranson, was the “high degree of technical skill . . . required to convert

techniques and produce new technical drawings and manufacturing specifications.” 74 This case illustrates how an intangible factor such as skill can lead to significant productivity differences even when two countries have access to identical hardware. Compared to developing countries such as China, the U nited S tates is primed for technological absorption. Its property rights, social networks, capital markets, flexible labor laws, and legions of m ultinational

companies not only help it innovate, but also absorb innovations created elsewhere. Declinists liken the U.S. economic system to a leaky bucket oozing innovations out into the international system. But in the alternative perspective, the United States is more like a sponge, steadily increasing its mass by soaking up ideas, technology, and people from the rest of the world. If this is the case, then the spread of technology around the globe may paradoxically favor a concentration of technological and military capabilities in the United States.

6. Ease of innovationEngardio 8 – senior writer for Business Week, (Pete, Is US Innovation Headed Offshore?, 5/7/8, Business Week)

To those worried about America's ability to compete in the 21st century, the trend is alarming: Just as key manufacturing industries fled offshore in the 1970s and '80s, U.S. companies are now shifting more engineering and design work to low-cost nations such as China, India, and Russia. Surely, innovation itself must follow . Apparently not,

according to a new study published by the National Academies, the Washington organization that advises the U.S. government on science and technology policy. The 371-page report titled Innovation in Global Industries argues that, in sectors from software and semiconductors to biotech and logistics, America's lead in creating new products and services has remained remarkably resilient over the past decade —even as more research and development by U.S. companies is done offshore . "This is a good sign," says Georgetown University Associate

Strategy Professor Jeffrey T. Macher, who co-edited the study with David C. Mowery of the University of California at Berkeley. "It means most of the value added is going to U.S. firms, and they are able to reinvest those profits in innovation ." The report, a collection of papers by leading academics assessing the impact of globalization on inventive activity in 10 industries, won't reassure all skeptics that the globalization of production and R&D is good for the U.S. One drawback is that most of the conclusions are based on old data: In some cases the most recent numbers are from 2002. Exporting the Benefits? And while the authors of the report make compelling cases that U.S. companies are doing just fine, thank you, none of the writers addresses today's burning question: Is American tech supremacy thanks to heavy investments in R&D also benefiting U.S. workers? Or are U.S. inventions mainly creating jobs overseas? A few years ago, most people took it for granted that what was good for companies was good for the greater economy. But the flat growth in living standards for most Americans during the last boom has raised doubts over the benefits of globalization. "Innovation shouldn't be an end in itself for U.S. policy," says trade theorist Ralph E. Gomory, a research professor at New York University's Stern School of Business. "I

think we have to address whether a country can run on innovation. If you just do R&D to enhance economic activity in other countries, you are getting very little out of it." Gomory, a former top IBM (IBM) executive, retired in 2007 as president of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, which funded the National Academies study. Still, given all the debate over offshoring, the report's central

findings are interesting. The authors marshal a wealth of evidence to show that, thanks to innovation, globalization hasn't eroded U.S. leadership even in some industries where there has been a substantial offshore shift in engineering and design. Despite an explosion of outsourcing to India and Ireland, for example, America's software industry still trumps the rest of the world in exports of packaged software and services, patent activity, and venture capital investment. The U.S. also accounts for 90% of chip-design patents —the same level as 1991—although Asian companies now do most of manufacturing. And when it comes to biotechnology, the U.S. is way ahead, luring more venture capital than all other countries combined. America First The U.S. even remains a heavyweight in personal computers , the study says, though China and Taiwan manufacture most of the hardware. That's because the real innovation and profits still belong to companies like Microsoft (MSFT) and Intel (INTC), makers of the operating system and central processors, while U.S. brands command 40% of the global market and still define breakthrough design.

7. Laundry listStelzer 14 (Irwin M, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute “America the Resilient” 10/18/14 http://www.hudson.org/research/10735-america-the-resilient)

Oh, woe! Ebola has come to America and 150 people from infected countries are landing here every day. ISIS is battering the Kurds, to whom we have not sent the weapons we promised, and will chase the Iraqi army out of Baghdad as soon as they finish taking over Kobani. Europe is headed into still another recession, its banks loaded down with bad loans as next week’s stress tests

approach, Italy and France are basket cases, the mighty German growth machine is stalled, the central bank paralyzed by the inability of EU members to persuade German chancellor

Angela Merkel to have mercy on their slumping economies. Three of the four once-touted BRICs are in trouble. Brazil, the world’s seventh largest economy, is in recession. Russia has bitten off a piece of Ukraine, whetting Vladimir Putin’s appetite for the Baltics despite an economy in chaos as a result of sanctions imposed by the West. China is in the midst of a property bust, another purge of enemies of the state, and experiencing a growth rate that has shrunk from over 7 to 6 percent (official data) or 3 percent (outside experts). Japan is reeling from

the effect of tax increases. Our political class has no idea what to do about any of these problems. Panic. Sell, sell. Or don’t. The world just might be too, too much

with us, distracting attention from America’s underlying strengths and enormous resilience. According to the latest report of Goldman Sachs’s Private Wealth Management Investment Strategy Group, “The notion of U.S. pre-eminence … has gained momentum in recent years . Since our 2020 Outlook … we have

held the view that the financial crisis ‘has not dealt a fatal blow to the US as the preeminent economic and geopolitical power.’” It’s worth taking a look at what the Goldman Sachs team calls “ the unparalleled strengths and resilience of the

US economy and US institutions.” Those advantages account for a widening gap between per-capita GDP in America and in China and the eurozone. The easiest one to understand is the importance of our abundant supply of energy — oil, low-cost natural gas, and coal. That resource base might be there because America is blessed, or merely lucky, but full access to it is a testament to American tech nological skills. Fracking enables us to tap resources that until recently could not be reached economically, making America the world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas liquids, and ere long converting the U.S. from a net oil and natural gas importer to an exporter. More important, our newly available abundance is driving down the price of gasoline, putting an average of $600 into the pockets of every household just as holiday-season promotions hit the shops, among other things inviting the kiddies to pick and lay-away their must-have toys right now. And because of what Ed Morse, head of Global Commodity Research at Citigroup, calls the “gritty robustness of our production base” anyone who thinks $80 per barrel crude will slow U.S. production are going to be unpleasantly surprised. More difficult to quantify is America’s leadership in the innovation derby. While Europe gropes for ways to rein in what has come to be called “the disrupters,” we accord them the status of heroes. Joseph Schumpeter, the great European economist who found a congenial home in America, at Harvard University, taught that “a perennial gale of creative

destruction … is the essential fact about capitalism.” While the EU scrambles for ways to protect existing industries and technologies from the competition of the Googles, Amazons, and Ubers, America accords them virtually free rein. Yes, there are powerful change-resisters in America, but in the long run they find that their only choices are to adapt or disappear.

Historian John Steele Gordon puts it this way, “Virtually every major development in technology in the twentieth century … originated in the U nited S tates or was principally industrialized and turned into consumer products here.” No surprise that the Chinese are stealing American intellectual property, rather than the other way around. Then there is demography , which is widely said to be a nation’s destiny. Nicholas Eberstadt , a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and arguably the nation’s leading demographer, recently surveyed the world’s “Demographic Future,” and writes in Foreign Affairs, “ The U nited

http://www.hudson.org/research/10735-america-the-resilient

http://www.hudson.org/research/10735-america-the-resilient

S tates will avoid the demographic stagnation and decline that faces most other OECD [high-income] countries … Unlike all other affluent countries, the United States can expect a growing pool of working-age people …

and it can expect a slower pace of population aging.” The U.S. population is growing, infused by young immigrants, legal and illegal, many (but unfortunately not all) of whom are expected to make a net contribution to national wealth. Over 80 percent of Americans live in urban areas , compared with about 50 percent worldwide, which suggests the much higher rate of innovation resulting from the low cost of interaction among creative elites. Eberstadt notes, “Urban centers are typically the hubs of economic growth.” Think San Francisco

and technology, Houston and oil, New York City and sheer dynamic energy. Not to be omitted from the list are America’s other assets: According to The Times Higher Education Supplement’s World University Rankings — a British publication that cannot be accused of pro-American bias — seven of the world’s top ten universities and fifteen of the top twenty are here in the United States. The dollar remains and will long remain the world’s reserve

currency, and the currency to which the world flees in times of crisis. America remains what President Obama, who cannot be accused of lusting after a large global U.S. global

footprint, in 2012 called “the one indispensable nation in world affairs”, a statement he is reluctantly realizing was truer than he then imagined. Thanks to the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, America, in the words of Goldman Sachs’ analysts, possesses “a relatively robust system of government with monetary and fiscal union and a centralized system of government with plenty of independence at the state and local level.” It hardly needs saying that we are not perfect. Political gridlock, executive-branch challenges to the

separation of powers, too many discouraged workers and rising inequality are among the ills that have a majority of Americans believing we are on the wrong track. But keep in mind the resilience of America, what Winston Churchill called our “gleaming flash of resolve” when faced with crises of the sort we now confront.

8. Tech industry boomCassagnol 15 (Danielle, Writer for the CEA, “New Tech to Drive CE Industry Growth in 2015, Projects CEA’s Midyear Sales and Forecasts Report” 7/15/15 http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150715006129/en/Tech-Drive-CE-Industry-Growth-2015-Projects#.VanNIflViko)

Consumer demand for emerging tech nology is redefining the consumer electronics (CE) landscape . According to the U.S. Consumer Electronics Sales and Forecasts, the semi-annual industry report released today by the Consumer

Electronics Association (CEA)®, retail revenues for the consumer electronics ( CE ) industry are now projected to grow 2.4 percent in 2015 to reach $285 billion, led by 101 percent year-over-year growth in emerging product categories. CEA’s consensus forecast reflects U.S. factory sales to dealers and covers more than 100 CE products. The bi-annual report serves as a benchmark for the CE industry, charting the size and growth of underlying categories. Overall Revenue

Growth The July U.S. Consumer Electronics Sales and Forecasts report projects that total industry revenue will reach a high of $285 billion, accounting for retail markup, or $222.7 billion wholesale in 2015, a steady, 2.4 percent increase from $217.6 billion in sales in 2014. This midyear update is a slight downward adjustment from CEA’s projection in January,

following slow economic growth in the first half of the year. Looking ahead to 2016, CEA expects industry sales to grow by 2.7 percent , with industry revenues reaching an all-time high of $228.8 billion. “Consumer technology is about constant and continuous innovation and that is what we are seeing in 2015,” said CEA President and CEO, Gary Shapiro. “As the technology industry naturally ebbs and flows, a new class of tech is generating lots of enthusiasm among consumers. Emerging categories such as 4K Ultra HD, smart home and health and fitness technology, are the breakout stars driving the industry onward and upward.” Emerging Categories CEA’s forecast projects that revenues from emerging product categories will grow by 101 percent year-over-year in 2015. These developing technology categories include 3D printers, 4K Ultra High-Definition (UHD) televisions, connected home technologies, unmanned aerial vehicles (drones), health and fitness technology, home robots,

smart eyewear and smart watches. While the emerging product categories represent less than five percent of the entire CE industry revenue forecast, they are expected to contribute roughly $10 billion to overall CE revenue in 2015. Without these categories, overall industry revenue would not sustain any growth in 2015. A few of the stand out products include: Health and fitness technology: Led by the popularity of activity tracking devices, health and fitness devices will lead unit sales among all wearables in 2015 with a projected 20.3 million units (a 21 percent increase from last year), with revenue reaching $1.8 billion in 2015 (an 18 percent increase year-over-year). Connected Home Technologies: Including smart thermostats, smart smoke detectors, IP cameras, smart home systems, smart locks, connected switches, dimmers and outlets, the booming connected home technology industry is expected to reach $967 million in revenue in 2015, jumping 32 percent over last year. Drones: CEA market research expects 2015 to be a defining year for drones, with the category ideally positioned for steady growth. According to CEA projections, the U.S. market will approach $105 million in revenue in 2015 (increasing by more than 52 percent from 2014) with unit sales expected to approach 700,000, an increase of

63 percent. “The back half of the year should give way to improving financial conditions that will drive consumer spending, setting up a stronger second half for consumer tech , ” said Shawn DuBravac, Ph.D., chief economist of CEA and author of the New York Times best-seller Digital Destiny: How the New Age of Data Will

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150715006129/en/Tech-Drive-CE-Industry-Growth-2015-Projects#.VanNIflViko

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150715006129/en/Tech-Drive-CE-Industry-Growth-2015-Projects#.VanNIflViko

Transform the Way We Work, Live, and Communicate. “The test that remains for 2015 is if the impressive growth driven by nascent, emerging categories, as well as subsector growth, can offset some declines in mature categories and drive the tech industry towards sustained growth in 2015.”

A2: Competitiveness – Not Key Heg – 1AR

competitiveness isn’t key to heg- that’s Wohlforth – empirics prove- 4 competitiveness crises did nothing to alter the international order or bring about relative US decline

Not reverse causalEasterly 9 - William Easterly is Professor of Economics at New York University and Co-director of the NYU Development Research Institute, which won the 2009 BBVA Frontiers of Knowledge in Development Cooperation Award. (“Tiger Woods thoughtfully explodes “Halo Effect” myth in development,” http://aidwatchers.com/2009/12/tiger-woods-thoughtfully-offers-to-explode-%E2%80%9Chalo-effect%E2%80%9D-myth-in-development/ 12/14/2009) STRYKER

Our expectation that celebrities will be model citizens, contrary to vast evidence, is based on the Halo Effect. The Halo Effect is the idea that someone that is really, really good at one thing will also be really good at other things. We thought because Tiger was so good at being a golfer, he also must be very good at to have and to hold, forsaking all others, keeping thee only unto her as long as you both shall live…

What Tiger considerately did for our education was to show how the Halo Effect is a myth. This blog has a undying affection for those psychological foibles that cause us to strongly believe in mythical things, and the Halo Effect is a prime example (and the subject of a whole book on its destructive effects in business.) Why would marital fidelity and skillful putting have any correlation? OK fine and good, but many of you are asking: What the Vegas Cocktail Waitress does this have to do with development? The Halo Effect was discussed in a previous blog, but when assaulting

psychological biases, you can never repeat the attack enough. Not to mention that we all remember the psychology literature more easily when illustrated by a guy with 10 mistresses. So if we observe a country is good at say, technological innovation, we assume that this country is also good at other good things like , say, visionary leadership , freedom from corruption, and a culture of trust. Since the latter three are imprecise to measure (and the measures themselves may be contaminated by the Halo Effect), we lazily assume they are all good. But actually, there are plenty of examples of successful innovators with mediocre leaders , corruption, and distrustful populations . The US assumed world technological leadership in the late 19th century with presidents named Chester Arthur and Rutherford B. Hayes, amidst legendary post-Civil War graft. Innovators include both trusting Danes and suspicious Frenchmen. The false Halo Effect makes us think we understand development more than we

really do, when we think all good things go together in the “good” outcomes. The “Halo Effect” puts heavy weight on some explanations like “visionary leadership” that may be spurious . More subtly, it leaves out the more complicated cases of UNEVEN determinants of success: why is New York City the world’s premier city, when we can’t even manage decent airports (with 3 separate failed tries)? The idea that EVERYTHING is a necessary condition for development is too facile . The principles of specialization and comparative advantage suggest you DON’T have to be good at everything all the time.

Doesn’t translate into powerFerguson 3 (Niall–Tisch Professor of History at Harvard, Ziegler Professor at Harvard Business School, Professor of Financial History at NYU, Senior Research Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford University, Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Foreign Policy #134, 1-2/2003, pp. 18-22, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “Power,” JSTOR)

But GDP doesn’t stand for Great Diplomatic Power. If the institutions aren’t in place to translate economic output into military hardware —and if the economy grows faster than public interest in foreign affairs—then product is nothing more than potential power. America overtook Britain in terms of GDP in the 1870s, but it was not until the First World War that it overtook Britain as a global power . In any case, national growth rates in the next 20 years are unlikely to match those in the past three decades. Depressed Japan’s will almost certainly be lower, while growth in the United States might conceivably be higher, if there is any truth to the claim that U.S. productivity was permanently increased by the investments in information technology during the 1990s. And China will have trouble sustaining average annual growth rates of more than 5 percent in the coming decades. Already the Asian behemoth is suffering some serious social growing pains as market forces rend asunder what was once a command economy. Before 1914, Russia had the fastest growing economy in Europe . But the ensuing social polarization was the main reason Russia collapsed in 1917

A2: Base Support -- Resilient

Base support is resilientRadel 3-23 – Trey Radel, Former GOP House Representative, “Political Scandals Aren’t What They Used To Be. Just Ask Trey Radel.”, Washington Post Interview, 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/political-scandals-arent-what-they-used-to-be-just-ask-trey-radel/2017/03/23/136793d8-0f3f-11e7-ab07-07d9f521f6b5_story.html?utm_term=.6217c81ac1d9

The book goes inside the fundraisers, the glad-handing, and the sausage-making of Congress, all of which he found paired well with a couple Ketel One vodka-and-limes — plus, what it’s like when it all comes crashing down. The Post interviewed Radel, now 40, for his thoughts on sexts, drugs and Donald Trump. It appears below, condensed and edited for clarity.

Washington Post: If Donald Trump got busted buying cocaine, would the scandal end his presidency?

Trey Radel: Donald Trump is Teflon Don! I do know this — Donald Trump’s most hardcore, ardent supporters aren’t bothered by a damn thing , and that goes to show both the disdain for Washington, D.C. , and passion for anyone who goes against it . I know I sure didn’t help with the approval ratings of Congress. If we [had the popularity of] a root canal, I probably brought them down to [the level of] a colonoscopy myself.

WP: Okay, well, then, on the flipside — if you had been arrested in the Trump era instead of 2013, would it have still been a huge deal? Could you have ridden it out instead of resigning?

TR: I don’t know. Could I have pulled a Donald Trump, like a middle finger in the air? Possibly. I think that if we look at what happened in the national level with the ridiculousness of people upset with Donald Trump saying a bad word on a bus with Billy Bush — those national news stories , they came and went very quickly . I don’t think that necessarily happens on the local level as much. I broke a lot of hearts at home and it’s hard to get past that. I should have resigned right away, there’s no question about that. But in retrospect, me hanging on desperately was just. . . It was pathetic.

Policy issues are irrelevant McGrath 3-22 – David McGrath, Emeritus English Professor at College of DuPage, “What Trump Shares With Reagan, The Teflon President”, Chicago Tribune, 2017, http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/daily-southtown/opinion/ct-sta-mcgrath-column-st-0323-20170322-story.html

I never thought I would be comparing our 45th president to the country's 40th. But Donald Trump does share something important with Ronald Reagan.

People my age remember Reagan as the Teflon president . The reason was that his personal charm and glibness enabled him to fend off mistakes and criticism, so much so that few of the

barbs or accusations against him seemed to "stick," just as nothing sticks to the bottom of a Teflon frying pan .

In just one example, when the nation was struggling with a poor economy in the early eighties, ABC journalist Sam Donaldson thought he had him on the hot seat: "Mr. President, in talking about the continuing recession tonight, you have blamed mistakes in the past. You have blamed the Congress. Does any of the blame belong to you?"

"Yes," Reagan answered, "because for many years I was a Democrat!"

Similarly, as we have seen with Trump, neither his falsehoods, scandals , flip-flops, nor policy about-faces seem to have much of an effect on his own popularity , at least with his base .

Throughout his election campaign, when over 80% of Trump's statements were labeled false by Politi-fact, it didn't matter to supporters who continued to stand by him .

Even the infamous three minute recording of Trump boasting about how his stardom gave him license to grab women' s private parts did not stick detrimentally, as he went on to win the election after the type of scandal that would have cause d any other candidate to drop not only out of the race, but off the face of the earth . Just ask Gary Hart.

So, how has Trump managed to emerge from all the mud in his ascension to the presidency?

Unlike Reagan, he has not succeeded because of his wit. He is not articulate, nor quick on his feet. Who could forget his cringe-worthy rebuttal when Hillary Clinton suggested in a debate that he was Vladimir Putin's puppet: "No, you're the puppet."

And his generalizations ("...we're going to grow the economy so much.") and vitriol toward the media, are the antithesis of the style of Reagan, a.k.a. The Great Communicator.

But what won Trump the presidency was a huge block of voters who chose him primarily because he reminded them of themselves . His winning strategy was to echo the thoughts and feelings that he rightfully suspected were simmering inside his constituents' hearts: resentment against government, immigrants, African Americans, Hispanics, Muslims, academics, scientists and the media.

Finally, a like-minded presidential contender meant that their views were not just shameful manifestations of racism or lack of education. Trump made them legit.

A cartoon in a recent edition of the New Yorker captured this phenomenon with a drawing of a lone passenger standing up in the aisle of an airplane: "These smug pilots have lost touch with regular passengers like us. Who thinks I should fly the plane?"

In the drawing, all the passengers' hands are raised.

So, too, with Trump supporters, for whom it doesn't matter that he has never flown a jet. Doesn't matter if he decides to land somewhere else. Doesn't even matter if he turns over the controls to Mike Pence.

Therefore, Trump breaking his promise to deport 11 million immigrants does not stick, because as chief validator of their beliefs, he deserves loyalty, no matter what .

Trump University being exposed as a con job? Doesn't stick .

Bragging about sexual triumphs and assault? Doesn't stick .

The most recent step-back or lie that has taxpayers , and not Mexico, paying for the border wall? Doesn't stick.

In fact, because there are no negative consequences to what he said and did last year, last week, or yesterday, as far as his followers are concerned, Trump is proving to be more unaccountable than Reagan ever was.

base wont shiftMitchell 6/13 (John N., journalist @ Philly Tribune, “Trump's base ignores the obvious warts”, http://www.phillytrib.com/commentary/mitchell-trump-s-base-ignores-the-obvious-warts/article_b0fd7b74-8403-54c0-9c09-0903b2ba51f2.html)

Trump is winning, at least among his supporters, his war with the media. They buy his conspiracy theories – the story about wiretapping that has since been shot down by Comey and NSA Director Mike Rogers is the perfect example – as if they are gospel. News that does not paint him in a positive light is immediately determined to be “fake.” Anytime he speaks he is conducting a conversation with those who elected him. There is no attempt at unifying the country because that would prove his undoing. And while his favorability numbers continue to dip, just about every metric shows that the same people – rich or poor, smart or stupid and mostly white – who put him in office still hang on his every lying word. They are the people that put him in office, they support him unwaveringly, and if he isn’t impeached, something no one should count on, they will vote for him again.

A2: Trump Lashout

Constraints solve TrumpGoldsmith 17 (Jack, Henry L. Shattuck Professor at Harvard Law School, a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, and co-founder of Lawfare. He teaches and writes about national security law, presidential power, cyber security, international law, internet law, foreign relations law, and conflict of laws. He served as Assistant Attorney General at the Office of Legal Counsel from 2003-2004, and Special Counsel to the Department of Defense from 2002-2003. “Checks on Presidential Power Are Stronger Than You Think” 1-20-17 https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/north-america/checks-presidential-power-are-stronger-you-think-1091)

TCB: Which are the most resilient currently existing checks on his power, and which need to be bolstered?

JG: There are many, both inside and outside the Executive branch. On the inside, a bevy of lawyers, ethics monitors, inspectors general , and bureaucrats in the intelligence and defense communities have expertise, interests and values, and infighting skills that enable them to check and narrow the

options for even the most aggressive president s . On the outside, the press , which did such an extraordinary job of holding Bush, and to a lesser extent Obama, to account, is more motivated than ever to hold Trump accountable. The same goes for civil society groups like the ACLU, which have use d lawsuits, reports, and F reedom of Information Act requests to expose government operations and misdeeds since 9/11, and whose coffers have ballooned since Trump’s election. Spurred on by the press and civil society, the judiciary, which often stood up to Bush, will stand up even more to Trump if he engages in excessive behavior. Finally,

Congress has been more consequential in constraining the national security president since 9/11 than people realize. And as we have already seen in some pushback from Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Rand Paul (R-KY), it will stand up to Trump on many issues, even though his party nominally controls Congress.

None of these institutions are perfect. They are especially ill-suited to prevent the President from using military force as he sees fit,

which is why the Obama Administration’s precedents in this context are so troubling. But the institutions do a much better job in other national security contexts than they have been given credit for, and they will be watch ing president Trump with a very skeptical eye and an array of powers to push back.

A2: Diversionary War

Lash-out is empirically denied---Trump won’t just do it, Congress and public opinion checks or backlash from Flynn, Muslim Ban, or the Wall make it inevitable

No diversionary warBershidsky 17 – Leonid Bershidsky, Bloomberg View Columnist, Founding Editor of the Russian business daily Vedomosti and Founded Slon.ru, “Trump's Forever War of Diversion”, Bloomberg News, 1-25, https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-25/trump-s-forever-war-of-diversion

There's even a term for the tactic: "diversionary conflict." Faced with economic difficulties or other problems potentially threatening to its survival, the regime starts a war somewhere or sharpens domestic ethnic divisions. Since the oil price plummeted in late 2014, the Putin regime has kept Russians on a steady diet of war news from eastern Ukraine and Syria (Russia and its allies have been winning). With the Syrian operation, Putin sharply raised his international standing, but a big reduction in protests against worsening economic conditions has probably been more important to him.

In neighboring Ukraine, every time a government finds itself in trouble and particularly unpopular, the matter of the country's linguistic division surfaces, with various groups trying to promote or ban the Russian language. Former President Viktor Yanukovych used the language matter as cover for passing other unpopular legislation. Now, with president Petro Poroshenko's popularity at a nadir, reforms stalled and the cost of living rising sharply, Ukrainians are distracted by the discussion of a new language law that would make Ukrainian obligatory in public life, under threat of fines.

Trump doesn't need to start wars : He and his team know how emotional many Americans are about him. He can choose what he wants to be hated for -- preferably for something silly and unrelated to his actual priorities at the moment. He used this to his advantage during the campaign: His alleged sexual misconduct took up so much media time and public attention than issues like his business history, his tax returns and his proposals.

As the inauguration attendance argument played, Trump has been busy. Apart from starting the Obamacare rollback and withdrawing from the TPP , he has frozen a reduction of mortgage insurance premiums, allowed the Keystone Pipeline to go ahead and prepared to sign an executive order to begin construction of a border wall . Well aware that some of these important actions might cause indignation and targeted protest, Trump has tossed out another meaningless football for the media and the public to fixate on.

"I will be asking for a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states, those who are illegal and even those registered to vote who are dead," he

tweeted. Sure enough, at the time of this writing, the CNN story about this was the most shared in the last 24 hours, with news about the border wall order coming a distant second.

Just as it was unimportant how many people attended the inauguration, it doesn't matter at all at this point whether undocumented immigrants actually voted last November and whether any votes were cast for dead people. No one is challenging the results of the election. The wall and the Keystone Pipeline matter, yet are much smaller stories in terms of readership. Trump and his team are already showing a flair for diversion. Is it enough to discourage the kinds of mass protests that such aggressive moves on lightning-rod issues might spark? We'll know in the coming days and weeks, though protesters' energy was certainly sapped by the massive women's march, which took place before Trump actually did anything damaging to women's rights.

Trump's and his team's communications look awkward, inept, gallingly primitive. It's time to wise up: These people know what they're doing. They want their political opponents to be confused, to flail at windmills, to expend emotions on meaningless scandals to distract them from any targeted, coordinated action against specific threats . There are going to be many of these: Trump appears intent on keeping his promises. Calm concentration is needed to counteract dangerous policies.

Legislative Win = Solves Trump Lashout

Trump needs a legislative win or he’ll wag the dogBeutler 4/21 (Brian, staff @ New Republic, “When Donald Trump Needs a Win, America Loses”, https://newrepublic.com/article/142184/donald-trump-needs-win-america-loses)

To reassert himself as the humiliator, Trump will look to take decisive action of some kind elsewhere. With the legislative channel all but closed, he will find something in the administrative and foreign policy realms over which he exerts outright control. He could sabotage Obamacare by announcing an end to cost-sharing reduction payments. He could void the nuclear deal with Iran. He could provoke North Korea. But there is no historical precedent that allows us to comfort ourselves in the hope that he will accept defeat quietly. When Trump needs a “win,” we all lose.

Impact Turn---Growth---General

Hurts growth on balance – even assuming short term stimulusWhite 5/5 - Dan White, director at Moody’s Analytics in West Chester and an adjunct professor of economics at Villanova University, 5/5/17("Understanding tax reform, debt, and the economy," published by Philly, Available online at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/commentary/understanding-tax-reform-debt-and-the-economy-20170504.html, Accessed 7/10/2017, AJ)

Last month the White House released guidance on how it would like to reform the federal tax code,

and since then reviews have been predictably mixed. Often these evaluations have fallen squarely along party lines,

which can make it difficult to form an objective opinion. To make things a little easier, here are some of the most important things to consider when evaluating attempts at tax reform over the months ahead.

There are essentially four criteria across which all tax reform plans should be judged. The first three have to do with how taxes are collected, and the fourth concerns how much are collected . Tax reform should aim to make the tax code simpler, more transparent, and more equitable. President Trump’s proposal undoubtedly makes the tax code simpler and more transparent, though the jury is still out on equity until more details can be provided.

Thus the real concern among most critics of the plan comes when we consider the fourth measure, the plan’s cost. Based on similar proposals put forward in the past, the plan could cost several trillion dollars when all is said and done.

Different reviews of the tax plan as a whole largely stem from one’s viewpoint on this single issue, making it important to understand the arguments on both sides. To some, it’s a way to put money back into the pockets of consumers and businesses who will then spend and invest more into our economy. To others, it’s a giveaway of money we don’t have that will cause us to run up the national debt and/ or eliminate important government programs that help our economy grow .

The most confusing thing about this issue is that both groups are right, but how can this be?

First, let’s establish the fact. You’d be that cutting taxes by several trillion dollars would undoubtedly increase economic growth hard-pressed to find a reputable economist who would dispute that point. Tax cuts are always a key piece of any economic stimulus package because they very quickly put more money back into people’s pockets by not taking it out in the first place.

The only real problem with putting several trillion dollars back into the pockets of individuals and businesses is that the government subsequently has several trillion dollars less in revenue . When the government has several trillion dollars less in revenue, it has two options:

Spend less, or borrow more.

Governments in general, and especially ours, are not very good at spending less money. This is because it often results in very difficult political choices, especially when we decide to take the largest pieces of the budget — health care, Social Security, and other mandatory programs — off the table. On the other hand, governments are very good at borrowing money. Borrowing makes those tough spending decisions a lot easier, but it also comes with a cost.

Anyone who’s ever applied for a credit card knows that the higher your debt as a share of your income the less creditworthy you are generally determined to be. The less creditworthy you are, the higher your interest rate. In the government’s case this boils down to the national debt as a share of the economy, or GDP. As our government borrows more as a share of the economy, its interest rate, in this case the interest rate on Treasury bonds, will eventually go up.

Higher interest rates have an economic cost for all of us, making everything from credit card bills to business

loans more expensive. This negative impact can crowd out the positives from lower taxes. The key to the whole economic debate over the president’s tax proposal is whether or not the economic drag from higher debt is large enough to completely crowd out the boost from lowering taxes.

This also makes the timeline for evaluating a tax plan very important . If you look at the economic impact of tax cuts over a few years you’ll almost always see a positive return. However, beyond a few years, as the amount of money being borrowed begins to pile up and push interest rates higher, the overall impacts can turn decidedly negative . That’s why one group of people can tell you that a tax plan will boost the economy (over three years), and another can tell you that it will harm the economy (over 10 years), and both be correct.

By what degree interest rates will rise because of the tax plan is not clear . Traditional economic theory says that, all else equal, the relationship between interest rates and government debt should be quite strong, but we know that in reality all is not necessarily equal.

Higher interest rates will only occur if investors demand them in response to treasury bonds becoming more risky. It’s not clear that investors would do so, even at today’s high debt levels. The U.S. government’s debt is literally called “risk-free,” and so the reaction by investors to a higher level of debt may not be as strong as theory would otherwise indicate.

This is one of the main arguments from proponents of the tax plan, and in fact is an argument that many economists opposed to the tax plan used to advocate for more government spending during the Obama administration. In the last eight years under President Barack Obama, for example, we essentially doubled the national debt, and saw no discernible movement in our borrowing costs as a result.

This argument holds a lot of weight, but comes with a big caveat. Eight years ago we were operating at a much lower overall debt level than we are today. President Trump has been dealt a very bad hand when it comes to the federal fiscal situation. No president has inherited more debt upon taking the oath of office since Harry Truman, and in some ways Trump’s predicament is actually worse than Truman’s.

Truman’s war debt was temporary, Trump’s structural debt is not . This is debt that has built up over years

of structural imbalances and several presidents, and it is not going to go away on its own . In fact, looking at projections

released by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office before Trump was even elected, things are only expected to get worse.

If the president were to make no changes to federal fiscal policy, by the end of his first term 92 cents out of every federal tax dollar would be earmarked for mandatory spending programs — Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc. — and interest on the debt. Without borrowing, this leaves only 8 cents for everything else in the budget, from aircraft carriers to Zion National Park.

On that trajectory, within 30 years, our debt will build up to almost 1½ times the size of our entire economy. That would definitely crowd out economic growth whether we pass a major tax cut or not.

In order for our economy to be more efficient and productive in the years ahead, tax reform is an absolute imperative. However, the hand we’ve dealt ourselves will require that reform not significantly add to the national debt. In the end, as much as the American public may want a big tax cut, the fiscal realities of today demand revenue-neutral tax reform . Fortunately, the White House tax-proposal outline provides a lot of room to maneuver in forthcoming negotiations with Congress to do so.

Tax reform tips us back into deep recession.Gambles 3/6 - Paul Gambles, managing partner at MBMG Group, 3/6/17("Trump's tax reform could tip America into recession and possibly serfdom ," published by CNBC, Available online at http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/06/trump-tax-reform-could-tip-america-into-recession-and-possibly-serfdom.html, Accessed 7/5/2017, AJ)

While President Donald Trump has recognized that America's private sector desperately needs reflating, he doesn't yet appear to have realized that this involves alleviating the personal and business debt overhang and enabling more equitable distribution of wealth and incomes, especially in favor of the poorest and lowest earners.

This can be achieved in several ways, including a combination of higher benefits and earned incomes, reduced real debt burdens (by devaluing the currency, by deflation and/or by debt forgiveness) and greater provision of free or low-cost services by the state.

Quite apart from the social value of these programs, this is merely a recognition of economic realities. Ultimately, the narrower the wealth and income bases are, the less efficient an economy is. If a single individual owns the entire productive asset base, then the only employment is indentured slavery. In other words, serfdom.

Although Trump has outlined indicative policies purportedly designed to promote higher economic growth (or in bloviated Trumpspeak "to make America great again"), the reality of the policies seemingly favored by the new administration appears to be a fast-track return to ruination and possibly serfdom. Despite the rhetoric of phenomenal tax reform supposedly for the benefit of everyone, it appears they may not have learned the lessons of counter-intuitive history.

Although we still await the final details, the proposed tax cuts appear to amount to a further distribution in favor of the wealthiest individuals (and the corporations primarily owned by them). Talk of cutting government expenditure also remains vague and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin has repeated the mantra that the tax cuts will be funded by the additional growth generated (which will seemingly happen towards the end of next year and is only capable of being understood and accurately forecast by those inside the administration).

It seems that we can expect some redistribution of funds from the U.S. government (which has been

spending with some degree of equity) to the wealthiest and those earning more than $1 million per annum (who will claim almost half of the tax cuts expected to be offered).

This represents a further redistribution away from those with the greatest need (and therefore the highest marginal propensity to spend) to those with the least marginal propensity to spend.

Corporate and personal tax cuts will simply take out of circulation money that was revolving , albeit at a sedentary pace. In doing so, this creates a curb on economic activity that disproportionately hurts those lower down the income ladder.

In a recent article on The Brookings Institution website, former Fed governor Ben Bernanke acknowledged that in general tax cuts have a much smaller impact on economic demand than government spending.

The NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research) estimates that of every dollar of corporate tax cuts, only an additional 50 cents reappear in economic circulation – meaning that it has a very limited positive effect, despite all the false rhetoric being thrown around that tax cuts are significantly stimulatory.

In isolation, they may appear to be positive but in aggregate when the secondary effects of corporate tax cuts are considered, these will invariably disappoint, as more and more commentators have started to realize.

Moreover, this is not a typical time and therefore the headwinds for the assumed Trump tax cuts impacts should be expected to be far stronger than that.

Furthermore, whatever proprietary dynamic models the Trump economic team conjure to support

fictional future growth forecasts, the $6-7 trillion of proposed tax cuts will ultimately be funded largely by reduced spending. This will become more evident in the discussions surrounding the debt ceiling increase next month.

At the precise time when increased government spending is required to reflate America, the redirection of this funding into tax cuts is almost certainly adverse. Maybe this explains why Trump tax reform's timeline has now been extended until the August recess.

My empirically-based model of the new administration's tax, infrastructure and government spending policies (especially the tax policies) forecasts that they'd combine to make a bad situation far worse, derailing the U.S. economy and if enacted now,

"Trumponomics" could create a primary drag of up to 2 percent on U.S. GDP (gross domestic product) - excluding such secondary effects as higher interest rates, stronger USD FX rates and viciously spiraling deflation.

This would almost certainly tip America into a recession that would most likely become known as America's second Great Depression , having once again blundered in the control of a delicate machine, the complexities of which policy-makers still don't understand.

Impact Turn---Growth---Consumer Spending

Tax cuts massively slow economic growth and decrease consumer spendingBlair 4/27 - Hunter Blair, Journalist for Fortune Magazine, 4/27/17("Donald Trump, Tax Cuts for the Rich Won’t Boost the Economy," published by Fortune, Available online at http://fortune.com/2017/04/27/donald-trump-tax-cut-plan-wont-boost-economy/, Accessed 7/5/2017, AJ)

For all the talk of high-minded, growth-oriented tax reform , all the Trump administration offered on

Wednesday as the president announced his tax plan was an unsurprising package of tax cuts for the rich and corporations: Top-earning individuals will be taxed 35% instead of 39.6%, big businesses will be taxed 15% instead of 35%, and it will all be financed by debt.

The sparse, one-page proposal actually doesn’t deviate much from Trump’s campaign plan, which the Tax Policy Center (TPC) estimated would raise the national debt by $7.2 trillion over the first decade , and by $20.9 trillion over two decades.

Despite claims from the administration, economic growth will absolutely not make up the difference.

While the economy could still benefit from a short-run fiscal boost to spending, tax cuts for the rich are a terribly inefficient way to do this. High-income households save more than low- and moderate- income ones, so any fiscal measure aimed at boosting demand should be targeted away from the rich, not toward them.

Prospects for boosting growth with tax cuts over the longer horizon look nearly as bleak . Cuts to the corporate income tax increase profits, but those profits eventually go to shareholders in some form. This increases the returns to savings, which incentivizes households to save more instead of spending. But this channel looks like it will be very weak in coming years, as there has been a savings

glut for the past decade or more. This means that increasing the supply of savings is not really relieving any constraint on growth. Further, cuts to the corporate income tax incentivize all private savings (including household and

business savings), but if cuts aren’t offset by either reductions in spending or increased tax revenue from other sources, they reduce public savings by increasing the deficit. In the long run, this pushes up interest rates, which would then discourage private savings. Supply-side economics has been tried time and time again , and tax cuts simply do not spur much growth at all , let alone enough to pay for themselves.

Importantly, TPC included estimates that account for the rate cuts’ effect on economic growth — so-called “dynamic scoring” estimates. For the reasons noted above, adding dynamic effects changes almost nothing. In the long run, TPC estimates that the Trump administration’s tax cuts would actually slow economic growth . The national debt would increase by $7 trillion over the first decade, and $22.1 trillion

over two decades. There is no growth bonanza that will be unleashed by these tax cuts.

The details on the individual income tax side seem less fleshed-out, though the headline is cutting rates for the top tax bracket back to Bush-era levels. The Congressional Budget Office noted that three-quarters of the corporate income tax falls on business owners and other owners of capital. Since the top 1% of households earns about 54% of all capital income, and the bottom 90% earns only 22%, this makes the existing corporate income tax sharply progressive—and hence means that cutting it would be a major giveaway to those at the top.

And these benefits will not trickle down. The rich and large, multinational corporations will certainly benefit from a cut in the corporate tax rate, but low- and middle-income families will not. In the long run, to pay for existing commitments to social insurance and income support programs, as well as make necessary public investments, we will

need more revenue, not less. And growing income inequality means that tax reform should look to obtain that revenue from progressive sources—like the corporate income tax.

A new and clearly unwelcome twist to the plan is a provision to allow “pass-through” businesses — businesses where all income is “passed through” to owners and currently taxed at their individual income rates—to take the 15%

rate as well. With this loophole, high-income individuals could avoid paying the top tax rate by simply calling themselves independent contractors and taking the new pass-through rate. This isn’t speculation. Kansas introduced such a pass-through loophole in its tax cuts package, and revenue hemorrhaged as individuals re-classified themselves as independent contractors, including University of Kansas men’s basketball head coach Bill Self.

Let’s be clear: This is a loophole so bad that even the resolutely pro-tax cut Tax Foundation doesn’t like it. Loopholes create tax avoidance, not economic growth.

What’s more, the Trump administration has proposed making the loophole through which multinational corporations dodge paying their taxes permanent. Currently, multinational corporations use myriad accounting gimmicks to claim that they made their profits offshore in tax havens. They do so because of a loophole known as deferral. Ostensibly, the current tax system is supposed to tax U.S. multinational corporations on a worldwide basis. But the deferral loophole allows multinational corporations to simply put off paying U.S. taxes on their offshore profits by claiming they are “permanently reinvested.”

In response, U.S. multinationals have now stashed a record $2.6 trillion in profits offshore. The Trump administration wants to make the loophole permanent. They would change the corporate income tax to a territorial

basis—whereby U.S. multinationals would owe no taxes on their offshore profits. No multinational corporation with accountants worth their salt would ever pay taxes again . And some will even look to genuinely offshore production since profits made overseas will be taxed more lightly than those earned at home. Why the generally mercantilist Trump administration has decided to provide a hard nudge offshore for U.S. corporate business is an interesting question.

By making a loophole for large U.S. multinationals permanent, and adding a new loophole for those at the top, the Trump administration has proved that, just like House Republicans, they are not interested in tax “reform,” but rather tax cuts for the rich. If the administration intended tax reform, they would be closing loopholes—not making them permanent and opening new ones.

Impact Turn---Growth---Deficits

Tax reform hurts the economy – increases deficits and cuts public investments.Stone 4/28 - Chad Stone, chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/28/17("A Promise-Breaking Tax Plan," published by US News, Available online at https://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/articles/2017-04-28/donald-trumps-tax-plan-is-as-bad-as-the-gops-health-care-plan, Accessed 7/5/2017, AJ)

The Trump administration and GOP lawmakers pay lip service to the idea that tax reform shouldn't lose revenue and increase deficits. In fact, tax reform should raise revenue. Yet both the Trump and House GOP tax proposals lose substantial revenues . Proponents claim that much of the revenue lost by cutting taxes for businesses and wealthy individuals will be recouped with new revenue generated by higher economic growth that the tax cuts will unleash. Mnuchin has said repeatedly that the

Trump economic plan "will pay for itself with growth." Not even the Tax Foundation , whose analysis typically finds much larger economic growth effects from tax cuts than other analysts, thinks the Trump tax cuts alone pay for themselves.

Exaggerated claims for the economic growth benefits of large tax cuts have been around since "supply-side economics" emerged in the late 1970s, and they persist to this day. But there's scant evidence that tax cuts for the rich have these large effects (or that tax increases preclude economic growth).

In fact, the evidence shows that tax cuts – particularly for high-income people – are an ineffective way to spur economic growth, and they'll likely harm the economy if they add to the deficit or are paired with cuts to public investments that support the economy and working families . Sound

investments in infrastructure, for instance, complement private investments in making the economy more productive. A growing body of research suggests as well that investments in children in low- income families not only reduce poverty and hardship in the near term, but can have long- lasting positive effects on their health, education and earnings as adults.

I've only scratched the surface of what this treasure trove of tax policy briefs has to offer. There's lots more. Think the top U.S. corporate tax rate is way out of line with that of other countries or that corporate tax rate cuts are a great way to grow the economy and help workers? Think again. How many Americans would benefit from repealing the estate tax? Only heirs of the wealthiest two of every 1,000 estates. Want a cautionary tale about what GOP tax plans mean for the budget and the economy? Look what happened in Kansas.

Like health reform, tax reform is complicated, especially if you want it to be fair and effective.

Impact Turn---Growth---Start Ups/Small Business

The plan destroys innovation, start-ups and small businesses.Ellis 16 - Ryan Ellis, Contributor to Forbes, 11/15/16("Top Five Problems with the Trump Tax Plan ," published by Forbes, Available online at https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanellis/2016/09/15/top-five-problems-with-the-trump-tax-plan/3/#6d494bdf5de4, Accessed 7/10/2017, AJ)

Carried interest capital gains tax hike on startup small firms. Unfortunately, the Trump plan again falls for the ploy of taxing a type of capital gain earned by venture capital , private equity, and real estate partnership managers ("carried interest") not as the capital gain it is, but as ordinary income .

There is no good reason to do this.

First, this pretends that a capital gain is not one , even though no one seriously disputes that the money we're talking about is the share of a profit from the sale of an asset (the textbook definition of a

capital gain). Second, it raises almost no money for tax reform (between $1 and $2 billion per year in a tax system

that collects $3.6 trillion per year). Third, it plays into the long game of the Democrats to tax all capital gains as ordinary income.

Finally, it will hurt startup small firms in two ways-- by taxing the "enterprise value" of their businesses when they are sold (after all, the business owner usually has no basis in the sale, the same criterion used to

tax our investment manager bogeyman); and by making the after-tax cost of small business acquisition and sale more expensive.

This tax increase makes the next Apple AAPL +0.63%, the next Uber, and the next Twitter TWTR +0.33%

far less likely to materialize. It's a dagger aimed right at the heart of America's can-do spirit of entrepreneurship.

Impact Turn---Growth---Revenue Neutral Bad

Revenue neutral tax reform is bad---preserves special interests and kills government spending---that hurts economic growthThomas Hungerford 15, editor for The Hill, 2/11/15, “Revenue neutral tax reform: A bad goal,” http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/232362-revenue-neutral-tax-reform-a-bad-goal

*edited for ableist language

Second, revenue neutrality is harmful given the spending needs of the country. Much has been written on the country’s dilapidated infrastructure—bone-jarring potholes, collapsing bridges, and broken water mains (try driving down K Street in Washington)—that poses dangers to the public and retards ] economic growth. President Eisenhower argued in 1955 that “our unity as a nation is sustained by free communication of thought and by easy transportation of people and goods” and proposed more federal funding for roads. The argument is as valid today as it was 60 years ago. America also has problems with inadequate funding for education, basic research and development, and other important public investments.

Current federal spending for public investments as a percent of GDP is about half of what it was in the 1960s; average economic growth in the 1960s was double what it has been since 2011 (4.5 percent versus 2.2 percent). Funding these investments would boost economic growth now and in the future. Congress , rather than trying to reduce federal spending to meet revenues, should be raising revenues to meet critical spending needs.

Third, broadening the tax base would make the tax code simpler and wring inefficiencies that hinder economic growth (and inequities) out of the tax code. But keep in mind that broadening the tax base means eliminating tax provisions that would and should be replaced by spending programs. Consequently, revenue neutral may not be deficit neutral—eliminating spending through the tax code that is just replaced by spending will increase budget deficits.

Revenue neutral tax reform should not become a reality; it should not even be under discussion . Tax reform should move forward and perhaps could stand a better chance if the unfairness argument were removed by raising revenue. Revenue positive tax reform will essentially create only “losers”—almost everyone will be paying higher taxes. If everyone pays higher taxes from tax reform, then people cannot justify opposing tax reform on the grounds that their higher taxes pay for someone else’s lower taxes: Congress could be in a better position to resist special interests, who would have to explicitly argue that others should pay even higher taxes so they could get a tax break.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/232362-revenue-neutral-tax-reform-a-bad-goal

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/232362-revenue-neutral-tax-reform-a-bad-goal

Impact Turn---Growth---A2: CTR

Corporate tax rates are low – Their ev. is biased & inaccurateITEP 3/9 (Inst. On Taxation & Economic Policy, “Study: The 35 Percent Corporate Tax Myth”, https://yubanet.com/usa/study-the-35-percent-corporate-tax-myth/)

A comprehensive, eight-year study of profitable Fortune 500 corporations finds that, on average, the nation’s richest firms paid a 21.2 percent effective tax rate between 2008 and 2015, but a significant number (100) managed to pay no taxes in at least one year, 24 paid zero in four out of eight years, and 18 firms paid zero taxes over eight

years, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy said today. The study, The 35 Percent Corporate Tax Myth, is the

12th edition of this occasional corporate study. First released in 1984, the report was instrumental in building support for the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which closed many corporate loopholes. This new edition provides critical context at a time when Congress and the Trump Administration have signaled corporate tax reform is imminent and a focus will be drastically cutting the corporate tax rate. “This study is a long-term, unprecedented examination of corporation taxes paid—or not paid—by the nation’s biggest, most

profitable firms,” said Matthew Gardner, an ITEP senior fellow and lead author of the report. “It reveals that many of the big corporations that are lobbying for a lower corporate tax rate to be more ‘competitive’ already pay substantially less than the 35 percent statutory rate.” Robert McIntyre, a co-author of the report and

director of Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ), ITEP’s sister organization, added, “For years, corporate lobbyists have claimed that they can’t be competitive because the corporate tax rate is too high. They have a receptive audience for those complaints in the current Congress and Trump Administration, but it doesn’t make these claims any less false.” The study examines eight years of data on federal income taxes paid by Fortune 500 firms that provided sufficient, reliable information in their financial reports to allow calculation of their effective U.S. and foreign tax rates. It excludes companies that had a loss in any year between 2008 and 2015. Two-hundred and fifty-eight companies were profitable in every year of the study. Although the statutory corporate tax rate is 35 percent, collectively, these companies paid an average effective rate of 21.2 percent.

No impact – the reform doesn’t lower capital gains or dividends taxes.Ellis 16 - Ryan Ellis, Contributor to Forbes, 11/15/16("Top Five Problems with the Trump Tax Plan ," published by Forbes, Available online at https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanellis/2016/09/15/top-five-problems-with-the-trump-tax-plan/3/#6d494bdf5de4, Accessed 7/10/2017, AJ)

Almost no cut in the capital gains/dividends tax rate. The Trump plan repeals the 3.8 percent surtax on savings by dint of repealing all of Obamacar e (this tax was one of that law's pay-fors). This is great as far as it goes, but that's as far as it goes . It doesn't lower the statutory 20 percent capital gains and dividends tax rate at all.

Ideally, this rate should approach zero in a consumption base plan . As an accommodation to political reality,

one would have expected to at least see a reduction to the George W. Bush-era 15 percent . A tax on capital gains and dividends is a second layer of tax on corporate profits, is a direct tax on small business startup acquisitions, and is a drag on the stock market value inherent in every IRA and 401(k) plan.

Tax reform fails – results in multi-year deductions that gut theoretical effectivenessEllis 16 - Ryan Ellis, Contributor to Forbes, 11/15/16("Top Five Problems with the Trump Tax Plan ," published by Forbes, Available online at https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanellis/2016/09/15/top-five-problems-with-the-trump-tax-plan/3/#6d494bdf5de4, Accessed 7/10/2017, AJ)

Full business expensing only in very limited circumstances. Under the plan, virtually all businesses would remain stuck in slow, multi-year piecemeal deductions of capital equipment purchases known as "depreciation." The only businesses that would be allowed to fully deduct the expense of capital equipment in the year of purchase are manufacturers (good luck limiting that

definition, by the way). Even here, they are effectively punished for doing so by having their deduction for business interest repealed.

Why is this important? According to the Tax Foundation report "Options for Reforming America's Tax Code," moving from multi-year depreciation deductions to first year expensing "would deliver some of the largest economic growth for each dollar of federal revenue lost. " That's because full and immediate expensing would remove the tax code's current bias against business fixed investment, which would increase productivity, which would in turn grow the economy and create jobs. The dynamic effects in their model suggest that resulting economic growth pays for 60 percent of the shift.

Full business expensing is common to all consumption based tax systems--the Hall-Rabushka flat tax, the FAIR tax, any VAT, etc. It's in the House GOP tax blueprint. It is very notable in its substantial absence from the Trump tax plan.

The corporate tax cut doesn’t impact the vast majority of companies.Ellis 16 - Ryan Ellis, Contributor to Forbes, 11/15/16("Top Five Problems with the Trump Tax Plan ," published by Forbes, Available online at https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanellis/2016/09/15/top-five-problems-with-the-trump-tax-plan/3/#6d494bdf5de4, Accessed 7/10/2017, AJ)

Far higher tax rate on family businesses than on multinational corporations . Wisely, the Trump plan cuts the corporate income tax rate to 15 percen t. This is important to increase the international competitiveness of U.S. companies, reverse the tide of corporate inversions, and lessen worldwide double taxation effects.

Unfortunately, the plan does not include "flow-through/ pass-through" firms like partnerships, Subchapter-S corporations, sole proprietorships, and LLCs. Those companies would instead face a top tax rate of 33 percent . This means that the tax code will be biased greatly in favor of the corporate form, and against the flow-through forms of business organization . The tax code should not be picking winners and losers like that.

Impact Turn---Growth---A2: RepatriationRepatriation fails without a bridge to a territorial system.Ellis 16 - Ryan Ellis, Contributor to Forbes, 11/15/16("Top Five Problems with the Trump Tax Plan ," published by Forbes, Available online at https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanellis/2016/09/15/top-five-problems-with-the-trump-tax-plan/3/#6d494bdf5de4, Accessed 7/10/2017, AJ)

Deemed repatriation, but no bridge to a territorial system. The tax plan imposes a "deemed repatriation" of 10 percent on all deferred foreign earnings (estimated to be approaching $2.5 trillion).

Normally, this is done as a bridge toward a territorial tax system, where income earned outside the United States is free of IRS taxation (having already paid tax in the foreign country).

Not so in the Trump plan.

International double taxation remains, even after the deemed repatriation exercise . Much of the

double taxation would be ameliorated by the new, low 15 percent rate. But global double taxation would remain a threat to U.S. companies.

Impact Turn---Israeli Econ---2ACTax reforms causes Israeli startups and multinationals to incorporate in the US – that destroys the Israeli economy.Solomon 4/27 - Shoshanna Solomon, Journalist for The Times of Israel, 4/27/17("Trump tax cuts raise concern of outflow of Israeli startups," published by Times of Israel, Available online at http://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-tax-cuts-raises-concern-of-outflow-of-israeli-startups/, Accessed 7/13/2017, AJ)

US President Donald Trump’s plan for what his officials called the “biggest tax cut ” in US history could spark an exit of companies and tax revenues from Israel, just at the government in Jerusalem has promised to lower taxes for its citizens.

Trump proposed dramatic cuts in the taxes paid by corporations big and small Wednesday in an overhaul his administration says will spur economic growth and bring jobs and prosperity to America’s middle class.

The plan would also reduce investment and estate taxes aimed at the wealthy. But administration officials said that action on other key tax code elements would ensure the plan would largely help the middle class instead of the affluent.

On the corporate side, the top marginal tax rate would fall from 35% to 15% . Small businesses that account for their owners’ personal incomes would see their top tax rate go from 39.6% to the proposed corporate tax rate of 15%.

“At a low tax rate of 15% in the US there is a strong likelihood we will see Israeli tech companies , whose main markets are in the US , incorporating in the US ,” said Sharon Shulman, the tax managing partner

of EY Israel, in a phone interview. “This represents without any doubt a significant risk to the Israeli economy in the long term .” EY Israel is a member firm of member firm of Ernst & Young Global Ltd., which is a provider of tax, transactions and advisory services,

Pressure on startups to incorporate in the US

Companies that are already incorporated in Israel will not rush to uproot themselves and relocate, Shulman said. But for new companies that are setting up, if the US tax rate drops to 15%, the decision to remain in Israel will be harder. “And that is exactly the intention of Trump,” to lure companies to the us, he said.

“If the corporate tax rate in the US will be cut to 15% as proposed by Trump, this will put a lot of pressure on Israeli startups to succumb to investors’ demands and incorporate in the US ,” said Jonathan Irom, a partner at the International and High Tech Department at the GKH law firm in Tel Aviv.

Up until now the US tax rate was higher than in Israel — an average US rate of 35% compared to the Israeli rate

of up to 25%. “Israeli entrepreneurs have been able to use the lower tax rate as an excuse to incorporate here in Israel,” Irom said. “But once the rate is cut in the US that excuse will no longer be valid, and this will drive a lot of startups to seriously consider incorporating in the US rather than in Israel.”

“That means less foreign investment in Israel, less companies in Israel that are paying taxes locally and lower revenues from M&A deals under certain structures ,” Irom said.

Israel is expected to put into place by January 1, 2018, a new tax plan that would slash corporate taxes for multinational companies that invest in the country, in an effort to draw more firms to its shores and ensure that those already operating in Israel maintain their operations

The legislation, called the “Innovation Box” proposal and backed by the Finance and Economy ministries, will cut corporate income tax to 6 percent for companies with consolidated revenues of over $2.6 billion and to 12 percent for smaller firms. This compares to a current corporate tax rate in the range of 16% to 25%. The withholding tax rate on dividends will be lowered to 4%, compared to a rate of around 20%-25% today.

“This plan can certainly help Israel,” said EY’s Shulman. “ But if the rate in the US will indeed drop to 15%, it may not be enough . It could be we will see pressure to lower the rate to below 12%, perhaps to 10%,” Shulman said.

Earlier this month Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon announced a package of tax breaks and benefits aimed at increasing the net income of poor and middle-class working families by thousands of shekels a year. And both Kahlon and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have promised to use surplus tax revenues to cut taxes for citizens.

“Trump’s tax reform puts Israel in a bind,” said EY’s Shulman. “On one hand it will not be able to stay with a corporate tax rate of 24%, if the US will indeed reduce its rate to 15%. But if tax rates in Israel are cut further, then Israel must make tough decisions about its budget and how to finance the tax cuts.”

“The implications of President Trump’s new tax plan could be dramatic for Israel in the sense that they may lead to a shift of revenues to the US,” said Binyamin Tovi, International Tax Partner at Shekel & Co., a law firm in Tel Aviv. “The solution for preventing Israeli high-tech companies from fleeing to the US is not to lower corporate tax but rather modify the conditions for benefits in Israel.”

Israel economic collapse causes divesionary war with Palestine.Thomas 14 – G. Dale Thomas, Member of the Arkansas Political Science Associaation, specializing in International Relations, Conflict Processes, Protracted Conflict, Statistics, 2014, (“Uncertainty as a Condition for Change: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict”, The Midsouth Political Science Review, Volume 15, Number 1, Available Online at http://uca.edu/politicalscience/files/2014/07/MPSR-Vol151-Thomas.pdf, Accessed 07-14-2017)

As stated above, exogenous uncertainty has been shown to be a significant factor in determining

Israeli-Palestinian behavior. Specifically, Rasler (2000) examines the effect of a number of shocks on major changes in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, the Intifada in 1987, and the Gulf War in 1991. Given that the temporal coverage of her study differs from this study and that the two Intifadas are considered major initiatives and will therefore represented by existing variables, the following shocks are included: the first Gulf War (August 2, 1990 – April 6, 1991), the second Gulf War (March 19, 2003 – May 1, 2003), and Israel’s 2006 war with Hezbollah (July 12, 2006 – August 14, 2006).

Literature on diversionary force (Mitchell and Prins 2004; Tir and Jasinski 2008) finds economic conditions can clearly impact the decision to use force. Thus, changes in economic conditions are very likely to affect perceived opportunity and can be seen as exogenous shocks that increase overall uncertainty in the conflict system for the pool of possible group members. This matches the behavior noted by Brancati (2007) where the

exogenous shock of earthquakes increased the likelihood of conflict especially for societies whose

populations were in more tenuous positions. Remember that group leadership attracts followers through the

provision of survival strategies, of which one of the most fundamental is economic. In addition, the

Palestinian economy is highly dependent upon not only the political relationship between the

Palestinians and Israel but also upon the Israeli economy itself ; the International Labor Organization (2013) notes

over 83 ,000 Palestinians worked in Israel and the settlements in 2012, which represents around 10% of total Palestinian employment. Therefore, changes in annual Israeli GDP per capital are included in both models.15

Additionally, perceptions certainly exist in Israeli politics that Likud governments are much more hardline and less open to change than Labor governments. Indeed, security considerations drove the 1996 election of Benjamin Netanyahu in the wake of land for

http://uca.edu/politicalscience/files/2014/07/MPSR-Vol151-Thomas.pdf

peace proposals by Labor under both Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Perez. Sprecher and DeRouen (2002) find the existence of a Likud government to be strongly statistically significant in determining the likelihood of Israeli and Arab military actions from May 1948 through 1998.16 Therefore, a control variable is included for weeks in which Likud controlled the office of prime minister.

While Ireland and Gartner (2001) did not find a difference in conflict initiation likelihoods between coalition governments and single party parliamentary majorities, DeRouen and Sprecher (2006) do find that surplus government coalitions in Israel have an affect on Arab behavior toward Israel. Arguably, minimum winning coalitions are much more likely to be constrained in their policy options, as any changes in the negotiated and agreed policies among coalition partners can easily lead to the defection of a party and the collapse of the government. Therefore, minimum winning coalitions and caretaker governments should reduce the probability of major initiatives. The surplus coalition variable (coded 1 for a surplus coalition and coded 0 for a minimum winning coalition or caretaker government) is based on data from Woldendorp, Keman, and Budge (2011) and has been extended through 2010 by the author.

In addition, DeRouen and Sprecher (2006) find that the three months before Israeli elections have a strong statistical impact on Arab behavior towards Israel, a result that reinforces the earlier findings of Russett and Barzilai (1992). Given these results, control variables are included for changes in Israeli GDP per capita, Likud governments, surplus winning coalitions, and the three months leading up to Israeli elections. Summary statistics for the independent uncertainty variables and the control variables are shown in Table 3, and the resulting analyses are shown in Tables 4 and 5.17

The results of the hazard analysis of major Israeli initiatives are shown in Table 4.18 Two models are presented where the dependent

variable is the period at risk for major Israeli initiatives. Model 1 includes the two independent variables that represent uncertainty in the environment (high Palestinian policy uncertainty and exogenous shocks) and each of the control variables. While the independent variables of Palestinian policy uncertainty and growth in

Israel’s GDP per capita have statistically significant results, none of the remaining variables do, and the model itself is not statistically significant . A second, restricted model, was tested with high

Palestinian policy uncertainty, exogenous shocks, growth in Israel’s GDP per capita and the presence of a Likud Prime minister. This dramatically improves the overall model fit (p >Χ2=0.044).

The null hypothesis for H1 can easily be rejected; high Palestinian policy uncertainty increases the probability of a major Israeli initiative by more than 155% over the baseline hazard (p<0.038). However, the null hypothesis for H3, cannot be rejected. Even though the coefficient is in the hypothesized direction—an exogenous shock increases the likelihood of a major initiative by 151%—the resulting coefficient is not statistically significant (p<0.24). This may simply be due to the relatively small number of weeks, 46 out of 1,357, that exogenous shocks were present in the dataset.

Major Israeli initiatives are less likely though as GDP per capita improves. For each percentage

point improvement in the annual growth rate of Israel’s GDP per capita , the probability of a major initiative toward the Palestinians decreases by approximately 19.5% over the baseline model. When existing survival strategies seem to be working, leaders appear constrained and lack the opportunity to undertake major initiatives .

The hazard ratio for periods with Likud prime ministers conforms to expectations, but is statistically insignificant (p<0.178). Likud prime ministers appear to be more than 40% less likely to undertake major initiatives than their counterparts in Labor and Kadima. However, this finding is inconclusive with the given sample size.

The analysis of Palestinian initiatives can be found in Table 5. Once again, two separate models are presented: a complete model with all control variables (model 3) and a restricted model (model 4). The effects of exogenous shocks are virtually indistinguishable from the baseline model in both cases. As mentioned above, this situation is most likely exacerbated by exogenous shocks only being present in slightly over 3% of the observed weeks. While model 3 is statistically significant (p<0.018), the three months prior to

elections once again have no significant effect and are dropped from the model. The resulting model 4 is very strong with a probability of seeing these results by chance of only p<0.009. Even though one cannot distinguish the effects of exogenous shocks from the baseline hazard model, the variable is retained in the analysis to test H4.

Model 4 appears to very adequately capture the conditions for the Palestinians undertaking major initiatives. As hypothesized, during periods of high Israeli policy uncertainty, the Palestinians are 135% more likely to produce a major initiative. Thus, one can safely reject the null hypothesis for H2. As stated above, the effects of exogenous shocks are indistinguishable from the baseline model thereby preventing one from rejecting the null hypothesis for H4.

Interestingly, Palestinians are also unlikely to undertake major initiatives when the Israeli economy is improving. For each percentage point improvement in Israel’s GDP per capita, the likelihood of a major Palestinian policy appearing drops by more than 13% (p<0.078). Thus, for a year in which Israeli per capita GDP grows by 2%, the probability of a major Palestinian action drops by 26 %. As

stated above, the strong dependence of the Palestinian economy on that of Israel helps explain this result (International Labor Organization 2013).

Palestine-Israel conflict causes extinction.Beres 13 - Louis Beres, Journalist for US News and World Report, 11/11/13("The Future of Israel's Nuclear Deterrence ," published by US News, Available online at https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2013/11/11/iran-israel-and-the-nuclear-threat-in-the-middle-east, Accessed 7/13/2017, AJ)

There is more. Israel, still hoping to strike its own deal on "Palestine ," recently released another batch of convicted Arab terrorists from its jails. Ironically, Netanyahu, so insightful about the futile U.S. negotiations with Iran, has yet to understand that no Palestinian state would ever consent to peaceful coexistence with Israel.

Moreover, Palestine could have a starkly injurious impact on Israel's nuclear deterrence options, and, ultimately, on the shape of war and terror in the Middle East.

In the absence of Palestinian statehood, Israel's survival would still require increasing self-reliance in military and defense matters. Any such expanded self-reliance, in turn, would demand: a viable nuclear strategy involving deterrence, preemption and war -fighting capabilities, and a corollary conventional strategy. The actual birth of Palestine, however, would impact these critical strategies in several determinative ways.

A Palestinian state would make Israel's conventional capabilities more problematic ; it could thereby heighten the chances of a regional nuclear war. Although Palestine itself would obviously be non-nuclear, its overall strategic impact could nonetheless be magnified by continuously unfolding and more-or-less unpredictable developments in Egypt, Syria, Libya, Lebanon and elsewhere in this roiling and chaotic area.

A nuclear war could arrive in Israel not only as a "bolt-from-the-blue" surprise missile attack, but also as a result, intended or inadvertent, of escalation . If certain already extant enemy states were to begin conventional or biological attacks upon Israel, Jerusalem might respond , sooner or later, with aptly "proportionate" nuclear reprisals . Or, if these enemy states were to begin their aggressions with conventional attacks upon Israel, Jerusalem's own conventional reprisals might be met , in the future, with enemy nuclear counterstrikes .

For now, this would become possible only if a still-nuclearizing Iran were spared any final forms of Israeli or American preemptive interference, actions appropriately identifiable in law as "anticipatory self-defense." As a preemptive attack against Iran now seems operationally implausible, it is reasonable to assume that a persuasive Israeli conventional deterrent, at least to the extent that it would prevent enemy conventional and/or biological attacks in the first place, could reduce Israel's escalatory exposure to a nuclear war.

Pertinent questions arise. With its implicit ("deliberately ambiguous") nuclear capacities, why should Israel need a conventional deterrent at all? After all, even after Palestinian statehood, wouldn’t all rational enemy states desist from launching any conventional or biological attacks upon Israel out of an entirely sensible fear of Israeli nuclear retaliation?

Not necessarily. Aware that Israel would cross the nuclear threshold only in very extraordinary circumstances, these enemy states could be convinced – rightly or wrongly – that as long as their attacks remained recognizably non-nuclear, Israel would always respond in kind.

The only credible way for Israel to deter large-scale conventional attacks after the creation of Palestine would be by maintaining

visible and large-scale conventional capabilities. Of course, enemy states contemplating any first-strike attacks using chemical or biological weapons are apt to take more seriously Israel's nuclear deterrent, whether newly-disclosed, or still "in the basement." A strong conventional capability is needed by Israel essentially to deter or to preempt conventional attacks, attacks that could, if they were undertaken, lead quickly via escalation to various forms of unconventional war.

However unforeseen, Palestine, already a "nonmember observer state" at the United Nations, would have measurably corrosive effects on power and peace in the Middle East. As, by definition, the creation of this particular Arab state would come at the territorial expense of Israel, the Jewish state's strategic depth would promptly and irretrievably diminish. Over time, Israel's conventional capacity to ward off enemy attacks could be commensurately reduced.

Impact Turn---Israeli Econ---Yes Tech Company Flight – 1AR

Tax reform causes Israeli tech companies to move to the US Scheer 5/24 - Steven Scheer, Journalist for Reuters, 5/24/17("Trump tax reforms could push Israeli tech companies to the U.S. ," published by CNBC, Available online at http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/24/reuters-america-trump-tax-reforms-could-push-israeli-tech-companies-to-the-us.html, Accessed 7/9/2017, AJ)

JERUSALEM, May 24 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's plans for sharp cuts to corporate taxes will lead Israeli technology companies, a lynchpin of Israel's economy, to consider shifting their domicile to the United States, industry and accountancy executives say.

Israel's technology industry is one of the world's largest behind Silicon Valley , accounting for about 14 percent of the country's economic output, 50 percent of industrial exports and about 10 percent of its workforce.

But with Trump aiming to lower the U.S. company tax rate to 15 percent from 35 percent as part of reforms designed to repatriate more than $2 trillion of profits kept overseas by U.S. firms, the U nited S tates would suddenly look more attractive as a base for Israeli businesses .

Many Israeli high-tech companies have operations in the U nited States but r esearch and d evelopment centers in Israel . Some are incorporated in Israel, where the top corporate tax rate is 24 percent, and others in the United States.

Though it is by no means certain that Trump will deliver on the proposed tax cuts, given troubles experienced in pushing through

other measures, Israeli software testing company Qualitest is already eyeing a potential move.

"Once the tax goes below the rate in Israel , then these companies will prefer to shift all or some of their opxerations from Israel to the U.S. to enjoy the tax benefits ," said Qualitest co-founder Ayal

Zylberman, noting that Qualitest has 800 of its 3,800 employees in the United States.

"We will probably shift our delivery centers ," he told Reuters, adding that Qualitest could save a few million dollars a year.

Israel also plans to lower its company tax rate next year, but only by one percentage point to 23 percent.

"If the U.S. drops its tax to 15 percent, then Israel is less attractive for high-tech companies and start-ups," said Doron Sadan, head of the tax department at accountancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) Israel.

Tax reform causes a massive shift in high-tech companies to the US from Israel.Levi-Weinrib 4/27 - Ela Levi-Weinrib, Journalist for Globes- Israel Business Journal, 4/27/17("Tax experts see Israeli cos migrating to US," published by Globes, Available online at http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-tax-experts-see-israeli-cos-migrating-to-us-1001186624, Accessed 7/13/2017, AJ)

US President Donald Trump dropped a bombshell yesterday. His tax reform, which the director of the US National Economic

Council called, "one of the biggest tax cuts in American history," spans borders and oceans, and is reverberating in many different countries, from miniscule tax shelters to developed Western countries.

Israel also cannot remain indifferent to this ambitious plan . Despite all the obstacles that it must pass, the apparent loopholes in it and the lack of clarity about how to plug them, and the fact that it is still unknown which parts of it will

actually be passed, if any, intense analyses of the consequences of the reform for Israel and Israelis is already taking place.

Is the reform good or bad for Israel? Will cutting the corporate tax rate to 15% and canceling the US inheritance tax affect the Israeli public, and if so, will it be for better or for worse? It depends from what

angle you look at it. At the level of companies and the individual Israeli, it could set in motion a movement of Israeli money to the US, a tax saving for immigrant investors, and handsome profits . At the national and tax revenue level, it seems that Trump is dipping his hand into the state treasury of Israel and other countries. The tax balance between the world's countries will change.

Adv. and CPA Daniel Paserman of the Gornitzky & Co. law firm says, "The tax reform presented by the Trump administration will fundamentally change the tax balance between countries, and is also likely to have a dramatic effect in the context of Israel."

According to Paserman, the current US tax regime is tax-heavy, and runs counter to the global trend towards lowering tax rates in order to attract investors. "Business activity in the US can be taxed at 35-40% tax rates. In comparison with other countries around the world, including Israel, this is an extremely high rate." In addition, Paserman explains that foreign investments in the US, even passive ones, including real estate and the capital market, for example, can be subject to 40% inheritance tax.

"On the other hand," he adds, "many countries around the world are lowering their tax rates, and are also offering special tax rates designed to attract international companies and foreign investors. For example, the UK is cutting corporate taxation to less than 20%, the Netherlands is offering a special tax regime for intellectual property, and Italy is offering a non domicile regime similar to the UK regime and, in certain cases, also to Israeli immigrant law, which grants tax benefits to new immigrants."

Paserman says that with the background of this situation and the global struggle for capital and business activity, and taking into account the growing financial difficulties and unemployment all over the world, "Trump's reform is very smart from the US perspective. The reform will result in US and international companies returning their activity to the US, thereby increasing employment and greasing the wheels of the US economy. Elimination of inheritance tax will make foreign investments in the US more attractive," he explains.

Dramatic change in global business and economic policy

For Israel, Paserman remarks, there is no doubt that if the reform passes, it will be a very significant change for the Israeli economy, especially the high-tech industry.

"In the past, Israeli entrepreneurs founded foreign companies holding intellectual property. At the beginning of the century, it was customary to establish US corporations, because it was believed that US companies and investors would prefer investing in US corporations. This attitude has changed in recent years, and the trend has reversed, with intellectual property returning to Israel. One recent well-known example is Mobileye(NYSE: MBLY), which began as an Israeli company in the 1990s, became a foreign company, and then returned to Israel, before being sold to US company Intel.

"The Law for the Encouragement of Capital Investment offers a very attractive tax environment, and recently - following the base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) recommendations - the law has also been amended and tax rates further reduced, so that they now range between 5% and 16%.

"Now, following the reform being proposed by Trump, the tax gap between the US and Israel will narrow substantially, and in certain circumstances, US tax rates will be lower than those in Israel." In such a tax environment, Paserman asserts, and considering that the US market and US companies are the main target, there is no doubt that Israeli entrepreneurs are likely to prefer locating their businesses in the US , rather than Israel.

"If the Trump reform really passes, Israel will have to rethink its high-tech track , and even Mobileye's autonomous car won't help," Paserman declares.

Tax boutique owner and former Income Tax Commissioner Tali Yaron-Eldar believes that Trump has decided to get on the international tax cutting bandwagon.

"Trump is joining a long list of countries that have realized that lower tax rates will bring more business. The best known of these are Ireland, where the corporate tax rate is 12%; Cyprus, where it is 12.5%; Malta, with an especially low 5% rate; and Panama, with 10% corporate taxation."

It is not definite, however, Yaron-Eldar says, that this measure is a wise one. "Because the US is an important target country, it does not have to be the cheapest one from a tax standpoint in order to bring business to it. It can even be a little more expensive than others, in the knowledge that it is critical to the success of companies, particularly with respect to technology."

In any case, Yaron-Eldar agrees that this reform will bring about a dramatic change in global business and economic policy. "If the proposed reform really passes, we will see a significant movement of business activity to the US. Later, in my opinion, in order to keep activity in their territory, other countries will be forced to cut their taxes even further in order to avoid driving business away from them. The truth is that no large margins are left for cutting taxes, and this is true for both Israel companies and international companies originating in Israel, because in considering whether to operate in Israel or the US when tax rates are the same, there is no doubt that if the reform is approved, many companies will move most of their business, albeit gradually, to the US."

Adv. Binyamin Tovi, international taxation partner at the Shekel & Co. law firm, agrees. He says, "The consequences of Trump's taxation plan are liable to be dramatic for Israel, diverting profits from Israel to the US and thereby reducing taxes paid in Israel."

According to Tovi, even though certain high-tech companies already benefit from low tax rates (5-16%) in Israel under the Law for the Encouragement of Capital Investment, the many conditions for obtaining the reduced tax rates are liable to lead companies to move their activity to the US.

"The solution for preventing a flight of high-tech companies from Israel to the US does not lie in another cut in corporate taxes," Tovi declares, "but in making the conditions for obtaining the benefits in Israel more flexible."

US becoming a tax shelter

International taxation specialist Adv. Yair Benjamini says that attention should be paid to another effect of the plan to reduce the US corporate tax rate to 15% - the effect on US companies operating in Israel.

"As soon as the US corporate tax rate drops to 15%, the Israel Tax Authority is liable to treat a US company with over 50% passive revenue and Israeli shareholders as a 'foreign-controlled company,' This clause was enacted at the time in order to prevent Israelis from accumulating passive revenue in off-shore companies, but for the legislator, 15% corporate tax has to be treated like a tax shelter company, so that the US becomes a kind of tax shelter where Israeli law is concerned," Benjamini predicts.

Benjamini says that this change in the perception of foreign companies in Israel will be particularly relevant to companies holding real estate in the US, especially when the real estate involved is commercial real estate or an investment in rental residential real estate. Benjamini also agrees with other tax experts, however, that the bitter consequence of the reform for the state treasury is a flight of money to the US.

"Cutting the US corporate tax rate is likely to give Israeli companies with parent companies or subsidiaries in the US an incentive for diverting their business profits from Israel to the US," Benjamini explains, adding, "We expect that, as a result, the inclination of the Ministry of Finance to cut corporate taxation will become stronger on the one hand, and companies will be exposed to tighter audit by Israel Tax Authority inspectors on the other."

Impact Turn---Israeli Econ---A2 Econ Decline Inevitable/Now – 1AR

Israel economy flourishing but is entirely dependent on the hi-tech industry.Goyal 2/19 - Malini Goyal, Journalist for The Economic Times, 2/19/17("Israel, a startup oasis in the middle of a war zone," published by The Economic Times, Available online at http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/israel-a-startup-oasis-in-the-middle-of-a-war-zone/articleshow/57225306.cms, Accessed 7/13/2017, AJ)

But here’s the revealing part. Israel’s debt-to-GDP ratio, which stood at 93% in 2004 has been steadily declining and stands at 62.1% even as the OECD average (117% now) rose sharply. Thanks to the private sector, government expenditure as a percentage of GDP has come down from 51% in 2002 to 39.3% in 2016. The current account balance (as a percentage of GDP), which signals an economy’s health , has risen from around -1% in 2002 to 4.2% in 2016. The economy’s net assets too have grown from - $51.2 billion in 2000 to $95.6 billion in 2016 . “We (Israel) are an accidental combination of a hi-tech revolution and government policies ,” says Simhon.

The unemployment rate in Israel is now at a historical low of 4.8%. Bear in mind that the biggest growth push, including exports, has come from the private sector, especially in the hi-tech space, which contributes 12.5% of the GDP. The country’s R&D expenditure (minus defence expenditure which is not public) stands at 4.3% of GDP, the world’s highest. “Private sector is critical: 95% of our R&D expenditure comes from them,” says Avi Hasson, chief scientist, ministry of economy & industry

Israel economy doing well – low inflation and high growth.Cerier 6/8 - Steven Cerier, Journalist for FT - Financial Times, 6/8/17("Israel’s economy has flourished only recently ," published by Financial Times, Available online at https://www.ft.com/content/e3117cd8-4c3f-11e7-919a-1e14ce4af89b?mhq5j=e1, Accessed 7/13/2017, AJ)

For many years after the Six Day War the economy was not flourishing . In fact, as a visitor to Israel in the early 1970s it was clear to me that the country was relatively poor by the standards of the US and many of the western European

nations I had visited. For much of the 70s and 80s, the country faced severe economic challenges. The 1973 war, for example, was a severe blow to the economy. It also triggered a spiral of high inflation that was only tamed in the mid-

80s. There were stringent foreign exchange controls during this period and the shekel was anything but a stable currency. In the early 80s, the economy was burdened by large current account deficits. It was only in 1988 that per capita gross domestic product surpassed $10,000.

Seen from the vantage point of the 70s and the first half of the 80s, the development of the economy is truly stunning . Inflation is low, growth is high, the current account is in surplus and Israel’s economy is highly tech-oriented. But this is a relatively new phenomenon of the past 20 years.

Impact Turn---Israeli Econ---Israeli Tech Companies Key---1ARTech is key to the Israeli economy.Gordon 15 - Leland Gordon, Journalist for News Max, 10/29/15("Top 4 Industries in Israel: Which Parts of the Economy Are Strongest?," published by Newsmax, Available online at http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/industries-israel-economy-strongest/2015/10/29/id/699681/, Accessed 7/13/2017, AJ)

Technology is growing faster than any other industry in the nation . According to the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, high-tech industries as a whole are growing at 8 percent per year and 4.9 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product is spent on high-tech industries . That is the highest among all Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries . In 2006, high-tech industries accounted for 70 percent of the nation’s industrial product.

Impact Turn---Tech Industry/Competitiveness

Repatriation and border adjustment would uproot already established supply chains that negatively impacts tech companies.Swartz 1/26 - Jon Swartz, San Francisco Bureau Chief for USA Today, 1/26/17("'Very major border tax' is big migraine for tech," published by USA Today, Available online at https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/2017/01/26/very-major-border-tax-big-migraine-tech/96934424/, Accessed 7/9/2017, AJ)

Restructuring a global supply chain after decades of advances in automation and off-shoring jobs would throw the operations of large companies, especially in the tech sector , into chaos , tech

analysts and industry groups warn. To uproot their highly complex system of overseas plants, component suppliers and distribution partners would lead to pricier goods, deflated revenue and profits, and layoffs , yes, , they say.

"Labor intensive manufacturing will come back when buggy whips do ," says Roger McNamee, founding

partner of venture-capital firm Elevation Partners. "The USA needs to create new industries and prepare employees to work in them."

While an import tax that mandates these changes would gouge a company's bottom line , several Trump ideas, including steep deregulation and a deep cut in corporate tax rates, could offset matters. Another factor: one-time tax relief to encourage companies to bring back cash held overseas.

President Trump — who campaigned tirelessly on creating jobs in the U.S. and vowed a punitive tariff of 45% for goods from China and 35% from Mexico — gave a group of large manufacturers, including some tech companies, 30 days to come up with ideas and report back.

“If you go to another country” and cut U.S. jobs “we are going to be imposing a very major border tax” on that product, Trump told Michael Dell, Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla Motors and SpaceX; Ford Motors CEO Mark Fields and nine other CEOs. (Trump also met with automaker execs and union leaders this week.)

It remains unclear if the tax would be applied to future manufacturing jobs and not existing facilities, but it is cause for serious concern among companies like Apple and chip makers that rely on complex, automated operations offshore to keep prices lower on iPhones and other products.

For Dell, which employs 140,000 people worldwide, the president's call for American jobs reflects a quandary it and other companies face: How to mollify Trump with jobs in the U.S. while maintaining significant offshore facilities that pump out products at a lower cost than in the U.S.

Dell, for example, has nine manufacturing facilities — two in the U.S. (Massachusetts and North Carolina), two in China, and one each in Brazil, Ireland, Poland, India and Malaysia — that reflect user demand in those regions, according to Dell spokeswoman Lauren Lee.

The Round Rock, Texas-based company does not break out employee figures, or revenue, by region. As part of its mega-merger with EMC last year, it intends to add 2,000 salespeople to its global force of 40,000,

During a meeting with top business leaders, Trump pledged to cut taxes and regulations for businesses — as long as they keep their jobs in the U.S . Video provided by Newsy Newslook

“Dell is honored to be included on the President's committee on manufacturing," Dell's Lee said. "We look forward to working with the administration to help spur innovation, create economic growth and support U.S. competitiveness.”

But that doesn't mean the company — which shipped 40 million PCs and 2 million servers last year — will revamp manufacturing. It's more likely to build a local facility to handle the convergence of hardware and software technology, according to Matt Eastwood, an analyst at market researcher IDC.

"Dell is in a tough spot: It just got through a ($60 billion) merger with EMC and it can't fully integrate operations in China for two years," Eastwood says.

The reform negatively impacts innovation due to the border adjustment tax.Burrows 2/23 - Peter Burrows, Business Journalist for MIT Technology Review, 2/23/17("Trump’s Tax Talk Sounds Less Than “Phenomenal” for Tech," published by MIT Technology Review, Available online at https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603701/trumps-tax-talk-sounds-less-than-phenomenal-for-tech/, Accessed 7/9/2017, AJ)

While Marks welcomes the lower rates, he and many others in Silicon Valley fear the benefits will be diluted by the House plan’s provision for a border adjustment tax. Companies would not have to pay any tax on goods they export, but they would have to pay for parts or services they import . For hardware makers in particular, that’s almost everything. From iPhones to million-dollar routers, most electronic products are built overseas and made up largely of displays, motherboards, and other components that were built elsewhere as well.

“The border adjustment tax scares me to death ,” says Tom Fallon, chief executive officer of Infinera, which makes networking equipment. Unlike most of its Silicon Valley brethren, the company makes some of its own chips in the U.S. and imports fewer than half of its components. Still, he fears that the border adjustment tax would crimp his ability to maintain his spending on R&D, currently more than 40 percent of annual revenue . By driving up Infinera’s costs, this new tax would force him to raise prices on his products and impede the company’s ability to compete with larger rivals, including China-based Huawei Technologies, says Fallon.

Large importers from other industries, including Wal-Mart and energy firms, are lobbying hard against the new tax.

Tax reformers should include some other sweeteners to encourage innovation, says Joe Kennedy, a senior fellow at ITIF who issued a report on the subject on February 21. For starters, Congress should enhance the 36-year-old R&D tax credit so it covers a higher percentage of companies’ R&D spending.

He and others are also calling for a lower tax rate on revenues derived from patents, copyrights, and other inventions created in the U.S. Rather than just offer incentives for trying to innovate, this approach would reward commercial success. “This way, if you create the iPhone, you get rewarded with a lower tax rate,” says Kennedy.

Trump bad for tech – higher taxes on overseas manufacturing and bad relationships with tech execs. Lipton 16 - Josh Lipton, Journalist for CNBC, 11/15/16("How Trump's likely tax reforms will impact tech sector," published by Yahoo Finance, Available online at

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trumps-likely-tax-reforms-impact-191311670.html, Accessed 7/9/2017, AJ)

Still, despite this potential positive news for tech companies, Trump's stance on a range of other issues causes concern.

For example, his call for tariffs on goods manufactured overseas could mean higher prices for consumers here and, potentially, lower sales for these companies.

And on a personal level, Trump does not have a strong relationship with many tech powerhouses.

On the campaign trail, he accused Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos of evading corporate taxes. He also called for a boycott of Apple products, after Tim Cook's company refused to help the FBI unlock a terrorist's iPhone because of privacy concerns.

Given those challenges, perhaps it is not surprising that the tech sector is down some 2 percent since Trump won the presidency.

Impact Turn---Tech Industry/Competitiveness---A2: Tax Reform Key

No effect – Big companies already have enough money where they wouldn’t repatriate cash and small companies never had any money offshore anyways.Burrows 2/23 - Peter Burrows, Business Journalist for MIT Technology Review, 2/23/17("Trump’s Tax Talk Sounds Less Than “Phenomenal” for Tech," published by MIT Technology Review, Available online at https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603701/trumps-tax-talk-sounds-less-than-phenomenal-for-tech/, Accessed 7/9/2017, AJ)

Plenty is up in the air in Washington, D.C., these days, but there is one thing that seems a safe bet: major U.S. tax reform is more

likely than at any time since Ronald Reagan accomplished the task in 1986. While the changes being discussed are undoubtedly pro-business —both the Republican-controlled Congress and the White House want to see corporate taxes

cut roughly in half—they are not particularly pro-innovation.

“We need tax reform, but it remains to be seen if the proposals being discussed will actually boost innovation,” says Lisa De Simone, an assistant professor of accounting at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, who has spoken with numerous tech firms in recent days about the potential reforms. “ Silicon Valley will be watching carefully.”

President Trump, who says he will introduce a “phenomenal” tax plan in the next few weeks, has made supportive comments about a proposed overhaul called “A Better Way” that Republicans in the House of Representatives

introduced last summer. That plan calls for a cut in the U.S. corporate tax from 35 percent to 20 percent, a controversial “border adjustment tax” to penalize importers and reward exporters , and a more advantageous way for companies to account for capital investment. In speeches, Trump has suggested an even lower corporate tax rate of 15 percent.

While cash-rich tech giants will benefit from the changes, many executives worry the plan doesn’t do enough to encourage innovation by the smaller companies that are the primary engine of growth for the tech sector. Overall, corporate R&D spending in the U.S. has been strong—growing 3.1 percent per year from 2008 to 2015, almost three times faster than the overall U.S. economy,

according to the National Science Foundation. But it’s not fast enough to keep up with increased spending by other countries, particularly China. As of 1960, American companies were responsible for 69 percent of global R&D spending, but that has now dropped to 26 percent , according to the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, a nonprofit think tank funded partially by tech companies.

The reform with the most bipartisan political support is called repatriation. In recent years, U.S.-based multinational tech companies have accumulated more than $700 billion in cash in their overseas operations in order to avoid paying the U.S. tax, which at 35 percent is the highest imposed by any

developed nation. (Add in state taxes and the average hit is 39 percent.) To get companies to “repatriate” all that cash, Congress and the Trump administration want to lower the tax rate on it to between 8 and 10 percent, and require annual payment rather than let companies defer payment indefinitely. They are also likely to require companies to pay whether or not they actually bring the cash back.

A multibillion-dollar cash injection would seem to be a terrific catalyst for an R&D boom, except for one thing: nearly 70 percent of the money is held by just six super-rich companies (Google,

Microsoft, Apple, Oracle and Qualcomm), which already have more than enough cash in the U.S. to invest in whatever moonshot projects they like, says Richard Lane, an analyst with Moody’s Investor Services.

These giants have made massive capital investments in the data centers and network infrastructure essential to innovation. Capital spending by tech companies grew by 5.4 percent in 2016, to $30.8 billion, says Michael Mandel, chief economic strategist at the Progressive Policy Institute.

Smaller companies that could use a cash infusion to fund R&D typically don’t have big offshore reserves, either because they aren’t old enough to have amassed them or they don’t have departments of sophisticated tax

experts to exploit the regulations. As for the big boys , they will most likely use their repatriated billions to boost their stock prices by issuing dividends or paying down debt . In 2004, when Congress created a temporary repatriation holiday with a tax rate of only 5.25, tech firms used more than 90 percent of the $58 billion they brought back to issue dividends and buy back company shares.

Apple, Cisco, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft, all of which would benefit significantly from a repatriation tax cut, declined to comment for this article.

In the long run, a more competitive U.S. tax code will have a big impact as companies stop worrying about where to innovate, says Michael Marks, a partner at the private equity firm Riverwood Capital and CEO of a cloud software company called Katerra.

“When your money is offshore, you spend it offshore,” says Marks who used to be CEO of the contract manufacturer Flextronics. “I don’t know what we would have done differently if we could have repatriated our offshore cash, but I do know this: we wouldn’t have sat around thinking about how to spend it overseas.”

Documents

spartandebateinstitute.wikispaces.com Reform...Web viewspartandebateinstitute.wikispaces.com